MovieChat Forums > Politics > WTF? Mulvaney on FOX: "That’s not what ...

WTF? Mulvaney on FOX: "That’s not what I said, that's what people said I said...”

posted 5 years ago by [deleted]
14 replies | jump to latest

Rudy Ghouliani sure must be happy Mick Mulvaney showed up this past Thursday - and just in the nick of time! The acting chief of staff has made Ghouliani look like a Rhodes scholar the past few days.

If you missed his interview on FOX with Chris Wallace this morning, you missed an historic moment where Mulvaney virtually helped write the articles of Impeachment for his boss.

First, Wallace began the interview asking why he said during the press conference that military aid to Ukraine depended on investigating the actions of Democrats during the 2016 election.

“Again, that’s not what I said, that's what people said I said,” Mulvaney replied before adding there were just “two reasons” why the United States would have held up aid: corruption and whether other European nations were helping with aid.

Wallace, nipped Mulvaney’s spin in the bud, reminding the chief of staff that anyone listening to the briefing could “come to only one conclusion”. Wallace then played the clips of Mulvaney confirming that Trump withheld aid unless the Ukrainians investigated the Democrats.

Mulvaney still tried to spin that he was misunderstood, bu Wallace wouldn't let him.

“I hate to go through this but you said what you said,” Wallace responded. “And the fact is, after that exchange with [ABC News correspondent] Jonathan Karl, you were asked another time why the aid was held up. What was the condition for the aid? And you didn’t mention two conditions, you mentioned three conditions.”

Wallace played yet another clip of Mulvaney claiming military aid to Ukraine was contingent upon them cooperating with the Trump administration and investigating the Democrats. He reminded him that when Karl pressed him on whether or not there was a quid pro quo, Mulvaney said that “happens all the time.”

The two went back and forth over this for the next few minutes, with Mulvaney throwing more laughable defenses against the wall to see which would stick. None did, as Wallace cornered him over and over again.

Then the attention was turned to T-rump's caving on the G7 Summit being held at his rodent-infested golf resort, to which Mulvaney sunk T-rump once again. Mulvaney said Trump was “honestly surprised at the level of pushback,” adding that the president “still considers himself to be in the hospitality business.”

That's funny. The position which he holds considers him to be the President - and nothing else.

Thanks Mulvaney - you're the gift which keeps on giving. These articles of impeachment just write themselves!

[–] joi2049 (5488) 5 years ago

This was all PREDICTED to happen by the FBI GUY on MSNBC.

Here's the TOPIC which explains why MULVANEY had no CHOICE but to throw the SCAM MAN UNDER THE BUS as a way to PROTECT HIMSELF:

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5da77b9c9b5be6409beb1540/MULVANEY-LEFT-WIDE-OPEN-to-CRIMINAL-EXPOSURE-for-holding-back-the-UKRAINE-MONEY

On DATELINE WHITE HOUSE

they discussed how MULVENY is LEFT WIDE OPEN ... where either he THROWS the SCAM MAN UNDER the BUS as a way to COVER HIS OWN BUTT ... or else he takes the BLAME for saying what the SCAM MAN told him to say.

You can HEAR the conversation here at this link:

https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/deadlinewhitehouse?selected=NBCN7393384758

Go to the 7 MIN TIME MARK ... and at the 9:19 TIME MARK you'll hear the part about how MULVANEY is LEFT WIDE OPEN to CRIMINAL EXPOSURE ... due to the way he puts the BREAKS on the MILITARY MONEY going to the UKRAINE … and is what the FBI GUY calls the CLOSEST we get to the CONSCIOUSNESS of GUILT of the SCAM MAN.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

WOW! Thanks for these links. I can't believe what's happening in front of our eyes.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

There was no horsetrading or pressure on the Ukrainians (aka quid pro quo) because they didn't even know the aid had been withheld:

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5dab3ffa7515b30fef642586/quid-pro-quo-totally-debunked-Ukrainians-didnt-even-know-about-the-aid-being-withheld

The pause was to assess the things Mulvaney mentioned, like the status of corruption in the country. The Pentagon conducted an assessment and wrote a report clearing the funding for release.

Mulvaney is a smart policy guy who's a terrible public speaker who buries important leads under verbosity. That doesn't absolve the media for not knowing the difference between internal reasons for making a decision (what Mulvaney was talking about) and a quid pro quo, which necessarily involves telling the other party about the things to be exchanged. Even Democrat and anti-Trump hack Chris Wallace lied repeatedly in this interview, falsely claiming Mulvaney had said there was a "quid pro quo" and they were demanding that "Democrats" be investigated when he did no such thing.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I'm really happy that Mulvaney's bullshit cover-up of what was actually said has convinced at least one person in this world - you.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Actually the fact that there couldn't have been a quid pro quo tied to military aid has to do with factual reporting, like that posted in the thread op I linked to, and nothing to do with anything Mulvaney said.

[–] joi2049 (5488) 5 years ago

CONGRESS doesn't need a QUO to IMPEACH the SCAM MAN.

All it takes is the THREAT that he made to HOLD the MONEY HOSTAGE to make what he did ILLEGAL.

Because that's also BRIBERY and EXTORTION whenever you THREATENED someone the way he did the LEADER of UKRAINE.

And just because he never RECEIVED what he wanted by HOLDING the MONEY HOSTAGE doesn't NEGATE the FACT that he TRIED to BRIBE him into HELPING DIG UP DIRT on his POLITICAL RIVAL.

