REVEALED: Deep State Intel Community and Congress Colluded – Whistleblower Documents ALSO ALTERED by CRS — Likely Illegal Act
The Deep State Intel Community and Democrats in the House of Representatives are pushing through a whistleblower complaint that likely IS NOT LEGAL under the law. They are attempting to cover up this fact with their recent actions under the guise of darkness.
President Trump should ask the courts to step in and end it.
An individual by the handle of Matt Beebe released a series of tweets on Saturday that unveil the seediness of the Deep State coup. Of course, the recent whistleblower incident with President Trump is a sham. But it may also be illegal.
The tweets are somewhat difficult to understand so here’s a summary of what Beebe is saying:
** The Deep State changed the requirements for filling out the whistleblower form and in August allowed whistleblowers to use ‘hearsay’ when filing a complaint. At this same time the whistleblower filled out the form slandering President Trump using hearsay. (1-6)** The Deep State Intel community only updated their online site regarding whistleblower protections four days ago to reflect the recent changes before the recent complaint was released. This was done in spite of zero legislative action on the related regulations. The term ‘urgent concern’ is now used 10 times in the Congressional Research Service (CRS) manual and was only used 2 times in the prior publication. (7- 10)** The CRS also recently added wording for addressing disagreements between the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG). (11-12)** The CRS cites the regulations for the ICIG chapter and verse for all but 3 paragraphs in the footnotes to the CRS manual (See section 3.A.ii) which discuss the ICIG’s authority to report directly to Congress. The CRS omits a key clause in the law related to the types of people that the ICIG can investigate. It is related to only current or former employees of the intelligence community. (13-16)** This is the key. The law does not require that a whistleblower complaint of President Donald Trump be provided to Congress – as a matter of fact, only whistleblower complaints of current or former Intel community employees are to be reviewed by the ICIG and only these investigations have a requirement to be forwarded to Congress.** The CRS then added an editorial note that is highly debatable but comes across as fact. It states that who makes the call on whether something is an ‘urgent concern’ is unknown. This implies that Congress can make this call but the statute indicates that this is a decision to be made within the Intel community. (17-18)** “Folks – this is an attempted coup!” (19)
The ongoing Democrat info opp/psyop is starting to unravel. @seanmdav & @benshapiro have touched on it with some of their tweets today, but that's the tip of the iceberg. The collusion that has been underway by the likes of Schiff and the deep state IC is shocking. Thread: 1/
Military planners euphemistically use the term “shaping the battlefield” as they engage in full spectrum operations to (hopefully) win without firing a shot. Misinformation campaigns, etc are all part of this. But it takes careful preparation. Let's see how it applies here: 2/
530 people are talking about this
Read carefully: "If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA" Wow. Seems straightforward. 4/
But hey, you might say that the current official form on DNI's website has no such preamble (so it's ok to use hearsay now?) Seems very convenient that it was JUST UPDATE in AUGUST 2019(!!)... move along, nothing to see here.. 5/dni.gov/files/ICIG/Doc…That third paragraph without a footnote? It's a highly debatable editorial comment (passing off as statutory interpretation) to give Liddle- Schiff et, al even more cover to mislead their fellow Congressmen and the American public: 17/
So someone in ICIG/DNI revised the procedures to make it easier to process a complaint based on hearsay (the statute still doesn't permit it - but we'll come back to that). This was done in August. Of 2019. Right as the whistleblower's report was being vetted. Convenient, eh? 6/
INCREDIBLY, IT GETS WORSE: on 23 September, FOUR DAYS ago, and BEFORE the complaint was released, the Congressional Research Service made an extensive update to their publication on "Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections" Link here: fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/… 7/
The previous version of this publication was released on 13 Dec 18. Strange to make an extensive update when their has been ZERO legislative action to update the statute since then. The prior version is here: fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/… 8/
611 people are talking about this
Let's compare: INCREDIBLY, BEFORE THE REPORT WAS RELEASED, CRS saw fit to provide significant additional insight into what an "urgent concern" was under the statute. Neat that they're "Johnny On The Spot" withWhat else changed? They added multiple pages on the “means for addressing disagreements that may arise between the ICIG and the DNI,” that were authorized in the FY2010 IAA, but for “some reason” weren’t relevant to include in the CRS analysis before the middle of this month 11/And how did the "nonpartisan" CRS explain the statute to Congress & staff who wouldn't dive deeper to see if it was misleading them on the underlying statute? Glad you asked: 12/436 people are talking about thissuch a fast moving train, huh? 9/
The prior version used the term "urgent concern" twice. The current version uses it 10 times. (term has been around since at least 1998 when the ICWPA was codified). BEFORE THE REPORT WAS RELEASED to Congress the CRS researcher thought this might need more explanation. Odd. 10/
Stick with me. The omission of "described in clause (ii)" is ESSENTIAL to understanding the game they're playing here. What type of person does "clause (ii)" describe? Precisely three categories of people -- none of which would include @realDonaldTrump 15/
Let that sink in. Congressional authority does NOT include the right to receive this type of whistleblower report. Period.
Is that good law? Arguable. But it IS THE LAW. CRS is intentionally misleading Congress and the public to facilitate this usurpation of authority. 16/
830 people are talking about this
503 people are talking about this
CRS cites chapter and verse from 50 U.S.C. §3033 in footnotes for the majority of their analysis. Except for 3 paragraphs when they discuss ICIG's *conditional* authority to report directly to Congress. Let's take the first two because the sleight of hand is obvious: 13/
Look carefully. The two bullets that are not footnoted in the above screen shot relate to those conditions. Indeed, the omission of the footnote is intentional to mislead. Why do we know this? Look at 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)3(A)iii & iv with me: 14/
516 people are talking about this
Posts
