Ep. #133 – FOIA Documents Reveal AARO’s Authorized and Repeated Attempts to Engage with David Grusch

A deep dive breakdown of new records released, showing the attempts by the Pentagon's UFO research office AARO to contact and engage with "UFO Whistleblower" David Grusch.

The post Ep. #133 – FOIA Documents Reveal AARO’s Authorized and Repeated Attempts to Engage with David Grusch first appeared on The Black Vault.

Episode Transcript

Unknown (00:00):
So

Brian Entin / NewsNation (00:09):
basically Dr. Kirkpatrick today said that
he had tried reaching out to UFOwhistleblower David Graeber
several times to talk to himrecently and didn't get a
response. David grush sent methat text message and said, I
have zero emails or calls formen. That is a lie.

John Greenewald (00:29):
It has become a classic example of he said, he
said,

David Grusch (00:33):
I was happy to give sage counsel to him on
where to look when he took thehelmet era.

John Greenewald (00:38):
The head of the Pentagon's UFO office says the
UFO whistleblower ignored theirrequests to come in and talk.
The UFO whistleblower says thatwas all a lie. But now, thanks
to the Freedom of InformationAct, the evidence is out. Text
messages, signal exchanges, andemails all tell more of the

(00:59):
story that you haven't heard.Until now. What exactly was
said? When did they say it? Andwho else got involved? rejoin
me, John Greenwald, Jr. as Itake a deep dive into these new
records, and put it all into achronological display of how it

(01:19):
all went down. Why weren't thesehandled before they set up? The
meeting? Stay tuned, you'reabout to journey inside the
black vault.

(01:53):
That's right, everybody. Asalways, thank you so much for
tuning in and taking thisjourney inside the black vault
with me. I'm your host, JohnGreenewald, Jr, founder and
creator of the black vault. Andtonight, we're doing another
deep dive. Now I know thesevideos aren't for everybody.
They can get long. And my guessis this one will be long. And
the reason is, is we have todive into some documents I just

(02:15):
posted last week, that of coursecaused quite a bit of
controversy. Now if you're notaware of what I'm referring to,
I received a batch of documentsthrough the Freedom of
Information Act that we're aboutarrow the Pentagon's UFO office
about their invitations toinvite the UFO whistleblower
into their office andessentially spill the beans.

(02:38):
What do you got to know what canwe verify? Now of course, that's
a nutshell version. Clearly theyhave a lot of safeguards with
security classes of classifieddetails, stuff like that. So not
necessarily in their office,they'd be in a skiff or secure
area. But regardless, it wasthere, again, effort to get him
in there. Now, here's thecontroversy. When David grush

(03:00):
testified before Congress, heclaimed that aro never reached
out to him when Dr. ShawnKirkpatrick later did an
interview in October, and hestated that David grush ignored
four or five or, or refusedattempts, these multiple
attempts, David grush, thencountered back in October and
said that was all a lie. Well, Iam to find out the truth. So I

(03:22):
filed some foils. And here weare. So we're going to dive into
all of these documents. Nownormally, I go through the
documents in the order that Ireceived that why that way, you
guys can go through and followalong with me. But during this
presentation, I did something alittle bit different. I
rearranged them all toessentially be in chronological
order makes a little bit moreeasier for a presentation like

(03:44):
this also makes it easier foryou guys to understand. So I put
all of the documents together,we're gonna go through all of
them. They consist of emails,they consist of signal tests,
text messages. Wow. What's upwith that? under FOIA? Yes,
under FOIA, and we'll get intothat, and of course, a breakdown
by the US government of theirattempts. Now, the biggest

(04:05):
question here, oh, did Davidgrush lie? Well, I'm not here to
say yay or nay on that. I'm hereto show you guys the evidence.
Anybody can verify it. And youdecide the answer to that. I'm
not here to say either way. Iwill say though, things are not
always what they seem. And inthis case, it very much seems to
be the case. So let me go aheadand pull up some visuals here

(04:27):
for you guys. Excuse my eyeline.But I'll be looking at my
monitor here kind of readingsome stuff to you, and going
over these particular recordsnow. First, what I want to do is
get over some housekeepingstuff. Once I posted these
documents if you're a user ofsocial media, specifically X but
Reddit was was always alsorampant, with some conspiracy

(04:50):
theories about this. There was Iwould say the most transparency
that I can give to this processduring During me seeking out
these documents, and theconspiracy theories that have
kind of flown is that I'mworking with the Pentagon, that
they're essentially feeding methese documents, so I can put

(05:11):
them online, they strategicallydo it. So I can go ahead and be
used as a pawn for them. I haveall sorts of accusations. The
bottom line is, however, forthose who paid attention from
day one I actually posted when Iwas requesting them why I was
requesting them. And I sat andwait, a lot of people thought I
got them very quickly. Well,from October to to early

(05:35):
November to April of 2020. Foryour you're talking about five,
six full months of waiting,that's still a long time. So I'm
not really sure where a lot ofthese conspiracy theories came
from. So let me do somehousekeeping in the beginning,
here is the exact wording ofwhat I requested in my request.
Now I have some boilerplatelanguage that is the same on

(05:58):
every single request. So I'llspare you guys the legal jargon
on that. But let me get to themeat of what I was requesting.
And it was the following. Thisis what I said directly from the
FOIA request. Dr. ShawnKirkpatrick, head of the arrow
office has gone on the record ina recent media roundtable
stating he and or his office hastried to contact UFO

(06:18):
whistleblower David grush,numerous times, but those
invitations were declined. Irespectfully request a copy of
records, electronic or otherwiseof the following all forms of
documentation that showed theabove attempts to invite David
grush to speak with arrow, Iunderstand part of this request
may overlap FOIA 24 F 0265.Again, just a legal reference,

(06:39):
because there was probably someoverlap there. So I didn't want
them to cancel one and I'd waitlonger. But feel this may extend
beyond just emails hence, therequest seeking out
documentation relating to theabove statement given to the
media by Dr. Kirkpatrick, Iagree to limit the scope of
search to all records dated July2020 22, through to the date of
processing this request throughto the data processing this

(07:02):
request is key. Now this is atrick that I've learned. So you
FOIA people out there, I wouldpay attention to this one. When
you file a request, you have togive a date range. This is
important because it playsspecifically into the conspiracy
theories about me, but also whythis particular document came up
when it came after I filed therequest. When you say through to

(07:23):
the date of processing thisrequest, most agencies if you
don't say that will cut it offat the moment you submit your
request. So it may take them twoyears to process it. But they'll
cut the date off on the day thatyou requested the information.
However, if you word it thisway, admittedly, it is a
crapshoot, it is a gamble, thereis no guarantee that they will

(07:44):
do this. But I have learned thatin some cases. And this one
specifically, they will then putthe cutoff date when they begin
to process your request. So inthis case, it was well after the
original submission date ofearly November. So that is key
because you'll see theresponsive document was dated
January of 2024. That alsoplayed into the to the

(08:07):
conspiracy theories about me.But you can see by the actual
request, what I did, I alsodidn't specifically request
signal messages. There was a lotof people that accused me of
getting some kind of tip or leadknow, the reason why I worded
the request that I did any andall information and that I feel
that it may extend beyondemails, that is a way to

(08:30):
separate it from the case 24 F0265. So I believe that all of
this is, albeit sometimesgruesome, and boring, because
it's just the nitty gritty,nitty gritty, you have to deal
with it. Because those peoplethat are that are spouting those
those conspiracy theories aboutthis and how the Pentagon is, is

(08:54):
working with me on this. Nothingcould be farther from the truth.
So there's the evidence that Iwanted to go over with you guys.
And the very specific legalwording of what spawned this
particular FOIA request. Nowwhen I say that I couldn't have
been more transparent. Iactually on the same day that I
filed, announced it toeverybody. So there was no
secret there was no sleight ofhand here or something that

(09:16):
someone fed me and I'm making itall up. All you got to do is
look at these particularscreenshots here as proof Oops,
excuse me as proof that I wasfiling it on November second
2023. What I said was in arecent media roundtable
discussion, Dr. ShawnKirkpatrick, the head of Arrow
stated the arrow has sent aninvitation to David grush, quote

(09:38):
at least four or five times butover the last eight months,
those invites were declined.Then David grush told new news
nation that was a lie. So thismorning I filed a FOIA requests
case. Seeking evidence to theabove claim by Dr. Kirkpatrick.
I'm guessing somewhere thoseinvitations are documented,
they'd have to be unlikelyreside in unclassified files,

(09:59):
given the nature of contact andwill be hard to exempt given the
open admission by Dr.Kirkpatrick that they were sent.
Let's find out who's telling thetruth. And I put a screenshot of
the interview that Dr.Kirkpatrick did put a screenshot
of the news nation interviewthat David gross responded

(10:20):
saying I have zero emails orcalls from them. That is a lie.
That was October 31, I believewas the interview. So in
essence, it was a he said, hesaid story. It was one person
had one stance, the other hadthe other stance, one was saying
one was lying. It was like,Okay, well, let's just try and

(10:40):
settle this. What I said downhere proved to be absolutely
true. They were all unclassifiedinvitations. They were
documented, and you're about tosee all of them. One last things
of housekeeping here is theactual FOIA response. This way,
anybody who's taking notes orwants to challenge me on how I
got this, documents and proveseverything that I have stated

(11:01):
November 2 2023, was when Ifiled I'll spare you all the
legal jargon here on thisletter, but I invite you to
pause the video and read it.Here's the four year case number
that anybody can go ahead andrequest information on, again,
can't be more transparent onthis. Now let's talk about the
responsive documents and startbreaking this down.

(11:23):
Again rearranged them a littlebit from the FOIA case. So when
you download the PDF, I alwaysleave them in the same order
that I got. But in thisparticular presentation is
jumbled a little bit. To giveyou a chronological breakdown,
I'm going to read to you whatwas called a memorandum for
record. This was dated January8 2024. Again already addressed
why this is post dated after myFOIA requests all stemmed from

(11:47):
the wording of how I requestedthe information, subject line
all domain anomaly resolutionoffice invitations to interview
Mr. David grush. I don't wantthe all domain anomaly
resolution office or arrowextended multiple invitations to
Mr. David grush. For the purposeof conducting an oral history
interview in support of thecongressionally directed

(12:08):
historical record report,invitations both direct and
through intermediaries tointerview Mr. grush regarding
his claim knowledge of USgovernment, possession of
extraterrestrial material, andreverse engineering programs
were met with negative results.I item two, the following
attempts were made by director,arrow and staff to encourage Mr.

