Can Grusch get his clearances back? I thought that was in the works at some point. Would the members of such a select committee themselves have the clearances to hear certain testimony even in executive session or SCIF? A well-prepared, week-long televised hearing of the caliber of the Watergate Committee hearings could prove to be a singular event. Depending on what parameters would constrain them and witness testimony. Firsthand witnesses would need real protection.
Burlinson entered a House Resolution last year to reinstate Grusch’s security clearance, but that’s not really the appropriate tactic. Congress doesn’t grant security clearances, so the resolution was pretty much just an “expression of the sentiment” of the House.
Members of Congress aren’t required to have security clearances to access sensitive information. But since they don’t carry clearances simply by being members of Congress it means they aren’t entitled to it. Classic Catch-22.
The only members of Congress entitled to sensitive information are the leaders of both houses and members who sit on committees with rules that entitle them to such information e.g. Intelligence, Armed Forces, and Appropriations. (The Oversight Committee is NOT entitled to access to sensitive information.) But any committee can petition the Intel, Armed Forces, and Appropriations committees in writing for access to such information. However, granting such a petition is governed by the rules of each committee, typically by a vote (I think) or at the discretion of the committee chair.
I’m not sure how access to security information would work for a special/select committee. I assume it would be governed by the rules established and resolved for such a committee by congress.
Congressional staff do require appropriate clearances via the typical methods and vetting. This would include Grusch and Elizondo. Congress can not simply grant them a security clearance.
I think I got all of that right. For more info I’d suggest searching topics on crsreports.congress.gov, also Title 10 and 50 statutes of US Code and the ‘Rules’ section on the websites for the relevant committees.
Many thanks for sharing your knowledge on this, which far surpasses mine. I can’t remember where I heard or read this, or if I’m remembering correctly, but I thought that Grusch couldn’t even get into a SCIF with cleared members of Congress without having his own clearances restored. Lue has his clearances as he is still working on contract with DoD. Ideally, I would think, a Select Committee would come out of the Senate, with members drawn from Intel and Armed Services. But Rounds, who I would expect to lead such a charge, has not indicated any interest in pursuing this.
Getting Dave Grusch on the case would be such a great development for 2025. I do wonder what has happened to his 11 hours of testimony. Thanks for all you do Matt! This gives me hope. I Would love to hear fewer "dadgum it" or "dag nabbits" from the UAP representatives of the Southern Midwest and more "hot dang" or similar!
Exactly Laslo!!! Great job!! Today was therr chance to make the case "My vote for you ask speaker in exchange for a UAP Select Committee." They must not want it that bad.
I would bet that a select committee is not in the immediate future. I don’t think congress would see the justification for one without being presented with clear goals and strategies for a select committee that would be markedly different than the existing, Intel, Armed Forces, and Homeland Security committees/subcommittees.
If Oversight wants to continue to press the issue (which I think they should) they’ll need Comer to wield more of the committee’s subpoena power, which he hasn’t done so far. I believe they should also focus on the potential fraud, waste and abuse of funds and/or authority that may have resulted from undisclosed programs. They have more arrows in their quiver before requesting a select committee.
Can Grusch get his clearances back? I thought that was in the works at some point. Would the members of such a select committee themselves have the clearances to hear certain testimony even in executive session or SCIF? A well-prepared, week-long televised hearing of the caliber of the Watergate Committee hearings could prove to be a singular event. Depending on what parameters would constrain them and witness testimony. Firsthand witnesses would need real protection.
All great questions. And I don’t think anyone has answers…yet…on it!
I’m good on questions. It’s answers that prove more challenging.
Burlinson entered a House Resolution last year to reinstate Grusch’s security clearance, but that’s not really the appropriate tactic. Congress doesn’t grant security clearances, so the resolution was pretty much just an “expression of the sentiment” of the House.
Members of Congress aren’t required to have security clearances to access sensitive information. But since they don’t carry clearances simply by being members of Congress it means they aren’t entitled to it. Classic Catch-22.
The only members of Congress entitled to sensitive information are the leaders of both houses and members who sit on committees with rules that entitle them to such information e.g. Intelligence, Armed Forces, and Appropriations. (The Oversight Committee is NOT entitled to access to sensitive information.) But any committee can petition the Intel, Armed Forces, and Appropriations committees in writing for access to such information. However, granting such a petition is governed by the rules of each committee, typically by a vote (I think) or at the discretion of the committee chair.
I’m not sure how access to security information would work for a special/select committee. I assume it would be governed by the rules established and resolved for such a committee by congress.
Congressional staff do require appropriate clearances via the typical methods and vetting. This would include Grusch and Elizondo. Congress can not simply grant them a security clearance.
I think I got all of that right. For more info I’d suggest searching topics on crsreports.congress.gov, also Title 10 and 50 statutes of US Code and the ‘Rules’ section on the websites for the relevant committees.
Many thanks for sharing your knowledge on this, which far surpasses mine. I can’t remember where I heard or read this, or if I’m remembering correctly, but I thought that Grusch couldn’t even get into a SCIF with cleared members of Congress without having his own clearances restored. Lue has his clearances as he is still working on contract with DoD. Ideally, I would think, a Select Committee would come out of the Senate, with members drawn from Intel and Armed Services. But Rounds, who I would expect to lead such a charge, has not indicated any interest in pursuing this.
HELL YEAH’
Getting Dave Grusch on the case would be such a great development for 2025. I do wonder what has happened to his 11 hours of testimony. Thanks for all you do Matt! This gives me hope. I Would love to hear fewer "dadgum it" or "dag nabbits" from the UAP representatives of the Southern Midwest and more "hot dang" or similar!
Haha 🤣 — I live your last sentence!!!!!
Great idea. Give them hazard pay and all the "tickets" they require.
Exactly Laslo!!! Great job!! Today was therr chance to make the case "My vote for you ask speaker in exchange for a UAP Select Committee." They must not want it that bad.
I would bet that a select committee is not in the immediate future. I don’t think congress would see the justification for one without being presented with clear goals and strategies for a select committee that would be markedly different than the existing, Intel, Armed Forces, and Homeland Security committees/subcommittees.
If Oversight wants to continue to press the issue (which I think they should) they’ll need Comer to wield more of the committee’s subpoena power, which he hasn’t done so far. I believe they should also focus on the potential fraud, waste and abuse of funds and/or authority that may have resulted from undisclosed programs. They have more arrows in their quiver before requesting a select committee.