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)
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/
— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) September 27, 2019
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/
— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) September 27, 2019
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/
— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) September 27, 2019
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: https://t.co/xcEKgpWLrW 8/
— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) September 27, 2019
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/
— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) September 27, 2019
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/
— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) September 27, 2019
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/ pic.twitter.com/TMogzhI8zv
— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) September 27, 2019
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/
— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) September 27, 2019
Odd: the timing & substance of the differences in the CRS documents facilitate a particular partisan narrative that the ICIG CAN forward a report to Congress about the President AND color it an “urgent concern” under the statute, when that statute in fact says NO SUCH THING. 18/
— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) September 27, 2019
+1 on the CRS' "editorial note": they claim "it is not specific on who has the authority for determining whether a complaint, aside from its credibility, constitutes a matter of “urgent concern.”
Except the statute IS explicit: Congress HAS defined it:https://t.co/1X15bZfNvL pic.twitter.com/N4t68j0OA0
— Matt Beebe (@TheMattBeebe) September 27, 2019
