➡ David Grusch, a former US Air Force intelligence officer and whistleblower, discusses his experiences with the US government’s knowledge of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs), formerly known as UFOs. He has testified before Congress and currently advises a Congressman on UAP-related issues. Grusch also shares his insights into the secretive nature of special access programs within the Department of Defense, highlighting the system’s complexity and the challenges of navigating it. He emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability within these programs.
➡ The speaker discusses his experience as a whistleblower, revealing hidden activities within the government. He was part of a task force investigating unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs) and discovered a history of government studies on the subject that were not widely known. He faced resistance from some individuals but also received support and sworn testimonies from others. His findings were presented to Congress in a classified setting.
➡ The text discusses an investigation into the federal government’s alleged recovery of alien or otherworldly vehicles and entities. The author suggests that these findings have been hidden by various government departments and contractors, with funds being misappropriated to cover up the evidence. The author also mentions that there are detractors who deny these claims, but he insists that he has verified information from high-level sources. The text ends with a discussion about the potential for President Trump to declassify related information.
➡ The speaker discusses the complexities of disclosing sensitive information, particularly related to the government and national security. They mention the potential political implications of such disclosures, the lack of experience among some White House staff, and the potential embarrassment for the government. The speaker also touches on theological interpretations and the dangers of fear-based decision making. They conclude by discussing their own experiences with legal challenges and the repercussions faced by those who disclose sensitive information.
➡ The speaker discusses their struggles with law enforcement agencies and the challenges faced by whistleblowers. They mention the use of harmful techniques against whistleblowers and their families, and the government’s reluctance to acknowledge certain issues. The speaker also talks about their personal experiences with PTSD and the stigma around seeking help, especially for those with top secret clearances. They express their desire for government transparency and their ongoing fight for it.
➡ The speaker discusses the changes in congressional hearings since the Watergate era, where questions were asked by an investigative counsel, usually a former prosecutor, rather than the members of Congress. The speaker expresses disappointment that their expertise in interrogation and understanding of complex government processes hasn’t been utilized in these hearings. They also express concern about the lack of transparency and the slow release of information to the public, suggesting that this approach is not beneficial. The speaker ends by discussing the potential for important documents to be destroyed and the need for a document preservation executive order.
➡ The text discusses the complexities of naming and managing classified programs within organizations like the Department of Defense. It highlights the importance of operational security, including the use of random names and rotating responsibilities to maintain secrecy. The text also mentions issues of fraud, waste, and abuse within these programs, and the need for better oversight and technical understanding. Lastly, it suggests that the release of classified information could be beneficial, but should be done responsibly.
➡ The speaker is urging the U.S. government to release certain information, believing it’s crucial for the public to know. He suggests that if the government faces resistance, they should seek help from a coalition he’s willing to be part of. He anticipates increased pressure for this information to be released in the next 60 to 90 days. He also expresses concern that foreign powers, like China, might release similar information first, potentially threatening U.S. supremacy.

Chris I’m chris farrell, and this is Judicial Watch. Welcome to Judicial Watch, everybody, the Judicial Watch podcast where we go behind the headlines to cover news and information that the old mainstream legacy media really does not want you to know about. We try to recover some lost history and explain the inexplicable. Both of those things, I think are going to be very interesting to explore with today’s guest. It is David Grusch. He is a former US Air Force intelligence officer who spent time at both the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office. He is a whistleblower who blew the whistle on activities concerning what used to be called UFOs, now called UAPs.

We’ll talk about what that means and some of the program issues around that. And then as a whistleblower, he provided testimony in front of Congress. And speaking of Congress, he is currently a special advisor to Congressman Burleson, Congressman from Missouri, who’s been very vocal concerning issues about UAPS and aliens and what the government’s hiding or not hiding. And so please, I’m looking forward to this conversation. And welcome. David Grush, Welcome, David. Thanks, Chris, for having me on. It’s great to have you join us. This seems to be a topic that if you go back a few years, people would kind of hit it and then move off of it as a topic or it would kind of bubble up in the news cycle and then fade out.

But in my impression is that in the last, I’m going to say, six to eight months, you know, UFOs, UAPs, aliens, that has been a drumbeat pretty consistently in the news media with a lot of sort of speculative, gee, something’s going to break any minute kind of tone or feeling about it. So first of all, what’s your assessment? Am I accurate about that? And then we’ll, we’ll go further afield. Yeah, I would say last several years, this issue has become more and more of a permissive, less stigmatized topic to talk about. And that was one of the reasons I came forward when I did, is I realized it was the right public environment for me to kind of break the seat on some of the more verboten type things to talk about as it relates to the US Government’s knowledge on this.

And I do agree with you, President Trump does seem to be accelerating the timetable on his administration addressing this issue. And that’s certainly something I applaud. And I applaud the president taking this very seriously and promising the public some sort of disclosure. So your military service as an intelligence Officer. I know because I used to be one too. But over on the army side of the house, you had, you were briefed on or you were read on to all sorts of special access programs. And yeah, what’s. Sometimes people will hear about a skiff sensitive compartment of the information facility, but the real kind of crown jewels of secrets.

Both the substance, the content of the secrets, but also the sources and methods of how we obtain classified information. And both of those things are treated. They’re related, obviously, but they’re treated differently. And so you’ve had access to all kinds of saps or special access programs. You’ve been steeped in that kind of stuff. And I guess as a corollary to that or as an outcome of that, you decided to become a whistleblower. Can you kind of walk us through the progression on that? Yeah, certainly, Chris. Yeah, I’ve had a clearance for 21 years. I was in the intelligence community about 14, 15 years, both as an Air Force intel officer.

I was also a GS15 civilian at NGA, so I had a parallel civilian career. So earlier in my career I was brought into a part of the Air Force, locally named the green door side of the Air Force in the special access program environment. From an early age, Even into my 20s, I was selected kind of above my pay grade to tackle some national issues, briefing the National Security Council on space issues, et cetera. And I did have a parallel career both in the Air Force and also as a GS15 civilian at NGA. And I ended up advising the Joint Chiefs on sensitive hard targets.

I had access to the entire black budget of the Department of Defense. I was hard briefed to 85, 90% of all special access programs in the DoD and had hundreds of programs on the IC because I was kind of the go to guy for peer adversarial hard target analysis for the J2 staff or the Joint Staff. Let me hit the brakes there for a second. Yeah. Because our listeners and our viewers, what you just said was very significant. And I want them to comprehend. Sometimes military folks will talk in acronyms and stuff and ordinary folks are like, what the hell is that? So you talked about near peers and hard targets.

So just back up and explain in regular English what you’re talking about when you talk about that level or type of information. Yeah. So I was the lead science and engineering technical advisor for something called the joint service counter C4ISR initiative. And that’s looking at how do we break adversarial kill chains from sensor to shooter. And for our peer adversaries I was the chief architect looking across the Department of Defense black program, enterprise at any classification level, pre, you know, giving an assessment to the combatant command commanders and the Joint Staff. Here’s what we have, here’s what my percent kill effectiveness assessment is, and here are the gaps in our architecture that we’re missing to prosecute certain operations plans that a combatant command would execute.

