Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The obvious has been officially confirmed ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The obvious has been officially confirmed ...

    Headline on CNN:

    Mulvaney brashly admits quid pro quo over Ukraine aid as key details emerge

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/polit...aid/index.html

    Source: cnn


    White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney made a stunning admission Thursday by confirming that President Donald Trump froze nearly $400 million in US security aid to Ukraine in part to pressure that country into investigating Democrats.

    Mulvaney insisted that he only knew of a US request to investigate the handling of a Democratic National Committee server hacked in the 2016 election, but text messages between US diplomats show efforts to get Ukraine to commit to an investigation into Burisma, the company on whose board former Vice President Joe Biden's son sat. There is no evidence of wrongdoing in Ukraine by either Biden.
    "That's why we held up the money," Mulvaney said after listing the 2016-related investigation and Trump's broader concerns about corruption in Ukraine.

    © Copyright Original Source



    So - to be clear - what he is admitting as far as a politically motivated quid-pro-quo is that the money was held pending a commitment to investigate into the servers and the 2016 election as it related to the Democrats.

    Other texts show that this also included investigations into Burisma.

    Bottom line: there is now a direct tie to Trump holding the money as leverage to get Ukraine to investigate issues related to his campaign. It was not merely 'corruption in the Ukraine'.




    Jim
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  • #2
    From another thread...

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney confirmed that President Donald Trump wanted Ukraine to cooperate with an investigation into attempts to meddle in the 2016 election before giving the country lethal military aid.

    “Did he also mention to me in past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely,” Mulvaney said. “No question about that. But that’s it, and that’s why we held up the money.”

    Mulvaney said that Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, including its efforts in the 2016 election during a press briefing with reporters on Thursday afternoon.

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

    Democrats immediately jumped on Mulvaney’s statement, declaring that it was proof that the president had a “quid pro quo” agreement with the foreign aid.

    But Mulvaney said it was a common request.

    “We do that all the time with foreign policy,” he said, referring to requirements for foreign aid before it was released.

    “I have news for everybody, get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy,” Mulvaney said.

    He said that asking Ukraine for help in an investigation into the 2016 election was an ongoing Justice Department investigation and “completely legitimate.”

    He also said that the holdup on delivering aid funds had nothing to do with Ukraine investigating former Vice President Joe Biden.

    “The money that was held up had nothing to do with Biden,” Mulvaney said.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...to-dnc-server/
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
      Headline on CNN...
      And speaking of CNN:

      CNN claimed Thursday that the White House “admits to quid pro quo with Ukraine.”

      That appeared to be the opposite, in fact, of what happened during a press conference with acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

      Mulvaney told reporters that there had been no quid pro quo, as described by those pursuing his impeachment — that President Donald Trump had not withheld aid from Ukraine until it agreed to investigate his potential 2020 presidential rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

      What Mulvaney actually said was that the Trump administration had initially withheld funding from Ukraine for a variety of reasons, including the fact that Europe was not providing enough funding for military aid. Another reason, he said, was suspicion of past corruption in Ukraine — which included Ukraine’s possible role in interfering in the 2016 presidential election, including its possible possession of a Democratic National Committee server.

      Mulvaney said: “The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the things [President Trump] was worried about in corruption with that nation. That is absolutely appropriate.”

      When a reporter said that was a “quid pro quo,” Mulvaney objected that it was routine for the U.S. to withhold funding from foreign nations all the time. He gave an example from this week: the U.S. had withheld aid from the “Northern Triangle” nations — El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala — until they agreed to help stop migration.

      https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...-quid-pro-quo/

      So CNN claims "Mulvaney admits quid pro quo!"

      In reality, Mulvaney emphatically denies that it was quid pro quo.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        Headline on CNN:

        Mulvaney brashly admits quid pro quo over Ukraine aid as key details emerge

        https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/polit...aid/index.html

        Source: cnn


        White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney made a stunning admission Thursday by confirming that President Donald Trump froze nearly $400 million in US security aid to Ukraine in part to pressure that country into investigating Democrats.

        Mulvaney insisted that he only knew of a US request to investigate the handling of a Democratic National Committee server hacked in the 2016 election, but text messages between US diplomats show efforts to get Ukraine to commit to an investigation into Burisma, the company on whose board former Vice President Joe Biden's son sat. There is no evidence of wrongdoing in Ukraine by either Biden.
        "That's why we held up the money," Mulvaney said after listing the 2016-related investigation and Trump's broader concerns about corruption in Ukraine.

