Danny Sheehan: Grusch’s Hidden Role, AARO Failures & the UAP Power Struggle

Summary

Podcast Summary: That UFO Podcast – Danny Sheehan: Grusch’s Hidden Role, AARO Failures & the UAP Power Struggle

Release Date: August 7, 2026
Host: Andy McGrillen
Guest: Daniel Sheehan, Constitutional Attorney

---

Episode Overview

This episode features renowned constitutional attorney Daniel Sheehan as he presents new allegations and insights into the current UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) disclosure landscape. Sheehan discusses hidden roles played by key figures such as David Grusch, failures of the AARO (All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office), the controversial executive "governance board," whistleblower retaliation, and the looming federal racketeering complaint he is drafting. The tone is candid and urgent, with direct criticism of government transparency and constitutional overreach.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. Danny Sheehan’s Credentials and Approach

• Sheehan outlines his decades-long involvement with government and academic investigations into UFOs, starting with President Carter’s administration (06:24–11:00).
• He emphasizes he sources his assertions from directly named individuals and documented events, not secrecy for its own sake.
• Notable quote: “The most that I can do is attest to it and give people the directions who are in a position of authority to be able to subpoena that information.” (09:50, Sheehan)

2. Access to Evidence & Frustrations with Congress

• Sheehan describes classified files, project documents (e.g., Project Blue Book), and recordings of abduction experiencer groups as sources Congress could obtain if they exercised their authority (12:00–23:00).
• He repeatedly criticizes Congressional inaction:
  “One of the major problems we have right now is that Congress isn't doing that... they're being stiffed by the executive department.” (26:49, Sheehan)

3. Lou Elizondo’s & Chris Mellon’s Security Clearance Review – The Hidden Role of David Grusch

• Sheehan discloses that David Grusch was the security clearance reviewer for Lou Elizondo and Chris Mellon after the NYT revelations (33:05–36:50).
• New claim: Grusch cleared both men after confirming their disclosures were pre-approved, then faced internal pushback for this decision.

  “The person who was assigned to review their security clearances... was David Grush. The people don't know that…” (36:23, Sheehan)

• He’s been in personal discussions with both Grusch and Elizondo.

4. Dysfunction and Deception at AARO

• Sheehan directly accuses former AARO director Sean Kirkpatrick of lying to Congress—providing named witnesses and noting Kirkpatrick intentionally stopped taking notes to avoid recordkeeping (00:56 and 27:30).

  “Every time I got ready to give him a direct source of this, he would put down his pencil and stop taking notes... He's just plain lying [to Congress].” (00:56, 29:49, Sheehan)

5. Executive Branch “Governance Board” Power Grab

• Discussion on the recent Defense Department move to establish an executive-controlled UAP “governance board,” bypassing Congressional oversight (41:48–49:17).
• Sheehan’s position: This board mainly consists of “all the foxes guarding the henhouse” (heads of CIA, NSA, etc.), undermines democracy, and should be vigorously opposed.

  “This is a complete constitutional scandal to see the executive branch trying to co opt the Congress from being able to have oversight authority over the classification process.” (47:36, Sheehan)

• Calls for Congressional creation and oversight of any such board.

6. Who Should Lead a Disclosure Board: Elizondo vs. Grusch?

• Sheehan insists neither Elizondo nor Grusch should serve on a purely executive board; both should participate only in a Congressional body (51:24–54:00).
• Argues both have value, but only Congress can grant meaningful NDA waivers to allow full testimony.

  “Both of them should be there… working together as directing staff for Congress.” (54:13, Sheehan)

7. NDA Waivers and Whistleblower Dangers

• Trump’s NDA waiver order is dismissed as “bullshit” and a “catch and kill” maneuver; it offers no real whistleblower protection and exposes witnesses to illegal retaliation (55:57–62:51).
• Sheehan recounts historic, violent retaliation against Congressional investigators, asserting the national security state leverages both legal and illegal threats (57:10+).

8. The Fragmented Legacy Program and “Changing of the Guard”

• Sheehan outlines how, historically, a central group (e.g., MJ-12) controlled UAP programs but that power is now shifting to retired executive branch officials and new “Tiger Group” (S47, USAF/Space Force initiatives) (63:09–70:45).
• He’s drafting a federal racketeering complaint, arguing that integrating these programs into the government protects perpetrators from prosecution.

9. The Push for Blanket Immunity and Disclosure Strategy

• Aerospace contractors want blanket immunity for illegal activities; Sheehan and the New Paradigm Institute oppose this, advocating only conditional immunity in exchange for revelatory testimony against higher-level criminals (70:45–76:21).
• He calls for citizen activism and legislative action instead of executive fixes.

10. Bigelow, Trump, and the “Confirmation” Strategy

• The group discusses Robert Bigelow’s advocacy for Trump to make a simple, off-the-cuff public “confirmation” of an NHI presence (76:50+).
• Sheehan counters:

  “Anybody who relies upon Donald Trump to make a short statement and stick to the script should rethink their position.” (78:42, Sheehan)

• He sees executive-controlled confirmation as dangerous—potentially serving authoritarian interests.

11. Risks of Trump/Executive-Driven Disclosure (“Blue Beam” Concerns)

• Sheehan worries Trump could exploit disclosure or confirmation to invoke Continuity of Government, cancel elections, or seize emergency powers (88:31–94:56).

  “Trump is so personally untrustworthy... he could try to use that as an excuse for establishing some sort of state of emergency... cancel the elections.” (88:31, Sheehan)

12. Final Thoughts and Call to Action

• Sheehan urges all citizens, especially American voters, to demand Congressional oversight, reject executive secrecy, and join advocacy efforts like the New Paradigm Institute and Citizens for Disclosure (98:26–99:24).
• The episode closes with Sheehan’s affirmation of grassroots power and commitment to further action and updates.

---

Notable Quotes

• On Congress’s Failure:
  “Congress isn't doing that. Congress is kind of asking for the information. They're sending letters requesting the information. They're being stiffed by the executive department.” (26:49, Sheehan)

• On AARO’s Kirkpatrick:
  “I told him flat out that he's lying when he tells Congress that they've not received any information of any specific details of anybody who was involved in the Crash Retrieval Program.” (29:49, Sheehan)

• On David Grusch’s Hidden Role:
  “The person who was assigned to review their security clearances... was David Grusch. The people don't know that...” (36:23, Sheehan)

• On the Executive “Governance Board”:
  “They're talking about the people being on that governance board—the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA... all the people that have been involved forever in keeping it all secret.” (43:30, Sheehan)

• On Trump’s NDA Waiver:
  “There's a legal term that covers what it is that Trump is trying to do with that—it's called bullshit.” (56:48, Sheehan)

• On Risks of Executive-Driven Disclosure:
  "Donald Trump is so personally untrustworthy... he could try to use that as an excuse for establishing some sort of state of emergency, possibly cancel the elections..." (88:31, Sheehan)

• On the ‘Blue Beam’/Continuity of Government Concern:
  “They've developed a program in case of a nuclear attack... [the executive] would basically collapse the Congress and take over running everything. Trump knows that it's there.” (88:31, Sheehan)

• On Citizen Action:
  “We need to exercise our authority as individual citizens to take charge of this, to protect our civilization, to protect our species, to engage in diplomatic relations with the extraterrestrial beings...” (97:01, Sheehan)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Timestamp | Topic | |:---|:---| | 00:56 | Grusch reviewed Elizondo & Mellon's clearances; Kirkpatrick’s denial tactics | | 06:24–23:00 | Sheehan’s background, sources, and legal approach | | 26:49 | Congress’s failure to use subpoena power | | 29:49 | Kirkpatrick accused of lying to Congress | | 33:05–36:50 | Grusch’s hidden role in clearance review | | 41:48–49:17 | Executive “governance board” exposed | | 51:24–54:00 | Should Elizondo or Grusch lead a disclosure board? Sheehan says “neither” (unless Congressional) | | 55:57–62:51 | NDA waivers, whistleblower dangers, historical retaliation | | 63:09–70:45 | Fragmented “legacy program,” Tiger Group, S47 | | 70:45–76:21 | Immunity push and racketeering complaint | | 76:50–78:42 | Bigelow & Trump “confirmation” strategy discussed | | 88:31–94:56 | Project Blue Beam/Continuity of Government risks | | 98:26–99:24 | Final call to join Citizens for Disclosure/New Paradigm Institute |

---

Memorable Moments

• Direct accusation of official lying: Sheehan’s on-record claim that AARO’s Kirkpatrick misled Congress and avoided documentation.
• Major new claim: Unveiling David Grusch’s role in clearing Elizondo/Mellon and the backlash he faced, a detail previously unreported.
• Bracing language: Calling Trump’s NDA order “bullshit” and warning of “catch and kill” tactics (56:48).
• Historic anecdote: Describing how national security state actors threatened and ruined the lives of Congressional investigators (57:10+).
• Call to global citizen action: Framing the UAP issue as a test for democracy and world civilization.

---

Episode Takeaways

• Danny Sheehan presents serious—sometimes explosive—allegations about the inner workings and failures in UAP transparency efforts, implicating named public officials.
• The episode is a warning about unchecked executive power and the need for robust Congressional oversight.
• Listeners are urged to take personal political action, demand their representatives assert authority, and join citizen advocacy groups.

