Trump’s acting chief of staff admits it: There was a Ukraine quid pro quo

[Bullseye]

He was asked multiple times in that press conference, what's he walking back? Hey I lied...now I'm lying again...which one's a lie? Only Bullseye and the faithful know!
Corey Lewandoski "I'm not under any obligation to be candid with the American people".

Maybe he'll just have to tell congress directly, so he has some incentive to you know...tell the truth, the whole truth.

Yeah, whatever. :roll: To me he just seems confused.

 

[Mach]

Yeah, whatever. :roll: To me he just seems confused.

After 200+ days of no press briefings, while under impeachment investigation, with Trump just blundering in Syria, the trot out Trump's chief of staff who repeatedly insists quid pro quo is normal and get over it...

But you think he was just confused. OK, sounds totally plausible.
Congress can help him sort it out.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

because no other politician has ever walked back a statement after facing the silly media onslaught....:roll:

Show me another one that admits to attempting to extort a foreign government to manufacture dirt on a political opponent. It's like more times Trump gives America a big **** you, the more you love him. Says a lot about his supporters and their true allegiances at this point.

 

[Media_Truth]

Nancy's got nothing ....she's not gonna impeach....Trump knows it

she would have if she could have....IG report...Durham Report....Pelosi doesn't dare enter into impeachment trial facing results from those investigations hanging out there.

The Senate won't impeach. But you have to admit that Trump's actions deserve impeachment.

 

[Bullseye]

I went back and replayed the vid. I don't see anywhere were he says anything was conveyed to Ukraine about holding up the money - that would be essential to a quid pro quo. To me it sounds like Mulvaney was describing in-house discussions.

 

[Trump]

Show me another one that admits to attempting to extort a foreign government to manufacture dirt on a political opponent. It's like more times Trump gives America a big **** you, the more you love him. Says a lot about his supporters and their true allegiances at this point.

you can always vote him outta office in a year....see ya at the polls!

 

[American]

Hey, remember when we were all young and the phone call and the quid pro quo were fake news?

All you can do is tie any apparent quid pro quo (not saying there was) to the 2016 ELECTION BECAUSE IT WAS ABOUT THE DNC SERVER AND NOT BIDEN!

 

[Bullseye]

After 200+ days of no press briefings, while under impeachment investigation, with Trump just blundering in Syria, the trot out Trump's chief of staff who repeatedly insists quid pro quo is normal and get over it...

But you think he was just confused. OK, sounds totally plausible.
Congress can help him sort it out.

Yeah, whatever. :roll:

 

[Trump]

The Senate won't impeach. But you have to admit that Trump's actions deserve impeachment.

Trump reacts to attacks...we all know it see it and sometimes cringe to it...

I'll never forget the debate after the access tape release....confronted reporters with all Clintons rape victims...and then sat them in the debate auditorium with Bill....that blew my mind...Trump plays to win...never forget it

Now he's mentioning Obama's name a lot....sending a shot across the bow

 

[TomFitz]

Giuliani is working for Trump and Trump can have anybody he wants doing work for him. That includes the Ambassador to the EU. Trump can also have anyone he wants NOT do work for him...for example, the Ambassador to Ukraine.

What makes you think the "bag men" were working for Trump?

They were working for Guliani, who was working for Trump, as you noted.

And, of course, these two clowns had been Trump’s circle for some time as well.We’ve all seen the pictures and video.

 

[Cardinal]

All you can do is tie any apparent quid pro quo (not saying there was) to the 2016 ELECTION BECAUSE IT WAS ABOUT THE DNC SERVER AND NOT BIDEN!

:cuckoo:

 

[Stealers Wheel]

LOL!!

You can stop all you want, but that didn't happen. (no matter how many times you keep saying it did)

That's exactly what happened. Mick just said so. Are you calling Mick a liar?

 

[Mycroft]

They were working for Guliani, who was working for Trump, as you noted.

And, of course, these two clowns had been Trump’s circle for some time as well.We’ve all seen the pictures and video.

Actually, from what I understand, Rudy was their lawyer. People don't usually work for their lawyer. It's the other way around, right?

I think you need to get the relations straight before you start spouting off about who is doing what.

