No, Mick Mulvaney didn’t admit to quid pro quo over Biden investigation

[Hoodat]

No, Mick Mulvaney didn’t admit to quid pro quo over Biden investigation

JD Rucker     |     17 Oct 2019

When Democrats investigated the 2016 election through the Russia probe and subsequent Congressional witch hunts, there was no bellyaching from the left about it. The same must hold true for the White House investigating 2016 as well. This isn’t just about fairness. It’s about the White House doing its job to uncover corruption from foreign governments attempting to subvert the will of the American people during elections.

It’s important to understand this when we discuss the big news of the day, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney “admitting” to quid pro quo with Ukraine in a way that impacts the impeachment inquiry. When I read the initial reports, I assumed from the reporting that Mulvaney acknowledged there was an expectation of quid pro quo from the Trump administration in which they withheld military aid to Ukraine unless they reopened the investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden. Then, I watched the statement by Mulvaney and could only shake my head over the conflation by Democrats and mainstream media trying to confuse Americans in hopes that we’re all that stupid and gullible.

Judging by many reactions on social media, it appears they are correct. Many really are incapable of thinking for themselves.

Watch the video for yourself and see if Mulvaney really admitted Ukraine aid money was held up until they investigated the topics of the impeachment inquiry, Joe and Hunter Biden:


Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

Let’s get one thing straight: The impeachment inquiry alleges President Trump used political power to solicit assistance against a reelection opponent. The quid pro quo the Democrats are trying to prove is about Biden and Biden alone. What Mulvaney referenced is the ongoing investigation into 2016 election corruption, in which quid pro quo is not only acceptable but necessary at times.  .  .  .

https://noqreport.com/2019/10/17/no-mick-mulvaney-didnt-admit-quid-pro-quo-biden-investigation/

[Jazzhead]

Correct.  Foreign influence to sway the 2016 election is a subject of official investigation. It is expected that foreign governments suspected of same will be leaned upon.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

I heard him admit it three time. 

Early on Mulvaney states "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. And that’s why we held up the money." 

Again when asked directly by a reporter "So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?"  Mulvaney responds "The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation."

Lastly when asked by a reporter "But 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."  Mulvaney replies "We do that all the time with foreign policy."

Guns for opposition research. 

The words missing here are "Hunter Biden," but that shouldn't be hard to infer when they have the Ukrainian call transcription, witness testimony, emails, and Trump physically asking Ukraine and China to investigate the Bidens in front of TV cameras.

Mulvaney wants me to believe we do quid pro quo all the time but not with Hunter.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Can anybody explain what the Ukraine has to do with a DNC server?
https://www.axios.com/mick-mulvaney-ukraine-dnc-server-military-aid-3b8a0a07-70e1-42ff-9d2e-fddc9cdc55f8.html

Reality check: The assertion that the DNC's hacked server is in Ukraine is part of an easily debunked right-wing conspiracy theory that alleges that CrowdStrike, the first firm to publicly release evidence that Russia perpetrated the DNC hack, made up information to fuel the Russia investigation.

As Axios cybersecurity reporter Joe Uchill explains, there is no single server to hide in Ukraine. With modern computing, what people experience as a single server is actually dozens of different systems.
The FBI received a digital image of the servers — a complete record of what was on the unwieldy farm of physical computers. Physically obtaining the servers would provide no new information.

If this is why we withheld weapons from Ukraine, it's going to make beautiful headlines soon.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/466385-mulvaney-walks-back-comments-tying-ukraine-aid-to-2016-probe

Hours later, Mulvaney reversed course from his earlier remarks, saying the “only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption.” He blamed the media for misinterpreting his statements.

God damn fake news. They didn't believe 0bama's birth certificate was fake either.

[OfTheCross]

I heard him admit it three time. 

Early on Mulvaney states "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. And that’s why we held up the money." 

Again when asked directly by a reporter "So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?"  Mulvaney responds "The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation."

Lastly when asked by a reporter "But 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."  Mulvaney replies "We do that all the time with foreign policy."

Guns for opposition research. 

The words missing here are "Hunter Biden," but that shouldn't be hard to infer when they have the Ukrainian call transcription, witness testimony, emails, and Trump physically asking Ukraine and China to investigate the Bidens in front of TV cameras.

Mulvaney wants me to believe we do quid pro quo all the time but not with Hunter.

I agree with this post. 

[Jazzhead]

I agree with this post. 

Answer me this simple question, @OfTheCross :  Why should, following three years of this administration and only a year before the election,  this President be removed by vote of Congress rather than by vote of the People?    What justifies this usurpation of the Peoples' right to decide this matter for themselves?   

[mystery-ak]

Mulvaney admission deals blow to White House impeachment defense
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/466389-mulvaney-admission-deals-blow-to-white-house-impeachment-defense

[OfTheCross]

Answer me this simple question, @OfTheCross :  Why should, following three years of this administration and only a year before the election,  this President be removed by vote of Congress rather than by vote of the People?    What justifies this usurpation of the Peoples' right to decide this matter for themselves?

This isn't a usurpation, it's just part of our political process as laid out by The Constitution.

Andrew Johnson was also impeached on an election year.

