Thread by @TheMattBeebe

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/

Let's first look at the whistleblower process, and how an "urgent concern" is to be reported. As recently as May2018, the instructions for ICWPA Form 410 (Whistleblower Complaint) included the admonition that "First-Hand Information" was required for a report to be processed. 3/

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…

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: 7/fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/…

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: 8/fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/…

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" with such 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/

What 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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

Folks - this is an attempted coup. The Executive branch is by no means perfect, but if the rule of law is to mean anything moving forward, we cannot allow the Legislative branch to usurp this authority and toss Constitutional checks & balances aside because "orange man bad" 19/19

+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: