thanx...I think...I wonder why we aren’t hearing of an investigation into uncovering the actual spy of the conversation. Were they “present” or where they listening via a bug ?
Not really answering your question, but that issue is not important no matter how you slice it. I think this conversation was recorded by stenographer at least, and read by many people so that the "underlings" to the principals in the conversation could carry out (or intelligently discuss at later meetings) whatever was agreed. I believe a record of the call exists, and this is normal. I don;t think this was a particularly sensitive call, so there would be little more than usual care in restricting distribution and access.
Totally guessing - 10 people heard the call first hand, 50 saw the record, and of the 50, 10 talked "out of class," informing another 15 or 20 people of certain points raised in the call.
I view this as normal international protocol when conducted at the presidential level.
The issue here is that somebody (Atkinson) decided to take a purely executive matter that did not involve the intelligence community, and use the IC mechanism to provide it to to Congress. The purpose of that was to fabricate a narrative of an impeachable offense.
Nonsense on stilts. The president can of course ask foreign leaders to go hard on corruption. There is nothing wrong with that.
The Democrat position is that if "going hard on corruption" involves one of them, then the request becomes election interference.
And astounding ... well, not any more ... this actually gets traction.