 

[Mach]

Re: Trump’s acting chief of staff admits it: There was a Ukraine quid pro quo

I went back and replayed the vid. I don't see anywhere were he says anything was conveyed to Ukraine about holding up the money - that would be essential to a quid pro quo. To me it sounds like Mulvaney was describing in-house discussions.

He says it at least three times, explicitly, and even clarifies it. And clarifies it again (!) Uses words like Absolutely.
Watch live: Mulvaney holds press briefing | TheHill


53:18

FIRST TIME

Reporter: You were directly involved in the decision to withhold funding form Ukraine. Explain to us definitely now why was funding withheld?

Mick:What drove the decision was that it was poorly spent. It's corrupt (Ukraine) I don't want to send them money.
Plus, I'm not sure if other countries are held. (blah blah lies lies).
(quickly) Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server. Absolutely, no question about that. But that's it, that's why we held up the money (all three reasons).

Clarifies it:

Reporter: So the demand for an investigation into the democrats was part of the reason that he ordered withhold funding to Ukraine.

Mick: The look back to what happened in 2016 [the DNC server/crowdstrike] certainly was part of the thing he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolute appropriate.

Reporter: Withholding the funding.

Mick: Yeah. Which ultimately then, flowed.

A SECOND TIME:
56:40

Reporter: Let's be clear what you just described is a quid pr quo. Funding will not flow unless th investigation into the DNC server happened as well.

Mick: We do that all the time with foreign policy.

THIRD TIME. Or fourth, I've lost count.
1:00:00
Mick: The money held up had nothing to do with Biden (and that was the point I made before)

Three factors held up the process by which the money was held up temporarily
1. corruption
2. whether other countries were participating
-->3. whether or not they were participating in an ongoing investigation within the DOJ
He stated that the asking about the DNC server was part of this (bogus) investigation

 

[rocket88]

I think he’s literally enjoying the escalation. Everything that’s happened this week (and especially today) has taken impeachment and ramped up the likelihood of it happening by ten gazillion percent, and he’s loving every minute of it.

He likes the idea that he'll be removed snd his followers will rise up and beg him to be their benevolent dictator.

 

[rocket88]

All you can do is tie any apparent quid pro quo (not saying there was) to the 2016 ELECTION BECAUSE IT WAS ABOUT THE DNC SERVER AND NOT BIDEN!

If you believe that, you're less intelligent than i gave you credit for .

 

[Mycroft]

That's exactly what happened. Mick just said so. Are you calling Mick a liar?

Please provide the quote.

 

[Dogger807]

I'd just like to remind everyone that asking a foreign government to aid in a campaign is illegal. The whole quid pro quo is just a smoke screen that is blowing up in corrupt Trump's face.

 

[Mach]

Old story: No quid pro quo!
New story: Quid pro quo!

So that's the new White House Defense.
Yes there WAS a quid pro quo.
Yes it WAS to go after Democrats..but it was just the 2016 stuff regarding the DNC server/crowdstrike! Not Biden!! You know..the idea that Russia didn't hack the DNC as all intelligence and law enforcement and experts have declared, including FBI in the form of the Russian indictments that clearly detailed everything down to how the leased their servers, what ISP they used, how the communication between their servers and DNC took place...everything.

Now they are arguing, even though you don't see that anywhere in Trump's call, that this was supposedly a quesiton about a credible ongoing investigation that the U.S. wanted help with (the conspiracy theory investigation run by Republicans for cover). Yeah, that's the ticket!

They need to subpoena him.

 

[Bullseye]

Re: Trump’s acting chief of staff admits it: There was a Ukraine quid pro quo

He says it at least three times, explicitly, and even clarifies it. And clarifies it again (!) Uses words like Absolutely.
Watch live: Mulvaney holds press briefing | TheHill


53:18

FIRST TIME

Reporter: You were directly involved in the decision to withhold funding form Ukraine. Explain to us definitely now why was funding withheld?

Mick:What drove the decision was that it was poorly spent. It's corrupt (Ukraine) I don't want to send them money.
Plus, I'm not sure if other countries are held. (blah blah lies lies).
(quickly) Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server. Absolutely, no question about that. But that's it, that's why we held up the money (all three reasons).

