PowerLine -> Doral, here we come + Mick Mulvaney’s presser, a closer look

FREE Simplisafe camera

PowerLine -> Doral, here we come + Mick Mulvaney’s presser, a closer look

  • Doral, here we come
  • Mick Mulvaney’s presser, a closer look
  • The Week in Pictures: LeBron 2020 Edition
Doral, here we come

Posted: 19 Oct 2019 04:41 PM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)The next G-7 summit, which is due to be held in the U.S., will take place at Doral, the luxury resort Trump owns in Florida. It was the decision to hold the summit there that Mick Mulvaney was explaining and defending before he unwisely decided to spar with reporters over the temporary withholding of aid to Ukraine.

According to Mulvaney, Doral was added to the list of about a dozen facilities for consideration at Trump’s suggestion. The decision as to which facility on the list to select was made by a White House team after visiting and analyzing each facility.

Mulvaney said that Doral will host the G-7 at cost. In other words, Doral will make no profit off of the event. If the White House is true to its word, the participating nations, and presumably the media outlets that cover the conference, will save a fair amount of money.

Democrats and their media pals are blasting Trump for this decision. They have not demonstrated, however, that Doral will make money or that there was an available alternative facility that would have been as desirable as Doral in terms of accommodations, location, etc.

During the Mulvaney presser, reporters complained that even if Doral doesn’t make a profit, holding the G-7 there will enhance Trump’s “brand” or at least make it more visible. I doubt it. Trump’s brand is about as visible as it can get. The public’s view of the Trump brand — whether positive or negative — is surely fixed by now.

If he’s not gaining monetarily or image-wise, why did Trump recommend Doral as a possible venue for the G-7 meeting? I can think of two reasons in addition to Doral’s merit, both of which might well have been in his mind.

First, he’s proud of Doral and wants to show it off to world leaders. