Floridaman’s spin theory

[Sea Dangles]

🍔🍔🙀
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

It’s not just Trump’s closest advisors who are criminals (Cohen, Manafort, Stone) but also literally his first two congressional supporters (Chris Collins & Duncan Hunter). All prosecuted by people his own administration appointed.

Trump is a walking crime magnet and apologist
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Somebody needs a hug
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

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.

[Sea Dangles]

🍔🍔🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

it's good to know that re-pete has official duties

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

. . . to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election.

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

So in this country we no longer investigate things unless the proof is such that no testimony is needed?

The problem is that they then tried to cover it up and in the continuing obstruction have yet to release a single document requested or allowed a single witness to testify about.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So in this country we no longer investigate things unless the proof is such that no testimony is needed?

The problem is that they then tried to cover it up and in the continuing obstruction have yet to release a single document requested or allowed a single witness to testify about.

Investigate all you want, but have something more solid to investigate than a spin. There can be a personal dissatisfaction in a federal government executive agency with how the President is handling a particular situation, there may even be a personal belief that the President is doing something purely for personal gain. That should be handled internally with complaints and advice, not by making a federal case for impeachment. What should be the important thing is getting policy "right," not making personal interpretations of the President's intent.

In the final analysis, ANYTHING the President does will accrue to either his political benefit or his political detriment. So the question should be is his policy right or wrong, good or bad, and use the internal agency means to question and advise and change any policy that one disagrees with. Whether it personally helps the President's political health or not.

But, in any case, it is not up to agency bureaucrats to spin the President's intent.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Investigate all you want, but have something more solid to investigate than a spin. There can be a personal dissatisfaction in a federal government executive agency with how the President is handling a particular situation, there may even be a personal belief that the President is doing something purely for personal gain. That should be handled internally with complaints and advice, not by making a federal case for impeachment. What should be the important thing is getting policy "right," not making personal interpretations of the President's intent.

In the final analysis, ANYTHING the President does will accrue to either his political benefit or his political detriment. So the question should be is his policy right or wrong, good or bad, and use the internal agency means to question and advise and change any policy that one disagrees with. Whether it personally helps the President's political health or not.

But, in any case, it is not up to agency bureaucrats to spin the President's intent.

What agency bureaucrat spun something?

Was it the general counsel at the CIA or NSC, or perhaps the DNI or IGIC? They all read the Memo. They all were appointed by Trump.

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What agency bureaucrat spun something?

''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".

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

''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".

What is the spin in that?

The Trumplican report from the House Intelligence committee says Trump sought that investigation. 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. There is no provision in the law for setting that aside or covering it up. Some of the people, Trump appointees, involved thought they had made a criminal referral of the president to DOJ. The administration tried and continues to obstruct the investigation.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

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?

[Got Stripers]

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Given how damning the basic facts are

this is dumb...you watch too much msnbc

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

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

...5 more years

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

agreed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

...5 more years

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

have you read your posts?

[Got Stripers]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

I guess if that helps you get through it...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

OK, just keep moving the goalposts.

dude...he's nuts

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

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

''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

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

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

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.

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?

[Pete F.]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

I don't know that the intel community has the jurisdiction to report to Congress on phone calls by the President:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo

In any case, I would think that what should be reported is actual criminal activity, not suppositions of why. The report, if the officials had the jurisdiction to report it to Congress, should have been strictly on the basis of the right and wrong of delaying the aid. And probably, in my opinion, only after having consulted with the President about what he was doing and objecting or discussing after that whether that it was or was not proper. But the basis of the report should, in my opinion, been the whistleblowers concern strictly on the actual what, not on the opinion of why. The why, without direct evidence, which the whistleblower did not have, would be strictly personal assumption which is something amounting more to spin than fact.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Right.