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
      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.