UAP whistleblower David Grusch, along with his lawyer Charles McCullough—who served as the original Intelligence Community Inspector General—will be featured on BBC’s “The World Tonight”. The program is scheduled to air in less than an hour, at 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
Edit: Here is the interview for those that missed it.
Is this the first media interview he’s done since NewsNation? If so, I wonder why he went with the BBC. Just a news outlet he likes or does he want to reach a British audience for some reason?
Is this the first media interview he’s done since NewsNation?
I believe so.
I wonder why he went with the BBC. Just a news outlet he likes or does he want to reach a British audience for some reason?
I’m not aware of any publicly stated reason.
I’m eagerly looking forward to this segment. Since his lawyer will also be participating, I’m hopeful that we will gain more insight into what was shared with the Inspector General and the process surrounding it.
Was his lawyer provided by the DOD?
No, Charles McCullough is a senior partner at Compass Rose Legal Group. This law firm is not affiliated with the government and they primarily focus on security clearance, federal employment, and national security matters.
Edit: I apologize for misinterpreting your question. I believe that David Grusch independently sought out legal counsel prior to filing his whistleblower complaint.
Thanks. Imma look him up.
Found this. Interesting. His ties to the government are sus. All the lawyers look like lizard people. Lol
Yes, I remember this article. It’s somewhat misleading. I’ll try to find the podcast where Ross Coulthart discusses this, and I’ll come back and edit my post later. Essentially, the Compass Rose Legal Group completed their task of representing him through the whistleblower complaint, which is why the relationship was no longer necessary. However, what the article omits is that Charles McCullough, who is a senior partner within the Compass Rose Legal Group and the one who represented him during the whistleblower complaint process with the Inspector General, is still his legal representative.
So like a plausible deniability/ liability thing.
I’m unsure of the reasoning apart from what’s been stated and don’t want to speculate too much, but that could be a possibility, sure.
I’ll speculate. They probably don’t want blowback on the law firm for representing kooky uap guy.