(12:31):
grush to provide information toarrow on the record and in an
appropriately secureenvironment. The National
Defense Authorization Act forFiscal Year 2023 authorizes
arrow to receive reporting aboutUS government activities and
events related to UAP regardlessof classification level or
carpet compartmentalization ofthe information. Here's the

(12:54):
breakdown, timeline wise pertheir memo, and then we'll break
it down even further. But thisis from the memo breaking down
the chronology of their timelinebetween June 8 and 20, excuse me
between June 8 2023 And June13 2023, Director arrow engaged
in a dialogue with personredacted regarding arrows

(13:15):
authorities and encourage thatperson to have Mr. grush contact
arrow. Note that this person isa known close associate of Mr.
grush. And the dialogue made itclear that this person was in
contact with Mr. grush. On June12, and 13th 2023 Director arrow
discussed with a professionalstaff member or PSM. You'll

(13:36):
you'll see that a few times inthis presentation of the US
Senate Select Committee onIntelligence, Mr. grush, his
refusal to speak with arrow. ThePSM stated that he would contact
Mr. grush and request Mr. Greshhis email address. The PSM made
the offer after the directormade it clear that Arrow did not
have Mr. Gresh his contactinformation. It's a little
bothersome that they couldn'tfind his email address or

(13:59):
contact information butregardless, on June 26 2023,
Arrow staff contactedinterviewee redacted and asked
for Mr. grush his currenttelephone number so that an
invitation can be extended toMr. grush interviewee contacted
Mr. grush on Arrow's behalf, andan invitation was rebuffed by
Mr. grush. On June 28 2023,Director arrow contacted a PSM

(14:23):
with the US Senate SelectCommittee on Intelligence after
Mr. Gratias appearance beforeCongress and asked for any
information reported to Congressby Mr. grush that arrow may be
able to identify. The directoralso reminded the PSM of the
agreement that if a witnessexpressed apprehension about
coming to arrow, that arrowwould send a staff member to

(14:43):
congressional spaces to recordthe information into the US
government record in support ofthat historical report. On July
27 2023, Arrow staff conductedan interview of interviewee
redacted who revealed that hewouldn't It who revealed that he
would be having dinner with Mr.grush. The following day arrow

(15:05):
staff to include the directorasked this person to invite Mr.
grush to contact arrow for aninterview. Arrow staff made it
clear that the interview wouldbe conducted in a secure
facility in accordance with thelaw, and the tone of the
interview would be friendly andnon confrontational, as are all

(15:25):
arrow interviews. On October6 2023, Arrow staff conducted a
secure call an interview withinterviewee redacted, and as
that he also encouraged Mr.grush to agree to a secure
interview, so that Mr. Gratiasclaims might be introduced into
the US government record insupport of their historical
report. Interviewee is known tobe a close associate of Mr.

(15:50):
Gresh. During the previousseveral months director arrow as
to PSM with the US SenateCommittee on armed services to
encourage Mr. grush to provideinformation to arrow during an
official interview. On November10 2023, Mr. grush contacted
arrow at the urging ofcongressional staff members and

(16:10):
agreed to be interviewed inArlington, Virginia on November
14 2024. Arrow provided Mr.grush with a memorandum from the
Director of Special AccessPrograms, Department of Defense
that made it clear arrow isauthorized to receive
Compartmented Information. Mr.Gresh was also told that arrow
would obtain a similarmemorandum from the director

(16:32):
controlled access ProgramOffice, Office of the Director
of National Intelligence. OnNovember 14 2023, Mr. grush,
failed to show at the agreedupon location and time for an
interview with arrow. Uponcontacting Mr. grush, you stated
that he is not convinced thatarrow is authorized to receive
varying levels of classified andsensitive information. So this

(16:55):
right here told you that theyhad a meeting set up if you
didn't catch it. grush didn'teven show. So you'll see here
why. And this is the argumentand controversy from these
documents. The controversy as hedidn't show because he felt aro
didn't answer his questions.However aro felt that they did

(17:16):
and they had ample evidence toshow it. Congress was also
urging based on what they knewfor him to go in. It's kind of a
mess. It really is. And you seehere that there's a lot more to
the story than we what we heardon news interviews and
congressional testimony. And sothat, to me, was kind of like a

(17:38):
head scratcher. He didn't evenshow to a scheduled meeting.
You'll see more as we go throughthe information here exactly why
he didn't show and exactly whyor exactly how that played out.
On November 19 2023, arrow againcontacted Mr. grush via email,
and stated We invite you tospeak to arrow regarding any US

(18:00):
government programs oractivities related to UAP dating
back to 1945. In accordance withthe National Defense
Authorization Act for FiscalYear 2023 aro is authorized to
receive any information relatedto UAP regardless of
classification, andnotwithstanding any
nondisclosure agreement you mayhave signed, we would be glad to

(18:22):
meet with you in a skiff so thatyou could share information with
us. This specific invitation wascoordinated with the Office of
General Counsel, Department ofDefense, Mr. grush, again,
declined the invitation despitepreviously agreeing to an
interview. And again, Mr. Greshcited various security concerns
that arrow is authorized toreceive information of any

(18:44):
classification level regardingUAP. On January 8 2024, Arrow
provided Mr. Grosh with amemorandum from the director
controlled access ProgramsOffice, Office of the Director
of National Intelligence thatstates arrow was authorized to
receive information which issubject to US government non
disclosure agreement. Arrow alsoinformed Mr. grush that there is

(19:06):
a standing invitation to beinterviewed by Arrow regarding
his claims of UAP and USgovernment activity and events.
During interactions betweenarrow and Mr. grush from
November 2023 to January 2024,it became evident that Mr. grush
had no intention of providingarrow with information regarding
his claims. This assessmentstands despite the NDAA for

(19:29):
fiscal year 2023 And theenclosed memorandums from the
Department of Defense and theOffice of the Director of
National Intelligence, making itclear that arrow is authorized
to receive all levels ofinformation related to UAP. That
was a heck of a memo to go over.But you can see that clearly the
DoD according to them, wasreaching out to grush through

(19:53):
various means. Each and everytime it was declined. And
clearly, there was issue withDavid grush, who did not want to
come into arrow. If he didn'tset up the meeting and didn't
show, I can understand Hisconcern was really the root
cause of that. But how is itthat he could go all that way

(20:14):
set up the meeting the time andjust not show? So so what
happened was it was an underadvice of counsel, maybe. But
why wouldn't he have that adviceprior we know who is his
attorney is with CharlesMcCullough, the former IC IG. So
clearly, he's got an incrediblyintelligent attorney behind him.

(20:35):
So if it was based on legalcounsel, why didn't he get that
counsel prior? Because he was hewas clearly proactively after
declining a bunch ofinvitations, it seems
proactively now reaching out toarrow and saying, Hey, let's
let's chat. And from that memobetween November 10, and
November 14, there obviously wasa telephone conversation, at

(20:59):
least one that said overeverything up. So being
proactive, why would you notconsult your attorney like, hey,
what do I have to have inwriting here? That's a very
interesting piece of this puzzlethat you'll see even more play
out here as we go through thedocuments. So the next batch of
records I'm going to go throughis essentially the supporting
evidence to this memorandum. Soper my request, seeking out all

(21:23):
of these attempts,
part of those attempts were textmessages to Christopher Mellon.
Now, it's not every day you getsignal text messages through the
Freedom of Information Act, butin this case, you do. It's not
common, but not not unheard of.So this happens for multiple

(21:43):
reasons. We'll get into it afterwe go over the text messages.
But it was a little bit of asurprise because I was expecting
more emails, maybe some lettersor memos. I wasn't expecting
text messages. They start onJune 11 2023. And they start
with thanks. So clearly, therewas dialogue between Sean
Kirkpatrick and ChristopherMellon, prior to this. Yes, I

(22:07):
filed for those text messagesnow as well. Now that I know
they exist, but in thisparticular document dump, it
starts at June 11. You can seeChristopher Mellon saying
thanks, we don't know for what.And then on June 12, this is
what Shawn Kirkpatrick says.Now, as we go through this, all
the blue boxes are ShawnKirkpatrick, and the gray boxes

(22:32):
are Christopher Mellon. EnterKirkpatrick grush has made
claims that he's contacted usand we've never responded.
That's just not true. He's alsomade claims that we don't have
access to investigate hisclaims. That is also not true.
If I recall correctly, youindicated he refused to come

(22:52):
talk to us. And you're quoted assuggesting as such, I'd suggest
you emphasize the need to comespeak with us. You have the
contact email. Enter ChristopherMellon. Hi, Sean, do you have a
specific example of Dave Daveclaiming he's contacted arrow
and your office refused torespond? That sounds strange as
during a conversation yesterday,he told me arrow was not a

(23:14):
lawfully designated recipient ofhis whistleblower info, hence
his reason for not contactingarrow. I also do not recall
saying Dave refused to come talkto arrow. I certainly did not do
so in the debrief article or myarticle in Politico, and I've
done no interviews yet aboutDave. Shawn Kirkpatrick. It was
on the interview Sunday,Pentagon is preparing a

(23:36):
response. His assertion that wearen't lawfully empowered is
clearly incongruent with thelaw. Christopher Mellon, I'll be
happy to check on that. Contraryto press reports, Dave still
retains his attorney who is aformer NSA and IC IG Chuck
should know if anyone does.Kirkpatrick there is a

(23:56):
significant misconceptionbetween the authorities in
question the title 50authorities we we do have are
for CI purposes not taking ininformation. The law is very
clear about that and if he has aconcern he should have as
attorney discuss with OGC wewe've had we've had many people

(24:21):
come share appropriately theinformation that okay, so you'll
see here I'm going to stop realquick. You'll see here that
there's grammatical errorsreading Kirkpatrick I don't know
if that's just rage tweeting. Orif he's like, you know, just

(24:41):
Cerise not not liking him. Idon't know. So forgive my
stumble reading. I'm trying tomake it as clear as possible and
forgot to note his grammaticalerrors because there is one part
of that that actually may be atypo that a lot of people are
making a big deal of and I'm notsure if it should be a big deal
yet. We'll see. We'll get tothat. In a minute, but let me
see here the law is very clearabout that. And if he has a

(25:03):
concern he should have asattorney discuss with OGC.
That's the Office of GeneralCounsel within the DOD. We've
had many people come shareappropriately the information
they have from various places.Chuck is wrong. If that's his
advice, melon, I'll be happy toraise with Dave and get back to
you. Kirkpatrick if nothing elsehe needs to contact us. And

(25:23):
we'll introduce his attorney tothe Office of General Counsel.
I'll reach out to him today saysChristopher Mellon. Also Mellon
I spoke with Dave and his firstquestion was Why hadn't aro
gotten all the info from the ICIG? It is all there and fully
documented to includeconfirmation that program is

(25:43):
real from active clearedinsiders. Mellon, I spoke with
Dave and his first Oh, excuseme, I'm sorry, that's just
repeated from the screenshot.Kirkpatrick comes in after that
Department of Justice has torelease it since it's part of a
criminal investigation. Now DOJis Department of Justice.
However, the question that wasasked by David grush through

(26:06):
Mellon was about the IC IG. Alot of people are making a big
deal out of this line that theDepartment of Justice is
involved. Maybe the IC IGfigured out a criminal aspect
that was essentially confirmedor confirmed enough to then
forward over to the Departmentof Justice for criminal
investigation. That isabsolutely a possibility.