And also at the nro, in my military capacity, I was the Presidential Daily Brief handler and coordinator, and I briefed the Director. And so I also had the same access the President states has in terms of the briefings he gets from odni, the Presidential Daily Brief. So I was well positioned. I understood that ecosystem of secrecy. I know how they hid programs from odni. I know how they hid programs from the Senate and the House Intelligence Committees and Armed Services Committees on just prosaic issues, not necessarily uap. So I was well positioned to kind of understand the ecosystem of secrecy that kind of thrives on obfuscation, misconduct, something that Judicial Watch obviously has spent decades, you know, with lawfare breaking that open.

So I had great position, access, trust at the highest levels, you know, you know, walking the West Wing of the White House and knowing those kind of senior folks over the years at an early age, you know, I’ll be 40 next year, I’m a younger guy, but I, I had a very precocious career and I normally don’t talk about myself like that, but I think just to show my credentials for your audience, I just don’t want to do that. I think that’s very, it’s very important to establish that because, yeah, we’re, unfortunately, we’re used to all sorts of people running around pontificating, and you say, well, wait a minute, what have you actually done? Right? There’s all sorts of experts, but it’s like, that’s wonderful that you have that opinion, but what is it based on? And so I think the great thing, even the takeaway for people who may not be necessarily familiar with the ins and outs of DoD and, or the intelligence community, is that it isn’t even talking about the specific secrets themselves or even the collection platforms or techniques themselves.

I think the takeaway for the average viewer, listener to this podcast, is that you understood the system, how it works, how the big green or blue or DOD purple machine, how it operates, how it processes and uses information, who controls what compartments of things, knowing how to navigate that is incredibly important, more so even than the substance of individual programs or secrets or, or platforms. It’s it’s how the game is played, how the process kind of churns along. And that’s the great insight that you bring to this. Yes, yes, sir. And I was, you know, a part of the security mafia as well and understood how those games are played in terms of access determinations.

I was a special Access Program Management officer for the NRO for about a year when there was a gap of leadership, you know, and I was the one who was, you know, briefed to more programs than the NRO director. And I had to go up and go, hey, ma’, am, Betty Sapphire, sign this NDA. You’re not briefed to something, you’re going to go TDY with General Raymond. And also for large portfolios of DoD special access programs. I was the PSO personal security officer administering that. I like to think I was a benevolent security professional, but I saw how the security mafia would treat people and even people higher ranking, you would think, well, I should be briefed to X.

I would know everything because of my rank and duty title. As you know, Chris, that’s not how it works. It’s rice bowls patriarchal kind of big boy club type stuff and you’re not ready. And if they don’t believe you have a need to know versus your rank and duty title. And that’s especially poignant to political appointees. I know a lot of the political appointees out there, several in this administration, and they complain that they’re not getting cleared to certain things from certain cabinet agencies. And it’s, you know, to my point, or it’s a situation where you say, well, I can tell you about it, but I’m not going to tell you what it is.

There’s a big difference between a general description about the certain activity but the particulars. It’s not a free for all. It’s not. And that’s what I found on this issue is the FMAFME Foreign Material Exploitation Acquisition Program as it relates to the uap. Subject was essentially hidden in plain sight, which is a tradecraft technique. And so you’ll get a place mat chart on a certain black program. Oh, it does this. Well, that’s the day job and there’s other off books activities that it does. And I was on programs where we had off books activities. We were not briefing to ODNI when I worked for particularly intelligence agency.

I can’t acknowledge my relationship with and I thought that was immoral, but once again I’m just the peon. But even normal day to day stuff, whether it be covert actions and other things that I’ve seen in my career. We’ve hidden off books activities from leadership, let alone in the subject of my infamy. And so this is the point where we enter into whistleblower land. And whistleblower is a technical legal term. A lot of people whip it around or use the expression basically to mean, if I’m cynical, any disgruntled employee. And I don’t mean it that way in your case, but that’s what people say.

They just think it’s a thing. You can say, I’m a whistleblower. And you may not actually be a whistleblower because there’s an actual technical legal requirement to even use that term. But you were a whistleblower based upon what we just talked about, this knowledge of particular programs and how things were kind of being hidden in an unlawful or improper way. And why don’t you walk us through that, because I think it’s the foundation piece for why we’re even having this podcast today. Yes, certainly, to become a lawful whistleblower, you have to follow something called an urgent concern.

And in the intel community, that’s under PD19. And then of course, you whistleblow to the intelligence community Inspector General. And I was lucky in this process that the actual former ICIG himself, you know, Charles McCullough, was my counsel on that matter and continues to represent me on the reprisal matter as well. But eventually. So there’s a misnomer out there because a certain FOIA DoD document said I somehow studied this UFO subject for 15 plus years. That’s not true. And that is in a DoD IG interview transcript. That, that, that is false information, that transcript. So maybe somebody in the room didn’t have enough coffee and wrote that down.

But I just wanted to clarify the record on that. I had real no interest in this subject prior to me joining the UAP task force in early 2019. I certainly had a background. I have a degree in physics as well. I enjoyed space intelligence subjects and sci fi and all that. My personal life. I certainly wanted to figure out what was going on because at that point a lot of the discussion of Navy videos, et cetera, were in the public domain. And I wanted to figure out what was going on. Was it prosaic natural phenomenon, misidentifying blue classified programs, misidentifying red programs, or is there some kind of unknown third party actor there? So early 2019, I was recruited to work on it in my military capacity.

I thought it was something good to add to my officer performance report as a reservist you’re always struggling to get those, those bullets for your, for your annual report. And because I was cleared to so many programs and I had a technical understanding of a lot of those aerospace programs in question, both red and blue, I was able to kind of provide that subject matter expert support. But as I started looking at some of the data videos, interviewing military personnel and then asking my network, and I already kind of characterized my network, very high reaching, cabinet level, NSC level type network, I realized there was a longer history of the government study in this matter.

And I’m not talking about Blue Book and Project sun and Project Grudge. That was kind of the overt alcoholic cover programs for what the government was really doing back in the early Cold War on this issue. So I was learning about this whole tapestry of additional history that was seldomly briefed to Congress. I would find out, oh well, Senator X, Y and Z was briefed during this time epoch. They were our trusted agent on the Senate Intel Committee, et cetera, et cetera. But then colleagues of mine presented documentation and videographic and audiovisual proof and oral testimony to me.

People I’ve known for 14, 15 years in the intel community saying, Dave, I need to tell you this. You have a lawful need to know because you’re doing this investigation for Congress, which Marco Rubio and Senator Rounds and other folks were champions of me sniffing around, so to speak, when I was doing that. So I was finding this tapestry of information. I’m like, well, has this been reported? Does the President routinely know this information? Does the dni, does the dci, does the, et cetera, et cetera? And so I found essentially is an off books Foreign Material act acquisition and exploitation program akin to us recovering a Russian or Chinese military asset covertly or clandestinely, hypothetically.

