Schiff pushed Volker to say Ukraine felt pressure from Trump

  
Via:  Vic Eldred  •  one month ago  •  48 comments


Schiff pushed Volker to say Ukraine felt pressure from Trump
"Congressman, this is why I'm trying to say the context is different, because at the time they learned that, if we assume it's Aug. 29, they had just had a visit from the national security adviser, John Bolton. That's a high-level meeting already. He was recommending and working on scheduling the visit of President Zelensky to Washington. We were also working on a bilateral meeting to take place in Warsaw on the margins of a commemoration on the beginning of World War II. And in that context,...

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


In a secret interview, Rep. Adam Schiff, leader of the House Democratic effort to   impeach President Trump , pressed former United States special representative to Ukraine   Kurt Volker   to testify that Ukrainian officials felt pressured to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter as a result of Trump withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine.Volker denied that was the case, noting that Ukrainian leaders did not even know the aid was being withheld and that they believed their relationship with the U.S. was moving along satisfactorily, without them having done anything Trump mentioned in his notorious July 25 phone conversation  with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

When Volker repeatedly declined to agree to Schiff's characterization of events, Schiff said, "Ambassador, you're making this much more complicated than it has to be."

The interview took place Oct. 3 in a secure room in the U.S. Capitol. While the session covered several topics,   the issue of an alleged quid pro quo   — U.S. military aid in exchange for a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens and a public announcement that such an investigation was underway — was a significant part of the discussion.

"[The Ukrainians] didn't want to be drawn into investigating a Democratic candidate for president, which would mean only peril for Ukraine, is that fair to say?" Schiff asked Volker.

"That may be true," Volker said. "That may be true. They didn't express that to me, and, of course, I didn't know that was the context at the time." (Volker has said he did not know that Trump had mentioned the Bidens on the July 25 call with Zelensky until the rough transcript of the call was released on Sept. 25.)

"Part of the other context is vital military support is being withheld from the Ukraine during this period, right?" Schiff asked.

"That was not part of the context at the time," Volker said. "At least to my knowledge, they [Ukrainian leaders] were not aware of that."

Schiff asked whether Volker had discussed the withholding of aid with Ukrainian officials. Volker said he had not. The first time he talked with the Ukrainians about that was when a story appeared in the press, an article in   Politico ,   "Trump holds up Ukraine military aid meant to confront Russia,"   on Aug. 28-29, well after the July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call.

"The first conversation I had was when the diplomatic adviser to President Zelensky, Vadym Prystaiko, I believe it was, texted me a copy of the   Politico   article about the hold on assistance," Volker testified. "So I had had many conversations with him in the months prior to that, and this did not come up from him to me, which makes me believe that this was not on his radar until that time when he saw the article."

Volker said that he already knew about the suspension in aid, having learned on July 18, a week before the Trump-Zelensky call. Volker testified that he asked around about the suspension — why was it being done? — but was not able to find out what was going on.

Schiff began to push the quid pro quo allegation. He asked Volker whether he would agree that "no president of the United States should ever ask a foreign leader to help intervene in a U.S. election."

"I agree with that," said Volker.

"And that would be particularly egregious if it was done in the context of withholding foreign assistance?" Schiff continued.

Volker balked. "We're getting now into, you know, a conflation of these things that I didn't think was actually there."

Schiff wanted Volker to agree that "if it's inappropriate for a president to seek foreign help in a U.S. election, it would be doubly so if a president was doing that at a time when the United States was withholding military support from the country."

Again, Volker did not agree. "I can't really speak to that," he said. "My understanding of the security assistance issue is — "

Schiff interrupted. "Why can't you speak to that, ambassador? You're a career diplomat. You can understand the enormous leverage that a president would have while withholding military support from an ally at war with Russia. You can understand just how significant that would be, correct?"

Volker tried to go along without actually agreeing. "I can understand that that would be significant," he said.

Schiff persisted. "And when that suspension of aid became known to that country, to Ukraine, it would be all the more weighty to consider what the president had asked of them, wouldn't it?"

"So again, congressman, I don't believe — " Volker began.

"It's a pretty straightforward question," Schiff said.

"But I don't believe the Ukrainians were aware that the assistance was being held up — "

"They became aware of it," Schiff said.

"They became aware later, but I don't believe they were aware at the time, so there was no leverage implied," Volker said.