        © Copyright Original Source



        So - to be clear - what he is admitting as far as a politically motivated quid-pro-quo is that the money was held pending a commitment to investigate into the servers and the 2016 election as it related to the Democrats.

        Other texts show that this also included investigations into Burisma.

        Bottom line: there is now a direct tie to Trump holding the money as leverage to get Ukraine to investigate issues related to his campaign. It was not merely 'corruption in the Ukraine'.




        Jim
        It's true, we knew it anyway, it's in the transcript, and now it's been admitted to, but it doesn't even matter, since a quid pro quo is not even needed for it to be an impeachable offense. Simply asking a foreign government to simply investigate, to dig up, or to manufacture dirt on a political rival is impeachable. I'm sure Mulvaney is aware of the testimony of others and so isn't going to risk his own neck by outright lying for the president so he'll try to put the truth in as good of a favorable light as he can for his corrupt boss.
        Last edited by JimL; 10-17-2019, 07:33 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          So the fact that Mulvaney confirmed what we already knew, that Trump did not withhold funding in exchange for investigating Biden, isn't going to phase you guys, is it? It's like the Mueller report all over again, where Mueller says, "I can't conclude that the President committed any crimes," and you guys are all, "He just totally concluded that the President committed a crime!"
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            And speaking of CNN:

            CNN claimed Thursday that the White House “admits to quid pro quo with Ukraine.”

            That appeared to be the opposite, in fact, of what happened during a press conference with acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

            Mulvaney told reporters that there had been no quid pro quo, as described by those pursuing his impeachment — that President Donald Trump had not withheld aid from Ukraine until it agreed to investigate his potential 2020 presidential rival, former Vice President Joe Biden.

            What Mulvaney actually said was that the Trump administration had initially withheld funding from Ukraine for a variety of reasons, including the fact that Europe was not providing enough funding for military aid. Another reason, he said, was suspicion of past corruption in Ukraine — which included Ukraine’s possible role in interfering in the 2016 presidential election, including its possible possession of a Democratic National Committee server.

            Mulvaney said: “The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the things [President Trump] was worried about in corruption with that nation. That is absolutely appropriate.”

            When a reporter said that was a “quid pro quo,” Mulvaney objected that it was routine for the U.S. to withhold funding from foreign nations all the time. He gave an example from this week: the U.S. had withheld aid from the “Northern Triangle” nations — El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala — until they agreed to help stop migration.

            https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...-quid-pro-quo/

            So CNN claims "Mulvaney admits quid pro quo!"

            In reality, Mulvaney emphatically denies that it was quid pro quo.
            Unfortunately for you and for Trump, it's in the transcript. Besides that, no quid pro quo is needed.

            Comment


            • #7
              In other news...

              Democrats and the media cried foul Thursday when acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney argued that it was “appropriate” for the president to withhold funds from Ukraine until it investigated possible interference in the 2016 presidential election.

              But the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill in September that imposes restrictions on transactions with Russia until it had been cleared of election interference.

              The House bill amended an earlier Senate bill — S. 1790, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020” — that required the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to investigate possible Russian interference in elections.

              In the House version, all “United States persons” are prohibited “from engaging in transactions with, providing financing for, or in any other way dealing in Russian sovereign debt” after a certain date. That prohibition is lifted after the DNI can certify, within a certain timeframe, that “neither the Government of Russia, nor any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of that government, has knowingly engaged in interference in the most recent election for Federal office”; and after “Congress has passed a joint resolution certifying the determination” of the DNI.

              In other words, the Democrat-controlled House would suspend transactions — both public and private — with Russia’s government until the U.S. can be satisfied that Russia had not interfered with the most recent federal election.

              That is exactly what Mulvaney said Trump had wanted Ukraine to show, as part of its commitment to fighting corruption — namely, that it was not involved in documented efforts by the Democratic National Committee to use Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.


              https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-interference/

              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                In other news...

                Democrats and the media cried foul Thursday when acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney argued that it was “appropriate” for the president to withhold funds from Ukraine until it investigated possible interference in the 2016 presidential election.

                But the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill in September that imposes restrictions on transactions with Russia until it had been cleared of election interference.