Let me pause for a second there. So you mentioned that you were conducting an investigation. What was the sort of, the predicate or what was the authorizing foundation for your ability to go out and conduct this investigation? Yeah, there was, I have to be careful because some of the authorization documents are so classified, but it was embedded in The Fiscal Year 19 National Defense Authorization act, in the Intelligence Authorization act and an annex that is what is a non public. And that was the basis of my investigation and of course, oral briefings to Congress and we got some of those, I’ll call it upwards, from the members themselves.

And that was the legal basis. Eventually the UAP task force, which started as a Navy task force in 2019, became a DoD task force because we went to Trump’s Deputy Secretary of Defense Dave Norquist, and he provided additional guidance that is still classified. So I won’t get into the specificity of it to do that. My curiosity here is just that there had to be some sort of foundation or predicate. Somebody somewhere had to sign a memo saying, this group or this person is authorized to conduct investigative activities concerning X, Y and Z. Because when you show up, I’m sure there’s some people that were very friendly and cooperative.

In fact, there were volunteers coming to you saying, let me tell you all about what I’ve been doing and probably some other people that were not too thrilled when you showed up at their doorstep or at their office and said, hi, I’m doing an investigation concerning whatever. And it wouldn’t be wise, but some people could just say drop dead and close their door. But you have to have some kind of leverage, some kind of foundation to work from. We’ve established that that is true and that was done. And in some cases in a classified manner. And so two questions, it’s a compound question, so it’s dangerous.

One is, did anybody respond with a drop dead, get out of here, I’m not going to cooperate. And then the other part of that is, were there persons who you interviewed who elected to provide you a sworn declaration? Has anybody gone under oath and said, this is my firsthand experience doing A, B and C. Yeah. So for the first part, certainly we had people that were very resistive to providing information. The issue with the way they told us to investigate, we weren’t assigned any 1811 authority, federal law enforcement agents. So I was not able to compel testimony in a deposition, if you will, only cooperative.

Now, we could report those uncooperative people to federal law enforcement, but they would have to have the appetite to do what they need to do to get a deposition. A lot of it was cooperative. So when I did file my ICIG complaint, we did have a dozen or so people out of The, I’d say core, 40 people that were cooperative go to the ICIG and provide that classified sworn testimony under oath. And that’s even what I did originally. It was sworn testimony under oath, raised my hand, etc. And then I, you know, for 11 and a half hours also brief Congress and a classified setting months later, sworn as well, under oath.

To me that’s, you know, there’s all kinds of people who say all kinds of things. But once you have people, you know, who are either the subject of or cooperating witness in an investigation and at the point where you, because there’s a lot of arm flapping and kind of misdirection and efforts to not me them kind of stuff. Once you’re able to kind of box people in and okay, enough fun and games, enough double talk. What do you firsthand knowledge, your experience, have you seen said, touched, spoken, tasted? I mean it’s got to be that level of knowledge to me that’s critical and I’m glad that in your, in your experience running this all down, you were able to do that level all of let’s nail it down kind of stuff.

Well, yeah, and I certainly was worried about rumor innuendo, you know, hazing programs that tricked people. There’s a, you know, a narrative being spun in the media, Wall Street Journal, etc about that kind of thing. I was well aware of hazing activities. I was guilty of said hazing activities earlier in my career when I was a lieutenant and thought it was funny to make, you know, Reese the freak about the, the two star general. Certainly I was already aware of that and I was calibrated to lore in the community rument, as we say in the intel community and hazing activities.

So the evidentiary threshold was high and the people I brought to ICIG were hands on. They touched it, they were in the facilities and they were well cleared people and they weren’t misconstruing a recovered adversarial and aircraft for something else. And some of that gaslighting that’s been going on, which I find honestly amusing to see certain former career bureaucrats use the narrative that it was some yankee blue hazing program. And those were certainly not the code words I provided to the ICIG and the intelligence communities. We know the right code words and we know which reported special access programs and controlled access programs were essentially covering it up in performing financial fraud to hide some of the paper trail, misappropriating funds and then taking haircuts across other black programs, the funnel the money to do those kind of activities to keep it off books.

So the essence of what you’ve talked about is that the federal government in the form of DoD or somebody else basically has recovered alien or otherworldly vehicles, let’s put it that way. And not just vehicles or yeah, I guess vehicles is a word to use. They’ve recovered them. And there’s also, I guess for lack of a better term, biologics. There’s other entities associated with that and your investigative work has identified that. And the fact that somebody, somewhere, some element within the government is furiously trying to hide that and keep it hidden. Yeah. And I try not to characterize origin.

You know, I use the term non human intelligence because there’s certainly a taxonomy non human intelligence. Even though, you know, I’m a physics guy, I don’t know if it’s entirely extraterrestrial or something else that we quite don’t understand. And so I leave that open for analysis because I never had full access to those full technical findings. So I leave it open. But that is true. And the government has been doing that, you know, to the chagrin of people detractors saying that we don’t have anything. We certainly do. And I’ve talked to the highest of highest level sources in that regard all the way up the flagpole to verify that.

Can you give me an idea? Is. I’m not asking. Let me think of how to ask this in a generic way. So this is not one event where somebody went out to a crash site and dragged something into a hangar and we’re going to guard it forever. These are multiple, just more than one. Yes. My guess is less than 100. But there’s more than one and they’re in secure facilities probably managed by DOD. Yeah. Certainly more than one in less than 100. I agree. And the cognizance of who was kind of leading the program changed over time epochs.

The genesis was in the Truman and Eisenhower National Security Council and the CIA Office of Policy Strategy. Back when that was the old name for, I think the Director of Operations now I believe is what they call it, the CIA. But the Atomic Energy Commission was involved. Department of Defense at the time, service elements, the CIA at the time, and other capital level agencies, you would not think, but helped with the illicit financing, housing and urban development. You never. You never know. HUDs a good place to hide things. So no one’s ever. Well, I think there’s the actual Deputy Housing Urban development secretary under H.W.

bush, Catherine Austin. Fitz actually has talked about her finding illicit funding over in that budget. It’s funny you say that, but that actually seems to be the case. I’ve heard about automation programs being buried somewhere in Housing and Urban Development, so nothing would surprise me. Yeah, go ahead. I’m sorry. No, certainly. And obviously there’s cover providers, as we say in the business for activities, so you’d be very surprised how that rolled out. But essentially as the global war on terror initiated in early 2000, a lot of that stuff got moved to the big defense contractors and certain subsidiaries to exempt it from FOIA.

Sure. But also congressional oversight. So around the 2004 time frame, based on Individuals I know that have first hand knowledge, a lot of the funding that they were siphoning and I can’t name the pot of money because that’s classified. A lot of it got diverted for overseas contingency operations for the global war on terror. And so more creative financing mechanisms ensued. And it really became a more contractor operated and conducted activity with very little government oversight. There’s certainly people still briefed to those programs. I certainly know who currently is in access in the government, at least, you know, partial access.

