Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign.

[j brown's body]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

What difference, at this point, does it make?

The difference between a democratic republic and an oligarchy.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

Mulvaney did admit to a quid pro quo regarding "DNC server" and he told everyone to "get over it" , and essentially that horse trading for politics is done all the time.


No, it's done to further US foreign policy, NOT to benefit the president's reelection campaign.

And, you are missing a greater point and surrounding context and evidence that Cuomo presents so well.

Apparently you are missing the point IMHO.

Read my last sentence in the OP. Where do I state that the USA has not required things from foreign nations when it comes to giving aid?

Where did Mulvaney deny that basic fact?

Joe Biden openly bragged about his "quid pro quo" when he told Ukraine back in March 2016 "you've got six hours to fire that Prosecutor, or NO AID!"

However, my argument is that there was no "quid pro quo" regarding any effort to "undermine a U.S. election."

THAT is the :spin: the "resistance" is trying to put on this situation.

Hence the Thread Title.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

The difference between a democratic republic and an oligarchy.

Who voted on the Benghazi decision?

 

[Luckyone]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

You love your media spin, don't you?

question: "funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server is not done, is that correct?" Answer "we do that all the time"

That is an actual question and answer and NOT a media spin!

Funding to Ukraine had already been authorized by Congress for their fight against Russia. Funding was not up for qualifications by Trump anymore, especially having to do with corruption and even more so about possible past corruption by an American! It was for Ukraine to fight Russia!!!!

 

[US&THEM]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

Who voted on the Benghazi decision?

Wow, crowbar much?

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

question: "funding will not flow unless the investigation into the democratic server is not done, is that correct?" Answer "we do that all the time"

That is an actual question and answer and NOT a media spin!

Funding to Ukraine had already been authorized by Congress for their fight against Russia. Funding was not up for qualifications by Trump anymore, especially having to do with corruption and even more so about possible past corruption by an American! It was for Ukraine to fight Russia!!!!

Like I said...for Trump haters context means nothing. It is something to be ignored...just as you are ignoring it here.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

First off, I watched on live TV as Mulvaney addressed the press.

The OP attempts to spin Mulvaney's comments as misunderstood, not an admission of illegality, that Mulvaney said nothing inconsistent with comments made by Trump and Trump defenders who assert no quid pro quo took place.

This spin attempt brought to mind a delusional lawyer from the 1800s, Charles J. Guiteau:

Charles J. Guiteau - Wikipedia

 

[Luckyone]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

Like I said...for Trump haters context means nothing. It is something to be ignored...just as you are ignoring it here.

So our nation is no longer supposed to work off of what was said but by the interpretation of context? What if context is misinterpreted, what then? Do you then explain it with words? Why not start with words that are clearly thought and stated in the first place? After all, this is our president and supposedly intelligent enough to say things well and not a small child that doesn't know how to express himself.

Interpreting context is a useless action given that there are words that explain things well "before" interpretation of context is required. The probabilities favor the words being said are correct and the excuse of context used to explain away a bad decision.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

So our nation is no longer supposed to work off of what was said but by the interpretation of context? What if context is misinterpreted, what then? Do you then explain it with words? Why not start with words that are clearly thought and stated in the first place?

Interpreting context is a useless action given that there are words that explain things well "before" interpretation of context is required. The probabilities favor the words being said are correct and the excuse of context used to explain away a bad decision.

"interpretation of context" isn't the issue. The act of outright pretending that other words that were spoken don't exist is the issue. You know...ignoring context.

 

[Luckyone]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

"interpretation of context" isn't the issue. The act of outright pretending that other words that were spoken don't exist is the issue. You know...ignoring context.

No, words mean something and especially when a reporter repeats what you said and asks "is this what you mean?" and you say "yes".

In your opinion, when do words mean nothing?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

Attacking the DNC and attacking the foundation of the 2 year long criminal investigation into President Trump, doesn't help Trump in the 2020?

Tell me some more lies Captain Adverse.

You guys got corrupted too. They help your candidate, in exchange you lies your asses off and protect them.

I still can't stop laughing that strong, Southern men have tucked tail for that "yankee" type con man that they have always talked and bitched about.

"NEW YORK CITY?!?!?!" as the saying goes...

 

[Cardinal]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

Okay so we've had this running "misinterpretation" playing out in the MSM that Mick Mulvaney admitted Trump withheld aid to affect the current election.