The two men continued to argue about the chronology of events. By the time the Ukrainians learned about the withheld aid in late August, Volker said, all sides had dropped the idea of making a statement announcing an investigation of the Bidens and events during the 2016 election. But Schiff kept pushing the notion that once the Ukrainians did learn about the withheld aid, then they would have felt tremendous pressure from Trump.

"At the point they [the Ukrainians] learned that, wouldn't that have given them added urgency to meet the president's request on the Bidens?" Schiff asked.

"I don't know the answer to that," Volker said.

Schiff pressed Volker to agree one more time. In response, Volker tried to explain that the Ukrainians did not seem to be feeling pressure from Trump and the U.S.

"Congressman, this is why I'm trying to say the context is different, because at the time they learned that, if we assume it's Aug. 29, they had just had a visit from the national security adviser, John Bolton. That's a high-level meeting already. He was recommending and working on scheduling the visit of President Zelensky to Washington. We were also working on a bilateral meeting to take place in Warsaw on the margins of a commemoration on the beginning of World War II. And in that context, I think the Ukrainians felt like things are going the right direction, and they had not done anything on — they had not done anything on an investigation, they had not done anything on a statement, and things were ramping up in terms of their engagement with the administration. So I think they were actually feeling pretty good then."

At that point, Schiff gave up. Why was Volker resisting? "Ambassador, I find it remarkable as a career diplomat that you have difficulty acknowledging that when Ukraine learned that their aid had been suspended for unknown reasons, that this wouldn't add additional urgency to a request by the president of the United States. I find that remarkable."

Later, Republican Rep. Scott Perry questioned Volker, returning to the colloquy with Schiff. Perry asked Volker whether he, Volker, had close relations with Ukrainian officials and whether, if those officials felt something was amiss, they would tell Volker.

"The folks that you dealt with in Ukraine at the very highest level, I don't know, but I'm going to ask, do you feel like they had a fair amount of trust in you?"

"Absolutely," said Volker.

"So they would confide things in you if they had a question?"

"They would confide things," Volker answered. "They would ask questions. They would ask for help. We had a very candid relationship ... "

"In your conversation with Rep. Schiff, he kind of implied and wanted you to intimate that there was an agreement based on that conversation that: If you do the investigation, then you can have a meeting [with Trump] and maybe we'll consider this military aid. If that were the case from the call, do you feel, because they had some trust in you, that they would have come to you and said, 'Hey how do we handle this? Is this what the President of the United States is asking?' Would they confide — would they ask you that?"

"Yes," said Volker. "They would have asked me exactly that, you know. How do we handle this?"

Much of the coverage of Volker's testimony focused on his opening statement, which made its way to the media. ( Washington Post   headline:   "Volker defends Biden as 'man of integrity' in testimony to Congress." ) But there was much more to the testimony than the opening statement. Among other things, it showed how Schiff, as a powerful chairman in charge of impeachment, pursues his theory of the case even when a witness gives testimony that does not support it.

Schiff has scheduled more interviews for this week and next.


1200px-Byron_York_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg


 | October 16, 2019 04:00 PM


Byron York is a syndicated columnist, investigative journalist and former news producer at CNN Headline News.

Article is Locked


 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Now we should all know why Schiff & Pelosi want these interviews to be held behind closed doors.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1  KDMichigan  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

I just watched on CBS that the house should be wrapped up by Thanksgiving and turned over to the senate and they should be wrapped up by end of year....I was like WTF?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1    one month ago

That is the plan. If they don't public support will begin to erode. It is still a tough sell without all the media hype.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
Now we should all know why Schiff & Pelosi want these interviews to be held behind closed doors.

Well gee Vic, your seed has a crap load of quotes in it. Where did they come from? 

If you need more that what York provided in his column, why not email him with questions.

Ask him who leaked the transcript he's quoting while you're at it. 

BTW, Schiff has stated many times why the DEPOSITONS are being held behind closed doors. You just don't like the answer. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.2    one month ago
BTW, Schiff has stated many times why the DEPOSITONS are being held behind closed doors.

This ? :

" not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests."

Kinda like "Mob" Boss Schifties " Parody " theatrics, "As-Seen-On-TV", on Trumps phone call with the Ukraine President ? jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.2  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @1.2.1    one month ago

YES, that:

"The Republicans would like nothing better because they view their role as defending the president and being the president's lawyers. If witnesses could tailor their testimony to other witnesses. They would love for one witness to be able to hear what another witness says so that they can know what they can give away and what they can't give away," the former prosecutor said.
"There's a reason why investigations and grand jury proceedings for example, and I think this is analogous to a grand jury proceeding, are done out of the public view initially. Now we may very well call some of the same witnesses or all the same witnesses in public hearings as well. But we want to make sure that we meet the needs of the investigation and not give the president or his legal minions the opportunity to tailor their testimony and in some cases fabricate testimony to suit their interests."
In other words: Adam Schiff sees no reason why the House investigation should be tailored to the interests of the Republican coverup. Boo hoo, Republicans!