But the contractors kind of have the cons, so to speak, in the modern epoch. And that was done to essentially hide things and also allow contractors to do Iraq, right, internal research and development and then use private capital to fund a lot of those activities since, you know, the gravy train was drying up during the W. Bush administration, as far as far as I understand, that is very interesting indeed. So now if you go and say, well listen David, you clearly know what you’re talking about in certain areas, but maybe you’ve gone astray, maybe you’ve just misinterpreted some well intentioned people.

The reason I bring this up is because we have Sean Kirkpatrick, we have Representative Mike Turner, and we have Susan Goff, who’s a Pentagon spokesperson. All three of them say, what are you talking about? We have no idea. There’s no such thing. So these are people who have come out and basically to one degree or another, and probably very carefully worded denials, a non denial denial, but they’re saying no, they have no knowledge, no experience and they’ve looked into it and it simply isn’t true. So what do you have to say to folks like, yeah, so Representative Turner, I certainly had a very interesting classified meeting with the representative a few weeks ago and I’ll leave it at that to protect, you know, internal congressional deliberations.

Yes, Susan put out a statement, I believe when another whistleblower, Matthew Brown came, came out and mentioned a particular name of a program. And Susan put out a statement, well, there are no DoD special access programs by that name. That’s actually true. What she said is technically true. That program was, was a White House program that was administratively delegated to dod. And then Sean Kirkpatrick, I’ve known Sean for many years, we worked together back in 2013. And he’s interesting character and I’ll let the record speak for itself when Trump releases information and then we’ll address Dr.

Kilpatrick at a later date. You know, is it really up to Trump at this point? That’s my question. Is it really up? I mean, he’s given this order, he said, release everything you got is one of his typical orders. Right. Like he, he ordered release of all the JFK files and all the Epstein files. But, you know, when it comes down to, like, where the rubber meets the road, there’s an entire army of bureaucrats who find a thousand reasons to stall. Right. There is in the. And you have to remember the President has original classification authority over what they call classified national security information.

Sure. Under Executive Order 13526. The issue is, some of this is under the Atomic Energy act of 1954, and the President does not have unilateral declassification authority. Now, he could argue that under unitary executive theory, the Supreme Court, he certainly does. But if you read the statute, it’s the President in conjunction with the Energy Secretary in an obscure office in the National Archives called the Information Security Oversight Office, the ISSO makes that tie break decision. But certainly under uet, as they say in legal terms, Trump can make that, can make that declassification decision. And certainly, I think the public needs a formal disclosure plan, not the JFK file dump.

I mean, we all applaud the President for releasing things, but, you know, thousands upon thousands of documents was dumped on the NARA website and was it curated? And I think for this, the expectation publicly is for, for Trump to do that. And certainly Trump is very knowledgeable on the subject. Now, does he believe everything a particular agency briefed him his first term before COVID I don’t know. And I think that if you parse Trump’s language when he says he’s not a big believer, I really do think some of the things a particular agency did read him into as it relates to the subject, and he was fully winning of a lot of the aspects we just talked about here today.

Chris, I do think that the President is not sure what to believe just based on a certain agency reputation. But certainly the President is knowledgeable, and that’s about as far as I’d like to go. And I do respect the President and his decision making and want to give him that bandwidth or, you know, to be able to say what he needs to say without, you know, cornering him or anything like that. So what do you think the sort of the driver on the, the timeline is? Is it, oh, gee, we need to review these documents, Is it some other factor? Like, you know, after Trump said, look, we’re going to release a lot of stuff, you know, why wasn’t it 48 hours later that they started to release it instead of, I mean, it could be, you know, three years from now, or as he’s leaving office, he says, okay, fine, here’s the stuff.

What’s the resistance or what has to be accomplished or overcome or achieved in order to open the door and let the story out? Yeah, I certainly, even though I’m a former intel officer, I certainly can’t parse the mind of the President, know exactly his calculus. Certainly there’s political objectives. The midterms are coming up and certainly this kind of, these kind of disclosures would help the MAGA movement and the Republican Party. I think part of it are key people within the White House running this certainly don’t have a large background in the national security state and this topic.

So I think they’re running around trying to get these files without that full knowledge of the tradecraft that they use and how they obfuscate, et cetera. And it’s not a knock on a lot of these political appointees. They just don’t have that experience like you and I have in those communities. And I believe part of it, this is just a personal belief, is a lot of the government knowledge has been federated out to these contractors for so many years. I think there’s a little bit of government embarrassment going on where we’ve lost the ball on a lot of these holdings, certainly especially after I went to the Senate, because I do know things were moved physical holdings wise, after my Testimony in late 2022, thanks to people I have on the inside.

And so I think part of this is mapping everything to avoid government embarrassment, other whistleblowers coming forward and disclosing information that the President wasn’t cognizant of and probably getting a full accounting for and certainly to execute a plan disclosing this information. There are certainly theological, socioeconomic, other implications. There’s certainly a theory called dime fill, you learn and you know, air in command staff, college instruments and national power. And you, you definitely need to cover all your bases because some of this information, and we’re seeing it in the news, you’re seeing a lot of talk about demons and other things like that.

You know, the Vice President Vance has mentioned that. My friend Ian Tucker Carlson has also said that too, and I’ve had private conversations with him about that. And I do want to address that really quickly, both as an intel officer, a guy who studied physics, a practicing Roman Catholic like Secretary Rubio and Vice President Vance. I respect those views, the spirituality and demonic deception, and I think we should be concerned about that. But I think it’s theologically premature without knowing everything, you know, equating everything to demons, because God has created this wonderful visible and invisible order.

He’s created humans, animals, angels and other types of non human intelligence. And I don’t think us as humans, we understand all of God’s creation to kind of use a theological kind of framework on that. And I think that everybody needs to keep that in mind to be respectful of that. And the Catholic Church certainly has a long history in this. And there are Catholic theologians like the late Dr. Paul Thigpen, Dr. Diana Pasulka at University of North Carolina, Dr. Brett Robinson at Notre Dame, they’ve provided a lot of that analysis and theological interpretation on how people can view this.

So I see that as a big impasse, certainly because of the commentary that I’m hearing about that kind of thing. It’s very dangerous language and I think we need to be more thoughtful about that. And I’m just happy I’m able to plug that for a little bit because I don’t hear many advocates on the disclosure movement side really addressing that. I think it’s a very dangerous mindset to be in if you preconceive all this is some sort of malevolence. And I just wanted to mention that’s very interesting. I know that’s an angle that I don’t think gets enough exposure or discussion or if it does, it gets a, a fear based decision making process.

And fear based decision making is never, never a winner. It doesn’t, doesn’t work out well in force. I think was very afraid when I went public. So just like Judicial Watch conducts lawfare, I’ve conducted lawfare of my own. There’s a matter in the Virginia Court of Appeals that’s very interesting that the Virginia law is silent on records release policy, which I could get into. But the main one is I have a FOIA lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia. Because it’s come to my attention that when I went public in June 2023, the Department of the Air Force filed an unauthorized disclosure Espionage act complaint against me.

