• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mick Mulvaney: new testimony draws Trump chief of staff into Ukraine scandal

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Mick Mulvaney: new testimony draws Trump chief of staff into Ukraine scandal | US news | The Guardian

Donald Trump’s acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney approved a White House meeting with the president for the Ukrainian president on condition Ukraine announced investigations tied to Trump’s political rival Joe Biden, according to testimony released on Friday.

Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, “blurted out” that Mulvaney had approved the meeting if the Ukrainians announced an investigation of Burisma, a gas company that formerly employed Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son, said Fiona Hill, a national security council member who was deposed last month by the congressional committees pursuing an impeachment inquiry against Trump.
=============================================
Kind of hard to hide the guilt when most of them are either guilty or witnesses to the crimes the others committed.
 
Last edited:
Let me help out the trump supporters. What guilt?
 
Mulvaney already admitted to the scheme on live TV. We know they did it, they've confessed. Time for removal.
 
But,but,but Biden, Clinton!!!
 
Mick Mulvaney: new testimony draws Trump chief of staff into Ukraine scandal | US news | The Guardian

Donald Trump’s acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney approved a White House meeting with the president for the Ukrainian president on condition Ukraine announced investigations tied to Trump’s political rival Joe Biden, according to testimony released on Friday.

Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, “blurted out” that Mulvaney had approved the meeting if the Ukrainians announced an investigation of Burisma, a gas company that formerly employed Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son, said Fiona Hill, a national security council member who was deposed last month by the congressional committees pursuing an impeachment inquiry against Trump.
=============================================
Kind of hard to hide the guilt when most of them are either guilty or witnesses to the crimes they committed.

What crime?

Kind of hard to have guilt when there is no crime, don't you think?

Oh...wait...let me guess. WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' CRIME!! TRUMP IS GUILTY!!
 
Mick Mulvaney: new testimony draws Trump chief of staff into Ukraine scandal | US news | The Guardian

Donald Trump’s acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney approved a White House meeting with the president for the Ukrainian president on condition Ukraine announced investigations tied to Trump’s political rival Joe Biden, according to testimony released on Friday.

Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, “blurted out” that Mulvaney had approved the meeting if the Ukrainians announced an investigation of Burisma, a gas company that formerly employed Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son, said Fiona Hill, a national security council member who was deposed last month by the congressional committees pursuing an impeachment inquiry against Trump.
=============================================
Kind of hard to hide the guilt when most of them are either guilty or witnesses to the crimes they committed.
So, an investigation a shady Ukraine company shouldn't be done because it's linked to the Bidens? Investigations that Joe coerced Ukraine into dropping? Yeah, that makes sense. :roll:
 
Mulvaney already admitted to the scheme on live TV. We know they did it, they've confessed. Time for removal.

Yep, just as was done for Bill Clinton's confession to felony perjury. Impeachment removal is a 100% political process.
 
18 U.S. Code SS 601 - Deprivation of employment or other benefit for political contribution | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

U.S. Code § 601.Deprivation of employment or other benefit for political contribution

(a)Whoever, directly or indirectly, knowingly causes or attempts to cause any person to make a contribution of a thing of value (including services) for the benefit of any candidate or any political party, by means of the denial or deprivation, or the threat of the denial or deprivation, of—
(1)any employment, position, or work in or for any agency or other entity of the Government of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or any compensation or benefit of such employment, position, or work; or
(2)any payment or benefit of a program of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State;
if such employment, position, work, compensation, payment, or benefit is provided for or made possible in whole or in part by an Act of Congress, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(b)As used in this section—
(1)the term “candidate” means an individual who seeks nomination for election, or election, to Federal, State, or local office, whether or not such individual is elected, and, for purposes of this paragraph, an individual shall be deemed to seek nomination for election, or election, to Federal, State, or local office, if he has (A) taken the action necessary under the law of a State to qualify himself for nomination for election, or election, or (B) received contributions or made expenditures, or has given his consent for any other person to receive contributions or make expenditures, with a view to bringing about his nomination for election, or election, to such office;
(2)the term “election” means (A) a general, special primary, or runoff election, (B) a convention or caucus of a political party held to nominate a candidate, (C) a primary election held for the selection of delegates to a nominating convention of a political party, (D) a primary election held for the expression of a preference for the nomination of persons for election to the office of President, and (E) the election of delegates to a constitutional convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States or of any State; and
(3)the term “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States.
 
What crime?

Kind of hard to have guilt when there is no crime, don't you think?

Oh...wait...let me guess. WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' CRIME!! TRUMP IS GUILTY!!
keep playing dumb, ive shown you solicitation and bribery
 
GOPers are discovering bribery is a crime and explicitly impeachable under the Constitution.
I got into Altemeyer's "The Authoritarians" during the Shrub days, I didn't think we would get this far this fast. For a party that used to be all law and order, the exceptions are just getting ridiculous.
 