Clarifies it:

Reporter: So the demand for an investigation into the democrats was part of the reason that he ordered withhold funding to Ukraine.

Mick: The look back to what happened in 2016 [the DNC server/crowdstrike] certainly was part of the thing he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolute appropriate.

Reporter: Withholding the funding.

Mick: Yeah. Which ultimately then, flowed.

A SECOND TIME:
56:40

Reporter: Let's be clear what you just described is a quid pr quo. Funding will not flow unless th investigation into the DNC server happened as well.

Mick: We do that all the time with foreign policy.

THIRD TIME. Or fourth, I've lost count.
1:00:00
Mick: The money held up had nothing to do with Biden (and that was the point I made before)

Three factors held up the process by which the money was held up temporarily
1. corruption
2. whether other countries were participating
-->3. whether or not they were participating in an ongoing investigation within the DOJ
He stated that the asking about the DNC server was part of this (bogus) investigation

Still don't see this being expressed to Ukraine. I see reporters TRYING to beat the "quid pro quo" drum but STILL don't see any actual case where Trump says directly to Ukraine "you want this money, investigate Biden". Mick actually covers the need to spend the appropriated money by the end of September.

 

[Mach]

Please provide the quote.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...e-ukraine-quid-pro-quo-17.html#post1070764789

Mick said it three times, and clarified it, and clarified it again.

 

[Mach]

Re: Trump’s acting chief of staff admits it: There was a Ukraine quid pro quo

Still don't see this being expressed to Ukraine. I see reporters TRYING to beat the "quid pro quo" drum but STILL don't see any actual case where Trump says directly to Ukraine "you want this money, investigate Biden". Mick actually covers the need to spend the appropriated money by the end of September.

If facts don't help you, I can't help you. I led you to water, spending 15 minutes transcribing, I better go give it to Fox news so they can run it, maybe then it will make it into your brain since the thinking will be done for you?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

What personal favor? If Mr. Biden was corrupt, it is certainly worth investigating. That he was a candidate for president is not immunity against being investigated.
You guys taught us that.

The only reason Trump asked the Ukrainians to investigate Biden is because even he knows it would be bad if he asked the FBI to do it. To get a foreign country to dig up dirt, now that's clever. Very clever! Those folks don't have to produce their evidence, can't be subpoenaed, and Trump can run around the country asking sincerely "Why, oh why, is Joe Biden under investigation in the Ukraine? What terrible, terrible things has Joe done?"

And, if for some reason Joe isn't the nominee, we'll just change the name in the script to whomever it is. Clever, very clever!

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I went back and replayed the vid. I don't see anywhere were he says anything was conveyed to Ukraine about holding up the money - that would be essential to a quid pro quo. To me it sounds like Mulvaney was describing in-house discussions.

Go to this video:



Watch at 33 mins.

Pay attention to 35 mins and 20 seconds:

MULVANEY: So that was -- those were the driving factors. Did he also mention to me, in the past, that the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question about that. But that's it. And that's why he held up the money. Now, there was a report...

QUESTION: So -- so the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he...

MULVANEY: it was on the...

QUESTION: ... to withhold funding to Ukraine?

MULVANEY: The -- the look back to what happened in 2016, certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

QUESTION: ...withholding -- withholding the funding?

MULVANEY: Yeah, Which ultimately, then, flowed.

 

[Bullseye]

Go to this video:



Watch at 33 mins.

Pay attention to 35 mins and 20 seconds:

MULVANEY: So that was -- those were the driving factors. Did he also mention to me, in the past, that the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question about that. But that's it. And that's why he held up the money. Now, there was a report...

QUESTION: So -- so the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he...

MULVANEY: it was on the...

QUESTION: ... to withhold funding to Ukraine?

MULVANEY: The -- the look back to what happened in 2016, certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

QUESTION: ...withholding -- withholding the funding?

MULVANEY: Yeah, Which ultimately, then, flowed.

So what. We already know the decision to without funds was made BEFORE the phone call. And hasn't Ukrainian President say he was unaware that the money was being held up? Hasn't he also said he felt no pressure?