Went to a particular office in the Pentagon. That’s in the pleadings that are public record. And I like to see that paper trail, that evidentiary trail, to see why they felt compelled to come after me. Because all my comments about UAP and even the comments I’m talking about here, you know, I still have a top secret clearance. I’ve maintained a clearance 21 years. I went through the DOD pre publication and security review process and everything I said about UAPs and crash retrievals and on News Nation and in the debrief, I did get pre clearance. But regardless of that, you know, the, the Air Force seemingly thought that, you know, I did something, you know, incorrect and went after me.

And luckily that complaint was denied because of the legal preparatory work that I did. But I find that very curious. Like you mentioned Susan Goff and other folks, there’s nothing to see here. Why was an Espionage act complaint filed against me? And there’s other things I’m aware of that I won’t talk about, that the Biden administration was doing behind the scenes key officials in the White House. But that’s a fear based kind of knee jerk reaction, silhouetting themselves, coming after me as a whistleblower. And I’m not, I’m not doing anything unlawful. And I applaud you for the way in which you executed all of that, because it’s clear that you’re smarter than the average bear when it comes to how to dot your I’s and cross your T’s.

And doing this the correct way, not just correct in the sense of, you know, legally scrupulous, but being smart about it, being very savvy in how you approach this whole thing. Because something I think our viewers and listeners may not take into account is that even if you do everything correctly and properly, lawfully, as you just finished detailing, you know, getting the pre publication review, you know, knowing that you’ve doubted all the I’s, crossed all the T’s, there’s still the whispering campaign in the hallway, right? And sometimes, sometimes the whispering campaign out in the hallway can be 100 times worse than anything they would unload on you in a press conference, right? Oh, 100%.

You know, Dave’s radioactive. Dave is this. And there was all these manufactured allegations against me, whether from a security perspective, which is kind of funny because of what I did for a living, from personal conduct, all that was unfounded. And I maintained my, you know, TSSCI clearance, but they, you know, went after several people I know administratively, even right after I left nga, they went after my chief of staff, tried to revoke his clearance, they revoked my boss’s clearance at the nro. And they just say they started like, well, who was Dave’s enabler and who might have told Dave something? And so they started potshotting people.

And that’s the insidious thing under the security mafia will do. It’s your clearances, your livelihood and your reputation from a conduct perspective. And I just know so many people in my orbit that they went after either legally, administratively ruined people’s lives. I have friends of mine that have been out of work for three and a half years now. A very senior person in the SAP community was taken out and is still going through years of legal appeals. And even for my reprisal matter, you know, trying to prove my case on that, I’ve been seeking documents since 2022 on that matter.

I’ve been denied B7A FOIA exemption, law enforcement records. Well, what’s going on? What investigation is going on that affords that exemption? And I’m likely going to have to sue those law, law enforcement agencies like I’m doing an EDVA with, with the Air Force complaint against myself because that’s the only way I’m going to, I’m going to get production in a timely fashion. And the process, I feel, is the punishment for a lot of whistleblowers. So there’s this sophomore analysis going around in the disclosure community. Oh, well, they’ve never came after whistleblowers making classified disclosures to Congress.

Well, that may be true literally on the books as a matter of legal record, but there’s all these admin terrorism techniques they can do to you, your family. Right? I’ve seen it all. I’ve seen anomalous health incidents happen to key government officials helping me. Akinda, I know you had Catherine Herridge on a few months ago and obviously 60 Minutes did a piece based on her work back in March and I’ve even seen that, which is disgusting and sick seeing, you know, non kinetic directed energy weapon systems used against officials and some of the same medical effects that that Catherine in 60 Minutes has discussed.

Unfortunately, I have close friends of mine that were helping me in my investigation that suffered as well. And all that was reported, mind you, to the FBI and counterintelligence elements, but there was little to no help and it’s really sad. And I think the UAP disclosure issue dovetails very nicely to the Havana Syndrome ahi. There’s not a 100% causal relationship, mind you, but it’s another subject that the government doesn’t want to acknowledge. Yeah, I have a deep knowledge of that area as well based on my previous career. And I see the government in a pretzel in a similar way than they are to the UAP issue where you have intelligence community assessments saying, oh, Havana, psychosomatic, nothing to see here, none of this exists.

But then 60 Minutes revealed in March, oh, by the way, DHS bought a microwave weapon system off the Russian illicit arms markets. Oh, by the way, there, you know, there is stuff floating around in that vein, and that’s all unclassified, you know, public record, mind you. So I just find it’s very interesting with certain subjects that has government culpability involved, that the government is very reticent to even be even basically truthful on it. Right, right. And you know, the. As frustrating as it is, when you pursue a remedy, whether it’s administrative or legal, there’s a process for that, even if it’s largely chasing your own tail kind of a process.

They try to make you crazy going through the process, but two things pop out. I mentioned the hallway whispering campaign. Yeah. People will say that you’re nuts or you’re a jerk or you’re making stuff up or you just want to write a book or get a movie deal or whatever. There’s all that kind of whispering campaign. That is a. It’s calumny. Calumny is an ancient word. Calumny has fallen out of style. But false swearing to destroy someone’s reputation is calumny. And that’s a very Catholic word, by the way. I’m sure you’ll recognize that. You know, I have to admit, I never heard that word.

I have really good vocabulary. C, A, L, U, M N, Y. All right. M, November. Yankee calumny. False swearing to destroy someone’s reputation happened even publicly. Another good example, and this is one of the preparatory whispering campaigns that’s the result of my Virginia Court of Appeals matter. Within nine days of me testifying in July 2023 to Congress, a reporter from the Intercept did a hit piece on me, talking about my PTSD struggles, et cetera. And I served in Afghanistan. I’ve done a lot of high risk things. Meeting sources while armed with body armor. I’ve done a lot of things for this country.

I spent some time doing human intelligence as well and work in the Levant I can’t fully talk about to this day. On a show called Breaking Points Sagar show, he admitted to that. The DOD and IC officers went to him and tipped him off on my previous PTSD struggles, which were in my multi agency security file. And I have no shame on that. A lot of veterans go through that. There’s a big stigma about getting help when you have top secret clearances. And it’s very unfortunate. I know a lot of friends that have killed themselves because they didn’t seek help and they were worried about their career.

It’s the folks that hide it. Yeah. That are not only a greater personal risk, but greater professional risk. You’re far better off to just make the disclosure and say, look, I need some help on this. And it works out fine. It’s when people think that they have to be Superman or Superwoman, and they hide all this stuff, and then they get involved in lying about it, and then they lie about the lie. That’s where everything unravels. Not when you’re forthright and actually, you know, admit and explain what’s going on. Oh, 100%. And when those episodes happened, you know, there are episodes that a lot of veterans have faced.

You know, I reported that the security, everything was adjudicated positively, but they, you know, a certain agency leaked that, and I know who it is to that reporter, and they wanted that relitigated in a public fashion to discredit the messenger, not the substance of my congressional testimony. And they want to controversialize you. And by controversializing you, they try to make you radioactive and make you shut up. The other thing that’s interesting besides the whispering campaign is you quickly find out who your real friends are, right? So the guy that you thought was your buddy and your pal and you worked with for X number of years, the minute this stuff breaks, they suddenly vanish.

