He gave specifics about how the intel agencies are covering up the UAP programs by using Special Access Programs that are not accessible to Congress, and how what they are not releasing should be released under law (citing specific US law codes). He also answered a congressman's question about how they are funding these projects without Congressional approval, by saying they are "misappropriating funds" and said he has provided evidence of such to the Inspector General.

FYI this is big news, that a member of the intel community testified under oath to Congress that their is a UFO / UAP project being illegally withheld from government oversight.

In addition to all that, the Air Force pilots testified under oath before Congress that these UAP sightings are happening frequently and have been happening for decades, and that the craft exhibit characteristics that indicate technology that vastly exceeds anything we could touch with our own defense capabilities. Members of Congress expressed concern that this is a "grave threat to national security" on the record.

He provided the evidence to the Inspector General.

Couldn't agree more with everything you said. Well put.

I always appreciate when politicians set aside their differences to work on an issue. Some of the representatives I disagree with or otherwise despise, but I can still respect individual actions like this.

Regardless of origin of these craft, this exposes security flaws and abuse of power by groups in the government and private sector. This will likely be the main subject that congress and the senate will pursue. As much as we want to hear about the NHI aspect of this, it's a harder subject for Congress to justify pursuing than security and potential financial abuse of these groups. Along the way we can slowly get the disclosure that the UAP/UFO community seeks.

If you are to believe what has been stated by David Grusch and others, The United States is not the only country. I recommend the UAP Guide on the sidebar as a pretty good baseline to get up to speed, if you are curious. I linked you to the section called "Global phenomena".

I hope I was able to answer your question.

Considering the consequences of getting caught lying under oath to Congress, I personally believe it lends credibility to the person's testimony. However, I understand that others may not feel the same way.

That's my take on all this as well. He's confirming the existence of unknown crafts (plenty of powers could have "unidentified crafts" to the US, simply because we haven't identified it yet. It's not like wreckage found will be stamped "This is from a new Russian MIG"), and same with non-human bodies. It doesn't say they aren't identified, he says non-human. If they weren't identified, wouldn't they be saying unknown species? I can't watch the video yet cause of work, but does he combine the two into "these non-human bodies are associated with the UFOs"? Cause otherwise, it's nothing.

Yes. There was some mixed reporting leading up to the hearing on if it would be under oath or not. All 3 witnesses stood up and swore an oath before the hearing began.

Yes, they were under oath. Link to the video and timestamped of the oath: https://www.youtube.com/live/KQ7Dw-739VY?feature=share&t=2506

The bi-partisanship probably deserves it's own headline.

What is TR 3b?

Pretend Grusch wasn't there. Do you feel that way about Graves and Fravor?