For further updates and mobilization, visit: newparadigminstitute.org

---

This summary omits advertisements, intros, and outros to focus exclusively on core content.

Transcript

[Rakuten Advertiser]

Don't you wish everything was more rewarding? With Rakuten, almost everything is. You can earn cash back on those new shoes you've been wanting. You can save on the next trip you book. You can cash in on groceries. Just join, shop your favorite brands and save Target, Instacart, Expedia, Macy's, Sephora, cvs. The list is long. Save online, in store and at over 22,000 restaurants and and when it's time to redeem those rewards, get your money exactly how you want it. Choose PayPal, check, Bilt points or cash out with gift cards. Eligible American Express card members can choose to earn membership Rewards points instead of cash back. Terms and conditions apply. So go ahead, take a trip, fill a cart, order dessert. Rakuten is a world of rewards. Join today for free. Go to rakuten.com or get the app that's R A K U T E

[Daniel Sheehan]

N Elizondo has conveyed to me the exact longitude in latitude down to the minute and second of the location off the Baja Peninsula in off Guadalupe island where they have actual videotape, gun, camera, videotape proof of UFOs coming to that particular site and plunging under the ocean with no splash at all and Traveling at from 200 to 400 miles an hour under the water. What people didn't know, and I can reveal that one of the things that the challenge that was raised to the security clearance of Lou Elizondo and the challenge to the security clearance of Chris Mellon for having been the source of the information to the New York Times, the person who was assigned to review their security clearances and to determine whether or not they were going to continue to have their security clearances was David Grush. The people don't know that when Sean Kirkpatrick was interviewing me at Arrow and I gave, I gave Shankirpatrick the name of these people and what I noticed is that every time I got ready to give him a direct source of this, he would put down his pencil and stop taking notes. I told him flat out that he's lying when he tells Congress that they've not received any information of any specific details of anybody who was involved in the Crash Retrieval Program. He's just plain lying to them.

[Andy]

My guest today is Constitutional Attorney Daniel Sheehan. Danny has spent decades working around some of the most consequential political, legal and national security issues in modern American history. He has also represented key figures within the current UEP disclosure movement, including Lou Elizondo, and has held extensive conversations with David Grusch. In this interview Danny makes several significant new claims. He describes a previously unknown role David Grusch allegedly played in reviewing challenges to the security clearances of Louis Lizzondo and Chris Mellon. He directly accuses former Arrow director Sean Kirkpatrick of ignoring named sources and specific information provided during Danny's testimony, before later telling Congress that Arrow had received nothing actionable. We also discussed the proposed UAP governance board, whether Elizondo or Grus should accept a position within it, the presidential NDA waiver, alleged retaliation against whistleblowers, and the federal racketeering complaint Danny says he has been asked to help prepare. These are serious allegations involving named individuals, and they should be treated as Danny Sheehan's account unless and until they are independently corroborated. This is one of the most direct, detailed, and grounded conversations I've ever had with Danny. Welcome to that UFO podcast. Welcome back to the podcast, Danny Sheehan. Danny, how are we?

[Daniel Sheehan]

Terrific. Great, Andy. It's always great to be with you.

[Andy]

It's been a while and again, so much has happened in that time. And we were going to record this, say, 48 hours ago, I had a little bit of a boo boo where perhaps I never sent you the link, and both of us were scrambling, wondering where each other were. But even in that time, so much more has happened. So the interview has changed again. But what I want to do, Danny, is I want to give a voice to the voiceless. And so often on YouTube comments, particularly, there are people who shout out questions I don't think they ever think will be asked or be brought up because they feel they may be a little bit negative or on the lacking constructive side. And I said to you, let's go for it first and Kiwi Productions. And I've not given Danny a heads up on this question. I've just said I was going to ask a certain question to start off. Okay, production says give you the whole rundown now of the Danny Sheehan interview. One, he will say he's worked with and seen extraordinary things that can change the world. Two, he will say he has or knows what and where secret data is. Three, he will drop one or two new bombshell updates. Then he will proceed to obfuscate, dodge, deny, or straight refuse to elaborate, ending up with nothing actionable or tangible proof. Danny, welcome to the podcast.

[Daniel Sheehan]

Terrific. Glad to be here. Glad to be here. Oh, I hope I can satisfy this person.

[Andy]

Yeah. And listen and. But do you know what? Especially in the world of YouTube, I want to give people a voice. But what do you say? Let's Start there, where you're coming on shows like this, you're speaking at events and I will speak from my point of view and not put words in other folks mouths. I assume you have a level of knowledge far beyond what the average person, including myself, does on this topic. That is through decades of research, decades of connections and work with other people with various levels of access clearances. Some of them maybe never even had necessarily great access, but maybe were very well credentialed researchers. So you've put together all of this knowledge and working process through all of that. So what do you say then when you come on shows like this and you get people saying she and says the same stuff, we never get any further forward. What's your take?

[Daniel Sheehan]