You know, there’s no return text message about, hey, you want to go to lunch tomorrow? Poof, they’re gone. So that’s another sort of life lesson. There is the people that suddenly no longer know who you are or Forget your number 100%. I will say the Intercept article did the opposite. It kind of boosted my credibility, allowed me to provide leadership on mental health, talked on Joe Rogan about it. But actually, people came to help me, lawyers and otherwise, when that came out, because a lot of them were veterans, and it radicalized them. But it is true, there’s a lot of people I served with in the intel community.

I just became the radioactive friend. And they kind of went calm silent because they didn’t know what to think of the issue. It’s stigmatized or like, you know, dave go crazy, or, you know, that kind of thing. Right. And. But a lot of people have stood by me, obviously, you know, my lawyer, you know, who is the former inspector general for the intelligence community. That was a smart pick, by the way. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I credit him for a lot of my. My success. And we were able to, you know, fend off the wolves. But it is true, it does get a little lonely, and in this subject brings out a lot of charlatans, a lot of people who want attention, a lot of people who want to generate certain narratives I’m just here to do a job and to get this information out to the American public.

And I would love to go back to my normal life. I live in, in Colorado, and I rather just ATV and hike with my dogs and not have to deal with this, you know, on the public stage. I never wanted to be a public personality. I have no book deal, unlike other people in this space. And I’ll write a book. I promise I’ll write a book after this is all over. It’ll be my leadership meditations. But we’re in the middle of a battle right now, and we need the President to help us win this when this battle of government transparency.

So when that’s all over, I’ll do some. I’ll do a media tour or something like that. But right now I’m in the fight. So I don’t suppose that you want to tell us who the two people in the White House are that are wrestling this, do you? I do know, but I don’t want to breach confidences and I want to get in the space. Yeah. So interesting, interesting people, I will say, that are working on this for the President, but I’m seeing a lot of agency obfuscation, kind of the. Below the cabinet level, you know, and my, my intel network that I still maintain.

And I see a lot of power plays, a lot of games, a lot of positioning. Certain agencies are moving people into positions to kind of control the information release. And that has not helped dni, Tulsi Gabbard and Pete Hegseth and other folks, because there are, I’ll call it shenanigans without using a bad word, being. Being done below the cut line. And I’ve tried to help. I certainly met with Arrow twice as a staff member about a year ago, I actually offered to depose hostile witnesses in front of Arrow leadership. They have yet to take me up on that later.

That would, that would really be fun. I mean, that’s like. Yeah, you’re too young to remember this, but unfortunately I’m not. So. In the days of Watergate, you know, congressional hearings did not consist of members of Congress asking questions. They sat there in the peanut gallery and largely kept their mouths shut. What happened was the investigative counsel for the committee, that’s the person that asked all the questions, because normally they were a former prosecutor. And so they knew how to cut through all the crap and ask questions in a way that built a foundation and then took off from there and answered all the basic interrogatives.

And once the prosecutor went through this investigative council the chief counsel, once they got done asking questions and actually developing a logical line of inquiry with a witness, then at the very, very end, the peanut gallery, the members got to ask. You know, they got their 10 seconds of glory asking something. But the actual case was developed by an attorney. And so you would have been great playing the role of the investigative counsel with hostile witnesses, you know, asking them all sorts of unpleasant things that they don’t want to really talk about because, you know, all the magic words and the correct acronyms and the time sequence.

The members of Congress, they only know what’s put in front of them. They read off a piece of paper. They have no idea what the hell they’re talking about for the most part. And so you would have been the perfect person to dismantle a lot of the obfuscation. Yeah, yeah. Unfortunately, Arrow hasn’t taken me up on it. I would have had a lot of fun. I’m not a trained lawyer, but I have interrogated individuals overseas, so I think I could have dusted off that toolbox. Yeah. On behalf of the federal government and had a joint congressional Arrow thing.

But it’s very, very curious to me. They never took me up on it. And certainly they are terrified. Terrified of having you go and be the questioner. They are absolutely petrified of that. I agree. And it’s really a shame. After the prior regime at Arrow, I really had high hopes for the current leadership at that office. But unfortunately, maybe there’s other things I’m not privy to and there are the powers to be above them. You know, shut that down. But I did offer my services. I gave them leads, et cetera. And actually, Congress has been sending interrogatives to cabinet agencies.

Something I touched on, on Megyn Kelly back in January, we actually got. We sent interrogatives to the CIA, and the response Comer’s committee got was from the CIA was like, we are not answering any of these questions. We’ll refer you to Arrow. And I find that very curious. I don’t know if John Ratcliffe and Michael Ellis knew that. That’s what CIA general counsel said back, but CIA is unwilling to answer detailed questions that were obviously informed by my experience. And we’ve sent interrogatives to other. Other services and agencies as well. And I’ve encouraged members to do so.

Chairwoman Luna and Representative Burleson have. Have done a great job on that. Obviously, Chair Chairman Comer recently did with all the missing scientists and whatnot. And the problem. But it’s interesting, the problem with responses we’re getting the problem with some of our congresspeople. Not all of them, but there are quite a number that never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, if you know what I mean. And so everyone should be very glad that I am not a member of Congress because I would sit in a skiff and debrief you and then I would go on the floor and during special orders, you know, using speech and debate clause immunity, I would tell everybody everything.

And that would get a lot of people bent out of shape for obvious reasons, but because I think the American people at this point feel like they’re being jerked around, like it’s some weird little, you know, teasing cat and mice, cat and mouse game. We’re going to tell you, but we’re not going to tell you. And there’s aliens, but we’re not really going to say about aliens. And yeah, there’s you know, spaceships or interdimensional vehicles or whatever you want to call them, UAPs, UFOs, but we’re not really going to tell you. We’re certainly not going to show you anything and, or they’ll dribble out something like, I forget who said this.

Somebody said, oh, there’s one that they have that’s absolutely enormous. Right. It’s like the size of a football field. We don’t even know what to do with it or how to move it or whatever. I mean, dribbling that kind of stuff out is not doing anybody any favors. And I don’t think that anything that anybody has to say is really gonna. I mean, will parts of it be shocking? Probably. But I also think that people are remarkably resilient and telling the truth slowly is not a good idea. I think they should just get it out. And anyway, yeah, good reason why I’m not a member of Congress.

Yeah, I think there’s a responsible time period. But I agree with you, the multi year disclosure thing doesn’t work because that’s high risk for further whistleblowers, members of Congress speaking outside of classified environments, like you said, and I agree, saying those little things out in public, I call it intel gain loss. Right. You say that kind of thing. The internal folks. Oh, I know what location they’re talking about. Well, I’m going to develop a program protection strategy to. Hey, when they come out for a site visit, we’re not taking them down that hallway and certainly you can go full kimono.