Here is the entire segment of the briefing starting with the questions asked by ABC's Jonathan Karl which led to the "Admitting to quid pro quo."



Context is everything, and is important these days when being given slanted news on a daily basis.

Mulvaney was clear when "dealing with the second question" (Ukraine aid) first.

1. He points out that the President has always been opposed to sending US aid to corrupt places.

2. He then points out that the EU nations have given nearly zero dollars for "lethal aid" while the USA is giving it's money for such "lethal aid." That Trump did not like that disparity in aid disbursement.

3. That Trump also mentioned "in passing the corruption related to the DNC server." That concerned the issue of hacking from back in 2016; and Mulvaney says "That's it. THAT's why we held up the money," referring to corruption and lethal aid disparities serving to delay aid disbursement.

Jonathan Karl then asks "So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason he ordered to withhold funding Ukraine."

Mulvaney's response "the look BACK to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the things he (Trump) was worried about in corruption with that nation. That is absolutely appropriate."

Now at this point Mulvaney is looking to recognize another person to ask a question and Jonathan Karl sneaks in this last question:

"Withholding the funding?" to which Mulvaney responds "Yeah, which ultimately flowed."

Mulvaney then goes off on a tangent about "There was worry if we did not pay out the money it would be illegal," referring to Congressional allocation requirements and timeliness or the funds can't be used.

At this point Karl goes off again and asks "What you've just described is a 'Quid Pro Quo' concerning the investigation of the DNC server." To which Mulvaney says "We do that all the time with foreign policy." THAT is the "gotcha" moment.

Mulvaney goes on the talk about how funds are held up all the time to enforce policies using Southeast Asian drug smuggling countries as the example.

IMHO it is clear that Mulvaney was discussing the Ukraine corruption issue regarding (whether one thinks it has been debunked or not) the hacking and dissemination of information from the DNC server.

At NO POINT was the Biden issue raised. The only issue raised was the DNC server, which cannot by any stretch of imagination relate to the current election cycle.

Last point: Mr. Mulvaney was absolutely correct in that all of our past Administrations have withheld aid in one form or another to force foreign governments to do, or stop doing things we don't like or want them to improve on. Aid is rarely given without such strings. So it appears that his "walk-backs" since this MSM tempest in a teapot were actually simple clarification of the mistaken impression given during the above press briefing.

 

[bongsaway]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

Okay so we've had this running "misinterpretation" playing out in the MSM that Mick Mulvaney admitted Trump withheld aid to affect the current election.

Here is the entire segment of the briefing starting with the questions asked by ABC's Jonathan Karl which led to the "Admitting to quid pro quo."



Context is everything, and is important these days when being given slanted news on a daily basis.

Mulvaney was clear when "dealing with the second question" (Ukraine aid) first.

1. He points out that the President has always been opposed to sending US aid to corrupt places.

2. He then points out that the EU nations have given nearly zero dollars for "lethal aid" while the USA is giving it's money for such "lethal aid." That Trump did not like that disparity in aid disbursement.

3. That Trump also mentioned "in passing the corruption related to the DNC server." That concerned the issue of hacking from back in 2016; and Mulvaney says "That's it. THAT's why we held up the money," referring to corruption and lethal aid disparities serving to delay aid disbursement.

Jonathan Karl then asks "So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason he ordered to withhold funding Ukraine."

Mulvaney's response "the look BACK to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the things he (Trump) was worried about in corruption with that nation. That is absolutely appropriate."

Now at this point Mulvaney is looking to recognize another person to ask a question and Jonathan Karl sneaks in this last question:

"Withholding the funding?" to which Mulvaney responds "Yeah, which ultimately flowed."

Mulvaney then goes off on a tangent about "There was worry if we did not pay out the money it would be illegal," referring to Congressional allocation requirements and timeliness or the funds can't be used.

At this point Karl goes off again and asks "What you've just described is a 'Quid Pro Quo' concerning the investigation of the DNC server." To which Mulvaney says "We do that all the time with foreign policy." THAT is the "gotcha" moment.

Mulvaney goes on the talk about how funds are held up all the time to enforce policies using Southeast Asian drug smuggling countries as the example.

IMHO it is clear that Mulvaney was discussing the Ukraine corruption issue regarding (whether one thinks it has been debunked or not) the hacking and dissemination of information from the DNC server.

