Mick Mulvaney: ‘We Held Up the Money’ for Ukraine Investigation into DNC Server
Once again, CNN hears and edits things to what they want to hear and say. Pathetic little buggers.
--
Mick Mulvaney: ‘We Held Up the Money’ for Ukraine Investigation into DNC Server
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.
“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.
“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 the investigation into the 2016 election was an ongoing Justice Department investigation and “completely legitimate.”
“The money that was held up had nothing to do with Biden,” Mulvaney said, referring to the former Vice President Joe Biden.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...to-dnc-server/
CNN Falsely Claims White House ‘Admits to Quid Pro Quo’ with Ukraine
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.
Mulvaney later added: “The money held up had absolutely nothing to do with Biden.”
When another reporter used the term “quid pro quo,” Mulvaney objected:
Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...-quid-pro-quo/Those are the terms you use. Go look at what [U.S. Ambassador to the European Union] Gordon Sondland said today in his testimony — was that, I think, in his opening statement — he said something along the lines of, they were trying to get the “deliverable,” and the deliverable was a statement by the Ukraine about how they were going to deal with corruption. Okay? Go read his testimony, if you haven’t already. And what he says, and he’s right, that’s absolutely ordinary course of business. This is what you do. When you have someone come to the White House — when you either arrange a visit for the president, you have a phone call with the president — a lot of times we use that as the opportunity to get them to make a statement of their policy, or to announce something that they are going to do. It’s one of the reasons you can sort of announce that on the phone call or at the meeting. This is the ordinary course of foreign policy.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by pete311