But I would say you would need, in conjunction with Department of Justice, a multisite search and seizure, if you will, to maintain positive control over those equities because what we’ve seen in previous administrations, like the program thought Clint was going to disclose in the 90s. Well, there was a burn bag and shred party at a particular agency in the mid-90s I’m aware of. And so there’s historical records. And this is the same thing with the Church and Pike Commissions. MK Ultra records were destroyed. Tons of different Mockingbird, et cetera. We don’t even know the extent of Mockingbird or MK Ultra because the CIA, Angleton, et cetera, destroyed those records and you’re gonna see the same thing.

So I would advise Trump to do a document preservation executive order. It could be non public and get all those assets secured before there’s destruction of evidence. And we’ve seen that other cases, that’s not like conspiratorial at all. I’ll give you an example of that because it caught my eye and it made me think. I love unclassified nicknames for classified projects and even the one word nicknames for black stuff. And so Nancy Mace very famously said, I’m going to say it out loud and no one should even know, but Immaculate Constellation, even saying that could get me killed.

Right? So like you just said, I’m sure the minute she uttered the words Immaculate Constellation, you know, the shredders, you could probably hear them down the hall. You know, they fired up and they were feeding stuff into shredders or burn bags. Are you going to tell us what Immaculate Constellation is? Well, I would imagine that some burn bags and shredders may have happened. And I think Anouk went off on that. I have to be very careful about discussing that code word. But like I said, it was an old NSC activity and I know how it was controlled.

But you have to remember. So here’s one of the loopholes they use, right? So there’s White House special access programs. There was something called covert access programs. 50 US code 3093, those are the programs reported. The Gang of Eight, Gang of Four, you know, that’s like assassination stuff, etc. You know, other things the government doesn’t acknowledge. But there’s a, you know, a, a way to develop a White House app that is non covert action, you know, White House special access program. If you look in the law, there are no reporting carve outs or requirements to tell like the speaker or the Majority Leader or anything like that.

And so that was one of the tricks of the trade, burying it over in the Department of Energy, but also keeping it in these non covert action programs that like, you know, five people on the NSC know about and the president at one time. And then, you know, it has custodianship over across the Potomac and McLean. And it’s very hard. What I noticed because of the Presidential Records act and having seen the transitions in my career is the new Intel Director on the National Security Council walk in and there’s nothing there. There’s no records. The computers are white, all the safes have been shredded.

And so there, there’s not a lot of that hot changeover. And a lot of these political appointees in the plumb book kind of learn as they go. And they learn about these programs unless they, they’re a creature of that community, not just some lawyer who, you know, became some NSC wonk, if you will. And, and there’s also just something as simple as changing the unclassified nickname, right? And that’s a strategy even that throws a curveball, right. So you know, something that was joking originally it was jokingly referred to as the army of Northern Virginia, has since changed, has since changed names, I don’t know, eight, ten times, whatever.

So that’s, you know, part of that’s operational security or opsec. Part of that is maybe, maybe some obfuscation as well. But that’s a very simple example of what you’re talking about, which is just we’re not going to call it that anymore. We’re going to go to our book and pull out the next name on the list and it’s, you know, dancing Daisy or whatever it is. You know, they just, they find a new name and call it something different. And that’s, that’s just, there’s actually a database that randomly generates the names. Right. And that’s a part of their program protection strategy where they did, they do rotate things.

And that’s the same thing with how they hide this program based on time epochs and who they trust. Career civil servants, career senior executives in industry. They rotate it and it’s, there’s no, they randomize the schema too. It’s not like this one guy in this one DOD office always gets it. They spread it across and it’s just like rule by committee, flat hierarchy. And that’s how they bounce. And I’ve seen that in conventional programs that weren’t reported to Congress as well. It has nothing to do with the subject. The way they just will hide things and make a program that’s not technically a compartment, all that stuff.

I will tell you a true but funny story. This goes way back in time to the late 80s, I was assigned at Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe shape Belgium. And there was something that we were doing there that we thought we were very smart. And we had this program up and running and we were doing our thing. And the guy who was in charge of it, my boss, decided that he was going to call it by a certain nickname. And it was not a nickname that was an NSA approved generated randomized nickname. He just picked a word, a single word that he thought would be great to call this thing that we were doing.

And so he shot a message back to the Pentagon with a long list of CCs, everybody who purportedly had an interest in this activity and started talking about it. And his phone went up and he’s like, what the hell are you doing sending. It was like a. It wasn’t even a compartmented thing. It was a straight secret case. What are you doing? Talking about whatever this word was on an open. This is compartmented. It’s got to go through the sso. What do you. And anyway, so that was a big blow up based upon a guy having a bright idea and assigning his own nickname to something which resulted in him having to fly back to the United States and getting a quick tutorial from the Technology Management Office was the name of the organization.

I know, I know. Cmo, I know. They gave him a tutorial on how you’re going to name things from now on out. And anyway, so that was just somebody having a bright idea and using the wrong term and shooting it out in a message and then realizing, oh, there already is something called that and you can’t, you can’t discuss it or debate it, you know, in classified message traffic. So nicknames are a curious and wonderful thing. And, you know, from the late 80s to now, you can only imagine how much more complicated and confused it’s become.

I certainly seen that in my career where some people had some good ideas and they were briefing us and I had to purposely kill their program because I couldn’t tell them that that already exists under another classified program. And they’re like, Dave, why are you being an asshole? How come you’re saying I need to stop what I’m doing and we’re not going to do that. This isn’t this a good idea. I’m like, you know, Bobby, trust me. No, you know, and I’ve seen, I’ve seen a lot of other stuff. Duplicity. And so like you have like an IC Controlled Access program doing X, you have a DOD program doing X.

They don’t know each other exists. And I. And I claim to my fame for a long time, I was the guy that had both. And then I’d be like, all right, program manager, come talk. And there’s just a lot of fraud, waste and abuse. And I hope President Vance, as he’s the now frauds are as of March for President Trump looks into that because Doge never looked in these classified programs. There’s the white world kind of fraud, waste, and abuse. But a lot of these people use the secrecy, these rice bowls, these jobs programs for contractors and the duplication and the governance, which is called ICD906 and Ick Talk and the DOD say park and the Senior Review Group, they don’t really deconflict.

And they don’t have the right people, the right aptitude either. They’re just a lot of, like, security wonks, like, okay, is it legal? They didn’t report the funding to the depth Sec Def, et cetera. There’s not people actually technically deconflicting. And, you know, you know, Cape in the Pentagon is not really doing its. And you know, myself in a hodgepodge, motley crew of geriatric millennials and a little bit of autism ended up being the guys that. That’s my joke. The government weaponized my autism for almost 20 years. And it’s very apropos, I guess, to what I figured out as a whistleblower.

But it’s just the amount of fraud, waste and abuse, like. And I think of certain programs that are in Golden Dome now, they do not. The goods that they’re selling don’t really work. And I sounded the alarm about six years ago when I was working on something with the joint staff, and I hope General Gutline, who I know, and other folks working Golden Dome understand that. And some of these programs don’t have the effectiveness that they’re selling these contractors and these federally funded research and development centers. Yeah, they’ll tell some program manager that doesn’t have the right technical background.