Mick Mulvaney: new testimony draws Trump chief of staff into Ukraine scandal | US news | The Guardian

Donald Trump’s acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney approved a White House meeting with the president for the Ukrainian president on condition Ukraine announced investigations tied to Trump’s political rival Joe Biden, according to testimony released on Friday.

Gordon Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, “blurted out” that Mulvaney had approved the meeting if the Ukrainians announced an investigation of Burisma, a gas company that formerly employed Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son, said Fiona Hill, a national security council member who was deposed last month by the congressional committees pursuing an impeachment inquiry against Trump.
=============================================
Kind of hard to hide the guilt when most of them are either guilty or witnesses to the crimes the others committed.

I guess Mulvaney pulled a...Mulvaney. He will be the joke for a loooong time.
 
What crime?

Kind of hard to have guilt when there is no crime, don't you think?

Oh...wait...let me guess. WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' CRIME!! TRUMP IS GUILTY!!

1. You don't need an indictable crime for impeachment... but, since you asked,
2. bribery, attempted extortion, contempt of congress and violations of federal election laws for starters.
 
Last edited:
What crime?

Kind of hard to have guilt when there is no crime, don't you think?

Oh...wait...let me guess. WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' CRIME!! TRUMP IS GUILTY!!

Well, we do have a smorgasboard of criminality to choose from.

And we’ve barely started on the graft and corruption inside the Administration, which is the most rotten in US history.
 
Well, we do have a smorgasboard of criminality to choose from.

And we’ve barely started on the graft and corruption inside the Administration, which is the most rotten in US history.

"graft"??? "corruption"???

So...you are talking about the Obama administration, right?

Biden helping out his son, Hillary's Foundation, Kerry and HIS son...graft at its finest.

Selling weapons to drug cartels...using the IRS against political opponents...using the CIA, FBI, DOJ, State Department to target a presidential candidate...corruption at its finest.

The list goes on...
 
What crime?

Bribery is a crime, genius.

U.S. Code § 201.Bribery of public officials and witnesses
(2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A)being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B)being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;​

An explicitly impeachable one under Article II.
 
"graft"??? "corruption"???

So...you are talking about the Obama administration, right?

Biden helping out his son, Hillary's Foundation, Kerry and HIS son...graft at its finest.

Selling weapons to drug cartels...using the IRS against political opponents...using the CIA, FBI, DOJ, State Department to target a presidential candidate...corruption at its finest.

The list goes on...

The bull**** goes on, is what you mean. Why wasn't any of that stuff investigated? Because it's CT crap.

Guess what? This stuff right here, it's being investigated. You know why? Because it's real.
 
"graft"??? "corruption"???

So...you are talking about the Obama administration, right?

Biden helping out his son, Hillary's Foundation, Kerry and HIS son...graft at its finest.

Selling weapons to drug cartels...using the IRS against political opponents...using the CIA, FBI, DOJ, State Department to target a presidential candidate...corruption at its finest.

The list goes on...

Nice list... too bad not a single one of those points actually happened. That list it is entirely fantasy.

When you keep reading news from intellectually third-world, fact free sources, you get intellectually third world contributions to this site. You know, garbage in, garbage out.
 
The bull**** goes on, is what you mean. Why wasn't any of that stuff investigated? Because it's CT crap.

Guess what? This stuff right here, it's being investigated. You know why? Because it's real.

Nice list... too bad not a single one of those points actually happened. That list it is entirely fantasy.

When you keep reading news from intellectually third-world, fact free sources, you get intellectually third world contributions to this site. You know, garbage in, garbage out.

Nonsense.

The reason the Obama stuff wasn't investigated is three-fold:

1. There is no way the Obama administration would seriously investigate themselves. We saw that with Fast & Furious and the IRS scandal. And hell...Obama certainly wasn't going to call for an investigation of the Hillary Foundation at all. Nor any of the other "non-existent scandals. They hid everything. We never would have even heard about Hillary's email mess if Judicial Watch hadn't found out about it. When that happened, Obama was FORCED to investigate...and we saw what good that did.

2. When Congressional oversight attempted to look into the Obama corruption, the blatant delay, opposition and outright lies stopped them every time. Heck, Brennan lied to Congress and what was done? Nothing. Because the Obama DOJ refused to deal with it.

3. There was a distinct lack of pressure by the media.

None of what I mentioned was "CT crap". It was real. It happened. And it was either ignored or suppressed.

Graft and corruption happened throughout the eight years Obama was President. That's a fact, whether you are uncomfortable admitting it or not.
 
Nonsense.