At NO POINT was the Biden issue raised. The only issue raised was the DNC server, which cannot by any stretch of imagination relate to the current election cycle.

Last point: Mr. Mulvaney was absolutely correct in that all of our past Administrations have withheld aid in one form or another to force foreign governments to do, or stop doing things we don't like or want them to improve on. Aid is rarely given without such strings. So it appears that his "walk-backs" since this MSM tempest in a teapot were actually simple clarification of the mistaken impression given during the above press briefing.

One, dare I say huge difference, other presidents use the tactic because they are representing american interests. Trump does it to help himself and mulvaney confirmed it on tv for all to see. So, get over it.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

[blah blah blah]

Yeah, great, you have a thesaurus and an MLA style guide. Neither helps you gaslight anyone with your stupid bull****. Mulvaney said actual words on live television. You just cannot lie that away.

 

[What if...?]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

Yeah, great, you have a thesaurus and an MLA style guide. Neither helps you gaslight anyone with your stupid bull****. Mulvaney said actual words on live television. You just cannot lie that away.

The cultists will buy it.

But I doubt independents will.

Not sure why they're preaching to the choir on this.

Seems like they would he focusing their narrative management on convincing independents.

This tack seems like it's having the opposite effect.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

Don't believe your eyes and ears, believe what Mycroft is saying... a bunch of hore****! Hilarious.
It's a fact that Mulvaney admitted it was quid pro quo.

Context is that he regretted it after getting his ass chewed, and he tried to the deny it. Only way to know for sure is have him go testify to congress.

What's that Mycroft? He won't do that because he's a ****ing liar? Yep.

These people must think that sane Americans are stupid.

They are good at copying what has made Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity so successful though.

 

[Helix]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign.

Yes, he did.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

IMHO it is clear that Mulvaney was discussing the Ukraine corruption issue regarding (whether one thinks it has been debunked or not) the hacking and dissemination of information from the DNC server.

At NO POINT was the Biden issue raised. The only issue raised was the DNC server, which cannot by any stretch of imagination relate to the current election cycle.

But Trump explicitly mentioned Biden in his conversation with Zelensky. Trump also directed Zelensky to work with Giuliani. We all know that Giuliani was not interested in Ukraine's corruption but specifically in Biden and his vast conspiracy theories. We have countless officials who testified about Giuliani's involvement. We heard Trump publically ask China to investigate Biden but we're supposed to believe that Ukraine "corruption" had nothing to do with Biden?

If Trump was concerned with corruption why did he force out the ambassador who was advocating against corruption?

Then you have Giuliani and Perry all involved in introducing more corruption to Ukraine not less. They were dealing with corrupt individuals charged with crimes.

Moreover, the whole idea that this all had nothing to do with Biden and the election strains credulity beyond any reasonable standard. "Officer, I picked up the provocatively dressed woman standing at the corner because I wanted to give her a ride home."

Your argument is an argument but it's not convincing or reasonable given all the evidence. IMHO your claim is absurd.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

Yes, he did.

To be fair Mulvaney didn't say "Quid pro Quo" to investigate Biden. He tried to admit it was "quid pro quo" to investigate corruption.

The blunder here is now that you have admitted "quid pro quo" for corruption the jury only needs to believe that the corruption Trump was interested in was Biden and not general corruption.

It's pretty easy to make the case that Trump and Giuliani were interested in Biden and not just general corruption. That's why it's a terrible blunder by Mulvaney.

 

[Mach]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

These people must think that sane Americans are stupid.
They are good at copying what has made Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity so successful though.

Look at the poor brits, they are being forced to leave the EU based on stupid.

It's a threat to Democracy, we should find a way to de-fang it. Next time it may be too late.

 

[jnug]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

You are right about showing the whole video. Nonetheless, in your OP the part where he actually admitted to quid pro quo was not addressed by you and yet it is crystal clear that he admitted to quid pro quo. Whether he knew what he was saying or not is another discussion. The reporter asking the question was "extremely clear" so as to not misrepresent and his response was "yes, that is what we do all the time"

You can argue what he meant but you cannot argue what he said.

Which is of course why Mulvaney tried to walk it back later.

 

[Helix]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

To be fair Mulvaney didn't say "Quid pro Quo" to investigate Biden. He tried to admit it was "quid pro quo" to investigate corruption.