                The House bill amended an earlier Senate bill — S. 1790, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020” — that required the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) to investigate possible Russian interference in elections.

                In the House version, all “United States persons” are prohibited “from engaging in transactions with, providing financing for, or in any other way dealing in Russian sovereign debt” after a certain date. That prohibition is lifted after the DNI can certify, within a certain timeframe, that “neither the Government of Russia, nor any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of that government, has knowingly engaged in interference in the most recent election for Federal office”; and after “Congress has passed a joint resolution certifying the determination” of the DNI.

                In other words, the Democrat-controlled House would suspend transactions — both public and private — with Russia’s government until the U.S. can be satisfied that Russia had not interfered with the most recent federal election.

                That is exactly what Mulvaney said Trump had wanted Ukraine to show, as part of its commitment to fighting corruption — namely, that it was not involved in documented efforts by the Democratic National Committee to use Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.


                https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-interference/

                MM, you're making yourself look more and more ridiculous. Trump is attempting to get Ukraine to take resposibility for the 2016 election interference so that he can, once again do Putins bidding, and lift the sanctions on Russia. How much does Trump have to do for Russia before you recognize him for the traitor he is. Btw, he also forced Ukraine to make a deal with Russia to allow elections in Eastern Ukraine, a move that has led to wide spread protests in Ukraine. Wasn't that nice of Trump? Putin certainly thinks so, don't ya think?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  So the fact that Mulvaney confirmed what we already knew, that Trump did not withhold funding in exchange for investigating Biden, isn't going to phase you guys, is it? It's like the Mueller report all over again, where Mueller says, "I can't conclude that the President committed any crimes," and you guys are all, "He just totally concluded that the President committed a crime!"
                  MM, did you see the press conference, did you hear what Mulvaney said, or are you just dialing up Breitbart to see what they say he said? Obviously the answer is the latter. Mulvaney was very explicit about it, he said with respect to Ukraine investigating the supposed, and totally debunked interference in the 2016 election, that "yes, that's exactly why we held back the aid." They want Ukraine to clear the Russians and take responsibility for the election interference and they were holding back the aid until Ukraine agreed to cooperate with that fraud.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    So the fact that Mulvaney confirmed what we already knew, that Trump did not withhold funding in exchange for investigating Biden, isn't going to phase you guys, is it? It's like the Mueller report all over again, where Mueller says, "I can't conclude that the President committed any crimes," and you guys are all, "He just totally concluded that the President committed a crime!"
                    Nice try, but you are so far off the mark it's not even funny.

                    First, the White House has been trying to spin this as Trump trying to get Ukraine to combat general corruption. But mulvaneyscadmission shows there was a clear political motivation as well. To benefit his campaign efforts against the democrats.

                    Second, when you combine the now clarified fact Trump held up money to force politically motivated corruption investigations with Trump's singular focus on the July 25 call with investigating Biden and his son and it's all over.

                    Trump was clearly and provably trying to force ukraine to help him in 2020 against the democratic front runner at the time, Joe biden, and that contrary to the national security interests of the United States.

                    Jim
                    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      ...Simply asking a foreign government to simply investigate, to dig up, or to manufacture dirt on a political rival is impeachable...
                      But Hillary can't be impeached! She's not POTUS.
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        But Hillary can't be impeached! She's not POTUS.
                        Hillary? Why bring her into this?

                        Jim
                        He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                        "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                          Hillary? Why bring her into this?

                          Jim
                          I'm poking my friend JimL


                          But, her people hired the British guy to come up with dirt on Trump.
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            But Hillary can't be impeached! She's not POTUS.
                            Right, nor did she represent a government and through her power contact and extort a foreign government to investigate, to dig up, or to manurfacture dirt on a political opponent. But Trump did, and that's why he's being impeached.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              No, her people hired a firm who then hired an ex British spy to do oposition research. Nothing illegal there.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Esther, Yesterday, 12:09 PM
                              29 responses
                              166 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post mikewhitney  
                              Started by Gondwanaland, 11-25-2020, 01:42 PM
                              50 responses
                              263 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Andius
                              by Andius
                               
                              Started by Ronson, 11-25-2020, 11:16 AM
                              11 responses
                              92 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Juvenal, 11-25-2020, 04:13 AM
                              14 responses
                              68 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Terraceth  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-24-2020, 06:20 PM
                              22 responses
                              139 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X