Get over it - said Mulvaney

  • Thread starter Thread starter Economist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mulvaney:
Did he also mention to me in the past that the corruption that related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question about that. But that’s it and that’s why we held up the money.
Click to expand...
Reporter:
To be clear: what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is 'funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened, as well.
Click to expand...
Mulvaney
We do that all the time with foreign policy.
Click to expand...
 

Sondland:
we were faced with a choice: We could abandon the goal of a White House meeting for President Zelensky, which we all believed was crucial to strengthening U.S.-Ukrainian ties and furthering long-held U.S. foreign policy goals in the region; or we could do as President Trump directed and talk to
Mr. Giuliani to address the President’s concerns.
Click to expand...
We chose the latter path, which seemed to all of us – Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and myself – to be the better alternative. But I did not understand, until much later, that Mr. Giuliani’s agenda might have also included an effort to prompt the Ukrainians to investigate Vice President Biden or his son or to involve Ukrainians, directly or indirectly, in the President’s 2020 reelection campaign.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Attorney and fellow at the Brookings Institute Scott R. Anderson explained why Mulvaney’s explanation isn’t likely to be helpful.
“The problem with the ‘we do it all the time’ logic is that all the wheeling and dealing of diplomacy is normally meant to advance U.S. national interests, not the President’s personal political interests,” he wrote. “And that’s what makes this impeachable conduct.”
Click to expand...
 
JapaneseKappa said:
Mulvaney:
Did he also mention to me in the past that the corruption that related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question about that. But that’s it and that’s why we held up the money.
Click to expand...
And that is true. It is done in foreign policy all the time. The senators’ letter to Ukraine last year with an implied link. Biden’s overt quid pro quo.
Just two examples of foreign aid being linked to proper behavior by otherwise corrupt foreign governments.
Click to expand...
 
JapaneseKappa said:
I anticipated people not understanding the difference, that’s why I also made this post.
Click to expand...
In 2016 there was foreign influence in our elections, coming from Ukraine.
Prior to that there was potentially corrupt influence imposed by a quid pro quo to protect the son of a high ranking US elected official.

Attempts to uncover corruption such as this is clearly something the executive branch should do.
 
Which pattern fits better?

DENIAL…NORMALIZE…ATTACK

or

No collusion… Collusion is not a crime…So there was collusion, so what?

Who needs Mulvaney when you got Giuliani?
 
JapaneseKappa said:
To be clear: what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is 'funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened, as well.
Click to expand...
Not quid pro quo for personal/political reasons. Under the law, if the President suspects a US person or company of corruption or criminal activity, it’s his duty and he’s bound to ask for an investigation, Article 2, Section 3 and the US and Ukraine TREATY. You may want to reference: Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998, the DNC server is a US criminal matter.
 
I think it is interesting to look back at what people had to say in 2016, when the prosecutor was fired.

The entire EU was pushing for it:


There were clear instances of the ousted prosecutor engaging in corruption:
One of those cases involves two high-ranking prosecutors – Oleksandr Korniyets and Volodymyr Shapakin – suspected of taking a 3.15 million hryvnia (US$ 117,000) bribe. Prosecutors say they recovered an unspecified number of diamonds after an unprecedented raid on the suspects’ offices and homes.
Public uproar followed when Shokin and his former deputies, Volodymyr Huzyr and Yury Stolyarchuk, allegedly tried to cover up for Korniyets and Shapakin.
Click to expand...
And clear evidence that reducing corruption in Ukraine was in the US bests interests.


But when we look back at what Trump has said about election meddling:

 
Wasn’t the problem with the guy was that he WASN’T investigating corruption. Given what some are suggesting about the Bidens, wouldn’t Joe want the guy to stay?
 
sallybutler said:
Wasn’t the problem with the guy was that he WASN’T investigating corruption. Given what some are suggesting about the Bidens, wouldn’t Joe want the guy to stay?
Click to expand...
He was investigating Burisma, where Hunter had a remarkably cushy position with no experience in the industry or Ukraine.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
JonNC:
He was investigating Burisma,
Click to expand...
No. He was obstructing proceedings against Burisma.
Click to expand...
Biden was. Yes.
 
JonNC said:
Biden was. Yes.
Click to expand...
Why do you switch the pronoun antecedent? We were talking of the Ukrainian prosecutor… There is crystal clear evidence of his obstruction of proceedings against Burisma. Against Joe Biden, just unsupported allegations.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
JonNC:
Biden was. Yes.
Click to expand...
Why do you switch the pronoun antecedent? We were talking of the Ukrainian prosecutor… There is crystal clear evidence of his obstruction of proceedings against Burisma. Against Joe Biden, just unsupported allegations.
Click to expand...
#Hunter has a sweetheart deal at Burisma.
#A prosecutor has targeted Burisma for investigation.
#Biden goes to Ukraine.
#He threatens Ukraine with a clear quid pro quo to fire the prosecutor. Six hours, he brags later. He gave them six hours, then he is going home.

Biden threatens to withhold funds unless the prosecutor is fired.
Trump makes absolutely no such threat, even implied. In fact, Zelensky doesn’t even know the funds are on hold.

The corrupt nature of the prosecutor doesn’t exclude the possibility of corrupt pressure by Biden to protect his son, under the protection of, “hey, everyone wants him fired”.
 
JonNC said:
#He threatens Ukraine with a clear quid pro quo to fire the prosecutor. Six hours, he brags later. He gave them six hours, then he is going home.
Click to expand...
They don’t even try to hide their corruption. They are never held responsible. Trump gets in and uh oh, he isn’t one of us! Every corrupt Democrat and never trumper Republican have been trying to get rid of him from day one; to protect themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top