Well now the reality is is that the, the, the people that I've spoken with are in different categories. You know, for, for example, when, when I was first introduced to this whole subject professionally back in 1976 when President Carter was elected, you know, the, the data that I had gotten came from number one, Dr. Marsha Smith, who was the head of the Congressional Research Service, Science and Technology Division. She's the one that conveyed to me the details about the meeting that took place between President Elect Carter and George H.W. bush, the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. Okay, so she's the one that conveyed all of that information to me. And, and she is the one who was assigned responsibility for conducting the research and investigation on the part of the Congressional Research Service, okay, into the whole UFO issue. So that's that. So unless, unless someone were going to be talking directly to her. And she has resisted being interviewed by, by any sources at all about the details of that investigation. But she is the source of that information. Okay, now then I got to see the actual copies of the classified portions of Project Blue Book. I saw that and I traced the, the actual details of the, the symbols on the base of the dome of the UFO that was in those photographs. Okay, now that people would have to subpoena the, the Air Force and get those documents, you know, in order to prove there it is, that they're, they're the photos and that that was a, it was clearly not the Roswell crash because the, the UFO in that particular set of photographs were, was completely intact and there was snow all over the ground, you know, where it had plowed through this big, this big trench through this field. So. But the Congress of the United States has the authority, the House Oversight Committee, you know, James Comer, the head of the Oversight Committee has subpoena power. If they wanted to subpoena the United States Air Force and say, look, we want to know the details of you bringing the files, the classified portions of Project Blue book, to Washington, D.C. to the Madison extension or annex of the Congressional Research, the National Archives. We want the documents you obviously sent. There were four different security guys that were there. They moved the files all there and put them in the room. They obviously had exchange of communications going on pursuant to which they agreed to do that. So all of those things are available. And those things are available. If James Comer were willing to issue a subpoena to the Air Force to demand that information, he has the specific details of the information that they would subpoena. Right. Okay. Now, the next group of people that I got to interview directly about this whole thing were. Well, they could also verify, if they wanted to, the fact that I was asked to go and brief the top 50 scientists at SETI out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory that I was asked to by Dr. Marsha Smith. I was invited by the scientists themselves to go and brief them on the theological implications of. Of contact with an extraterrestrial intelligence. Okay, so that all of those records are there. There's records at the Jet propulsion laboratory, the SETI program, of when that occurred in early 1977. All of those documents are there. The most that I can do is attest to it and give people the directions who are in a position of authority to be able to subpoena that information. So, I mean, that my detailing that information enables them to provide the type of specificity to a subpoena that they would need to have. Okay? So that was the next iteration of information that I've conveyed to people. And that if they can get those files that were brought to Washington D.C. and put in the Madison Building, they. The photographs will be there of the UFO crash retrieval. There isn't any doubt whatsoever what that was because you could tell from the. The fact that it plowed this trench all the way through this field and it was stuck in the side of this embankment. You know, that's not a normal landing. That's some kind of a crash, you know, and these Air Force personnel that were all around it, I've described them in detail. They were taking the photographs, including the. The film camera, the one I've described with the two pods, the two little canisters on top of it, you know, so there's film footage of that whole thing, that whole recovery of that UFO crash, which is subpoena bowl. Okay, so then the next. The next information that I really was able to get was when I was retained by Dr. John Mack to represent him in front of the Harvard Faculty Committee. Those faculty committee hearings were all recorded. You know, so if anybody wanted to contact Harvard University and demand that those records be made available, if Congress wanted to find out, you know, what it was that was done at Harvard University to try to punish Dr. John Mack clearly for attempting to publicly reveal what was going on there, that they know exactly where those records are. You know, I told him that it was Relman. Dr. Relman, who was the editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine is the one who chaired that particular committee. They know that the legal counsel for Harvard University was present during those, during those meetings. And so that they, anybody who wants to get that information knows exactly where to go to try to get it all right? Now in addition to that, the, the Project for Extraordinary Experience Research, the peer group that John Mack assembled there in Cambridge, you know that wherever those records are, those records exist that show that there were repeated gatherings of experiencers, direct face to face experiencers that had been abducted and brought on craft. And my presence in meetings with them, you know, where they related the information, they weren't relating the information exclusively to me. What they were doing is they were discussing it among themselves when I was present. So I was present for direct face to face information that was being conveyed, you know, in a sense to me as well as others in the meeting of the details of what their experiences were. So when I report that, that there are credible witnesses who have testified to the fact that they've had face to face encounters with the occupants of UFOs who were non human and that they were communicated to telepathically by these beings, these non human occupants of the UFO craft. And they were being warned specifically by these beings telepathically to have to get rid of nuclear weapons, that you've got to get rid of nuclear weapons or else you're going to have a thermonuclear war which will destroy your entire human civilization. Now those, those details are available now that they didn't record those meetings, you know, because for privacy the people were providing me. But, but one can, can get in touch with the people that, that the peer group when, when John Mack was killed accidentally In London in 2004, the peer group tried to continue to function, but they didn't, they basically closed. And now there are, there are people that were officials, you know, Rudy Shields, you know, who's, one of the doctors who worked with Dr. Mack was, is reachable to confirm those meetings taking place. And the records of the peer group exist. You know, that there are people that can be contacted that were on the board of directors of the peer group, the Project for Extraordinary Experience Research, who can confirm that those meetings all took place. Okay? So that. And, and now the additional information that I was able to get was for the. When I was asked in. In 2001 to actually become general counsel to the Disclosure project with. With Dr. Stephen Greer and was asked to vet the people who were these hundreds of witnesses that had been interviewed on video that, that Stephen Greer had. And I was asked by Stephen Greer to become legal counsel for the Disclosure Project to vet the people so that we would have two dozen of the most credible of those witnesses to present at the May 2001 meeting at the National Press Club to brief people from Congress and their staff on firsthand information, many of whom were U.S. government employees who were providing that information. You can get the footage of that meeting. You can see that I was there physically in the capacity as general counsel, and I actually testified, you know, in that set of hearings. Okay? So the, the people can dispute that if they want to, and they can say that, well, there's no there there, you know, but, you know, we had, you know, one of the major investigators for the faa, the Federal Aviation Agency there and others, so they can see who those witnesses were. They can, they can evaluate for themselves, you know, how credible they believe those people to be. So when I relate in the. The second person, those testimonies those people provided, there's actual video footage showing that those. That. That I was there was for that testimony. And therefore, when I convey to others that. That I have been present for that kind of testimony which I found to be credible, that I've. I've never pretended anything other than the fact that I was present and heard this information. And I found it to be credible because that was actually my assignment as general counsel to decide which of those people were credible so that they could be presented to the national press back in. In May. Okay? So all of that is. Is easily confirmed. And the, the fact that I was retained to be, well, also general counsel to the Citizens public hearings in 2013 that, that Stephen Steve Bassett helped organize. You know, there's video footage there too, of my presence on the dies with the congressional members, the retired congressional people, you know, serving as general counsel to that operation. And I was present for the testimony of all of those individuals. And, and so there's no, there's. There's certainly no pretense on my part that. That I somehow had some secret meetings with those people. Those were all public. And the testimony is on record. There's a video footage of it, and it's available on. I think it's available on YouTube that people can get all of those records. Okay? And there are numerous shots in there of me participating as general counsel to that operation. So if anybody has any questions about the. That, you know, that all. All I can do is convey to others what that testimony was, and I can assert that I found it as the person there who was responsible for determining who was going to be presented as witnesses, that all I can do is convey the fact that I found that testimony to be credible. Now, what I do do as an attorney is I present the information, like, virtually in the first person declaring what it is that they said, okay, because it's just like you get. You get into a trial and you say, you know, the. The. I'm telling you as the lawyer in this case that I'm going to be presenting the witnesses on the stand, and I'm telling you what it is they're going to tell you, okay? And so what I do is I consistently assert to the jury that this is the truth. You know, I'm telling you as the attorney that has responsibility under Rule 11 to only put on witnesses whom I personally have investigated and confirmed that they're telling the truth, that I can tell you in the jury what the facts are here. Okay? But there's no pretense on the part of the lawyer that they were there when a particular shooting took place, you know, or whatever the facts are that are at issue in the trial, but I do undertake to convey to the jury that this is the truth of the matter. Now, that could be confusing to some people to suggest that somehow I'm pretending that somehow I know this by my own direct personal knowledge, but I think that's just more confusion on their part than anything else. And then that the. The fact that I am. That was the attorney for Lou Elizondo to help him prepare and file the complaint that he filed with the Inspector General's office of the Defense Department, you know, back in 2021, is, again, just a matter of record. I mean, if. If they want to subpoena the. The. The. The meetings where we met with the Inspector General and his staff and conveyed the information to them, there are people that were in those meetings, they could be subpoenaed and they can ask what the information was that Lou conveyed to them, with me serving as his attorney and information that I in fact, conveyed to the Inspector General and in my own capacity at the time, okay. That all, all of those records are subpoenaable. All of this really comes down again and again to the question of whether the Congress of the United States is going to do its job. You know, they have subpoena power. They're authorized to subpoena people from the executive branch and command them under the potential punishment of, of contempt of Congress if they refuse to answer their questions or refuse to provide the documents that they're subpoenaing. Okay. And one of the major problems we have right now is that Congress isn't doing that. Congress is kind of asking for the information. They're sending letters requesting the information. They're being stiffed by the executive department, you know, so one of the major issues that I keep returning to over and over again is critiquing the Congress of the United States for not exercising their constitutional authority to get at this information. I've always been willing to give them the details and have given them the details in direct face to face conversations with them, giving them the details so that they can subpoena the actual primary source of all of these pieces of information that I've conveyed. Now, again, what I do do, and that may be, again, what's causing the confusion on the part of these people, is that I sit here and convey the information as though I knew it to a direct certainty. Okay? And so I just say, rather than go through the whole procedure to say, here's who said it to me and here's where I was, and this is why I found them to be credible, what I do is I will say things like, for example, that there are five different species, you know, of these, of these extraterrestrial beings, and that there's the small grays and there's the tall whites, you know, there are the reptilians, there are the Mantis people, you know, and then I always raise the caveat about these, you know, Homo sapiens that they're asserting come from the Pleiades, the, the so called Nordic types, you know, I, I always say that I'm, I'm, I'm hard, I, I find that hard to believe because if we cross that line and say, oh, they're actually Homo sapiens, you know, of, of the particular species that we happen to be on one particular planet in the midst of this entire galaxy that, oh, by the way, they're also on a planet that is orbiting the star, the main star in the Pleiades, you know, that I don't know that to be true. And, and I don't, I have not yet been convinced that that's true. So that what, what I can say there, there are things that I believe that are conceivably not true, and there are things that, that I, I hear and they're, they may be credible, but I have not yet formed the belief personally that they're true. And so I don't say that, but things that I have in fact come to a conclusion to be true, I state as facts, which is what I do as a trial attorney. Okay. And I think that's what's causing the person the problem. So what I can do in the face of any given challenge, I can either tell you who the source of that is so you know who to go and talk to to see if they're, if they're willing to confirm it, or if you want to, if you're in a position to issue a subpoena to them. This is who you subpoena. This is the information that you ask them about and if they're willing to testify about, will confirm what the source is that I have for the information. So that's the bottom line. I've tried to do everything I can do to direct the people in positions of authority to the actual first hand witnesses in the firsthand documents that I know of that exist and to put the onus on them to get them that. So that's what, that's what I do as an advocate and as an attorney. You know, I'm conveying this information to the people in positions of authority. And I believe that the people, the people who are watching your podcast and other people's podcast, I believe that they're entitled to the information. And so what I do is I convey the information to them and in most of the cases, I make clear who it is that are in possession of that firsthand knowledge. So that's what I've done to date. And so that all I can do is I can convey to you, I can say to you, for example, that Lou Elizondo has conveyed to me the exact longitude in latitude down to the minute and second of the location off the, off the Baja Peninsula in, off Guadalupe island where they have actual videotape, gun camera, videotape proof of UFOs coming to that particular site and plunging under the ocean with no, no splash at all and Traveling at from 200 to 400 miles an hour under the water down to some kind of location or site on the floor of the ocean right there. Okay. Now, so that when there are occasions when I will just declare that that's true rather than saying this is what has been conveyed to me, you know, by Lou Elizondo, but that it's not that I'm reluctant to do that because Lou has conveyed that information to me. And so all that I'm doing is short circuiting this. Instead of spending lots of time giving you the details of who the source is and what the information is, I simply declare that it's true. And then people can say, oh, well, you know, she and didn't tell me, you know, anything that has confirmed it, you know, well then go talk to them, you know, go, go talk to the sources themselves. I'll tell you who they are, you know, unless, unless someone has conveyed information to me, you know, that, that for example, I've gone all the way flying to the places and going to their homes and interviewing people personally in their homes who have given me direct information which I find to be extraordinarily credible and convincing to me. And I convey that information substantively and I haven't revealed who a few of those sources are. But I'm as upset as most anybody else is to keep hearing information and not really know who the source of it is, you know, So I try to keep that to a minimum. So virtually everybody that I talk to assumes that the information that they're giving me that I'm going to sooner or later convey that to the people. Because I'm a people's advocate, you know, I, I haven't taken any national security oaths. I haven't signed any non disclosure agreements, you know, and when, when Sean Kirkpatrick was interviewing me at Arrow and told me that I was restricted from being able to tell anybody where the, the interview took place or where their offices were. I've not conveyed to anybody where those offices are of Arrow. Okay, I respected that. But that and, but, but when he said that I shouldn't be talking to anybody about what it is that I've disclosed to them, you know, I respected that until Sean Kirkpatrick started trying to go public. And in asserting that they had not been provided any evidence of anybody being involved in direct UFO crash retrievals, you know, I, I gave, I gave him the names of people, Clifford Stone, for example, that that was directly involved in retrieval of these crash UFOs and the bodies of, of the, the beings there. And I gave, I gave Shankarpatrick the, the name of these people. And what I noticed is that every time I got ready to give him a direct source of this. He would put down his pencil and stop taking notes so that there was, like, no record of the. Of the source that would somehow compel him to go talk to them, you know, and so I agreed to go public with that. And so I told him flat out that he's lying when he tells Congress that they've not received any information of any specific details of anybody who was involved in the crash retrieval program. He's just plain lying to them. And so I was not reluctant to say that. So. But most of the time, I don't. I. I do not take shelter in saying there's some secret source that I've got that. That I'm not going to tell you about. So that's. That's the short answer to that question. Question.