[don-o]

Why is the process proceeding behind closed doors? The Democrats ignore the judicious advice of Howard Baker..."What did the President know and when did he know it?"

In the current matter, the unanswered question is, "What does the committee know and why are they keeping it secret?"

[OfTheCross]

Why is the process proceeding behind closed doors? The Democrats ignore the judicious advice of Howard Baker..."What did the President know and when did he know it?"

In the current matter, the unanswered question is, "What does the committee know and why are they keeping it secret?"

What the committee knows will come to light if/when they decided to actually impeach the President. For now, it's just information gathering

[Jazzhead]

This isn't a usurpation, it's just part of our political process as laid out by The Constitution.

Andrew Johnson was also impeached on an election year.

You disagreed with my characterization of this farce as a usurpation.   But you didn't answer my question.   You see, to me this isn't about Trump - who I did not vote for.  It is about the Peoples' right of self governance.  Why should not their sovereignty be respected, and why should not they be permitted to remove this President by their own vote?   

[OfTheCross]

You disagreed with my characterization of this farce as a usurpation.   But you didn't answer my question.   You see, to me this isn't about Trump - who I did not vote for.  It is about the Peoples' right of self governance.  Why should not their sovereignty be respected, and why should not they be permitted to remove this President by their own vote?   

The Representatives of the people are acting on their behalf as the Constitution lays out.

Our rights are being respected.

[Jazzhead]

The Representatives of the people are acting on their behalf as the Constitution lays out.

Our rights are being respected.

Yeah, like the rights of a woman being assaulted are being respected.   This damn thing hasn't even been authorized by the vote of the full House.   

[skeeter]

What the committee knows will come to light if/when they decided to actually impeach the President. For now, it's just information gathering

Yes of course. Every prosecution needs a crime. Here its just a matter of finding one.

This whole thing a a contrived joke and if allowed to succeed will mark the formal END to the republic.

[OfTheCross]

Yeah, like the rights of a woman being assaulted are being respected.   This damn thing hasn't even been authorized by the vote of the full House.   

We're not there yet. If they find a compelling enough case, they'll present it to the entire House

[mystery-ak]

Schiff: Mulvaney comments on Ukraine aid have made things 'much, much worse'
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/466327-schiff-mulvaney-comments-on-ukraine-aid-have-made-things-much-much-worse

[skeeter]

We're not there yet. If they find a compelling enough case, they'll present it to the entire House

Fixed.

[don-o]

What the committee knows will come to light if/when they decided to actually impeach the President. For now, it's just information gathering

That's one way to characterize it. Another is drinking from a poisoned well.

[Hoodat]

I heard him admit it three time. 

.  .  . 

The words missing here are "Hunter Biden," but that shouldn't be hard to infer .  .  .

So in other words, Mulvaney never admitted to quid pro quo over Biden investigation, but you simply inferred that he did even after openly admitting that Mulvaney never mentioned Biden.  In other words, you simply made it up.

[Hoodat]

I agree with this post. 

@OfTheCross

Do you agree with this part here: 

"The words missing here are "Hunter Biden"

The poster openly admits that Mulvaney never mentioned Biden.  And Mulvaney's own words show that he was talking about the 2016 election corruption.  So when you say you agree with that post, are you also agreeing that Mulvaney did not admit to quid pro quo over the non-existent Biden investigation?

[OfTheCross]

@OfTheCross

Do you agree with this part here: 
The poster openly admits that Mulvaney never mentioned Biden.  And Mulvaney's own words show that he was talking about the 2016 election corruption.  So when you say you agree with that post, are you also agreeing that Mulvaney did not admit to quid pro quo over the non-existent Biden investigation?

The headline is correct, but Mulvaney is still admitting to a quid pro quo and the Zelensky call and text messages show that Biden was a target.

It's still a dumb thing to admit.

"I didn't steal that Camaro. I stole the Corvette, we do it all the time"

[Hoodat]

The headline is correct, but Mulvaney is still admitting to a quid pro quo

How so?  Show me the exact wording of his statement that shows a quid pro quo.

[skeeter]

The only way to ask for an investigation into corruption in the Ukraine over the recent past and NOT leave yourself open to the specious charge of "inferring" that you meant for them to investigate a political opponent is to prove that you never heard Joe Biden admitting to said corruption on tape, and didn't know his talentless son was on the board of one of the most corrupt corporations in Europe at the time his daddy was VP.

Or don't ask for an investigation, even though its your duty as president to do so.

Utterly ridiculous.

Here we are again, dancing to the rat media's tune and running up our own bungholes. Biden is the one who abused his office and likely broke the law. Trump is seeking to enforce the law. Period.

[Jazzhead]

The headline is correct, but Mulvaney is still admitting to a quid pro quo and the Zelensky call and text messages show that Biden was a target.

It's still a dumb thing to admit.

"I didn't steal that Camaro. I stole the Corvette, we do it all the time"

You're sounding desperate.   Again -  foreign shenanigans to mess with the 2016 election are the subject of an official investigation.  Asking a foreign government for assistance in uncovering those shenanigans is entirely appropriate.  It is not rendered inappropriate because we happen to provide aid to that government.     

[OfTheCross]

How so?  Show me the exact wording of his statement that shows a quid pro quo.

At the :55 mark you can watch for yourself.

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1