(26:27):
However, those that are toutingthis in the media and new op eds
and so on, have not confirmedit. Now why I pointed out
Kirkpatrick is kind of again,I'm not trying to sound rude
here, but kind of his ragetexting, where he's clearly he's
got a lot of grammatical fumbleshere and there, misspelling

(26:47):
you'll see some more here, as Iread through it. Was his
response maybe that that in hishead, he's thinking criminal,
slash investigation slash lawenforcement, and he says it by
mistake, or Is this legit? Nowsome of you may think that I'm,
I'm stretching their look, I'mjust I'm a stickler for
confirming these things becauseof a text message from somebody

(27:08):
who's having those spelling orgrammatical errors, or both, can
probably easily mistaken, dotyping in DOJ versus IC IG.
While he's, you know, typing inhaste, the texting in haste. So
that's a possibility. I have yetto see confirmation of it. I
don't necessarily doubt it. Ithink it's interesting no matter

(27:28):
what, but I don't think weshould just start screaming that
the DOJ is involved, like somepeople are doing as I record
this, we just don't know yet. Soback to Kirkpatrick, DOJ has to
release it since it's part of acriminal investigation. They
haven't yet he needs to cometell us separate from his
criminal complaint. So Mellon,he obviously doesn't have to do

(27:52):
so. And he even said, quote, howdo I know Sean is not a target
of the ongoing criminalinvestigation. In parentheses,
he's got an exclamation point.However, that being said, I
explained your request regardinghis attorney contact office
government counsel and suggestedhe do so to show full
cooperation. He said that if youcan provide OTCs contact info,

(28:15):
he'll pass it to his attorney.By the way. He also said his
claim about contacting you datesto a conversation the two of you
had many months ago on a quote,Tandberg, t a n d, b e r g and
parentheses he has SP questionmark that spelling even he
doesn't really know what he'stalking about, but trying to

(28:37):
convey that to Kirkpatrick. Soconversation many months ago on
a Tandberg system, and that youdidn't follow up after that
call. I'm not trying toadjudicate that issue, just
telling you what he said.Apparently, that is what his
statement was referring to. Soif you can provide an OGC email
or phone number, I'll get thatto Dave right away. And

(28:58):
hopefully his attorney willpromptly contact OGC. Back to
Kirkpatrick. All of that is bothabsurd and false. I have had a
conversation I have. Here'sanother fumble. I believe he
meant I haven't had aconversation with him for years.
That coincides with multipleinterview quotes and so on.

(29:18):
Anybody can fact that havechecked that that he hadn't
talked to him for quite a fewyears, even David grush had said
it was 2022. So obviously, atleast one or two years. So I
think that was yet another typo,but I haven't had a conversation
with him for years. If he wantsthis brought out and
investigated, then yes, heobviously does have to his

(29:40):
continued refusal to speak withus only hurts his case. I've
contacted congressional OGC toreach out to him so they can
explain the law. Haven't had aconversation for years. See, so
that now he goes back and hecorrects himself. Our statement
will simply be that he's refusedto speak with arrow. Melon comes
back. Okay, so Sounds good happyto help when I can don't

(30:02):
hesitate to kick my tires offbased on something. By the way,
there isn't a congressional OGCas such. Kirkpatrick there are
congressional lawyers that getlaw. Mellon to be clear whom
shade, whom should Dave expectto hear from, if you cannot
provide a point of contact atDOD. Current Patrick's then

(30:25):
corrects himself again. Soagain, I'm just stressing this
about that DOJ thing because Ithink it's key, he corrects the
get law into vet law. So that'swhat he's correcting there.
Hill OGC generally advisedmembers only that's what
Kirkpatrick said they advisetheir employers, not members of

(30:47):
the public. So essentially whathe's saying here, if you're kind
of lost, because I had read it acouple times as well. Obviously,
the DOD has an office ofgovernment counselor, excuse me,
Office of General Counsel oflawyers, attorneys. I know for a
fact that a few of my FOIAcases, quite a few actually go
through that particular office,when some of these documents are

(31:09):
released, they are involved,they're going through the law,
they understand how it works. Soespecially when you tie in FOIA
releases, they're right there toessentially make sure nobody's
crossing any legal line.Obviously, they are involved in
processes like this as well. Sothey're the attorneys for the
DOD, where that kind of back andforth got a little mumbled was

(31:31):
that it was brought up that thehill, Congress has essentially
an equivalent to an OGC. That'swhere melon says, No, they
don't. And then Kirkpatrick waslike, they have attorneys that
advise their members, not forthe public, but members of
Congress. So a lot of these finedetails are very important when
you see these things play out.Because you know, even these two

(31:51):
guys who are obviously veryknowledgeable about how the
government works, they're stillnot jiving when they're
conversing with each other,because it's an incredibly
convoluted process with a lot ofnooks and crannies. And it
really kind of goes to the rootof that whole, the right hand
doesn't know what the left handis doing, primarily because the
left hand doesn't even know theright hand exists. So you kind

(32:13):
of see it play out here with twopowerhouse minds that came that
come from the government or camefrom the government. And they
don't even match up with, with,again, their knowledge of how it
all works. And that's not aninsult, but rather that's how
this is playing out that they'rejust not on the same, not on the
same page. So let me see back toback to Kirkpatrick. It's either

(32:37):
a lawyer at the hill or a lawyerin DOD, who am I sending them
to? Either the law is law or wecan scrub having anyone else
come see arrow. So obviouslyKirkpatrick is getting a little
miffed at this point. Mellonsays you can't tell chuck to go
to various committees on theHill, it needs to be someone who
represents arrow in theexecutive branch. I'll support

(32:57):
Mellon on that from the littlethat I do know about this? That
yes, that would essentially bewho they have to talk to, for
safety as well, that if the DoDattorneys are going to promise
something, then obviously, whenhe goes into the DOD, he's got
something to fall back on.mellem continues, there are a
dozen Hill committees onmajority and minority counsel

(33:19):
who may not even agree.Kirkpatrick depends on how badly
people want this sorted out,send me Chuck's contact info.
Then Mellon says not without hispermission, obviously. How about
I relay your contact info hereto chuck, what's interesting is
Chuck McAuliffe information ispublic on the website. I'm not
going to display it here toprove what I just said. But the

(33:40):
last time I checked, it was onthe website. And then it's how I
contacted him. Sadly, I wasignored the few times that I
did. But regardless, the theinformation is there, the law
firm is public. It's got a phonenumber. So why this like, Hey,
give me his phone number. Hey,can you get me a hey, can you
it's like, what can you not justput in a.com or use Google? You

(34:02):
guys are investigating UAP forthe Department of Defense. Can
you really not just use Googlefor finding somebody's contact
information? So that kind ofstuff just drives me nuts when
you see this back and forth. Butit kind of shed some light of
you know, how all this isplaying out behind the scenes
and it's it's silly in a lot ofways. Kirkpatrick Oh, I'm sorry.

(34:25):
The last thing that after notwithout his permission,
obviously, again, this is Mr.Melon. How about I relay your
contact information to chuck,this will get sorted out of
that. I have no doubt. It isonly a matter of how quickly and
by whom? Kirkpatrick I'm notgiving my contact info out.
Given the harassment andthreats. That's why we have a
secure mechanism. I don't evenknow if you want me to comment,

(34:48):
and that's just so silly at thispoint. I mean, there's obviously
government public numbers thatthey could give out especially
to a former IC IG. I mean, comeon. Kirkpatrick continues and
yes, you are defending andadjudicating and you're
undermining the veryorganization you're purported to
help establish for this person.So now that miffed Dr.

(35:09):
Kirkpatrick just kind of went upa little bit. So you can clearly
see now he's telling Mellonupset, essentially, that he's
kind of obstructing thisprocess. It's like you, you, by
your own admission help set thisup. Now you're really just not
letting this play out, like, youknow, and these guys are not
coming together here trying toconnect David grush to arrow and
it was it was very telling toread through this for the first

(35:32):
time. Mr. Melon comes in reallyodd I try to bring everyone to
arrow I can. I'm trying to helpput Dave in touch with your GC
or general counsel, if you canprovide simple contact info. I'm
not judging the claims betweenyou and Dave, and and have not
claimed his claims are accurate.I'm going to stop right there.

(35:53):
I'm going to repeat it again. Ihave not claimed his claims are
accurate. That's a very tellingadmission by Christopher Mellon.
I'm not trying to read into thattoo much. I'm just trying to
show you what Christopher melonsmindset is that he's not
vouching for the story itself.He's vouching for David Gratias

(36:14):
credibility, which I would dothe same with his background.
It's very impressive. But to theaccuracy of his claims, even
Christopher Mellon, who knowsmore than all of us, I'm sure
about David Gratias story andwho the 40 people are that he
talked to, and all of that ifhe's still ready to not go on

(36:34):
not ready to go on the recordand say, Yeah, I believe his
claims. To me, that's verytelling. So definitely take note
of that part. To continue onwith Mr. melons, words, I've
said he is sincere and credible,and his and other claims, which
I expressly called allegations,warrant investigation, all of

(36:54):
which is, you know, veryadmirable to say. So kudos to
him, because I agree with it. Ihave no idea what you or Dave
discussed or when, and, or when,and I'm not taking a position on
that, or even the underlyingclaim of recovered materials. So
he doesn't even have a stance onthe recovered materials. Also a

(37:15):
very, very interesting tellhere. Because, you know, do some
do some thinking about whoChristopher Mellon circle is.
And he's not ready to make anyclaims. Again, very telling.
That's not to be, again, overlyreading into something critical
or negative, but rather,pointing this out, because a lot

(37:37):
of people can miss that. So it'svery telling about where
Christopher melanism, this. Andyou'll see here, let me pull up
the laser pointer. So I'mkind.dot.if anybody uses signal,
you know that there's more here.That's why there's a Read More
link. And when you when you tapon that on your phone, it
extends the message. So signalwill only show you a certain

(37:58):
amount of characters. And thenyou have to do read more. Sadly,
when these screenshots weretaken, they didn't do that. Now
I have filed a request for theextended text. Will I get that
no idea. But and in fact, thatwas in my appeal. But I want the
whole text to see you know whatexactly. Mr. Mellon had gone on

(38:19):
to say, because to me, that wasone of the more interesting text
messages that he sent. It wasvery, I guess, personal in the
sense that it was direct to whathe believes or what he's not
ready to believe. But he wantsinvestigated. Very, very
important, kind of crucial tosee that. And we didn't. So

(38:40):
we'll see if that screenshotcomes. However, the next message
that Mr. Mellon sent, Dave cannow say, quote, Shawn has
refused to provide me or myattorney the contact information
that would allow us to pickingup right here, sorry, this,
these are the screenshots, Ijust have to match it up. Dave
can now say, Shawn has refusedto provide me or my attorney the