[Andy]

I'm glad I've hit the record button, Danny, and not made a mistake there. Listen, I really appreciate the answer. And what I hope that does is not only for people like Hebe, and it's a perfectly reasonable question. Okay. And I get there's all different types of folks in this conversation who, who often don't have their voices heard. And it's easy to ask the easy questions.

[Daniel Sheehan]

Sure.

[Andy]

But what I hope that does is give people an idea with not only your extensive legal background, but. But how after decades of speaking to people, making connections, having those conversations, this is how you arrive at the answers. You do.

[Daniel Sheehan]

That's right.

[Andy]

Not I. I cannot. And you cannot. And no one can convince anyone to believe someone whether they want to or not. Some people will just not want to believe. It happens in every single conversation had across this topic. But like I say, I hope that gives folks a foundation for the rest of the interview to understand when you answer something, where the answer is coming from, how you answer it, and perhaps give them an avenue to look at it and go, maybe I want to find out more about this. How does Danny know this? And you mentioned Louis Ondo, and I think we have to start there because Lou's name is red hot right now in the topic for various reasons, something I often forget to ask you. But right now, what is your direct relationship with Lou Elizondo?

[Daniel Sheehan]

Well, he retained me to help him prepare and to represent him in the filing of the major complaint with the Inspector General's office of the Defense Department and to assist him in getting the information out to the public. He and I had long conversations about the nature of my representation of him, because out of all the lawyers in the world that Lou might have called to ask to represent him in that process. He called me. I didn't call him. I didn't pursue him. He called me and asked me to come down to meet with him down in where the headquarters was at that time of the to the Stars Academy in Encinitas, right down south of San Diego. And he and I had like two or three different face to face meetings there at that office and discussed, you know, how kind of an odd couple we were for him with his background and me with my background to come together to basically confront the Defense Department about the fact that they were lying to Congress and lying to the American people and engaged in this major completely unconstitutional and illegal psychological operations against the citizens of the country and against Congress. Okay, he was indignant about that. Now, I. I will tell you that I was completely supportive of how indignant he was of that. But. But he was actually sensitive to the constitutional question, you know, before I jumped up and down and kept emphasizing how unconstitutional all this was, that Lou had a very basic instinctive understanding of the fact that this was unconstitutional and wanted that presented to them so that the. The complaint that we filed together, worked together on it and filed with the Inspector General, the Defense Department was a lot more broad than just complaining about the fact that people in the Pentagon were lying about Lou and trying to intimidate him, you know, and try to stop him from being a whistleblower, you know, But Lou never told me at that time that he had been explicitly authorized by the United States Defense Department's Office of Pre Publication Security Review, that he had been explicitly authorized to say to the New York Times what he had said. Okay. And that he didn't reveal anything publicly in any of his conversations other than those things he had been authorized to say. Okay, that. So I had a sense of the impression that some of what he was doing was genuine whistleblower stuff, except that I also advised him, and that, and this is not waiving any attorney client privilege, that since he had resigned already from his position as the. As the person working as the security officer for osip, you know, and that he resigned from his position in working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, that he technically couldn't fall under the whistleblower statute because you have to file a complaint while you're still employed, and that they've somehow taken retaliatory action against you in the course of your employment. Okay, so. But the bottom line is it was clear to me, and Lou was perfectly candid about that he still retained his security clearance. And so, you know, you don't. You don't go revealing stuff that's been completely unauthorized and violates your National Security Agreement and then continue to just have your security clearance. Okay? But Lou had always had his security clearance. And in fact, the same thing is true of David Grush, you know, that, that in the. What people didn't know. And I can reveal that one of the things that, that the, the challenge that was raised to the, to the security clearance of Lou Elizondo and the challenge to the security clearance of Chris Mellon for having been the source of the information to the New York Times, the person who was assigned to review their security clearances and to determine whether or not they were going to continue to have their security clearances was David Grush. The people don't know that, that, that when, when David Grush found out in his inquiry because he was on the, the UAP Task Force in the Pentagon, right? He was from the National Reconnaissance Office. He was the liaison. He was the member of the, the Pentagon UAP Task Force from the National Reconnaissance Office. So he was selected to be the one to review their security clearances. And as soon as he, he learned that they had been specifically authorized by the Defense Department Office of Pre Publication Security Review to reveal to the New York Times what they did, then he said, oh, good, all right, then they're cleared, and he cleared their security clearance. That's when he started taking shit from everybody else involved in the Defense Department. Okay? And so I went and met directly with. I'd had a number of conversations with Dave over the phones about that process and had recommended that he filed a report with the Director, the Inspector General of the intelligence community about what was being done to him. And that's what, that's what Dave did. Okay? And then I met with Dave personally face to face on a number of different occasions, have had very candid conversations with Dave about his knowledge of things and have been very supportive of him working directly with Eric Burleson. And he has gone on to become employed as a special consultant to Eric Burleson's personal staff in the Congress and is now being advocated by any number of people, including, you know, Sam Gerb and others, to have him be, that is David Grush to be the Chief of staff basically, for this governance board that they're trying to put together to completely allow the executive branch to assert complete unilateral control over how much information is going to be disclosed to Congress and not respecting Congress's effort to get oversight of who's going to be on that review committee or, or that Governance board. But, and that's what you hear about now, the debates going on about people getting all upset over the fact that they think that Lou Elizondo is being considered for the post of being the chief of staff of that governance board.

[Andy]

Or this is the UAP Zar role that a lot of folks are, are calling. But that's commonly what people are referring.

[Daniel Sheehan]

But that's just nickname, you know. But I, as a lawyer, I know technically what it is that they're talking about. You know, it's not a. There's no such post as the UFO czar, You know, that they're talking about the chief of staff of that governance board. But as you'll note, nobody has any idea who's on that board.

[Andy]

So have you heard, Danny, let me come in there because you've brought it up. And I was going to come to that next. And this, this is big in the news. And again, you've mentioned there. Gerb, Sam Garb. I'm glad you said Sam, because often UAP Garb, I think people should now refer to him as Sam because people know who he is and his name's out there. He's doing a lot of, a lot of research, a lot of work. And his mind, his mind works in a very unique way. Have you heard this role as officially a role that's being considered? Because right now it seems it's very much in the ether and rumor and conjecture. But is this officially going to be a role?

[Daniel Sheehan]

Well, the, the reality is is that, that the, the manner in which this public statement was issued, I think it was like on June 22 or so, there was just this Pete Hegseth in the Defense Department. People just issued this unilateral declaration that, oh, by the way, they're going to set up this governance board. And the only thing that they did was confused. Everybody said, oh, and here's going to be a scientific advisory group headed up by Avi Loeb from Harvard that is going to advise this governance board. But nobody asked who's on the governance board. You know, who's in charge of this governance board, who's deciding who's going to be on the governance board. Nobody would even address that. You know, I checked it out and it appears to be, to me, what they're talking about is having all of the foxes guard the hen house. You know, that they're talking about the people being on that governance board. The head of the FBI, the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, the head of the nsa, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The head of the National Reconnaissance Geospatial Reconnaissance and Intelligence Group, all the people that have been involved forever in keeping it all secret. You know, that that's, that looks like that's who they're going to put on that governance board. But you'll notice that there's not been a single statement issued by anybody in the executive branch as to who it is that came up with that idea to have a completely executive department controlled governance board to govern what information is going to be made public. You know, and they, they knew perfectly well that the United States Senate had passed the bill, you know, insisting that the United States Senate have the authority to reject or accept any nominee for the nine person panel that the Senate had proposed in the UAP Disclosure act back in 2023. And the Senate had passed that bill, had passed that bill. And now they also knew that in fact Eric Burleson was proposing a House bill to insert into the National Defense Authorization act the demand on the part of the House of Representatives that there be such a congressionally overseen board of review, all right, and approved or disapproved the members of it, even though it would be nominated by the President, but they would be certified only by the United States Congress. Okay? And the fact is that as soon as the executive branch realized that there was this move being made on the House and the Senate side to redemand this, this congressionally overseen review committee did, all of a sudden they came up with this brainstorm that they're going to unilaterally appoint an executive branch oversight group, you know, made up of all of the foxes, you know, but they still haven't revealed who it is. And so that now the question is, you know, when they're talking about the rumors about Lou Elizondo being made the UFO czar or UAP czar, you know, that what I've done is that, you know, what could they possibly be talking about? You know, they're, they're obviously talking about the chief of staff position, the chief of staff position for that governance board. But I've taken the position, and I take it again here, that our New Paradigm Institute completely opposes, completely opposes having an all executive branch appointed review board, you know, or governance board making these decisions. That's exactly the problem, you know, that until we get Congress involved in overseeing this process, in exercising their constitutional authority, indeed their constitutional duty, you know, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14, it says explicitly there that Congress shall have the authority to pass all rules and regulations governing the armed forces of the United States government, you know that's where the secrecy rules come from. You know, these are the classification rules. The authority to determine what the classification rules are, are in Congress, not in the executive branch. So this is a complete constitutional scandal to see the executive branch trying to co opt the Congress from being able to have oversight authority over the classification process. And the executive branch is so far getting away with telling the people in Congress, you can't, I can't tell you this information because the executive branch hasn't given you a security clearance. That was the exact question I had Eric Burleson ask Lou Elizondo in public on the November 13th hearing that was had in 2024. You know where Lou testified under oath? Eric Burleson asked him in public. They said, look at Lou. You have testified here under oath that you know that there is a crash, ufo, crash recovery program and that they've recovered bodies or biologics. You've confirmed the sworn testimony of David Grush here under oath. Now, if, and here's what Eric said. If you and I, Lou, were in a skiff and I ask you to provide to me the definitive proof that there is a crash recovery program going on and that we're in possession, our United States government is in possession of one or more ufo, extraterrestrial, non human origin spacecraft and they're in possession of the bodies of non human occupants of those spacecraft. Could you show me that information in a skiff? And Lou said to him, no, I wouldn't be allowed to do that. That would have to come from people above me who are the gatekeepers of this information. Okay, so there you had Lou Elizondo telling the United States Congress to basically butt out of this. You know that we're not telling you, and I know, but I'm not telling you. My bosses tell me I can't tell you. And so I'm not telling you and I won't tell you even in a skiff. Now, all of that is perfectly appropriate on the part of Lou, but it's unconstitutional on the part of the Executive branch. The Congress of the United States has to stand up to them and tell them that the Congress, in plain written language in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14, has the absolute authority to determine the rules and regulations governing classification of information because it's one of the rules and regulations of governing the armed forces.

