Lol! It looks like to me that the ""whistleblower"" basically said (lied) the same thing you were implying. Both implications translate to the same thing (ie trying to get dirt on the opposition) in my logic book. Explain to me how it's different, cause I'm not seeing it. 
In the section referring to the phone call, the whistleblower states that Trump sought to ‘advance his personal interests’ and ‘take actions to help the president’s re-election.’ That is not an accusation of directly requesting opposition research. What he/she suggests is the effort by Trump to initiate the investigation and reap the benefits of the results, if any.
On the other hand, I don’t see any legitimate effort to start an investigation, since the justice department and Barr are not involved. In my opinion, it’s an attempt to use Rudy as the go-between, invoke the AG to give it an air of legitimacy, and conceal it all behind executive privilege.
The difference is the whistleblower was seemingly concerned about the abuse of the justice department. I’m looking at it as an off the books job, based on Trump’s history of using people like Cohn, Cohen, and The Enquirer as hatchet men.