Thanks for the link. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.2.3  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.2.2    one month ago

Kinda like "Mob" Boss Schifties " Parody " theatrics as Truth, "As-Seen-On-TV", on Trumps phone call with the Ukraine President ?

One way ticket to LIE

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @1.2    one month ago
BTW, Schiff has stated many times why the DEPOSITONS are being held behind closed doors.

Sorry, I don't have much faith in Adam Schiff. Lol now they are depositions! And the American public can't hear it - Except when Schiff leaks some of it!

 
 
 
Willjay9
1.3  Willjay9  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

Umm...maybe because the Constitution allows it!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Willjay9 @1.3    one month ago

Now your'e quoting the Constitution?  jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

The "impeachment inquiry" behind closed doors continues. Public & press and some members of congress prohibited. Selective leaks to follow...

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.1  KDMichigan  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    one month ago
Selective leaks to follow...

I also seen on CBS the Senator they were interviewing said that they need to protect the identity of the whistle blower because it is second hand news and "they" would exploit his/her political bias...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  KDMichigan @2.1    one month ago

What is more important the actual conversation or the so called "WB's version of it?  At this point the informers (1st & 2nd) have served their purpose.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    one month ago
The "impeachment inquiry" behind closed doors continues.

Yes, that's how depositions work Vic. Get over it. 

Public & press and some members of congress prohibited. 

Again, that's how depositions work Vic.

Do you think that Congress critters from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee should participate Vic? How about Education and Labor? 

Seriously, that's ridiculous. 

Selective leaks to follow...

Are you actually claiming that you give a fuck about 'selective leaks' Vic. If your seed is to be believed, It's whole basis is selective leaks. 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Willjay9
2.2.1  Willjay9  replied to  Dulay @2.2    one month ago

Yep....I love how all these Constitutional loving conservatives fail to realize how the Constitution works!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.2    one month ago
Yes, that's how depositions work Vic.

No that's how the resistance works!

Again, that's how depositions work Vic.

You can say it until hell freezes over - It's a disgrace for the House of Representatives.

Do you think that Congress critters from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee should participate Vic? 

How about the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee. How about them being able to call witnesses?  How about the American people getting to hear your "impeachment inquiry"?

Seriously, that's ridiculous.

Oh, I know, anything that stands in the way of those obnoxious assholes who think they are going to remove a President is ridiculous!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Willjay9 @2.2.1    one month ago
Yep....I love how all these Constitutional loving conservatives fail to realize how the Constitution works!

We know progressives hate the constitution. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.3    one month ago

We have high Trump officials admitting their guilt and saying "so what"? , and Vic wants to base our conclusions on process inside a congressional committee. 

I guess if all you have to eat is gravel, you make a gravel sandwich. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.4    one month ago
We have high Trump officials admitting their guilt

What guilt?  This bullshit that simply asking the Ukraine to look into corruption is a crime isn't going to work. People aren't stupid. Pelosi cant even hold vote. Schiff is afraid of what might be said. You can repeat it (the media will) 24/7 but it won't make it a crime. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.2    one month ago
You can say it until hell freezes over - It's a disgrace for the House of Representatives.

Was it a disgrace for the House of Representatives when the GOP was taking behind door depositions Vic? 

Seriously, goose, gander. 

How about the Republicans on the Intelligence Committee.

Are you actually under the delusion that the Republican members of the Intel Committee aren't being allowed in the SCIF during the depositions Vic? 

You really should STOP swilling the pabulum that Gaetz and Jordon are spewing. 

How about them being able to call witnesses?  

Come on Vic. It's a fucking DEPOSITION! Stop posting obtuse comments. 

How about the American people getting to hear your "impeachment inquiry"?

I really cannot WAIT until this IS all out in the open and showing on C-Span all day long. I will find it extremely entertaining, I doubt that Trump and his sycophants will. 

That being said, you've admitted elsewhere that the House makes it's own rules. The Chairman control their committees. Nader will control how the Judiciary conducts the mark up on the Articles of Impeachment. He could decide to give Trump the right to call witnesses or he could tell Trump to go pound sand. 