[Andy]

Danny, it's really interesting to note then the New Paradigm Institute's position as they are opposed to this sort of setup happening and you've given the reasons why, very clear on your part. However you mentioned Gerb and we'll bring in Ross Coulthard's name to this conversation. A few weeks ago that sort of started where Ross on News Nation came forward and said he more or less, and you can correct me if I'm wrong here, you're the legal mind, not me and I wouldn't want to get anything wrong and accused people. He, in no uncertain terms basically said Louis Elizondo was not being completely truthful and had a bigger part in the Legacy program than he was letting on. And Lou at some point should come forward and be more truthful about that. There was no rebuttal at that point from Lou. There was no comments made, nor should there have to be. I'll just make that clear.

[Daniel Sheehan]

Right.

[Andy]

Then last week, Gerb appears with Ross Coulthard. Now, I think it was filmed a week or so before when they were both in D.C. yeah, GERB very pointedly at the beginning of that show. And there's nothing that he's not really said previously on other podcasts, but he brought it together in one place on News Nation to say that he believed Lou Elizondo becoming the head of this council or UAPS are was detrimental to the disclosure process.

[Daniel Sheehan]

And he did say that he, he,

[Andy]

he inclinated or he basically pointed out that there was almost a sinister aspect to it, almost like Lou was deep State. Lou was part of the gatekeeping. He pointed out to Lou colluding with James Clapper. So with all of that being said, and now there's rumor, I see rumor, a lot of folks would point to one of Gerb's major sources being David Grusch. There seems to be a lot of people believing there's a Grush camp in the background and an Elizondo camp. You have spoken with both. You know both, you've consulted with both, if that's the correct word. Who would you believe right now would be best placed to head up that organization should it happen? Would it be Elizondo or would it be Grush?

[Daniel Sheehan]

My position is very clear as a lawyer that there should be no such board, period. There should be no board that is a pure executive branch appointed board and therefore both of them should decline to work for such a board. That Congress should create such a board of review, that that's what has to be done. And the proper question then is who should be the chief of staff for a congressionally authorized in subject to their review board of review, just like the senate proposed in 2023 in the UAP Disclosure Act. And just exactly like the proposal that's now been made by Eric Burleson and put into the House version of the 2027 NDAA. That's what should happen. So that, that I would take the very clear. You know, it's, it's, it's like the question is like, you know, when did you stop beating your wife? You know, it's the wrong question as to who should be the head of this all executive branch controlled disclosure group because neither one of them should take that post. Now it's going to be tempting either one of them might be offered that position to do that, but what they should do is take the position that, look, that I do not want to be disqualified from being the chief of staff for the congressionally overseen and congressionally approved members of such a review panel. And so therefore I would have to respectfully decline this self serving offer that you guys are making to try to drag me into being part of the COVID up. Okay. And that would be the easiest way for Lou to exonerate himself to the extent to which he would if he feels compelled to do so. You know, of being accused of being part of the COVID up, you know, that you certainly shouldn't become the chief of staff for some agency that is so conspicuously perceived by the whole public of being part of a setup just like Arrow. You know, it's just like as if they were being invited to be the chief of staff of Arrow. You know, I mean, neither one of them should accept that position. So they need, they need to be under the auspices of Congress, that's the constitutional body that needs to make these decisions about the disclosure.

[Andy]

So then Donald Trump tomorrow steps in and says, don't like this whole executive branch setup you're going for. It's going to be Congress. Let's have that happen. Who would you have lead the congressional one, Grush or Elizondo?

[Daniel Sheehan]

I would think that both of them should be there. There's no doubt about it that Lou should be there and Dave Grush should be there, that they should be working, you know, together as directing that staff for Congress. Now. Okay, now. But there needs to be other people there too in positions of some authority because both of these guys are going to be potentially attackable because they've signed these national security agreements, you know, and they've signed these, these non disclosure agreements as, as Lou has stated, you know, he has been specifically instructed that his non disclosure agreement prohibits him from talking about crash retrievals. He's, he said he's testified to that in Congress so that you, you need that, that what we would need to do is get Congress to pass a law specifically releasing both Lou Elizondo and David Grush from any non disclosure agreement that they had been forced to sign as a condition for them having access to the knowledge they have. That's the simple way of doing this. Congress has the authority under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14 to enact exactly such a law. You know, but everybody's running around praising Donald Trump for allegedly releasing a former intelligence officers and former employees of these aerospace corporations from their, from their non disclosure agreements only to the extent of having them come forward and testify to the Arrow office.

[Andy]

Am I correct? Am I correct though, Danny? And remember, as a layman, I'm speaking for some of the audience here, many, many intelligent folks listening and watching. But as an idiot, I like this stuff dumbed down. The issue is that it looked really good initially when Trump said wave the NDAs. However, people like Matthew Brown, you know, whistleblower, Dylan Boland and others have said they don't go far enough. There are no protections, there is no, I know this is a touchy one, but no reprieve. There's no amnesty for criminal activity. So someone could come forward feeling they are free or being waived of their NDA. They say something that actually incriminates them and they could then go to jail. It's not just a case of come and say what you like and all is forgiven or we'll sort it out. It could open up a whole can of worms for that individual in many different ways.

[Daniel Sheehan]