The blunder here is now that you have admitted "quid pro quo" for corruption the jury only needs to believe that the corruption Trump was interested in was Biden and not general corruption.

It's pretty easy to make the case that Trump and Giuliani were interested in Biden and not just general corruption. That's why it's a terrible blunder by Mulvaney.

Pretty much everyone involved has admitted it in statements or on tv before walking it back. Good enough.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

Mulvaney's response "the look BACK to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the things he (Trump) was worried about in corruption with that nation. That is absolutely appropriate."

I'll concede that a lot of news outlets have made it seem like he admitted more than he did explicitly. The problem is that implicitly admitted to everything.

Let's talk about what he admitted to. He admits that the money was held up in part because Trump wanted them to investigate the DNC server issue.

So, he admits that the money was held up partly because of the DNC server issue.

The problem with that is that in the transcript Trump mentions the DNC server but also mentions Biden and Giuliani. And we all know that Giuliani was interested in Biden.

So the logical conclusion becomes, "Trump held up the money party in exchange for an investigation of Biden."

I don't see how you can separate the DNC server issue from Biden and Giulian when they were all mentioned in that conversation. Moreover, we have text messages and testimony which all indicate Giuliani was the key to getting the aid.

Finally, why would Trump call Shokin a "good guy" if he wanted to fight corruption in Ukraine? Shokin's partners were busted with diamonds and cash. He didn't prosecute anyone and even thwarted and UK investigation into Burisma. Why would Giuliani and Perry be involved in corrupt acts in Ukraine if they were trying to clean up corruption?

 

[bluesmoke]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

Look at the poor brits, they are being forced to leave the EU based on stupid.

It's a threat to Democracy, we should find a way to de-fang it. Next time it may be too late.

"they are being forced to leave the EU"

They haven't left yet.

 

[Rich2018]

Re: Mulvaney did not assert a "Quid Pro Quo" to investigate Biden and influence the Current campaign

Okay so we've had this running "misinterpretation" playing out in the MSM that Mick Mulvaney admitted Trump withheld aid to affect the current election.

Here is the entire segment of the briefing starting with the questions asked by ABC's Jonathan Karl which led to the "Admitting to quid pro quo."



Context is everything, and is important these days when being given slanted news on a daily basis.

Mulvaney was clear when "dealing with the second question" (Ukraine aid) first.

1. He points out that the President has always been opposed to sending US aid to corrupt places.

2. He then points out that the EU nations have given nearly zero dollars for "lethal aid" while the USA is giving it's money for such "lethal aid." That Trump did not like that disparity in aid disbursement.

3. That Trump also mentioned "in passing the corruption related to the DNC server." That concerned the issue of hacking from back in 2016; and Mulvaney says "That's it. THAT's why we held up the money," referring to corruption and lethal aid disparities serving to delay aid disbursement.

Jonathan Karl then asks "So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason he ordered to withhold funding Ukraine."

Mulvaney's response "the look BACK to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the things he (Trump) was worried about in corruption with that nation. That is absolutely appropriate."

Now at this point Mulvaney is looking to recognize another person to ask a question and Jonathan Karl sneaks in this last question:

"Withholding the funding?" to which Mulvaney responds "Yeah, which ultimately flowed."

Mulvaney then goes off on a tangent about "There was worry if we did not pay out the money it would be illegal," referring to Congressional allocation requirements and timeliness or the funds can't be used.

At this point Karl goes off again and asks "What you've just described is a 'Quid Pro Quo' concerning the investigation of the DNC server." To which Mulvaney says "We do that all the time with foreign policy." THAT is the "gotcha" moment.

Mulvaney goes on the talk about how funds are held up all the time to enforce policies using Southeast Asian drug smuggling countries as the example.

IMHO it is clear that Mulvaney was discussing the Ukraine corruption issue regarding (whether one thinks it has been debunked or not) the hacking and dissemination of information from the DNC server.

At NO POINT was the Biden issue raised. The only issue raised was the DNC server, which cannot by any stretch of imagination relate to the current election cycle.

Last point: Mr. Mulvaney was absolutely correct in that all of our past Administrations have withheld aid in one form or another to force foreign governments to do, or stop doing things we don't like or want them to improve on. Aid is rarely given without such strings. So it appears that his "walk-backs" since this MSM tempest in a teapot were actually simple clarification of the mistaken impression given during the above press briefing.

Quid Pro Quo

An admission - the right is crumbling.