If it WERE my Impeachment Inquiry, Trump would be pounding a lot of sand. 

Oh, I know, anything that stands in the way of those obnoxious assholes who think they are going to remove a President is ridiculous!

Why are you so sure that a bunch of Congressman, with NOT expertise in the subject matter, would or could stand in the way of anything. ALL it would cause is a scrum at the microphones after the end of each deposition. 

BTFW, I note that you've clammed up about selective leaking all of a sudden. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.2.6    one month ago
If it WERE my Impeachment Inquiry, Trump would be pounding a lot of sand. 

Lynch mobs aren't allowed anymore. 

I let you have the last word as usual. I know you think that's a victory.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.5    one month ago

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.9  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.7    one month ago
Lynch mobs aren't allowed anymore.

You know were you can put your strawmen Vic.  

I let you have the last word as usual. I know you think that's a victory.

I get it, it irks you to allow others to have an equal say on your seeds Vic. Tissue? 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.2.10  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @2.2.9    one month ago
I get it, it irks you to allow others to have an equal say on your seeds Vic. Tissue? 

256

 
 
 
JBB
3  JBB    one month ago

All witnesses are sworn to tell the truth. Only those who wish to mislead Americans would ever desire a witness before a committee of Congress to do otherwise. Therefore it is entirely appropriate that Chairman Shiff encourages and advises Mr. Volker to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JBB @3    one month ago
Therefore it is entirely appropriate that Chairman Shiff encourages and advises Mr. Volker to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 

But trying to force someone to tell the truth YOU believe is the truth, even when it is not the FACTUAL truth is wrong.  

I'm still waiting for that EVIDENCE" Schiff saw that was going to be the downfall of Trump.  And waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting...........

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2  Nerm_L  replied to  JBB @3    one month ago
All witnesses are sworn to tell the truth. Only those who wish to mislead Americans would ever desire a witness before a committee of Congress to do otherwise. Therefore it is entirely appropriate that Chairman Shiff encourages and advises Mr. Volker to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 

But Congressmen acting in the role of prosecutors (or inquisitors) are not sworn to seek the truth.  Therein lies the problem.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2    one month ago

Nor are they sworn to keeping the statements made during a confidential hearing confidential. We trust these people we elect. I use the term "we" loosely. Some of us are solid citizens, others are part of America's underbelly. There are those who gladly serve either.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.1    one month ago
Nor are they sworn to keeping the statements made during a confidential hearing confidential.

While they can 'characterize' what was said, they CANNOT release verbatim statements, as your seed seems to do. If the transcript is marked 'confidential', it would be a crime to release even part of ii. 

BTW, the Committee would make the transcript available to the witness and allow his/her lawyers to review it for accuracy PRIOR to any release. The witness would also be allowed to clarify, in writing, anything they feel needs clarification. That release would also usually require the witnesses consent. 

One more thing. since when do Trump sycophants care about 'selective leaks'?

Last year, the House Intel Committee released the Majority report on "Russian Active Measures"  'selectively leaked' what Nunes claimed were statements from McCabe's confidential deposition. Trump's sycophant's lapped it up. Conveniently Nunes NEVER released the transcript to support his claim.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @3.2.2    one month ago
While they can 'characterize' what was said

You mean like when Schiff "characterized" what the President said?

it would be a crime to release even part of ii. 

Lol and so many get punished for it! I'll believe that when I see a deep state progressive punished!

BTW, the Committee would make the transcript available to the witness and allow his/her lawyers to review it for accuracy PRIOR to any release. The witness would also be allowed to clarify, in writing, anything they feel needs clarification. That release would also usually require the witnesses consent. 

I know it's all appropriate, so said the lawyer at the Salem Witch trials.

One more thing. since when do Trump sycophants care about 'selective leaks'?

"Trump sycophants"? As opposed to what "hate sycophants"?

Seeing as Donald Trump has been the greatest victim of leaks and Adam Schiff has been one of the greatest leakers of closed door investigations, I guess we get to put forth a valid argument. Haters don't!

Last year, the House Intel Committee released the Majority report on "Russian Active Measures"  'selectively leaked' what Nunes claimed were statements from McCabe's confidential deposition.

Prove he leaked it!  So, what about Nunes justifies the outrage going on?  Isn't that when you kept denying that McCabe admitted that without the Steele Dossier there would never have been a counter intelligence investigation of Trump?

You are still batting zero.


