Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you find this outright lie that is easily disproved to be a convincing one?
Are you merely hoping that everyone will be too ignorant to call you out for blatantly lying?
You can accuse people of lying and insult them, but the fact is that he said it.
Perhaps you should go back and listen to Mulvaney.
"....Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney told reporters Thursday that President Trump blocked nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine in part to force the government in Kyiv to investigate his political rivals, a startling acknowledgment after the president’s repeated denials of a quid pro quo.
Mulvaney defended the maneuver as “absolutely appropriate...”
You can accuse people of lying and call names, but the fact is that he said it.
Perhaps you should go back and listen to Mulvaney.
"....Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney told reporters Thursday that President Trump blocked nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine in part to force the government in Kyiv to investigate his political rivals, a startling acknowledgment after the president’s repeated denials of a quid pro quo.
Mulvaney defended the maneuver as “absolutely appropriate.”
That's spin that misrepresents what he said. Claiming that it was to investigate political rivals or for political gain is just an outright lie. There's no need to sugar coat it.
New strategy, since, "he didn't do it," wasn't fooling anyone: "Yes, he did it. Get over it!"
That is the most amazing line of this political season, but I doubt it will earn Mick many brownie points when they indict him for Conspiracy against the United States.
This isn't a competent or relevant response to what was said.
Congress appropriated funds, as is their authority mandated by the Constitution. The president attempted to withhold those funds for personal reasons. The president lacks the constitutional or statutory power to do so. Why isn't it a relevant question to ask?
Mulvaney acknowledged the quid pro quo during a press conference Thursday in which he explained the factors that contributed to Trump's decision to withhold aid.
Mulvaney said Trump told him that he believed Ukraine was a "corrupt place" and that he didn't want to "send them a bunch of money." He also said the president was concerned that other European countries weren't doing their fair share to contribute to Ukraine's defense.
Mulvaney added: "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."
There are holes in this.
1- No timeline. Who knows when certain statements where made - or if there were connected.
2- The conclusion is not what was said - but purely his own conclusion.
Congress appropriated funds, as is their authority mandated by the Constitution. The president attempted to withhold those funds for personal reasons. The president lacks the constitutional or statutory power to do so. Why isn't it a relevant question to ask?
This is repeating the lie, the funds were being withheld due to the interest of the state.... funny you don't seem upset that Biden threatened to do the same thing on the behalf of his son's company....
Mulvaney acknowledged the quid pro quo during a press conference Thursday in which he explained the factors that contributed to Trump's decision to withhold aid.
Mulvaney said Trump told him that he believed Ukraine was a "corrupt place" and that he didn't want to "send them a bunch of money." He also said the president was concerned that other European countries weren't doing their fair share to contribute to Ukraine's defense.
Mulvaney added: "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."
There are holes in this.
1- No timeline. Who knows when certain statements where made - or if there were connected.
Just what I see upon reading the article.
Perhaps you need to read for comprehension this time. The timeline is outlined in the blue bolded above. Or is there yet another time Trump attempted to withhold Congressionally mandated funds that we don't know about?
White House confirms it tied Ukraine aid to help in pursuing conspiracy theory on DNC hack
And in other news, water is still wet, the earth is still round and Trump is still a crook.
Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said Thursday that President Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine until it looked into the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukrainian nationals were in possession of a computer server belonging to the Democratic National Committee.
Asked why the administration had withheld $400 million in military aide allocated by Congress to help Ukraine defend itself from Russian aggression, Mulvaney first cited the president’s desire to make sure Kiev’s government was not corrupt. Then, confirming a quid pro quo laid out in the partial summary released by the White House of Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Mulvaney cited a conspiracy theory involving the DNC server that housed emails leaked during the 2016 campaign.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
White House confirms it tied Ukraine aid to help in pursuing conspiracy theory on DNC hack