Yeah, There's a legal term that covers what it is that Trump is trying to do with that is called bullshit. That's what it is. You know, it's a total move on their part to say, oh, we're going to release people from their, from their non disclosure agreements only if they come and testify directly to the people who have been proven to be, you know, ratting them out, you know, that the people would come to the Arrow office and open them up and start talking to them. And not only did the Arrow office not take one step to investigate any of the accusations they were making, but they were ratting them out to the very people who were then taking retaliatory action against them. You know, and so that's a, that's ridiculous. I mean, and I don't know how dumb they think people are. You know, there is a certain element of our people, of our country, you know, as, as Abraham Lincoln once said, you know, you can fool some of the people all the time, you know, and there's some of them that you can. This like 18 or so of the people in the country. Donald Trump can say almost anything he wants to say, as preposterous as it is. You know, and they'll go along with it because they don't bother doing any research, they don't read, they don't do any kind of critical thinking. They just need someone to follow. But the, but the reality is, is that those of us who do thinking, and I'm not talking about just people who've got college graduate degrees or law school degrees or PhD degrees, you know, I'm talking about regular high school graduate people. You know, we know enough to think. And what we, what I'm trying to do as people's advocate is to point out how they're being conned here. You know, this, this proposal on the part of Trump is nothing but a catch and kill. That was exactly the term that, that Matthew Brown used with. This is a catch and kill program to lure the, lure the whistleblowers into a setup where they come and tell what it is that they think is being done wrong, and then they get ratted out by arrow to the bad guys. You know, that's what, that's what this thing is. And so the Congress has to, has to assert itself. And if the people that are going to be getting elected this November 3rd in the United States don't do this, then on November 4th, the campaign has to begin to replace them. And it's got to be made clear to them that you are going to get replaced. You're applying for a job, one of the responsibilities of which is to oversee the executive branch. And you're not doing it. You're completely kowtowing to them. You know, and we can understand why somebody who's in the Republican Party might do that, because Donald Trump is going to threaten to run someone in a primary against you if you don't do exactly what he tells you to do. But this is a complete collapse of the constitutional system to have the executive branch and the President of the United States threatening members of Congress, you know, in, in the, when you bring the national security state in to joining in this threat, you're talking about serious threats. You're talking about not just running someone against them in their primary race, in a Republican for Republican nominations. You're talking about violence directed against them. You're talking about people dragging their wife out of bed, you know, in the middle of the night in her nightgown and putting a gun in her mouth and threatening to kill her and the whole family, if they. And that, that's exactly, that's exactly what happened with Senator Durmberger, you know, back in 19, whatever it was, 70, let's see, it must have been 1986 or 87. You know, that's exactly what happened, you know, when he got up on the floor of the United States Senate and demanded a full scale investigation of this off the shelf enterprise that was functioning under the Reagan Bush executive branch. You know, and that, that Saturday night, you know, the gunman showed up at their house and dragged her, his wife, out of bed, put a gun in her mouth and threatened to kill her if he didn't withdraw the request. And he comes in Monday morning and not surprised and gets up on the Senate floor and says, oh, McFarland, Bud McFarland called me and confirmed that there's absolutely nothing to these accusations. There's no such off the shelf enterprise functioning. And so I'm withdrawing my complaint. You know, but then Wednesday morning, it shows up on the front page of the, of the Washington Times, that right wing, you know, Mooney, the Reverend Moon newspaper, you know, a big front page, full page photo of Durenberger's love nest with him and his mistress in Washington D.C. and then by Friday, he's announcing that he is ascend, is voluntarily going into the Cedars, this right wing fundamentalist Christian alcohol rehabilitation program, because he's an alcoholic and his political career is over in the course of one week. Right? And so this is the activity of the national security state. This is the activity of the operations director to the Central Intelligence Agency, their wet operations teams that have been authorized to assassinate people and blackmail people and kidnap people outside of the United States. And they've come home to roost. They've come home to roost and they're, they're focusing on the UFO whistleblowers. And that's why the whistleblowers are afraid, understandably, okay. Because they're not just talking about just the threat to their security clearance, they're talking about threats to their lives. Okay? And that's why you hear people like Jake Barber saying, you know, if they come for me, I'm the kind of guy that they normally send to do things like that.

[Andy]

You know, it's funny when you mention a politician accused of alcoholism and womanizing, he was just before his time, because in 2026, that's pretty tame compared to what a lot of the politicians across not only the US but other countries, including the UK get up to in a weekly basis. So, yeah, poor guy. Was just 40 years ahead of his time.

[Daniel Sheehan]

Sure.

[Andy]

Something that's really worth going into here as well is the legacy program. We often talk about the legacy program and this is something that Gerb mentioned this with Ross, but other folks have said this too. It's not necessarily there is one central legacy program. It's not a room that you can find in a hangar somewhere, knock on the door and there's a board of 70 year old white men smoking cigars and it says legacy program on the desk. Is it? But it seems to be a fracture network of programs, contractors, agencies, different classification systems. You know, could the President, Congress, senior intelligence officials, you know, each possess different pieces of the story, think they have the whole story, but none of them actually have that complete oversight. Is that potentially what's happening here?

[Daniel Sheehan]

Well, it's a little bit different Andy, is that it's clear that there was such a definable group at one time, you know, that the President Truman very clearly, very soon after the, the wreckage at the Roswell, which has now been uniformly confirmed to be, to have happened, you know, that he did put together this group, whether you call it magic or mj12 or whatever it was, you know, in the list of these people that I carry around in my day log the names of all these people, you know, and we still are trying to figure out who the second generation of those people are, you know, and, and that David Grush has basically made reference to a couple of them, you know, Bobby Ray edm, Bobby Ray Inman, who's one of the present operatives of this in the fact that that Dick Cheney had been one when he was the Vice president under Ronald Reagan and he chaired the 5412 Committee of the National Security Council. Okay, but, but that we, we know there's others and we know people who know who they are, are. So there, there is in fact a remnant of that group still around. But the, the, the actual move that they're making right now is, is a little more subtle than that. And, and what's happening right now is they're trying to filter a lot of the technology that has been secretly developed under the aegis of this legacy group back in the, the 40s and 50s. They're trying to filter a lot of that technology into the United States Air Force and now into the U.S. space Force, you know, and they've, they've designed for example, a new, a new craft. It's called the S47. It's a, it's a special fighter, fighter plane that's incorporating some of the technology that they've been successful in back engineering out of the UFO craft and it's able to engage in combat operations in outer space, you know that it actually gets launched and it can maneuver in near orbit. And you see now that the Arrow office has been assigned a J3,

[Andy]

a

[Daniel Sheehan]

combat officer has been assigned to the Arrow office to coordinate intelligence information that's obtained by ARRW to go directly to the US Space Force, in that these people are all being trained out at Peterson Air Force Base out in Colorado, you know, and that there's a new group of people that they're trying to move in to have oversight control over this whole operation. And there's 27 of them. You know, I've got a list of them in my book right here. That's, that's, that's one that sounds like McCarthy. You know, I've got, you know, 100 communists and I've got the list of them right here. But, you know, we know who these people are. And there's this major effort going on right now to try to shift control of this whole project out of this kind of rump group that has been assigned originally by Truman and appointed subsequently. Each One of those 12 men was authorized to hand pick their own successor. Okay. And so there was an entire second generation of these people have come into place. Some of the older ones of which are like Admiral Bobby ray Inman, who's 93 years old now, you know, and they're, they're hanging on just like Ruth Bader Ginsburg did on the Supreme Court. They're just hanging on, you know, and they're, they're becoming, you know, weakened, you know, that group. But there's another group of people, there's 27 group of people that are trying to move into place and they're all retired people who are very high level U.S. government executive branch people. You know, the, for example, the former commander of the United States Air Force's Department of Material. You have former directors of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. You have people who are the people in, for example, Lockheed Martin executive vice presidents in charge of space development. You know, these people all retired and they're in a, in a major association that is attempting to assert coordinated control over this, you know, and they, they actually are in an association. There's a 501C3, a group that's, that exists in Crystal City, just right near the Pentagon, and they have shadow offices out at Peterson Air Force Base out in Colorado where they're actually training fighter pilots. To pilot these new S47 craft, these space fighters that they've got, that they're called. It's called the Tiger Group, the UAP Space Tiger Group. You know, there's all that information that's around. What I'm trying to do is I'm trying to kind of correlate it all together and make it clear what's going on here, that there is an effort to shift as much of this program inside the government as they can because they think that that will immunize them against criminal prosecution under the Federal Criminal Racketeering act, you know, and I've been asked to prepare the complaint, the major Federal Criminal Racketeering act complaint, to be lodged with Main justice in Washington to start identifying who these people are and what the kind of crimes are that more. More than just fraud, embezzlement, you know, they've embezzled literally trillions of dollars over the whole period of the program, you know, out of other appropriations. And they've skimmed money off other appropriations. And that's. And that's what they're doing. So. So that's what's really happening here, is there's an attempt to shift this. This program inside the government through this group of retirees and get the United States Space Command to take control of it.

[Andy]

So is there a potential chance for good to come of this where, you know, where there's chaos, there's opportunity, where you have this changing of the old guard for the slightly less old guard, excuse me, you know, and a movement and a shift of locale of where this is. Is that where there's opportunity for mistakes to happen, for folks to get in there and prize information out? Is that where we are right now, in this moment?

[Daniel Sheehan]

Yeah, that's exactly what we're experiencing. People have been all puzzled by what's going on here. You know, why in the world would people come forward in 2017 and start reporting to the New York Times confirming that their UFOs are real? All of a sudden, after 80 years of concealing it and lying about it, you know, what's going on here? There is this changing of the guard that's in the process of happening right now, and there's leakages that are happening. And there are people that are involved in participating in that shift who believe that it's a good thing to get these people immunized, you know, that they don't want people being prosecuted if they've been doing things in cooperation with the government. Apparently. I just got a call this morning that apparently Bob Bigelow just had an interview yesterday or something with George Knapp where he's, he's advocating that, that people be exonerated who are in the private aerospace corporations be exonerated because they're the ones that were being asked by the government to do these things. Yeah, so it's completely illegal. It's a violation of the doctrine of estoppel. You know, it's a civilian idea, is that, you know, the government is. If it's alluring the people into participating in the program, the government needs to be stopped from criminally prosecuting them. Okay, so this is the, the next move they're making right now to try to get immunity. Okay. What I'm saying is that this, this immunity has to be dealt with in a very orderly way. There needs to be the Federal Criminal Racketeering act drafted and complaint prepared lodged with the United States Justice Department identifying who the people are, the criminal acts that they've committed, how many over acts have been undertaken pursuant to the effectuation of the illegal objectives of the racketeering enterprise we're talking about. And, and what we know is that we're being asked to do that because they want to know who to give immunity to, right? Yeah. And what I'm saying is that we would propose immunity for individuals in exchange for their testimony revealing the criminal conduct of people above them, but not to give the immunity blanket like an amnesty program. Like you're in South Africa, you know, trying to make sure that the African don't all run out of town and take their investments with them. That isn't what's happening here, you know, but that's what they're trying to get done here. That our New Paradigm Institute is involved in preparing the Federal Criminal Racketeering act complaint, you know, and that to whatever extent we can have any influence upon this process, we're opposing a blanket amnesty for the people. I mean, it's just like at Abu Ghrab, you know, Abu Ghrab, they finally reveal that they're engaged in criminal torture of these people. And only one lowly corporal, you know, who was dumb enough to have her photo taken with having one of the, one of the hostages or one of the, the prisoners on a dog leash, you know, and everybody else walks free. And not only that, but the woman who was in charge of the torture program is made the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I mean, that this is a fundamentally and profoundly corrupt phenomenon that we have going on inside our government right now and that we have to mobilize this popular movement a Very, very popular movement among all the population, not only the people of the United States, but across the world, to demand that this information be made public. You know, and to get rid of these people who have engaged in this criminal conduct of. I mean, why should people who have devoted their lives to the country like Dave Grush and even Lou Elizondo, why should they be in fear of their life, you know, for trying to obey the Constitution of the United States and get information given to the Congress of the United States about a multi trillion dollar program that is being concealed from them? You know, I mean, this is a terrible state of affairs and that, that we at the New Paradigm Institute are going to do everything that we can do to both organize and mobilize the citizens of the United States who make up only 4% of the population of the whole planet. But we're the voters here, you know, and we're the ones that have the ability to replace the people in Congress who are not doing their job, who are cowed and intimidated by the national security state. You know, we, we need to disassemble this national security state infrastructure right now. And we need to reach out to Russia, into China and other countries to get them to cooperate with us. We've got to get them to dismantle the nuclear weapons. They're threatening our entire human civilization to do so in a stepped way right away, okay? And we need to get them to join together to form some kind of a pact among ourselves so that we can have diplomatic communications with the extraterrestrial civilization. I mean, this is only to state the obvious, but as you point out, the obvious is often avoided. You know, this is what has to happen right now, okay? In that we have the best opportunity we're ever going to get to get this done. Because more people want to know this information than almost anything else other than the Jeffrey Epstein files.

