Floridaman’s spin theory

[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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Given how damning the basic facts are

this is dumb...you watch too much msnbc

[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.