We can do X, we can do Y. You know, pew, pew. You know, look at all the things we can do. Right? But when you actually mod and sim it out, and that was my kind of claim to fame, actually digging down. It just doesn’t work. And so the UAP issue, the crash retrieval issue, the reverse engineering of these technologies, that’s a symptom of this greater rot in the deep state when it comes to these programs. And I speak from somebody who had that broad access, but the acumen actually understand a lot of these programs. So, David, as we go to close Here, I want you to think about a Judicial Watch audience.

Right. Our audience, whether listening or viewing this, there are some pretty smart folks who have a good BS meter, and they also are hungry for the truth. And they can take it. They’re not. They’re not little thumb suckers who will curl up in the corner and cry and they feel like they’re being kind of jerked around and maybe even conned a little bit by some people. So we want to try to get at the truth. We want to try to understand what the real deal is. Obviously, you’ve done your part trying to reveal and expose what has been going on with regard to UAPs.

And we can call them biologics or non human intelligence or. But we got to see a way forward. There’s a lot of frustration and a lot of crazy, like looking backwards frustration, bad stories. But looking forwards, looking ahead, whether it’s weeks or months, give our viewers and listeners an honest but a real sense of what the hell’s happening and where are we going. Give them a forward view on this. Yeah, certainly. I have my own personal lawfare strategy that I will execute responsibly in a gradient of veracity, depending on things. Chairwoman Luna right now is asking the Department of Defense to declassify about 46 videos.

Right. Some of those videos I’ve seen, they’re interesting, but don’t certainly prove the case that I’ve presented. But I think Luna’s very smart to exercise that process and threaten subpoenaing those records and getting those in receipt of Congress. And I think as the administration starts releasing things, and I’m speaking on my personal behalf here today, but I would recommend professionally to Congress to start using the power of subpoena. They already have the list of some of these hostile folks that ran those programs. Unfortunately, one of those individuals, Major General retired Neil McCasland, is currently missing, which is very concerning to me as well.

That’s a whole other topic we could do a show on. That’s a whole other topic. But I think the President sees this will cement his legacy. But it’s also a bipartisan thing. I don’t want to make it political where releasing this is going to help the Republicans in the midterms. I think there’s a bipartisan consensus that they want this out there. And I would encourage our elected leadership to give the American public that. I mean, I certainly do not encourage irresponsible whistleblowing because I’m trying to set the standard to follow all the rules and everything I do and say.

I abide by everything. So I think unfortunately the balls in the US Government’s port, or I guess an allied or an adversarial government, if they wanted to take initiative. But I think Trump understands his legacy and wants a lot of this information out there. And I would encourage, you know, his administration to do the right thing. And I encourage them if they, they’re meeting up resistance, there’s certainly a coalition, things I’m happy to participate in. And there’s other folks in the woodwork that just need called up the duty to help them get through this. So I think they need to not be shy about asking for help.

You know, us men, sometimes we don’t like to ask for help. But like I think in this case it’s all hands on deck. And I don’t want to be too prophetic or say by a certain date something’s going to come out because there’s a lot of casual factors. But I do have confidence that it’s going to escalate in the next 60 to 90 days. And I think there’s going to be a lot of pressure. I certainly know what Congress is doing and I won’t reveal that here, but I do see a lot of pressure to get the substantive empirical holdings that I’ve talked about, not videos or anything like that out in the ether.

And you know, I’m hoping that’s the case. But there’s certainly a law fair strategy, class action, multi plaintiff lawsuits, rico, other strategies to kind of pierce the veil on this if it needed to go come to that. I don’t want to be adversarial like that. And I believe in coming together to advance kind of humanity on this subject. But there are legal instruments that we could use as well to ensure this coming out. But that is a multi year, you know how lawsuits are. God awful long. A multi year process. Sure. And likely a Supreme Court challenge under unitary executive theory would ensue in that case.

Hypothetically, and I’m putting that in all caps, bold, underlined, hypothetically, is there a foreign power that could beat us to the punch and just release stuff that would be essentially parallel to what. Yeah, yeah, I would imagine there are. Just like I mentioned, there’s a, you know, pure adversary Cold War. Everybody’s doing it and nobody likes to talk about it. And there has been resulting asymmetrical technology. And that’s the issue with it not being an overt mission area, as we say, is we’re not able to put the whole defense industrial base on it. And our adversaries have made breakthroughs in many areas that have provided them capabilities that threaten U.S.

national security. But because of the secrecy, it’s a self licking ice cream cone. We can’t bring everybody in on it, we can’t acknowledge it, we can’t introduce these advanced topic areas in the STEM education. And so we actually hurt national security long term by all the secrecy. But certainly an adversary. And I do worry about that for, for US supremacy in the world, certainly China, because of their belt and road initiative jump ahead on this issue. And they’ve messaged on this issue in the past in South China, Morning Post and other PLA and CCP kind of English language mouthpieces and they could see an opening and geopolitically become kind of a messianic figure on this.

And that does worry me as an American. That’s what I think about is I’m not too worried about, you know, we’ll manage it in our own awkward, weird, stupid way that we do. I’m thinking about freedom of information, acting FOIA and how the government stumbles through that. Yeah, in a very awkward, cumbersome way. But that, you know, not even that. Russians, the Chinese, I mean, how about the Brazilians? Some oddball large enough, sophisticated enough country that’s had sufficient experience with these various scenarios vehicles, non human intelligence. And they say, well we hear that the Americans have been wrestling with this, but let us show you what we have.

Well, South America is an interesting place and I will say this is public record. You can look it up on X in Brazil. The former defense Secretary in Brazil is running for president right now and he said if he gets elected president of Brazil, he will release what the Brazilian government knows about this topic and that he said that public record. So it’s funny you say that there’s actually a possibility that even Brazil might release stuff just based on the statements of a current candidate for president down there. Yeah, and there’s enough stuff out there publicly with Brazil having its own history of unusual objects, moving around, doing things, you know, it’s kind of natural.

But listen, David, we really appreciate you coming in and talking to us. I do want to, I kind of teed you up for a last word, but I want to give you A postscript, a P.S. any last word you have for our viewers and listeners. Just want to say I certainly want to lead on this issue and I’m trying to do everything in my power behind the scenes. If I’m quiet, that means I’m working, working and doing all the right things to responsibly do this. Like you mentioned, you know, I currently still work for Congress. Apparently I was the first whistleblower in U.S.

history to testify in front of Congress and then be subsequently hired by Congress. So I do thank Representative Burleson for giving me the opportunity. Certainly all my thoughts here were my own and don’t represent members of Congress. But I certainly am a leader. I will take the spears for everybody and and I will hopefully lead us to a good end result. And I really am open to working with the administration to make that happen like I have been over the last several years. David, thanks for joining us. We really appreciate it. Yeah, thanks, sir. David Grush joining us Judicial Watch.

Thank you very much for joining us. And stay tuned. We got a few more episodes coming up that I think will touch on this topic as well. You’ll find it very interesting. I’m Chris Farrell on. The.
[tr:tra].

See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.