 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.2.4  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @3.2.2    one month ago
While they can 'characterize' what was said, they CANNOT release verbatim statements, as your seed seems to do. If the transcript is marked 'confidential', it would be a crime to release even part of ii.  BTW, the Committee would make the transcript available to the witness and allow his/her lawyers to review it for accuracy PRIOR to any release. The witness would also be allowed to clarify, in writing, anything they feel needs clarification. That release would also usually require the witnesses consent. 

We're talking about the legislative branch; not the judicial branch.  Congressional committees are not grand juries and are not subject to judicial requirements placed on prosecutors.  Congress makes it's own rules.

Congress really can convene a kangaroo court if it wishes.  Congress is not, never has been, and never can be a court of law as long as the Constitution remains in force.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.3    one month ago
You mean like when Schiff "characterized" what the President said?

Actually no, that was too close to verbatim. 

Lol and so many get punished for it! I'll believe that when I see a deep state progressive punished!

Irrelevant, it's a crime. 

I know it's all appropriate, so said the lawyer at the Salem Witch trials.

The utter ignorance in that statement is breathtaking. 

"Trump sycophants"? As opposed to what "hate sycophants"?

Pithy. /s

Seeing as Donald Trump has been the greatest victim of leaks and Adam Schiff has been one of the greatest leakers of closed door investigations, I guess we get to put forth a valid argument. Haters don't!

Oh please do post a link to something Schiff leaked. 

Prove he leaked it!  

In the Report, Nunes included 'selective leaks' by quoting statements he claimed McCabe's made in his testimony. Go look it the Report up for yourself. 

You are still batting zero.

I chuckle ever time one of you makes a ridiculous claim like that. The I realize how sad it is.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.4    one month ago
We're talking about the legislative branch; not the judicial branch.  Congressional committees are not grand juries and are not subject to judicial requirements placed on prosecutors.  Congress makes it's own rules.

Congress doesn't make it's own rules on how classified information or materials are handled. All of these depositions are being conducted in the House Intel Committee SCIF because of the nature of the classified information and material that is being discussed. 

Congress really can convene a kangaroo court if it wishes.  Congress is not, never has been, and never can be a court of law as long as the Constitution remains in force.

As the Constitution cites the penalty for Impeachment is removal from office, and being banned from holding future federal office, they aren't acting as ANY kind of 'court'.

Your 'point' is moot. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.3    one month ago

Still waiting for that link to Schiff's leaks Vic. Tic toc.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4  It Is ME    one month ago

"Ambassador, you're making this much more complicated than it has to be."

Using the Schifty Schiff "Parody" method ….. "Just "Agree" with "ME" and we can be done with this".jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  It Is ME @4    one month ago

Clearly that would simplify everything.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago
Clearly that would simplify everything.

Dems can't be "Clear". It would "Muck up" their agenda !

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.1    one month ago

If you are following this, they have a new word - "EXTORTION".  That's what the left wing media is going to be drumming into everyone for the next month!

There is only one problem - nobody got extorted and the Ukraine got there aid.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    one month ago

You might want to look up 'attempted extortion'. It's a thing. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Dulay @4.1.3    one month ago

You think wrong. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    one month ago

I think there is a word for this in real courts, witness tampering.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5    one month ago

You think wrong. 

 
 
 
lady in black
6  lady in black    one month ago

What's that you say about NO QUID PRO QUO.......

Mulvaney comments seized on by critics as proof of Ukraine quid pro quo

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mulvaney-comments-seized-on-by-critics-as-proof-of-ukraine-quid-pro-quo

Mulvaney was then questioned by a reporter about his explanation, saying that it sounded like a quid pro quo.

He responded: "We do that all the time. Get over it. Politics is going to be involved in foreign policy. Elections do have consequences."

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1  XDm9mm  replied to  lady in black @6    one month ago
Mulvaney comments seized on by critics as proof of Ukraine quid pro quo

As opposed to the actual participants in the conversation refuting that contention.  Yeah, that sounds about right for idiots to accept.

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1.1  lady in black  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1    one month ago

Sounds right that DEPORABLES don't realize there are 20 MISSING MINUTES FROM THE CALL....DUH

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.2  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1    one month ago
As opposed to the actual participants in the conversation refuting that contention.

One of the 'actual participants' is the most prolific liar in America and the other participant had his balls in a vice. 

 
 
 
Willjay9
7  Willjay9    one month ago

The Washington Examiner and Byron York...nuff said! Smdh

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Willjay9 @7    one month ago

Ya Willie cover up!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Dulay
Jack_TX
Ender
Sean Treacy
Dean Moriarty


63 visitors