(39:04):
contact information that willallow us to discuss legal
concerns we have with providingtestimony to arrow, I'm not your
enemy. And I'm not saying thisto provoke or irritate you.
Moreover, having once been insimilar jobs, I recognize you
have a big pile of work andresponsibility on your plate. I
only mentioned this because itseems you must have some legal
representation, and assumingthey are competent. It seems to

(39:27):
me a discussion. It would helpto get Dave's testimony into
your system. That it seems to meshould be a win for all.
Kirkpatrick I've asked theOffice of General Counsel for
contact information. MelonGreat. Kirkpatrick waiting to
hear back. Melon. I will behappy to provide that to Dave
and Chuck if you'd like. I thinkyou have a fascinating and

(39:48):
important job. And I wantnothing more than to see the
process work. Please don't thinkI am out to make your job
harder. Kirkpatrick actually,Dave can't say any such thing.
He hasn't asked me for it.Anything only you? Again,
they're just not jiving in thisconversation. So it's it's it's

(40:11):
just I can't say it enough. It'sfascinating to see this play out
that this was the effort, one ofthe efforts to get grush in
there. And how much of a mess itreally was. Mellon comes back
actually, he probably can andmight, but that doesn't matter.
I have no specific reason tobelieve he will. And I am not
proposing that to him. Justtrying to close the loop and

(40:33):
move things toward a goodoutcome. Thanks. Let me see
here.
Okay, so that was June 12, andJune 13, all those text messages
that I went over, okay. Then itjumps to in the screenshot
yesterday. Now, we don't knowwhen Kirkpatrick took the

(40:53):
screenshots or assuming it wasKirkpatrick. So we have no idea
what date this is, but whomevertook the screenshot, and
whatever date it was,Kirkpatrick had sent Mellon and
I'll quote here, this is theofficial position of the
Pentagon released to mediaTuesday approved by OGC. And the

(41:14):
Secretary, by law arrow mayreceive all UAP related
information, including anyclassified national security
information involving militaryintelligence and intelligence
related activities at all levelsof classification, regardless of
any restrictive access controls,Special Access Programs, or
compartmented. Access Programs.Moreover, there is no

(41:36):
restriction to arrow receivingany past or present UAP related
in and then you have that read,more frustrating link that they
didn't read more. Now, if youGoogle just any part of that
string, you will come up withthat language that has been used
in congressional language insome news, pieces and press

(41:57):
statements and stuff, going backto October ish, of 2023. So that
may be around this time that itwent from June to October ish,
don't really know. Sadly, wecan't really confirm it. I filed
FOIA cases after the receipt ofthis to hopefully figure that
out. But regardless, that's whatwe're we're kind of left to

(42:18):
wonder, kind of doesn't matter.We know the language was there.
Melon responds, I passed thatalong today for as attorneys
review, per your message, aboveall, seek to avoid further
communication, unless it issomething that seems
extraordinarily urgent, or youinitiate well, okay, I'll get
that off to Dave and hisattorney this morning. Thanks.

(42:39):
That was it. That was all of it.And I want to point out one
thing to you guys here. That itwas, let me see I have a better
slide for it here. You setdisappearing message time to one
week, that is a message thatwhomever is using signal in this
case, Kirkpatrick in that lastright before he sent the this

(43:02):
official position of thePentagon text, he set the
messages on signal to be wipedafter seven days. Signal, how's
that feature, because it's anencrypted method of
communicating. But it's a way toessentially hide what you're
communicating. So if you feelthat it's sensitive, you can
keep it for a week, and then theapp will just completely wipe it
out after a week. There's a lotof problems there. And a lot of

(43:25):
people missed that becausenobody was talking about it. And
I tweeted it out or exited out.However you say that now posted
it out on x and social mediaplatforms like hey, you guys are
mad that signal messages gotreleased through FOIA. That was
actually a legit thing to do,not only in the failure, case
response, but even to use signalwhich I'll talk about right now.

(43:48):
But you guys aren't talkingabout the fact that it was
switched to then eraseeverything. So what are we
erasing? Did he save it withinthe timeframe of the week,
because you have to do that. Nowagain, most people were upset
that the signal messages weresent to me in a FOIA request
response, privacy concerns werebrought up. There were a lot of

(44:12):
again, I call them thoseconspiracy theories, those
allegations that I was being fedthis information, essentially
maliciously, so that I could putit out there to the general
public. Obviously, that's allsilliness. But on top of all of
that, Luis Elizondo had chimedin publicly, he's got a very
large following very, verydedicated fan base. Anybody who

(44:34):
follows Him knows that and he'sgot a lot of popularity in this
particular field. Even he wentout of his way to essentially
spotlight the signal messagesbeing put out, in kind of, in my
opinion, fueled the flames alittle bit. And the reason I say
that is for this, he postspublicly retweets it. Retweets

(44:58):
Christopher melons. post aboutmy article and my four year
release, and then responds thisway, Chris. I wonder when did
DoD authorized Kirkpatrick touse the signal app for official
US business and correspondence?You and I would have been
crucified for doing that whilewe were in the government? And
when did they allow personalidentifiable info of US citizens

(45:20):
to be released, contrary toPrivacy Act of 1974? I guess
it's more of the same regardingrules that apply quote to the
but not to me. Now, look, he'sgot a big following. And I and
I'm a big supporter that if youdo have a big following, even if
you have a small one, but moreimportantly to those that have a

(45:42):
big one, when you putallegations out there like that,
you need to back it up. Now infairness to Mr. Elizondo, maybe
he just wasn't aware. And that'sfine. But when I received these
text messages through FOIA Yeah,I was really curious about it. I
knew they had come out throughpast FOIA cases before the the

(46:03):
cases that I knew about wereactually through litigation. But
through US Code, Chapter Five,section 552 Are the FOIA signal
messages and text messages havecome out before. So it's, in my
opinion, irresponsible to startblasting that to, you know, 150
plus 1000 people to kind of fuelthat because then there were

(46:23):
people that were saying I shouldbe sued for publishing these
documents, regardless of gettingthem through FOIA. Now, that's a
loot anybody with a legalbackground knows that that's
ludicrous. But the digital mobmob doesn't care about that. So
they just use that as part oftheir, you know, lynch mob
strategy to essentially getfueled by a post like this. But

(46:44):
they actually don't look at theevidence. Now, I did what I'll
call an article, but it was moreof an ex post that broke down
the DoD instructions on how touse non government apps,
messaging apps, non DoDcontrolled is what they call
them, messaging apps for DODbusiness. Now, to summarize it,

(47:05):
I won't read all this to you.But to summarize it, yeah, it is
kind of frowned upon, but it'snot banned. It's not fully
banned. You can do it as long asyou follow a certain set of
rules. So you're not sendingclassified information. That's
one of the obvious ones, or moresensitive information that may
not be classified, butessentially more of the

(47:26):
sensitive government businessthat you conduct. They do not
want you to use it for that. Butwhen you look at the messages
that I went over, what was itdoing, it was setting up a
meeting, and that's all that itwas the only personal
identifying information that wasspilled was Christopher melons
name. He was communicating witha government official and
anybody with a FOIA background,let alone a government

(47:49):
background will realize that themoment that you communicate with
a government official, itbecomes FOIA trouble. I've
spoken about that for years.It's why I've gotten bass, you
know, private corporation emailsthrough FOIA. It's why I've
gotten numerous othercorporation corporate emails,
through FOIA. It's just how itworks. But the DOD, again, has

(48:11):
that stance where they can usethese apps, you go through that
text message, all he was doingwas trying to set up a meeting.
So it wasn't sensitive at all.There were no phone numbers,
social security numbers, bankaccount numbers, anything
personally identifyinginformation. And again, the only
thing that came close to it was,was Mr. Melons name, but given
his past, and his very public

(48:36):
image, talking about UAP, beinginvolved with getting arrow set
up, what privacy violation wasthere. So not only was the use
of signal authorized, and again,I go through the instructions in
this ex post online, I'll linkit in the show notes below. So
you have it. But there was alsono personally identifying

(48:57):
information, there was noviolation of the Privacy Act of
1974. All those allegations dois fueled the digital mob,
Kirkpatrick made reference toharassment and threats, it fuels
stuff like that, just simplybecause people get so fired up
thinking that these personalprivate messages are leaked out,

(49:19):
which isn't true, that they'republished through FOIA
illegally, which isn't true,that there's a violation of the
Privacy Act, which isn't true.It all plays a role in that. So
I think that there needs to bethat responsibility with people
that have large following, tomaybe research these things a
little bit. And if a mistake ismade, we all make them myself

(49:39):
included. Just correct it sothen that way, your you know,
fan base doesn't go nuts, thoseon people like myself, and
saying I should be sued, orworse for themselves worse, go
after people in the governmentthat have investigative arms
like the FBI at their disposal.So you know, let's be a little

(49:59):
bit more responsive. But whenwe're making claims like that,
but I do want to give credit toMr. Christopher Mellon, who
stated this in a recent articleabout the documents that I got,
he says, quote, the releasesurprised, but did not offend me
as I'm a strong supporter ofgovernment transparency. So from
what I've seen anyway, he's notout there saying a violation of

(50:21):
his privacy was was was donehere, that there was no privacy
act violation. So again, I justwant to kind of stress that
point, because that fuels somuch of that conspiracy fire
that leads into people harassingothers like Kirkpatrick that,
you know, that little thingcalled stigma that so many
people want to go away? Well,that kind of fuels that as well

(50:44):
that all you've got are a bunchof loud people screaming all
these legal allegations andstuff like that, when the bottom
line is there isn't any. Solet's be a little bit more
responsible when people startforwarding around those those
allegations. And again, creditto Mr. Mellon, and I'll say
this, I've said it before, I'llsay it again, out of that whole
bunch, because I know I'm highlycritical of a lot of them. Just

(51:07):
simply because there's a lot oflack of evidence to a lot of the
claims. Mr. Mellon seems likethe most genuine, and I was
happy to see the signalmessages. And yeah, it may have
surprised him. But he says thathe wasn't offended, and I'm
happy to see that. But forsomeone like me, it's supported.
Why I think that he is actuallyone of the more genuine in that

(51:27):
group, that yes, we all havefumbles, we all have mistakes,
we can all be nitpicked todeath, to try and be made to
look bad. But honestly, I reallydo think melons, intentions are,
are genuine, I think they stemfrom from something that we we
may not have even heard of wherethey stem from. But I do think
that I'll be at mistakes havebeen made. I think that he's a

(51:51):
genuine person. So kudos to himfor not flipping out about those
signal messages, and also doublekudos to him for supporting
transparency over secrecy.Because what seems to me those
that scream transparency anddemand at the loudest are the
ones that are continuing to gatekeep information from you as
well. So really keep that inmind. So anyway, moving on from

(52:15):
from from that, but that was onething that I wanted to tackle in
this deep dive was were thoseallegations because they became
rampant against me. And again,many were calling for me to be
sued and how could I invadeprivacy and stuff like that
ridiculous. So one of the othertext messages that came up,
again, going back to thechronology here was in June 26.