In other words, LEAGALLY SPEAKING, the SILLY SLOGAN that the SCAM MAN keeps SPEWING FORTH is MEANINGLESS (which you'll also discover once the TRIAL begins and there's either no mention of it or else someone explains how meaningless it is to whoever would be FOOLISH ENOUGH to use it).

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

He's not going to understand this no matter how many times we explain this to him. It's way over his head. Way over.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

All it takes is the THREAT that he made to HOLD the MONEY HOSTAGE to make what he did ILLEGAL.

Because that's also BRIBERY and EXTORTION whenever you THREATENED someone the way he did the LEADER of UKRAINE.

Are you talking about Biden, LOL? Because while that's exactly what Biden did, Trump didn't do that, which is what you and your idiot yapping chihuahua buddy somehow still don't grasp. Not that such "extortion" would necessarily be illegal anyway, but at least try to get the basic facts straight.

[–] joi2049 (5488) 5 years ago

Biden isn't the one about to FACE an IMPEACHMENT TRIAL.

And at the TRIAL it should also become MORE EVIDENT to you that what you've been told is the case (in regards to what the SCAM MAN has done) no matter how many times you try to insist that it is not.

And if the SCAM MAN tries to say there's been no QUID PRO QUO, the SUPREME COURT JUSTICE will probably also CORRECT HIM and let him know there was no QUO needed to charge him with the BRIBERY or EXTORTION case that he faces against him.

Quid PRO QUO is just another way of saying THIS for THAT.

And in order for the SCAM MAN to be charged with using BRIBERY or EXTORTION, the other party (UKRAINE LEADER) isn't REQUIRED to provide THE SCAM MAN with what he wants (which was DIRT on BIDEN).

Just HOLDING the MONEY HOSTAGE in an effort to try to get UKRAINE to DIG UP DIRT for him is CAUSE ENOUGH ALONE to IMPEACH and REMOVE the SCAM MAN from office.

So no matter how many times he INSISTS there was no case of THIS for THAT, there was still the MATTER where he INSISTED the other person DO THIS (DIG UP DIRT on BIDEN)
if they wanted THAT (the MONEY).

And just because NO DIRT on BIDEN was forthcoming, that doesn't mean he did nothing wrong.

BECAUSE the use of BRIBERY or EXTORTION as a way to try to get what you want from someone is WRONG.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

Wow. You're incredibly still missing the point even after I spelled it out. Let me try again. I'm not talking about what Ukraine did or didn't provide, I'm pointing out that Trump didn't "bribe" or "extort" Ukraine. He didn't even tell Ukraine that the aid was being withheld, so by definition there was no bribery or extortion, not that it would have necessarily been illegal anyway.

BECAUSE the use of BRIBERY or EXTORTION as a way to try to get what you want from someone is WRONG.

So you think it was wrong of Biden to use extortion to get the prosecutor fired?

[–] joi2049 (5488) 5 years ago

NOTE the way THE FACT DATED JULY 25TH CLEARLY SPELLS OUT how the SCAM MAN PRESSED the PRESIDENT of UKRAINE during the PHONE CALL to INVESTIGATE BIDEN:

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5dadda2a0b9d7c58a82258b9/FACTBOX-Key-dates-in-the-US-Houses-impeachment-inquiry-into-the-SCAM-MAN

*JULY 25: Trump personally presses Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in a phone call to investigate Biden and his son over the son's prior role as a director of a Ukrainian gas company. Trump also asks the Ukrainian to investigate the conspiracy theory about the 2016 U.S. election.[/b]

* AUG. 12: [b] Career U.S. intelligence officer delivers a whistleblower complaint about the July 25 phone call to the chairmen of the intelligence committees of the Senate and House of Representatives.

* SEPT. 9: U.S. diplomats discuss via text messages concerns that military assistance to Ukraine was being withheld as a way to pressure the country into cooperating on the Biden probe.

CORRECTION:

KRL doesn't SPELL OUT POINTS.

They MAKE UP CRAP that has NOTHING to do with the REALITY of the SITUATION ...

which is also the REASON WHY one only SKIMS over what's said and doesn't PAY ATTENTION to the BS parts of what's said ...

or pay attention to the other INFANTILE NON STOP ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEMS that are also included in what's said.

Instead of being FOR YOU krl,

Basically REPLIES are for the BENEFIT of others so they don't get MISLEAD by what you say.

[–] krl97a (5619) 5 years ago

SEPT. 9: U.S. diplomats discuss via text messages concerns that military assistance to Ukraine was being withheld as a way to pressure the country into cooperating on the Biden probe

You mean the one where Sondland says Trump explicitly told him he wants NO quid pro quo?

There's no mention of the aid in the phone call, and Ukrainian officials and the US State Department have confirmed that they didn't even tell Ukraine the aid was being withheld. It was paused for an internal assessment by the US, conducted by the Pentagon's Defense Undersecretary John Rood and others, of corruption in Ukraine, because they wanted to make sure tax payer money wasn't being wasted.

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5dab3ffa7515b30fef642586/quid-pro-quo-totally-debunked-Ukrainians-didnt-even-know-about-the-aid-being-withheld

You can't get around the fact that Ukraine didn't know about the aid being withheld, so by definition there was no "pressure" or "extortion". You're a mindless partisan nutjob, but you're not my primary target audience either. I replied here so people aren't misled by your lies.

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16250) 5 years ago

Mulvaney somehow does the impossible and comes across as dumber than Rick Perry.

[–] chilone (17301) 5 years ago

Welcome to the latest, delusional terrorist's human centipede thread.