Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1180954)

What agency bureaucrat spun something?

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1180957)

''In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election".

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1180984)

What is the spin in that?

That investigation could and was by a number of people in the administration, construed to be soliciting interference from a foreign country in the 2020 election and moved forward thru appropriate channels per the law.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1180986)

"could" and "construed to be" are assumptions, spin is assumption.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1180987)

Given how damning the basic facts are

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1180989)

And the merry go round goes round and round, round and round. There is not one single person on either side who is going to concede a point, this debate is endless and pointless. Let's bring on the articles, have the vote and move on please.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1180989)

And the merry go round goes round and round, round and round. There is not one single person on either side who is going to concede a point, this debate is endless and pointless. Let's bring on the articles, have the vote and move on please.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1180992)

what will you do with all of that pent up anger?

...5 more years :bl:

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1180995)

You certainly have me confused with someone else, I'm the least angry person you might meet, the girlfriend hates how fing positive I am all the time. Don't confuse my voicing an opinion to be anger, that is certainly SD's department, I bow to his superior anger issues.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1181002)

Strong opinions don’t indicate anger, the only anger I express at times, is directed at someone who I believe to be a troubled sole, otherwise the explanation for his nasty attacks of others could only be explained by him just being a mean nasty angry sob.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1180987)

And the whistleblowers report per the law was supposed to go where in order that the parties deemed responsible could determine what validity it had?
Into hiding, or to Congress?
Where in the law did it say that it could be shelved, hidden, covered up?

Given how damning the basic facts are, imagine how compelling the case/evidence would be if Trump hadn’t obstructed the investigation so thoroughly?

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1181007)

OK, just keep moving the goalposts.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1180923)

In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.

Trump’s ask of Zelensky was so grave that both the CIA general counsel, Courtney Simmons Elwood, and the general counsel at the National Security Council, John Eisenberg, decided the accusations had a “reasonable basis” and together called the Justice Department on Aug. 14 to discuss how to handle them. Elwood reportedly intended this call to be a criminal referral about the president’s conduct. Later in August, the Acting Director of National Intelligence and Inspector General for the Intelligence Community referred the allegations to the Justice Department as a possible criminal matter. This means that upon learning of Trump’s ask alone (forget everything else we’ve learned), multiple senior government lawyers, all appointed by Trump, were worried the president had committed a crime.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1180945)

This is the original spin that started this mess. It was an assumption, not a fact, that it was specifically about the 2020 election not about corruption.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1180957)

''In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election".

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1180986)

"could" and "construed to be" are assumptions, spin is assumption.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1180987)

And the whistleblowers report per the law was supposed to go where in order that the parties deemed responsible could determine what validity it had?
Into hiding, or to Congress?
Where in the law did it say that it could be shelved, hidden, covered up?

Given how damning the basic facts are, imagine how compelling the case/evidence would be if Trump hadn’t obstructed the investigation so thoroughly?

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1181007)

OK, just keep moving the goalposts. I can't keep up. I thought we were talking about spin. The whistleblowers report did not have to include the assumption (spin) that Trump was acting in respect to the 2020 elections. If, without that spin, the withholding of money was so "damning," then that would be enough to investigate it. Why was it necessary to inject an opinion of what Trump's motives were? He explained what his motive was.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1181010)

That assumption is why he thought it should be reported, others concurred, some thought it was criminal.
What was supposed to happen per the law to a whistleblowers report deemed reportable by the officials having jurisdiction?

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1181012)

The IG got the Whistleblower complaint on 8/12. Congress didn't get notice from him until 9/9. Somewhere in that timeline, with Trump on notice of the complaint, DOJ declined to open an investigation. To be clear - not to bring an indictment. Barr decided not to even open a case.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1181018)

On the basis of what has been presented, Barr made the right decision. If this all had been an actual trial, with the mountains of supposition and hearsay that the prosecution has presented, versus the limited but direct evidence that the defense has given, I could not honestly convict.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1181022)

That’s not how the process or law works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1181024)

Right.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1181063)

Funny how the Constitution and rule of law have so much flexibility when you don’t get the results you want
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device