(52:38):
And not too long after the bruntof the conversation between
Kirkpatrick and ChristopherMellon differences here. We
don't know who this particularperson is. If you match it up
with the memo, it's likely ainterviewee that they had an
arrow on identified person butthe dates match up, says Do you

(52:59):
have a phone number and or emailfor David grush. I'd like to
invite him in for an interview.Not sure if this is Kirkpatrick
or an arrow representative.Again, for the memo says arrow
staff, they would likely saydirector if it was Kirkpatrick,
but regardless, didn't have aname, so I'm going to point that
out. I would like to invite himin for an interview. The
interviewee says yeah, but letme ask him first he has bad

(53:20):
blood was Shawn going back to2015? I'll tell him that only
you want to talk to him. And soyeah, I mean, I'll correct
myself there. That's clear thatit's not Kirkpatrick doing the
talking here. A lot of textmessages to keep straight here.
So I apologize for my mistake,but yeah, obviously an arrow
staff member, interviewee or,excuse me, the arrow person so

(53:42):
it sounds like a plan. Thankyou. The interviewee says dang
it. Dave will only say thatShawn knows how to contact him.
He rolls his eyes. There reallyis bad blood was Shawn from
Dave's perspective, the arrowmember says interesting
response. Well, thanks forchecking, much appreciated, this
reduction here is likely thename much appreciated. So

(54:04):
obviously yet another attemptshut down. That was June 26. And
June 27. That David grush Thisis key was made aware and
refuses to chat. Now, ShawnKirkpatrick learned about the
the release of these documents,and the release of that text
message and the public dialoguenow of this bad blood. So

(54:27):
Stephen Green Street from theNew York Post who had a
connection with KirkpatrickRumor has it that he did an
interview with him so that'sgoing to be airing on the New
York Post's YouTube channelsoon. But that being said,
Greenstreet reached out toKirkpatrick asked him about the
bad blood. Kirkpatrick respondedsaying I barely knew grush he
never worked for me. He briefedme once that I can recall when I

(54:51):
was deputy director of US Spacecomm perhaps around 2019 I
believe he came in with JayStratton to discuss starting
their research and The UAP TaskForce, I don't recall him prior
to that time. I don't know anymore now than I did at that time
of those messages what he'stalking about when he refers to
bad blood since 2015. I was onassignment elsewhere at that

(55:14):
time, I had many people come tobriefed me. I also have a
reputation for not sufferingfools. And when briefers come in
ill prepared and deliver apoorly thought, through thesis,
I will pick out the flaws in theargument. Perhaps he was one of
those. No idea. So I had norelationship with grush. He

(55:34):
never worked for me, the onlything I recall was him coming
with Stratton, I have no ideawhat he's referring to. So that
was Kirk, Patrick's response.Now going back to the text
messages, this was anothersignal back and forth, another
person that is redacted. So wedon't know who this is. Blue is
going to be Kirkpatrick, thisother person is in Greg grush,

(55:57):
has made claims that he'scontacted us. And we've never
responded, that's just not true.He has also made claims that we
don't have access to investigatehis claims. That's also not
true. If I recall correctly, youindicated he refused to come
talk with us, I'd suggest youemphasize the need to come speak
to us, given his falsestatements and assertions. I
will, but why don't you call ortext him. I don't have contact

(56:22):
info. And I can only contactthrough the secure mechanism. So
I'll need an email. Further,Mellon is stating that he spoke
with him and grush states thatarrow is not a lawfully
empowered organization toreceive his info. This other
person SMH or shakes my head.I'll reach out and try to reach
grush this week, as well asrequesting an email. Then we've

(56:44):
got a bunch of redacted B sevene that's like law enforcement
investigation exemption. Thisunknown person, it's really a
perfect example of why we needarrow. No more redaction headed
in Skiff Kirkpatrick well ofcrushes lawyer successfully
makes the case that we aren'tlawfully empowered, there will
be a lot less appetite to keeparrow a lot of people focused on

(57:05):
this text message. I felt it wassnarkiness. That essentially
sure the long shot that if heproved that we were not
lawfully, meaning arrow was notlawfully able to receive the
information, then arrow would goaway, essentially a good thing
to those that are doubtingarrows, legitimacy, so on and so
forth. Other people tried toread into that and spin it a

(57:27):
different way. That's just how Itook it given Kirk Patrick's
kind of tone throughout many ofthe messages that we've already
gone through here. So you decidewhat exactly he meant by that.
But I think it was justessentially more of a challenge,
like look, it would be, it wouldonly behoove them to prove that

(57:48):
we're either lying or not clearto receive everything or
whatever, and we'll just goaway, which would be what that
group would want. Anyway, ifthey don't trust arrow, they
don't want them around. So therewill be a lot less appetite to
keep arrow.
Now that conversation was 12 and13, just like the melon
conversation, and while readingit, I kind of realized I won't

(58:11):
go back on the slide, but Ithink that that was pretty much
a copy and paste of how hestarted the conversation with
melon the same way and I justdidn't realize it until I read
it out loud to you guys. So heprobably just, you know, copied
it from one to the other personhere. And then the dialogue
spiraled elsewhere. Now jumpedto the 28th Kirkpatrick reaches

(58:33):
out to him. Hey, what is Rubiotalking about? This kind of just
makes me believe that this ismaybe a PSM maybe part of, you
know, Rubio's crew or one of thecommittees. So I don't know for
sure. I'm sure someone else maywant to try and figure it out.
Or maybe they have figured itout. But as I record this, I
just look at it seems like acongressional staff member,

(58:54):
something like that, becauseobviously Kirkpatrick is now
reaching out to him saying, whatis Rubio talking about? This
unknown person says he'sreferring to previous witnesses
that provide a testimonyregarding the cash crash
retrieval program. Thosewitnesses will not go to arrow
they were asked to Kirkpatrickdo we have notes from their
testimony and their programnames, owners anything I can

(59:14):
verify? The unknown person I canreview and back in office on
vacation for a few more days.Definitely a few program names.
Now, we jumped to July 21. Greatjob on the interview glad they
allowed it to happen. Soclearly. Now this is that one of
the first interviews Kirkpatrickhad done, whoever this was

(59:37):
reached out congratulated him.Kirkpatrick says thanks, still
need those alleged programnames. And this person says I'll
talk to leadership and get back.Let me see the Kirkpatrick
response CNN was sent overyesterday with one of my
findings. I don't know what CNNstood for. So you guys might be

(01:00:04):
able to Google that real fast.I, to be honest with you forgot
to look it up, but I don't knowwhat it stood for. Kirkpatrick
continuously agreement, as Irecall was if someone came to
you all, we would be invited toparticipate. So I can document
and investigate. That hasn'thappened. Yet, I've had you all
over to participate. As itstands, Congress is not enabling

(01:00:26):
us to actually do the job set inlaw for us to do and is
withholding information from theoffice, Congress sets up raises
a lot of questions. So clearly,Kirkpatrick is now snapping back
clearly, this is somebody froma, you know, congressional
committee or office, eitherRubio or someone else raises a

(01:00:46):
lot of questions, he says, so hejust kind of feels like
everybody's just not allowinghim to do the job that he was
asked to do, or mandated to do.This person comes back since you
started interviewing, we've hadno one we didn't send your way.
So that's just not true. So nowthey're starting to have
disagreements. That is the endof those particular text

(01:01:06):
messages. Now, interesting timelight note, we all found out
about David Gresham, the debriefon June 5 2023. So I'm sticking
with the same it's kind ofjumping around chronologically
sticking with the sameconversations to make it easy to
understand. But June 5 2023, iswhen we all first heard about

(01:01:28):
David grush. In the publicsphere. Putting that into
context with these next emails,this begins to start really
shaping the picture of whathappened with an arrow after the
debrief article first put Davidgrush, his name out there. Now,
this is the Senate ArmedServices Committee staff member,
you'll see in a couple emailsfrom now how we can deduce that

(01:01:52):
the name is redacted. Thepicture here is going to be who
the email is from. You'll seeit's fully redacted. But you'll
see later on how we candetermine it was the staff
member. The staff member saysSean grush confirmed to me that
he does not intend to availhimself of the arrow Safe Harbor
process to tell you what hespent many hours telling the DoD
IG, the IC IG and the twoIntelligence Committees about

(01:02:15):
UAP. He's reported through themedia in recent days that he was
not able to share some of theinformation he has with the two
Intelligence Committees becausethey lacked the program access
he's assuming accurate mediareporting. That means that he
has either that he has toldeither or both DoD ici G's about
one or more saps that the Intelcommittees are not access to.

(01:02:38):
The Armed Services Committee arenot allowed by process rules to
interview Grosh about any ofthis because the IC
whistleblower process is tightlycontrolled by the Intel
committees. What this means isthat the DoD IC IG is no
something from grush. TheCongress as a whole is not aware
of that as a reason for you togo to the IGs and ask for access

(01:03:00):
as they deem appropriate for youto essentially see what Gresh is
reporting. If waived programsare involved, there would need
to be a way for you to conveythis to our staff directors. But
there is also just a basicreason for you to try to get all
the information that Gresh hasprovided to the IGs. Now this

(01:03:20):
gentleman chimes in this isDavid Kozik. He's the director
of congressional activities forthe office of the Undersecretary
of Defense for intelligence. Hesays, weighing in, there's no
way in heck that DOD and IC IGwill give any third party raw
information ever. IGinvestigations are a blackbox
for a reason, the best Shawnwill get from them as a filtered

(01:03:43):
report that the IG releases toeveryone. Bottom line, best
course of action is still forMr. grush to speak to arrow per
their confidential process thatone Congress directed in law. If
he doesn't, I fear the bestassessment you will ever get
from ero is a reflection of areflection. FYI, Shawn won't

(01:04:04):
have an access problem. Ie hehas no SAP or cap restrictions.
It's the IG divide. Of course,if he did speak to the Intel
committees, they can alwaysprovide their transcripts slash
notes to Shawn for his review,my two cents. I underline this,
that's my emphasis has no SAP orcap restrictions whatsoever.