[Andy]

I want to give a very quick shout out to Xander from the Dreamland Motel show because we had a really interesting back and forward today on the whole amnesty, whistleblowers, confirmation disclosure. I. And this Friday, I'm going to be on the Dummer Friday podcast with Xander Clinton Pavel discussing the Bigelow fallout. But you mentioned the Bigelow interview. I don't know if you've seen it. You've obviously heard that one clip. But have you seen the whole interview?

[Daniel Sheehan]

No, no, I'm just. Today.

[Andy]

No, that's, that's fine. It's really interesting. I watched it today. He mentions meeting Trump in the oval office on 6 February and presenting Trump with, I believe Knapp says, seven documents or reports that were put together. One was concerning ET and disclosure. He wouldn't give away any of Trump's reactions or our thoughts. It was more from Bigelow's perspective. Okay. What he did see, though, and I'd love your thoughts on this, as he encouraged Trump to make a short statement confirming. And what he said Trump should do is not go to a podium, not go to a place on Air Force One, as we have now famously come to see Trump stand at the curtain at Air Force One. Right. This may have happened with past presidents, but being from the uk, I've always said I now know more about US Politics in the last six years than I've ever known about any politics worldwide. For good or for bad. He said Trump should have his little chat that he does with the journalists and literally say something like, oh, and one more thing I just want to confirm. And he's. This is more or less word for word, a non human intelligence presence has been here for a long time and is operating craft beyond current human capabilities. That's it. No big. No big speech, no. No pomp, no circumstance. Drop that there and close the curtain. And I wonder what he says then is, and I am all for this. I'm all for this. The next step being confirmation with a capital C. And I think Richard Dolan is very much along those lines. Rather than getting any form of what people would assume would be disclosure next, I think confirmation seems more likely. What's your reaction to Bigelow's proposal of make a short statement NHI non human craft and leave it there?

[Daniel Sheehan]

My own personal judgment is anybody who relies upon Donald Trump to make a short statement and stick to the script, you know, should rethink their position that this has, that the bottom line is it's Congress that needs to take the action here. To keep relying upon the executive branch to make these decisions in the individual presidency is just feeding the beast, you know, continuing to give more and more power to him, to leave these decisions in his personal hands all the time. And people like Stephen Miller, you know, and Steve Bannon, the kind of people that are all around him, you know, that, you know, the problem, the problem with the very first question you ask, you know, about, about Donald Trump, what might be his motivations, all he cares about is things that increase his own personal power, you know, and it would not be a good idea to, to take further steps to put Donald Trump in a position of having this information and being able to decide how he wants to use it for his own personal benefits. You know, I, I just don't think that that's a good idea. I mean, I know how tempting it is and I know how people are trying to say, well let's, let's just be realistic, let's engage in real politic here, you know, and, and get him to issue a short statement like that. No, that what you have to have is you have to have a committee as is the, like the church committee was done back in the mid-1970s following the Watergate burglary in the resignation of Richard Nixon. There needs to be a thorough investigation of this program that's developed inside the national security state. There needs to be a major investigation of the national security state here in the United States in the excesses to which it's gone. We need to take advantage of the popularity of this UFO issue and the inevitability of the revelations, you know, to, just to move on this. And if this administration isn't going to do, has to be made part of the major campaign that is going to start on November 4th, you know, for the 2028 presidential race and the new Senate seats, the next 33 seats that are going to be determined and the election of all 435 congressional seats in 2028. You know, there's got to be a mounted two year campaign to replace anybody in the Congress who isn't willing to do their job. That's what has to happen here now. So, I mean, I've talked to Bigelow on the phone. Bigelow has called me and, and ask if he, he says, I, I know that you're the one that's doing this, this major redraft of the, of the bill for Congress to handle this disclosure process. And he wanted me to agree to take the, the eminent domain portion out of the statute. And, and I explained to him that, you know, that I, I fully appreciate the, the, the unfair position that some of the private aerospace corporations have been put in by the government, bringing the technology to them and asking them to disassemble it and figure out what's going on here and brief them. I said, and something can be done in that nature. We can figure out how to not treat any of these executives or their employees unfairly. Okay, but, and we can figure out how to deal with the legal questions about their competitors who are upset over the fact that they were given some kind of competitive advantage, you know, by getting access to this information. All of that stuff can be worked out, you know, but it's not going to be worked out by Donald Trump, you know, and it's not going to be worked out by Steve Bannon or Steven Miller, you know, the people that are around him. And it certainly isn't going to be worked out by people like Hegseth, you know, or the Attorney General, you know, if, if this guy, you know, Todd Blanche, is made the attorney general. You know, I mean, these people are totally untrustworthy. You know, they're untrustworthy people in their. They're not people of integrity. They're not people of good character, okay? And so they cannot be the ones that are to be put in charge of these important decisions. Now, people may back up and say, well, are you suggesting that the members of Congress are people of high character? It's our job as citizens to make sure that they are, you know, and stop just voting for whoever happens to be nominated by whichever the two political parties you've, you know, mindlessly associated with in your life. You know, that we've got to do our job as citizens here. As I said, the 4% of the population of our planet who are American citizens have a really, really heavy burden here, a major responsibility to take steps to start disassembling this national security state that is most manifest in this bizarre program of keeping secret from the people of the world the fact that there's an entire non human extraterrestrial civilization all around us. You know, that they think this is a government secret of some sort. You know, that we've got, we've got to mobilize and do this. I don't want to put it into the hands of Donald Trump. I don't want to put it in the hands of Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller. I don't want to put it into the hands of the other people like Pete Hegseth, you know, or this guy Todd Blanch. These people are of poor character. Poor character. And that we need to get people put into the Congress who are women and men of high character and high courage who are going to do the job. And that's what we have to do.

[Andy]

I need to come in with a yes, but. Okay, so this isn't just a United States issue, but I appreciate the United States lead the way on it, like it or not. And also in that respect, like it or not, the Trump administration is the administration where this is happening, that most of this phase of ufology, whatever you want to call it, has happened, whether that's a direct result of the Trump administration or, or things that were happening in the background, regardless If Hillary had gotten back in 2016. And it's funny going back. I've mentioned before, Danny, quite a while ago I was listening to some old coast to coast interviews, doing some research and it was one of those where George Noori and someone was having like a quick catch up on the news at the time and they were talking about the upstart Donald Trump running for the Republican nomination and how he stood no chance. But it was funny listening to him battle and how people were struggling against him and then we see how that ended up. Right. So that to one side as best you can.

[Rakuten Advertiser]

Yeah.

[Andy]

If it is going to happen now though, and it is going to be Trump because for me, and I always say this, this is just my opinion, I don't think most of the people around the world care about US politics or, or committees or Congress. Most people around the world don't know what the US Congress says. They just know the US Government. You've got a really weird way of working it. So do we in the UK And I don't. I understand the US system better than the uk. Right. With the whole MPS and the House of Lords. It's all nonsense. Right. You people just hear governments run a country and then the systems within that are up to them. It really would need to be Trump to come out as it stands and say confirming whatever he confirms NHI and then the world takes it from there. If it was Vance or anyone behind him saying that, I don't think it has the same momentum, the same wave, the same whatever it may be. I think it has to be whoever is the President of the United States. We keep hearing now there are rumors of a potential speech. I think some of the origins of that are very spurious. Mark Christopher saying Bob Bigelow was texting him and he phoned him. Knapp came out and said Bigelow rubbish, that it was nonsense. Now he's back and others are saying this speech is happening. I'll caveat that by saying, Danny, my Facebook every so often reminds me of when I posted over a decade ago rumors of Obama making a big announcement in the coming days. This is something that has happened going back years, I imagine, going back to the old days, even when I was a kid. And before that, newsletters and UFO clubs would have said the President's going to make a speech. It probably happened then. But we are in a very unique time. Where are there, like you have said, there are all these moving pieces coming into place. I'm hearing next week might be quite interesting. I don't know if you have heard anything among along like that. And I hate the whole trust me, bro, and something's coming. But Friday we might be due a drop, we might not. We've got rumors of in the next 48 hours. We're recording this on Wednesday 5th August. There's going to be something, potentially a speech. We are literally now on, I think, the 88th day of David Grush's 60 to 90 day window. So it could well be we sit here in a week's time and nothing has happened. But if Trump does say something in the coming days along the lines of an NHI or we get a drop that does take it further because I know you have not been a fan. Of the four drops, no one has that really happened. So far they've largely been nonsense.

