[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

bitt; Thanks for posting; From that Matt Beebe twitter link "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:"

"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:"

"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"

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/ 6 replies 626 retweets 1,200 likes"

[little jeremiah]

I should have read down the thread before posting the link to Matt Beebe yet again... glad you posted those images, they explain it.

[Grimmy]

Thank you both for bringing Matt Beebe’s info up again.

Imo, that should be brought up often.

That was the same stuff I was using at the end of last thread for my comments, obviously, but couldn’t remember the guy’s name or the thread where I ran into the links so didn’t give credit where it was due.

But I do believe that is good info that needs push.

[stylin19a]

nor does it allow the WB WB protections....