(01:04:28):
That is not subject dependent.That was the internal line that
these guys knew was the case forthem, that there was nothing.
Now why I say no subjectspecific is David grush. felt
that it may have been that itwas only UAP. And if it touched

(01:04:48):
on a non UAP related sap thatconnected to it. It didn't
matter. And that's what the DoDs position was. I'm not here
endorsing it. I'm just tellingyou internally Everybody was on
the same page from the Office ofGeneral Counsel to the director
of congressional activities, tothe arrow office, to ODNI. to

(01:05:10):
DOD, sabko. Everywhere, theywere all on the same page that
they could receive thisinformation. The only one that
seemingly was not and wasuncomfortable was David grush.
The only exception was what isreferenced here as the IG
divide. Essentially, what thatmeans in plain English is all of
that law enforcementinvestigation, all of that

(01:05:31):
research that the IGs do, it iscordoned off from everyone else
for a reason that way that theycan be independent and not worry
about their information goingsomewhere else. But if Congress
had transcripts or whatever,from their interviews, they
could legally without anyproblem whatsoever, take all of

(01:05:53):
that and give it to arrow. Itseemed like from those messages
I read prior, that was the fullagreement that if somebody went
to Congress, Rubio's office, acommittee testified and closed
behind closed doors, even in askiff in a classified setting,
that whatever was was was takenfrom that, whatever information
they got. And they ended theinterview saying, I don't want

(01:06:15):
to go to arrow, that didn'tmatter. That information could
then be given to arrow, theywere cleared to receive it, and
they can verify it, they can vetit, that goes to the heart of
what Kirkpatrick had texted,saying, okay. Essentially, I'm
paraphrasing this, butessentially, I don't care if
they're not going to come forme. Come see me. Let's get
program names, dates, anything Ican verify. That too, was kind

(01:06:39):
of spun in the social mediasphere. But I think it was just
the two scientists, they justwant the details. They don't
care about the personaldifferences. It's the evidence
or the lack thereof. So is theresomething that he can verify?
And that's what he was lookingfor. So if Congress could share
that, then they would the onlydivide was that invest? The

(01:06:59):
inspector generalinvestigations. That was it. So
this email also became key tome. Just showing hey, look,
Kirkpatrick had unrestrictedaccess to at all
that unknown staff member comesback really helpful. Dave,
thanks, did not know thatexecutive branch folks are in
the same boat. We are, will urgegrush to come through Shawn's

(01:07:20):
portal. So here we are again inJune 7 from another
congressional committee staffmember to go to the aero portal.
Sean Kirkpatrick now chimes inall I did speak with the DoD IG,
they went on my behalf to the ICIG to request the classified
transcript. Why? Because grushgave nothing to the DoD IG and

(01:07:42):
claim the same thing he told youthat it was icy Compartmented
Information and they couldn'thave it. The IC IG declined to
acquiesce my request reminds meof Jack Sparrow. I am fairly
confident I know whatcompartments he is referring to
because I did my job. But Icannot confirm 100%. If he

(01:08:02):
doesn't come see me. As DavidCOVID points out, the SSCI could
give me the transcript. So herehe is now reinforcing that he
can receive this from Congress.But the more important part here
is even the DoD IG was not givenanything that according to them
to Kirkpatrick, they're saying,yeah, he denied us kind of

(01:08:25):
anything to it would essentiallybe with the IC IG. And they said
no, because they, as they putit, put themselves in a black
box for a reason. They don'twant anybody touching their
investigation. That's the wholepoint of an inspector general.
They don't want other officeskind of peeking in and hearing
what they've what they've heard.So what that information is, who

(01:08:48):
knows. But if Congress heardanything, the Senate heard
anything, they could turn itover. That unknown staff member
comes in. Sean press reportsindicate that he said he could
not provide everything he knowsto the Intel committees because
they were not cleared. So Iconcluded that he had access to
some DoD sap that the Intelcommittees are not access to and

(01:09:09):
inferred that the IC IG wouldnot have access either. So now
he's kind of hinting that the ICIG may be not again, this is
kind of third hand informationthrough this email. But
regardless, even the Intelcommittees were not access to
certain information. So maybe hedenied them as well. So it seems
like grush wants to talk butrefuses to talk to everybody.

(01:09:31):
Yet. Everybody's telling himwe're cleared. And I've said
this before, but I'll say itagain, in this section, here and
in this video, that I think thatan attorney would at this point,
have a field day. You have somuch unclassified information
that I got through FOIA littleold me and I'm a nobody. Any of
this would be available througha discovery process or even

(01:09:54):
through a FOIA process for legalcounsel for David grush if they
went down that route, regardlessAll of this information that I
got was unclassified. And so youhave so much information that
internally through the DoD ODNI,again, rattling off all those
offices and people that wereinvolved, that stated, they were
telling Russia, you have zeroreservation here, you should

(01:10:16):
have zero reservation becausewe're cleared. If they took any
action against him whatsoever, alawyer would have a field day,
there's too much here. There'sjust it's an overwhelming amount
of paper trail, that everybodywas on the same page, that arrow
could hear it. Was there somelegal gray area that somebody
could latch on to? I'm surethere always is. But again, an

(01:10:39):
attorney would have a field day,if they put all of these emails
in front of a judge and or juryand said, Look, everybody was
telling my client that he wasfree and clear to say things.
Now you're telling me he goes inthere and says what they asked
for, and he has these reprisals.He has this whatever action

(01:10:59):
against him criminal, whatever,whatever he's fearing will
happen. If that happened,there's no way that that that
would pass. I'm sorry, I justdon't see it. I can see the
comments from my haters. Now,John's not an attorney. You're
not grush. And he has this tofear. Well, you know what he has

(01:11:20):
fans in Congress in the Senate.He's got people who support him.
He's got an incredibly powerfuland very intelligent attorney.
He's got very powerful peoplethat believe in him and back him
all of this information frompeople that others will claim
don't like grush. Yet they'resaying the exact same thing.
Internally, there's no way I'msorry, I just don't see it. If

(01:11:43):
it ever goes to court, I'd besurprised. But regardless, I
think any attorney would have afield day, there's absolutely
too much evidence. Now back tothe June 7, communications back
and forth, Kirkpatrick comes in.Let me expand a bit I know
everything he meaning grush wasbriefed to and had access to and
have far greater access. So hedid not have access to some DoD

(01:12:05):
SAP and the ice didn't have. Andif he did, he could have told
you. Similarly, he didn't haveaccess to some ice cap, a cap as
a controlled access programversus a special access program.
That couldn't be shared. If hefound some program, he wouldn't
know whose it was unless he hadsuper user access, or someone

(01:12:26):
who did help him look it up. Hedidn't. Therefore, he can't make
the argument that whatever hefound, couldn't be shared. If he
or others thought it was anillegal program, then again, he
can't make the argument that itcouldn't be shared with either
the DOD, or the icy committeesbased on his assertion, they
didn't have clearances. Itsounds very much like playing

(01:12:48):
the two halves against themiddle to hide something that
clearly now shows that if it wasillegal, and he was bringing
that that illegal aspectforward, I interpret that that
he would have no restrictionswhatsoever, obviously,
safeguarding the classifiedportions of this, but if there

(01:13:10):
are a legal program, SAP cap orotherwise, that there are no
restrictions. So whatKirkpatrick is drilling home
here is like, Hey, he's free totell us he's free to tell you
guys he's free to tell. But he'sclearly not unknown staff member
comes in tracking. Thanks,Shawn. And then later that day,

(01:13:33):
he cannot tell the ArmedServices Committee staff
anything once he entered the IGprocess, were forbidden from
even asking. Furthermore, if awave SAP is involved, he could
not talk to the Armed ServicesCommittee staff about it because
we are not accessed. That wasJune 8. Kirkpatrick that day, he

(01:13:55):
wouldn't know if it was waivedif he found it. And as I said, I
know what he actually what hewas actually briefed to. I've
been told by the InspectorGeneral, the UAP related
investigation has been closedfor a year. He is free to tell
us and you're free to ask.There's no excuse for not

(01:14:16):
providing an authorizeddisclosure. So he's drilling at
home to everybody on thisdistribution list. That includes
the Armed Services Committee,staff member, whomever that was
people within the DOD, and itwill my give the opportunity
that these are people outsidethe DOD, who knows. But
regardless, he's tellingeverybody he's, he's free at

(01:14:38):
this part. The key from this IGthe UAP, excuse me, according to
the IG, the UAP relatedinvestigation was closed for a
year. Now you'll see in the nextemail, we don't know if that's
the DoD OIG investigation, theIC IG or both? Not really sure,
but clearly Kirkpatrick knew thethe INS on that into allegation

(01:15:00):
and had been closed since 2022.That staff member comes back,
you know how things work, hecould have heard that a PGM is
waived. Now PGM, I believe wouldbe the program guidance
memorandum to something. So thathe felt, you know, through that
memo that something was a way ofSAP. Again, interesting insight

(01:15:20):
here that the staff member fromthe Armed Services Committee,
and Kirkpatrick now are kind ofgoing back and forth, because
they're trying to figure outexactly what's going on. But
PGM, I believe, is that programguidance memorandum? And the
staff member goes on? What doyou mean by you're free to ask?
That one I thought was prettyself explanatory, meaning the IG

(01:15:44):
investigations were closed. Andgiven all the facts that
Kirkpatrick had laid out there,the congressional committees
could press for answers and askDavid grush for the details. The
second part, though, was a goodquestion, what UAP related IG
investigation, are you referringto the one on grush, or the
broader review that wasunanswered, at least in the

(01:16:07):
course of this foyer release? Ihave gone after that string of
emails as well. So hopefully,we'll go ahead and get more
insight at a later date. Butregardless, I mean, it seemed
that key Inspector General,investigation was closed,
likely. This is just to guessthe IC IG side because it was

(01:16:29):
specific to grush. But we'llwe'll see aggression as claims
of the programs and so on. Sowe'll see. But I'm just guessing
at that point.
Now, July 26 2023, this tookplace. This was the
congressional UAP hearing inwhich David grush appeared. Now

(01:16:51):
let me go ahead and play thisclip for you. So you can hear
exactly what David grush said.Now, keep in mind, this is July
26. A lot of what we went overwas in June. So like six weeks
prior, all those differentpeople that aro had reached out
to trying to get involved withwith grush. The Bad Blood
comments. Clearly grush wastalking to arrow staff members

(01:17:15):
that and he was stating thatthere was bad blood between him
that he did not want to come in.There were a lot of denials.
This is what he said under oath.Okay,

Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (01:17:23):
on the 19th of April, Dr.
Kirkpatrick, head of Arrow hadsaid that he did not find any
evidence of UAPs. You alsostated that you had in your
interview that you briefed himon information that you are
uncovering, but that he did notfollow up with you. Were the
items that you divulge to himpertinent to national security.

David Grusch (01:17:42):
Yes, him and I had a classified conversation April
2022. Before he took over arrowin July to 2022. And I provided
him some concerns I had,

Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna (01:17:54):
do you know why he might not have
fallen up with you?

David Grusch (01:17:57):
Up, I unfortunately cannot read his
mind. I wish he did was I washappy to give sage counsel to
him on where to look when hetook the helm of Arrow.

John Greenewald (01:18:06):
Happy to give sage counsel when he took the
helm of arrow. Now we've alreadygone through a lot of attempts
to get to him. And we've alreadygone through the numerous people
that said grush refuses to talkto you. We already went through
that bad blood comment thatKirkpatrick has no idea what
he's talking about. He nevermentions that here said that

(01:18:27):
they had a classifiedconversation prior. But he never
followed up meaning Kirkpatricknever reached out. I will let
you guys decide on whether ornot that was misleading. That
was under oath. That wassomething that he said to
Congresswoman Luna when she wasasking about him not following
up with David grush. So when youlook at all those attempts, is

(01:18:50):
that true? Is it false? Is itsemantics? Is he ignoring
important facts? alwaysinterested in your comments
posted below behind? So we'regonna fast forward now from that
July 26 Hearing to the October31 2023. roundtable. And this
was a controversial roundtablesimply because Kirkpatrick held

(01:19:12):
it invite only and it was offcamera and only certain people
were asked to attend. Otherslike Stephen Green Street I know
posted about it. There were acouple others as well tried to
get access to it. And they weredeclined that they wanted to

(01:19:33):
essentially keep it small. Whyit sounds like you're
controlling a narrative. I dohave an open case for the
invitations that went out andwho they went to. So we'll we'll
we'll see who exactly wasinvited. I don't think that will
be exempt. So that being said,in this media roundtable
Kirkpatrick was askedspecifically about David grush.

(01:19:54):
The question was so David grush.The whistleblower came forward
to news nation says he reachedout to you to share his this
debris and that you didn'tfollow up. So did you follow up
and investigate his claims? Hesays he still hasn't heard from
you. So ultimately, why haven'tyou to connect it? Dr.
Kirkpatrick says So Mr. grush,since arrow has stood up, and
since I've been director has notcome to see us and provided any

(01:20:15):
information member Kirkpatrickalready said prior to taking
over arrow, he met with JayStratton and David grush. So
that absolutely is true. Sincearrow stood up grush has been
nowhere to be found the followup question and so he's always
says that he briefed you beforeyou assumed your position and
arrow. Have you had the chanceto follow up on any of the

(01:20:36):
inquiries that he made or talkedto any of the witnesses?
Kirkpatrick says, so the lasttime I believe I spoke with Mr.
grush was when I was with Jay toat US Space Command about five
years ago, and it was not onthis topic. Now. We have
interviewed a whole range ofpeople over 30 people now, I
think we've interviewed most ofthe people that he may have
talked to, but we don't knowthat. And we've extended an

(01:20:57):
invitation at least four or fivetimes now, for him to come in
over the last eight months orso. And and has been declined.
That was key. That was that wasKirkpatrick saying we've tried.
We keep reaching out. And we'vegone over some of those
attempts. The documentation isthere. This was October 31. As I

(01:21:19):
mentioned, that night newsnation who has been following
the story, obviously, they didRoss cold hearts interview with
an error that on news nation.They did a follow up story that
night, the same night that thisroundtable took place, contacted
David grush and Gresh stated, Ihave zero emails or calls from

(01:21:40):
them. That is a lie. Now, peopleare trying to mince words here.
Well, zero emails or calls fromthem. Technically, that's true,
that there was no direct emailbecause arrow, according to the
documentation, and albeitincredibly silly, didn't have an
email address for him. No onewould share it with them. And he

(01:22:03):
didn't have any phone number touse, hence why aro didn't call
David grush directly. So thatpart is technically true. But is
it fair? You see all of theinvitations that David grush had
gotten, and it was David grush.His refusal not to give his
email address, not to give hisphone number because of the bad

(01:22:24):
blood was Shaun Kirkpatrick thathe kept denying it through the
the congressional staff memberand whoever arrow interviewed,
obviously redacted names in thedocuments, but regardless, all
connected to David grush. Now ifall of that is a fabricated lie,
then I would imagine by the timeI've recorded this video that
David grush through either RossColtart and news nation, or the

(01:22:47):
debrief where he's been before,or you know, find someone else
to put out a statement going,Whoa, that like that never
happened. I never got in touch.Now, I do know that this story
has reached David grush. And Ido No, he's not too happy about
it. Why didn't he say anythingon October 31? Why didn't he

(01:23:08):
say, look, I wasn't specificallycontacted by by Kirkpatrick. But
even if I was I've alreadydeclined their invitation from
their staff members or whomever?There should have been some kind
of elaboration here in theinterest of transparency, that
arrow has tried. But ifKirkpatrick does whatever to

(01:23:29):
upset grudge in the past, andthat's still there, say it, this
is your opportunity. Butinstead, this is the statement,
I have zero emails or calls fromhim. That is a lie. Well, is it
again, you guys decide, but it'sreally weird to see it all laid
out on a timeline. Now, that wasOctober 31. Now 10 days later on

(01:23:54):
November 10. Now, David grushreaches out to arrow Good
morning. This is for redactedname for coordination purposes.
Please give me a call to discussconditions and admin items. And
then in parentheses, or excuseme, in a redacted square, it's
likely his phone number. Nowit's on the record. Now he's now

(01:24:15):
arrows got his email address andphone number. The next email was
November 13. Clearly from sometime in between the 10th and the
13th. What is likely a telephoneconversation took place between
this staff member and Davidgrush. And this November 13,
early in the morning 813 emailstates Mr. grush. Attached are

(01:24:36):
the two items we spoke about theverbal legal advisement that we
review prior to the start ofevery interview, and the
memorandum for record fromsabko. That makes it clear that
ero can receive CompartmentedInformation from interviewees.
Our address is and it'sredacted. I will meet you in the
lobby. See you tomorrow at 10.So, obviously, in the course of

(01:24:59):
their calm versation they spokeabout those two items. David
Gresh agreed to show up thatnext morning. So it was t minus
25 and almost 26 hours. And thatwas it. Everything was all set.
Now I don't have the verballegal advisement, because that
was not provided in the foyerrelease. I have filed a case for

(01:25:21):
that, because I'm curious, whatare they telling every interview
so it wasn't specific to Grosh.It was every interview, I want
to see whatever that verballegal advisement that we, that
they review. So they may do itverbally, but obviously it's a
script of some kind. I'm goingafter it. However, the MFR from
sabko was there that would bethis I'll spare you reading the

(01:25:43):
whole thing. I will read thehighlighted passage, which is
the most importantrepresentatives of the all
domain anomaly research orexcuse me resolution office, are
authorized to speak to personsand or conducting interviews of
persons that currently have orpreviously had access to
sensitive US GovernmentInformation activities and or
materials. Individuals withcurrent or previous access to

(01:26:05):
unidentified aerial phenomenarelated information, which is
subject to US government nondisclosure agreement are
authorized to provide thisotherwise protected information
to ero representatives. So thoseNDAs that are often fallen back
on by not only David grush, butothers, security clearances, so

(01:26:25):
on and so forth. This spells itout from Major General David ABA
of the DoD Special AccessPrograms Office, or sabko. You
can't get more clear than that.Again, any attorney would love a
memo like that to use. You'llsee later though there's
actually another one that usedfrom ODNI. To support that arrow

(01:26:49):
was absolutely clear to heareverything. So that was sent to
David grush. Now, November 13,same day, this is in the
afternoon. Good morning,redacted name. Thank you for
sending these items as a formeragency level sat mo I think even
sabko and cavco. I take securitypolicies very seriously. In the

(01:27:11):
DoD sabko memo, the term UA Prelated is not defined. Fiscal
Year 2023 NDAA, section 1673.Subsection B defines it as the
following quote, any activity orprograms by a department or
agency of the federalgovernment, or a contractor have
such a department or agencyrelating to UAP, including with
respect to material retrieval,material analysis, reverse

(01:27:33):
engineering, research anddevelopment, detection and
tracking developmental oroperational testing, and
security protections andenforcement.
The key issue here is that manyof these activities have
conventional classified orcompartmented security
classification guides that alsocover non UAP activities as
well. To discuss the UAP relatedactivities will also expose

(01:27:54):
these conventional SAP missionareas. An oral history interview
subject must also be absolved ofthis obligation to protect this
information as well. Some of itmay be bigoted or waived, and
then he cites the DoDInstruction. Furthermore, as
discussed Friday, I'm seeking anODNI cavco determination to
absolve an oral historyinterview subject of any NDAs

(01:28:16):
relating to UAP related andadjacent IC cap information.
Additionally, in my particularcase, in order to horizontally
protect a portion of my oralhistory, testimony previously
provided to IC IG and theintelligence committees, we
would need to conduct theinterview at the HCS operation o
restricted handling level. Hasthe CIA Office of Security or

(01:28:41):
Directorate of operationsprovided a memo in this regard
for oral history interviewsubjects? Has the OS provided a
memo to also cover manage needto know projects not directly
reported to ODNI cavco? Lastly,what sign policy does arrow have
to receive nontidal 10. saps, iedo your NFC as the EOP NFC
security director, director,national program management

(01:29:03):
staff Oh USD ins or doe sabko orSAP OG provided a a memo similar
to the DoD sabko memory youprovided. What an absolute
mouthful to go over, but it justseems like things were addressed
with, you know, the sabko memofrom from DOD. And then just

(01:29:24):
like all these other things comeout later. So we're, we're,
we're all these questions, andwe don't know we're not privy to
the telephone conversation. Butwhere were these questions in
that telephone conversation?Where were these questions when
he initiated contact? Because,again, we know he's had legal
counsel for quite some time. AndI'll say it again, a very

(01:29:44):
powerful and very intelligentone at that. So why weren't
these handled before they setup? The meeting and I'm not
really sure about that. But theresponse from the arrow person
was Mr. grush. The law is clearand that we can receive
information all classificationlevels we can discuss when you
come in. So that's where theyhave left it. Until we get to

(01:30:08):
the morning of November 14, theday of the meeting 10:34am
meeting was at 10. I've beenwaiting in the lobby for over
been late waiting in the lobbyover 30 minutes. Are you showing
up? So clearly stands them updoesn't even show up. And arrow

(01:30:28):
was, was clear that they couldtalk it all over now, in
fairness to this, I mean, I wantto be fair here. He never made
it clear. David Grace never madeit clear. He wasn't going to
show up. But what would be theharm is if you show up, and then
say, Look, I need answers tothese questions. Maybe they'll
have somebody from OGC therefrom the general counsel office,

(01:30:50):
to say, Well, we're here to toAbsolutely. address your
concerns, or, or something, youcould easily just say, forget
it, I'm out. Why would you justnot even show I mean, you're,
you know, they're not going totorture you to, to say anything.
So that part was very confusingto me, to where you you go all

(01:31:10):
the way to set it up, then thenight prior, the day prior, you
have all these new questions,then just don't even show up.
And then you say this arrowstaff with due respect, I will
need answers to my questionsbefore I will be comfortable
meeting, please provideresponses so that we can
hopefully move forward andschedule the meeting. The law
may grant your office need toknow but does not establish