The reason the Obama stuff wasn't investigated is three-fold:

1. There is no way the Obama administration would seriously investigate themselves. We saw that with Fast & Furious and the IRS scandal. And hell...Obama certainly wasn't going to call for an investigation of the Hillary Foundation at all. Nor any of the other "non-existent scandals. They hid everything. We never would have even heard about Hillary's email mess if Judicial Watch hadn't found out about it. When that happened, Obama was FORCED to investigate...and we saw what good that did.

2. When Congressional oversight attempted to look into the Obama corruption, the blatant delay, opposition and outright lies stopped them every time. Heck, Brennan lied to Congress and what was done? Nothing. Because the Obama DOJ refused to deal with it.

3. There was a distinct lack of pressure by the media.

None of what I mentioned was "CT crap". It was real. It happened. And it was either ignored or suppressed.

Graft and corruption happened throughout the eight years Obama was President. That's a fact, whether you are uncomfortable admitting it or not.

B-bu-but!
Supressed? My ASS! Hillary and Benghazi and Travelgate and Whitewater and Vince Foster and emails and private servers etc,etc, etc, ad nauseum for literally decades! Not a single referral for prosecution! Not one! No sooner would one "investigation" come up empty-handed then another would begin - with the same results.

And in eight years of the Obama administration not a single indictment from any investigation. You're actually arguing that a lack of evidence is proof of crimes.
 
B-bu-but!
Supressed? My ASS! Hillary and Benghazi and Travelgate and Whitewater and Vince Foster and emails and private servers etc,etc, etc, ad nauseum for literally decades! Not a single referral for prosecution! Not one! No sooner would one "investigation" come up empty-handed then another would begin - with the same results.

And in eight years of the Obama administration not a single indictment from any investigation. You're actually arguing that a lack of evidence is proof of crimes.

The reason those investigation came up empty-handed was because they couldn't get anything out of the Obama administration. They were delayed, opposed and lied to during every single one of those investigations.

And yes...Clinton did the same thing during the investigations while he was President. But Obama did it better.
 
Nonsense.

The reason the Obama stuff wasn't investigated is three-fold:

1. There is no way the Obama administration would seriously investigate themselves. We saw that with Fast & Furious and the IRS scandal. And hell...Obama certainly wasn't going to call for an investigation of the Hillary Foundation at all. Nor any of the other "non-existent scandals. They hid everything. We never would have even heard about Hillary's email mess if Judicial Watch hadn't found out about it. When that happened, Obama was FORCED to investigate...and we saw what good that did.

2. When Congressional oversight attempted to look into the Obama corruption, the blatant delay, opposition and outright lies stopped them every time. Heck, Brennan lied to Congress and what was done? Nothing. Because the Obama DOJ refused to deal with it.

3. There was a distinct lack of pressure by the media.

None of what I mentioned was "CT crap". It was real. It happened. And it was either ignored or suppressed.

Graft and corruption happened throughout the eight years Obama was President. That's a fact, whether you are uncomfortable admitting it or not.

First, this is a giant "whataboutism".... which we know is admission that that you can not defend the main issue on the table, the gross malfeasance of Trump. A whataboutism is used to drag someone else into the mud. You are pulled over for speeding, you have nothing to say in your defense so you argue that the officer should have pulled over the BMW that passed you. So, we appreciate your concession.

Second, as to the whataboutism, the actions of previous presidents have NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. If you are guilty, the other guy's guilt is not defense. We prosecute you, then we can think about the others that should be prosecuted.

Third, you are peddling conspiracy theories here. These things did not happen in the matter that you think. You warped perception of these things is because you get your news from news sources with ZERO journalistic integrity and a disregard for facts. The result of that is that you believe things that just are not true. When you peddle falsehoods without truth, you are perpetuating lies. But, since you insist these things happened, please give us evidence. The stage is yours:

Microphone on Stage.jpg

Of course, in the rules of debate, if you make a positive assertion and are challenged on the assertion, the onus is on you to provide evidence of that assertion. Failure to do so means we get to assume the assertion is not true. So, show us support for the statement or we will assume they are not true.
 
First, this is a giant "whataboutism".... which we know is admission that that you can not defend the main issue on the table, the gross malfeasance of Trump.

Of course, in the rules of debate, if you make a positive assertion and are challenged on the assertion, the onus is on you to provide evidence of that assertion. Failure to do so means we get to assume the assertion is not true. So, show us support for the statement or we will assume they are not true.

There is nothing to defend. The claims of graft and corruption...which is what I was responding to...don't exist in regard to Trump.

But they do exist in regard to Obama and his ilk. That's why I mentioned their graft and collusion. It wasn't deflection. It was assigning the crimes to the proper people and administration.

I did defend my assertion. If YOU dispute my defense, then it's now your turn to provide your own evidence...instead of crying about me.

So have at it...if you want.
 
Back
Top Bottom