[Daniel Sheehan]

That's right.

[Andy]

If Trump does come out and say something along the lines of NHI presence and we're going to take it from here, what happens next?

[Daniel Sheehan]

Well, what I'm concerned about is that that Trump's primary objective right now is stopping the Democratic Party from taking over the House and Senate and that he's threatening the integrity of the electoral process that's scheduled to take place on November 3rd. And that's his primary thing that he's focused on. And that therefore I'm extremely concerned that he would try to take advantage of this announcement and potentially invoke the continuity of government rules that have been generated by the executive branch. You know, basically, you know, back during the Reagan Bush administration, you know, that this, this is the point that they've, they've developed a program in case of a nuclear attack, a thermonuclear attack against the United States, that the executive branch would basically collapse the Congress and take over running everything through the executive branch. And that they've actually put this in place as a whole structure and infrastructure now and that Trump knows that it's there. And if he were to acknowledge that there's an extraterrestrial civilization all around us which is non human and in fact has been engaging in surveillance of all of our nuclear weapons sites, you know, that Donald Trump is so personally untrustworthy is that he could very simply go off and try to use that as an excuse for establishing some sort of state of emergency, you know, in the country, you know, he, he, he's taking his lead from previous authoritarian dictators. That's his studies, his, his first wife has testified in her divorce that he used to keep a copy of Mein Kampf, you know, on his bedstand. And read every night speeches by Hitler. I mean, that's who this guy is. We have to be clear about what we're dealing with here. You know, I mean, so I, I, I, I thoroughly respect the desire to get something effective done and have to do it right at this particular point in time. But this particular person is not trustworthy and to put this kind of authority in his hands to figure out what to do about it, you know, he's going to, and he's got people like Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon as his advisers as well. What do you do? But what do you do with this? Well, what you do with this is take personal advantage of it politically and, and declare a state of national emergency, possibly cancel the elections, you know, assert the, the continuity of government authority of the executive branch, which is, he's all but doing that anyhow. He's, he's pushing aside the courts, he's pushing aside Congress. You know, that I don't, I think we need to be extremely careful here of wanting to take advantage in the short term of a very appealing kind of opportunity to get him to make some kind of a declaratory statement like this, because I don't believe that he'll stop there. I don't think that he's capable of just stopping him saying, oh, here, let me just announce to you that, oh, yeah, the reality is there's an extraterrestrial presence here on our planet, you know, that he's not, he's not, there's no indication that he has the kind of character and personal integrity to, to handle it that way. That's, that's the problem that we've got. And the people, you know, from Dave Grush to, to Lou Elizondo and Chris Mellon and, you know, and, and, and Colonel Carl Nell, all the different kind of people that are trying to, in a sense, grant to Trump the legitimacy and authority of the office that he did, in fact, win through an election, you know, are tempted to, to move that authority to him to make these kind of decisions. I think that's a terrible mistake. And I think that we have to, from a constitutional point of view, we cannot feed the, that bear, you know, that what we have to do is, is move to Congress and try to get Congress to assert itself. And now you see the kind of feckless voting. They voted both the House and the Senate to invoke the War Powers act, you know, to stop him, Trump, from continuing to engage in military assaults against, against Iran. He's completely impervious to that. You know, and they invoke the War Powers Act. And he says, oh, you know, I've got 60 days to continue a military operation, you know, before I have to, to stop. And so he says, he cites the memo, this feckless memo of understanding that he had with somebody in Iran as saying, well, that war is over. This is a separate military action. So there's a new 60 days that it's now running. I mean, anybody, anybody who falls for that ought to have their head examined. You know, we all have to have our head examined about the way that we're dealing with this administration. We can't allow them to get more power by investing them with the authority to make these decisions.

[Andy]

So your concern would almost be that this is used as a Project Bluebeam offshoot.

[Daniel Sheehan]

It's a pretext.

[Andy]

It doesn't even have to be an alien invasion, just the confirmation of an alien presence or a non human presence. The need to investigate, the need to set up new forms or aspects of government or military official them would be enough for someone to say, I'm going to change the whole working US Government.

[Daniel Sheehan]

That's exactly right. Because they've got the blueprint there. That's what the Continuity of Government program is. That's been developed by the executive branch, you know, and, and they're doing it under the auspices of, well, if there's a thermonuclear attack against the United States, you want to have the most efficient and effective possible decision making mechanism in place. And so therefore, since they've now got this potential thing available to them, you know, you've got to watch out when you get a person who's as power hungry and personally committed to his own personal power in preservation as Donald Trump is, you know, you don't put additional power into his hands, you know, if you can help it.

[Andy]

Well, let's wrap up there, Danny, because I have so much more we could go over. But what I'd love to do is if you could even come back on in the next seven days.

[Daniel Sheehan]

Sure.

[Andy]

I'd love to go over the rest of the interview with you, but also at the pace this is moving, let's see if anything happens in the next few days because I worry we go much longer and we end up outdating the interview before it's had much time to breathe. So on that, then, over the next couple of days and weeks, as we move into this kind of period, what are you looking out for or specifically should we look out for in terms of developments politically or whatnot in this realm?

[Daniel Sheehan]

Well, I'm hoping that people like Lou Elizondo and Dave Grush and Chris Mellon and Carl nell and Kirk McCullough, the people in the Senate Intelligence Committee, et cetera, will stand their ground here and not fall for the. This, this pretense on the part of Trump to be actually engaged in a good faith effort of any kind to get information about the UFO issue disclosed. Don't fall for this. Don't fall for this at this critical moment, you know, stand with the Constitution of the United States, stand with the Congress of the United States, you know, as, as imperfect as it is, you know, and understand that Winston Churchill's observation, that is true, you know, that democracy is probably one of the worst possible forms of government, except for all the others that we've got going right now. And so that we've got. We've got to rely upon the people, you know, and not just the people in the United States, but the people all across the world, you know, to come forward and insist upon finding out about this information and trying to empower the Congress of the United States and the other legislatures around the world to step forward to do this and stop kowtowing to these executive officials, you know, stop giving them more and more power, because it's, you know, how's that looking right now? You know, we've got, we've got massive wars going on. You know, we got, you know, 30,000 people a month being killed in the Ukrainian war. You know, we got 72, 000 people being slaughtered in Gaza. We got, you know, Israel bombing the crap out of Lebanon now, you know, in trying to take over half of Lebanon. This is a very unstable situation. The people that we have fallen into the habit of allowing to make decisions on our behalf have squandered their credibility right now. And people are not trusting them, are not trusting them. And so what we need to do is, is exercise our authority as, as individual citizens to take charge of this, to protect our civilization, to protect our species, to engage in diplomatic relations with the extraterrestrial beings and to reach out to the extraterrestrial beings, to engage in direct citizen diplomacy to, you know, not come and save us, you know, or, you know, but, but to cooperate with the citizens. I mean, they're intelligent enough to know that these people that are in positions of executive power are people of poor character. You know, I mean, they, they have to recognize that. And so we need to take the steps that we need to take as citizens to merit, merit citizenship in this galactic civilization, whatever its nature is. And we need to do it now.

[Andy]

And you want to just let folks know how by using the New Paradigm Institute, the website, the templates that are there, they can leverage their own officials.

[Daniel Sheehan]

Sure, yeah. Just come to newparadigmineinstitute.org and become members of Citizens for Disclosure. You know, Citizens for Disclosure is the private citizens group that's under 501C3. It's totally free. You know, you're not charged anything for it. You can be in communication with us regularly about what the developments are that are going on, you know, what the options are that you have, you know, what kind of communications you need to share with your members of the House and your senators, you know, to stand up, you know, against this type of authoritarian government that is trying to potentially use the UFO issue to strengthen their power, you know. So contact the newparadigmineinstitute.org and become members of Citizens for Disclosure, and we'll all get through this together as citizens.

[Andy]

Awesome. Well, like I said, Danny, I would love to have you back on in the next week or so. I know you're a busy guy. I know you're in demand.

[Daniel Sheehan]

I love. I love your show, Andy, and I. I really respect it, you know, and I'm. I'm happy to come back as soon as you want.

[Andy]

Cheers, Danny. Well, interesting few days ahead, perhaps. Let's see what happens. And thanks again, me, and we'll speak very soon.

[Daniel Sheehan]

Terrific. We'll speak very soon, Andy. Thank you so much. And thank you, everybody, for listening.