(01:31:31):
policies and procedures withvarious data owners. I've
managed multicompartmentactivities throughout my career,
my entire career and multipledcsa security professional
certifications. I did not askthese questions for mere
curiosity. That's all fine. He'sgot an amazing background. So I
would never go head to head onhim with national security
knowledge. I totally get that.But from an outsider looking in

(01:31:56):
and seeing this, there'sabsolutely no reason he should
have stood him up. He shouldhave marched in there with his
attorney demand answers. Becausein the interest of of that, I
think Mr. Mellon put it in oneof his text messages. He was
encouraging him to try and playball with arrow in the interest
of that, go see what you know,what are you going to be met

(01:32:17):
with? And then if you're notcomfortable, just say, sorry,
I'm out and then get up and go.There's nothing that would stop
him. He's not subpoena. He's notin cuffs. So what's going on? It
just didn't make sense to me atall. Their response, Mr. grush,
we received your email we getback to you shortly. That was
November 14. Thank you. This isfrom David gross. Thank you. I

(01:32:40):
apologize for the confusion thismorning about my whereabouts. I
should have been more clear inmy email on Monday. You know,
credit to him for apologizing.But, again, all my questions
still stands. Now, this was sentNovember 15. This was the next
day I put it here. It was partof that string of emails I read
earlier. What Sean Kirkpatrickdid at that time that morning

(01:33:02):
after grush stood them up. Heforwarded that whole string of
emails to someone we don't knowwho and Kirkpatrick says further
records, please save. Note theopening paragraph at the
beginning of this email threadfrom redacted name. What he's
doing here, whomever he'ssending it to, he's making sure

(01:33:25):
they have record of everything.Now, DOD record retention
schedule should stipulate thatall Kirkpatrick material is
saved anyway. But who he sent itto? That's kind of key to
understanding what he's settingup here. He's obviously doing
this for a reason. He obviouslyhas alarm bells going off that

(01:33:45):
grush says, Yeah, I'll come in,and then never shows, and then
has all of these securityconcerns. Something was being
set up. Something got triggeredon November 15. For Kirkpatrick
to say, okay, here, we're goingto save everything. And so he
sent it to an unknownindividual. Fast forward to the
19th arrow got back to Davidgrush. I believe it's a

(01:34:07):
different person, not the one hewas talking to that set up the
meeting. I believe that it wassomeone else simply because of
the way that it was signed, andyou look at the indentation.
That's where minutiae matters isbecause then you can all be it.
You can't figure out the name ofthe person. Now we know it's
someone else that got involved.And they stay we invite you to

(01:34:29):
speak to arrow regarding any USgovernment programs or
activities related to UAP datingback to 1945. In accordance with
the National DefenseAuthorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2023. Arrow is authorizedto receive any information
related to UAP regardless ofclassification, and
notwithstanding any nondisclosure agreement you may

(01:34:49):
have signed, we would be glad tomeet you in a skiff so that you
could share information with us.So whoever that was, was
essentially putting it outthere. that you have the
standing invite. It's cleared.We're cleared the balls in your
court. November 19. Thank youfor your email, David gross says

(01:35:11):
I had expressed specificconcerns both directly via email
and through counsel. And thosespecific concerns have not yet
been addressed in writing.Please reference those emails in
this chain key for someone likeme. He expressed them through
email, we saw that He alsoexpressed them through counsel,
I haven't seen that. Which meansthat there's probably more to

(01:35:31):
this email chain and more tothese communications, you better
believe I'm going after it. Andthe reason is, is because I want
to see the dates where did theyland on the timeline? You know,
what, what happened there. Soyou always look for little
pickups like that to kind ofbuild off of. So he tells arrow
to go ahead and reference thosequestions, Mr. Gresh, during our
conversation on November1020 23. So notice, it's going

(01:35:54):
back to likely the telephoneconversation, no indentation, so
we're probably back to thatother person. We discussed your
comfort level with relayingsensitive information to arrow
and the possibility of Arrowobtaining a memo from Capco that
clearly states that arrow canreceive cap information similar
to the sabko memo I provided youattached is that memo from ODNI

(01:36:14):
Capco note the date here January8, so we've jumped ahead quite a
bit, but arrow is trying to getand appease what David grush had
requested in his list. Again, Iwant to reiterate that in
accordance with the NationalDefense Authorization as fiscal
year 2023, arrow is authorizedto receive any information
related to UAP regardless ofclassification, and

(01:36:38):
notwithstanding anynondisclosure agreement, you may
have signed our invitation todiscuss possible US government
programs, events, or activitiesrelated to UAP still stands,
have a good afternoon, signed,whomever that was David grush
states. Good afternoon. Thankyou, we'll review please address
my specific concerns that I senton 19 November 2023. Now that

(01:37:01):
was all January 8.
That was the date the memo goingback to the original document
that I first started this longpresentation over when that was
written. So after all of thisarrow then just decided he's not
coming in no matter what we say.It does not look like they tried

(01:37:21):
to take a stab at thosequestions. Maybe because they
feel that the cap code, thesabko letter, and the NDAA for
fiscal year 2023 that theycontinue to reference over and
over and over those threeparticular things. Take care of
all of that. All of theseinternal records on top of all
of that reinforce it. So thatmemo was created January 8, to

(01:37:45):
bring all that informationtogether and document their
track record of trying to reachout to him contact him through
different intermediaries thentheir contact directly, his no
show on the meeting andessentially trying to meet him
what I would call meet himhalfway and say okay, you asked
for this letter, we got ODNI tosend it and here it is. This is

(01:38:07):
undated. But you can see it's aCapco there, designator number
23 Dash 003. So it was likelycreated in 2023. Representatives
of all domain anomaly researchoffice are authorized to speak
to persons and or conductinterviews of persons that
currently have or previously hadaccess to sensitive US

(01:38:29):
Government Informationactivities and or materials.
This one also talks aboutspecifically the non disclosure
agreements that was signed bythe director of the controlled
access program central office.Again, they were trying to reach
out to him and give him everyevery piece of comfort that they

(01:38:50):
could to say you can come inhere. Now what I'm interested
not being a lawyer, and butseeing now all of this unfold,
and posting it, you know, onlinefor the first time most of this
was have has never been seen bythe public before as a non
attorney, but I love legalstuff. I would love to see an

(01:39:10):
argument by an attorney, let'ssay Charles McCollum come out
and say this is what they didnot meet for us. Not through
YouTubers conveying what grushhas said not through journalists
on news nation or some blog orwhatever they get David grush

(01:39:32):
talk to let's hear from theattorney. You know, let's hear
that argument. Because to me,it's all there now. And why it
matters is it goes to the heartof grush just not showing up and
not getting the DOD, thecongressionally mandated effort
that so many people wanted forso long, getting them that

(01:39:54):
information. Now, what we haveto understand it at this point
is that Dr. Kirkpatrick wasclearly the guy that David grush
had an issue with, nobody candeny that it's all there in
black and white. Why it didn'tcome up in the congressional
hearing under oath. That's toobad. It's a shame. That was a

(01:40:16):
perfect opportunity, because ofeverything that transpired prior
to that. And the clear, quote,Bad Blood comment that was said
by David grush, as associate allof that was palpable. It's, it's
there, it's clear. So why notbring that up? We don't know.
But what we do know now here inApril of 2024, is that Dr. Shawn

(01:40:40):
Kirkpatrick is completely gone.He's not there anymore. That the
reluctance, per the informationper the evidence that I've gone
over with you. The reluctancewas there because of Dr. Shawn
Kirkpatrick. So now he's gone.He's out. He's doing his media
tour with other podcasts. Andhe's doing it as a private

(01:41:01):
citizen, all the more power tohim seems like a lot of people
love doing that. That's fine.But he's gone. Now. He has
nothing to do with arrow. Sowhat's wrong with the new
director has since January8 2024, to date, anything taken
place with David grush? Now, Iwould imagine grush would make
it very known if he did. Why?Well, because he's made those

(01:41:23):
steps known in the past abouthis IG complaints and and what
he has done. So why have we notseen that yet? And has anything
taken place? Well, you couldimagine I've got cases to try
and figure that out, too. Butthe bottom line is now, in my
opinion, there are no excuseswhen it comes to Kirkpatrick

(01:41:44):
being involved. And from thelegal standpoint, let's hear
what the excuses now. Again, notthrough these third hand,
people, I talked to Grosh. Andhe said this now, let's hear
from his attorney, I think thegeneral public has a right to
know, I know this was a reallylong, deep dive. I know they're
not for everybody. If you'vemade it this far, kudos to you

(01:42:07):
for sticking with me for thatlong. But it's important not
only for myself to go over itverbally, I do a lot of this for
myself too, because it helps meunderstand and absorb the
information more speaking outloud. But also for you all to
kind of see that timeline tokind of hear it instead of
reading it in a pile of, ofpages thrown into a PDF file,

(01:42:28):
but rather hear somebody talkabout it, and to talk with you
about it. That's what I'm hereto do. So with that said here on
YouTube, if you're watchinglive, or if you're watching the
replay, put your comments below.I'm always interested in and
please keep it kind down there.If you agree with me disagree
with me, or whatever you want tosay, again, just please keep it
clean, but put them down thereand, and let me know what you

(01:42:50):
think. The biggest help you cando. If you like these types of
videos, I do short ones too. Sothey're not all always very
long, but liked the video, put athumbs up there. If you're
listening on the audio podcastversion, I aim for five stars,
please help me by putting areview out there clicking the
thumbs up button. It truly trulyhelps. And of course making sure
you're subscribed notificationson that way when I do live

(01:43:12):
streams drop these types ofvideos, you will be notified
when I do so on the note of theaudio podcast. If you're not
aware, a lot of thesepresentations do go to the
podcast feed obviously it'saudio only. So you missed the
visuals. But that's why I read alot so you guys can just listen
while you work or run or jog orwhatever you do with your

(01:43:33):
podcast. It's under the blackvault radio on nearly every
podcast network out there. Sojust search for black vault
radio, subscribe and again, ifyou can leave a review it's very
very helpful to me. quickest wayto get get the news from the
black vault to the last thingbefore I say goodbye. Make sure
you're subscribed to socialmedia channels. But I am most

(01:43:56):
active on AIX, the handle issimply black vault c o m
like.com. Without the dot blackvault comm that's my handle.
That's where I'm most active yousee things. Even right prior to
recording this video dropped anex post out there of what I

(01:44:16):
consider kind of breaking newsin this genre of records being
destroyed of the emails of Dr.James McCaskey, the OSS, app
director. And if you follow thatwhole story and know the name,
you'll know that that's kind ofa detriment to trying to unravel
that whole era of this wholestory but that's another video
in itself. Thank you so much forlistening and or watching truly,

(01:44:39):
truly appreciate you hangingwith me on these deep dives. I'm
John Greenewald, Jr signing off,and I'll see you next time