[jammies]

I'll see if I can post this simply enough so Lanny can follow along: if a whistleblower is supposed to expose illegal acts, and whistleblower legislation is intended to protect those who do so, what is the illegal act here? My point, which you have continually misinterpreted, is that there are no revelations of wrongdoing, nor even any intimations there might be. Secrets aren't inherently illegal, and you can't get around secrecy laws by hinting and alluding to those secrets in a way that threatens their revelation.

Further, it doesn't matter if someone is registered as a whistleblower, if they don't actually blow any whistles. This is a simple concept. It is not a controversial concept. If there was something illegal to expose, Grusch would be able to expose it, wouldn't he? Isn't that the entire point of whistleblower protections?

Which seems more likely: he's prevented from telling what he knows because "reasons"'; or he doesn't have any evidence, nor convincing leads on evidence of anything illegal?

In conclusion, you can save more references to legislation that doesn't apply. Unless, of course, you can point to a law that makes concealing aliens from the public illegal.

PS: I'm certainly not being respectful in this thread, or any others, of opinions based on wishful thinking and motivated reasoning. I don't care if people aren't respectful of my opinions either, as I've made clear before. Challenging core beliefs is challenging the person, as we are an amalgamation of our beliefs, experiences, and relationships, and thus conflict can become uncomfortable.

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk