Grenell Breaks Silence With Legal Threat After Investigative Report
Following our investigation into public allegations, Grenell offered no denial, no explanation, only a warning of legal action after publication.
On Sunday, December 21, Gunpowder Chronicles published an investigative report examining public allegations made by Patrick Byrne, a United States businessman and political activist, concerning Richard Grenell, a former American diplomat and political envoy. Byrne had alleged, in televised broadcasts and online programmes, that Grenell was compromised and subject to blackmail by Russian intelligence, including claims of illegal sexual conduct involving underaged boys in Serbia. Byrne presented no documentary evidence, and no charges have been filed against Grenell. No court has adjudicated the allegations.
The article reported1 the allegations precisely as claims, attributed clearly to Byrne, and stated repeatedly that they remain unproven. It also reported that Grenell had not publicly addressed Byrne’s statements. That remained the case at the time of publication.
In advance of publication, Gunpowder Chronicles sent Grenell a detailed set of written questions outlining the allegations, their sources, and their implications. The questions invited Grenell to deny the claims, explain his silence, or provide any relevant context. He was offered the opportunity to respond on the record. No reply was received before publication.
Following the article’s release, Grenell responded for the first time. His response, sent in a private message to this publication and reproduced here verbatim, stated,
“It’s total bullshit and if you print it, I will sue you. You print fake news every single day.”
The response did not address the substance of the allegations, did not deny them in detail, and did not engage with the specific questions that had been put to him. It consisted solely of a general rejection and a threat of legal action.
After receiving that message, Gunpowder Chronicles replied formally, reiterating the basis of its reporting and again offering Grenell the opportunity to respond fully and on the record. The publication made clear that it was prepared to conduct an interview either via a live online video call or in person, and that any denial or explanation would be published in full. For reasons of transparency and journalistic integrity, it specified that written statements or off the record comments would not be sufficient.
As of publication, Grenell has not accepted that offer, nor has he provided a substantive response addressing the allegations themselves.
The chronology matters. The allegations were made publicly by Byrne in October, on widely viewed platforms. They circulated further after publication, prompting additional sources in Europe to contact this newsroom independently, stating that similar claims had circulated privately for years in diplomatic and security circles. None provided documentary proof. Intelligence officials approached for comment declined to respond. These facts were reported as such.
The questions sent to Grenell before publication were not perfunctory. They went to the core of the claims, asked explicitly whether he categorically denied them, and sought an explanation for his prolonged public silence while he continued to intervene in Balkan political debates. Offering a right of reply before publication is a foundational requirement of responsible journalism. Renewing that offer after publication, and committing to publish any response in full, is part of the same obligation.
Grenell’s reply is therefore reported not as evidence of guilt or innocence, but as a matter of record. Threats of legal action are not uncommon responses to investigative reporting. They are also not substitutes for factual rebuttal. Under UK media law, accurately reporting that allegations have been made by a named individual, that they are unproven, and that the subject was given a fair opportunity to respond is a core defence grounded in public interest and responsible conduct.
This publication has neither asserted the allegations as fact nor drawn conclusions beyond what the evidence supports. It has reported what was said, by whom, where, and what response was sought and received. Grenell remains free to deny the allegations categorically, explain his position, or challenge the reporting through substantive engagement. That opportunity remains open.
In matters involving public figures, national security, and alleged foreign influence, silence, response, and the manner of response all carry public significance. Reporting that sequence accurately is not advocacy. It is journalism.
Patrick Byrne Goes Public, Richard Grenell Says Nothing
Patrick Byrne alleged on Infowars that Richard Grenell was compromised by Russian intelligence through sexual abuse of underaged boys in Serbia. Grenell has not responded. — The GPC I Unit.