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.

  • SignullGone@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • SignullGone@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

          • SignullGone@lemmy.worldOPM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

              • SignullGone@lemmy.worldOPM
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ll speculate. They probably don’t want blowback on the law firm for representing kooky uap guy.

                  • SignullGone@lemmy.worldOPM
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    But they already represented him so that ship has sailed. I’d also argue ‘kooky’ would be an inappropriate descriptor for David Grusch, given his background and the people speaking on his behalf.

                  • grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    They would just stop representing him. They could do so at any time.

                    This guy left a “height of his career” job to go out on his own to represent Grusch. I don’t think you do that to protect the law firm.