11/20/19: I missed most the afternoon hearings yesterday. But I believe it was during the testimony of Kurt Volker or Tim Morrison that Chairman Schiff brought up this rather salient point. It was President Trump in the July 25 call that said he wanted a favor – and that favor was an investigation into Joe Biden and his son.
It wasn’t Ambassador Gordon Sondland who brought it up.
It wasn’t the work of a poltergeist.
____________________
“There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.”
Acting White House
Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney
____________________
Furthermore, Schiff pointed out, Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney had already admitted that the meeting and military assistance were held up until President Zelensky did what Trump wanted.
You can go to Rev.com if you’d like to read the full transcript of the press briefing Mulvaney gave at the White House on October 17. For our purposes, we pick up around the twenty-minute mark.
By that point, the delay on military aid was out in the open.
A reporter wondered what the official explanation might be. Mulvaney said it
was no different than Puerto Rico, where Trump thought aid money had been
wasted. “And by the way,” he asserted, “it turns out we were right. All right.”
 |
Mulvaney - probably wishing all the reporters were dead. |
Trump, Mulvaney said, didn’t want money going to “a corrupt place.” Plus, Trump didn’t think other European countries were helping Ukraine enough. “And what we found out was that, and I can’t remember if it’s zero or near zero dollars from any European countries for lethal aid,” Mulvaney explained. “You’ve heard the president say this, that we give them tanks and the other countries give them pillows. That’s absolutely right that as vocal as the Europeans are about supporting Ukraine, they are really, really stingy when it comes to lethal aid,” he continued. “And they weren’t helping Ukraine and still to this day are not.”
That might all be true – although it wasn’t – but it still begged the question. Why was Trump demanding an investigation into the Biden family – an investigation that could help him win again in 2020?
Mulvaney said there was the matter of “corruption related to
the DNC server” and “that’s why we held up the money.”
“So,” a reporter wondered, “the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?”
“The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that [the president] was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate,” said Mr. Mulvaney.
“But to be clear,” another reporter interjected, “what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into…into the Democratic server happened as well.”
Mulvaney didn’t push back. He went on plowing, and, today, during public hearings, Chairman Schiff reminded the audience and his GOP colleagues what Mulvaney had said in response:
We do that all the time with
foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for what was it? The
Northern triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern triangle
countries so that they would change their policies on immigration….If you read
the news reports and you believe them, what did McKinney say yesterday? Well,
McKinney said yesterday that he was really upset with the political influence
in foreign policy. That was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. And
I have news for everybody. Get over it. There’s going to be political influence
in foreign policy.
“What about the Bidens?” a member of the press asked.
Mulvaney continued with his response to the previous question.
That is going to happen.
Elections have consequences and foreign policy is going to change from the
Obama Administration to the Trump Administration. And what you’re seeing now I
believe is a group of mostly career bureaucrats who are saying, “You know what?
I don’t like President Trump’s politics, so I’m going to participate in this
witch hunt that they’re undertaking on the Hill.” Elections do have
consequences and they should. And your foreign policy is going to change. Obama
did it in one way. We’re doing it a different way and there is no problem with
that.
“What about the Bidens though, Mr. Mulvaney? Does that come into consideration when that…”
Mulvaney said it was perfectly okay to investigate the DNC server.
So, the reporter tried again, “Are you saying that it’s okay for the U.S. government to hold up aid and require a foreign government to investigate political opponents of the president?”
“No, you’re talking about looking forward to the next election. We’re talking…” Mulvaney started to say.
“Even the DNC. The DNC is still involved in this next election. Is that not correct?” another reporter asked.
Good reporters in free countries don’t have to let go.
Mulvaney and the reporters sparred over what kinds of investigations would be proper and what kinds wouldn’t. Mulvaney insisted it was “bizarre” that anyone would think that “the chief law enforcement person” in this country, namely President Donald J. Trump, could not legitimately “ask somebody to cooperate with an ongoing public investigation.” But that didn’t make sense. The press corps knew it. Trump is the chief law enforcement person regarding U.S. investigations.
He’s not in charge of investigations in Ukraine.
The reporters kept pressing. One asked, so, “it’s fine to ask about the DNC, but not about Biden?”
“That’s a hypothetical,” Mulvaney said.
The press won’t let go because good reporters in free
countries don’t have to let go. They can keep digging for the truth, and
whether you like Trump or not, that’s exactly what they should do.
“No. No,” Mulvaney continued. “On the call the president did ask about investigating the Bidens. Are you saying that the money that was held up, that that had nothing to do with the Bidens? No. The money held up had absolutely nothing to do with Biden,” Mr. Mulvaney insisted.
“And you’re drawing the distinction. You’re saying that it would be wrong to hold up money for the Bidens?” the reporter tried again.
A frustrated Mulvaney gave it another shot. “There were three factors,” involved, he said, in the decision to withhold aid. He even held up three fingers and ticked them off:
Again, I was involved with the
process by which the money was held up temporarily. Okay. Three issues for
that. The corruption in the country, whether or not other countries were
participating in the support of the Ukraine, and whether or not they were
cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our Department of Justice. That’s
completely legitimate.
“Reporter 6,” as identified in the transcript, asks Mulvaney to clarify an earlier point:
You just said you were involved in the process in which the money being held up
temporarily, you named three issues for that for corruption in the country,
whether or not the country… they were assisting with an ongoing investigation
of corruption. How is that not an establishment of an exchange of a quid pro
quo? You just see what…
Mulvaney interrupts and there’s a bit of crosstalk. Then he replies:
Those are the terms that you
use. Go look at what Gordon Sondlund said today in his testimony, was that… I
think in his opening statement [which by this point had leaked to the press] 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 is, and he’s right, that’s absolutely ordinary course of
business….This is the ordinary course of foreign policy.
Reporter 7 asks, “Mr. Mulvaney, is it appropriate for any president or this president to pressure a foreign country to investigate a political opponent [emphasis added]?”
Mulvaney complains that that’s one of those “‘when did you stop beating your wife?’ questions. It assumes that the president’s done that.”
Finally, Mulvaney calls it quits, saying, “Look, I know we could do this all night. No, I’m not going to take anymore. But it’s nice to see everybody. Thanks again. All right.”
Reporter 12 (I suspect, a representative of CNN) calls after
the departing Trump official,
[crosstalk] “…didn’t take a question. Why are you afraid to take questions from
CNN, sir?”
And I was left thinking at the time that someone should have
shouted, “So when did Trump start beating,
metaphorically, his wife?”
*
IN FACT, on Wednesday morning, Ambassador Sondland appeared to answer that very question. When did the beating stop?
Answer: It had not.
No comments:
Post a Comment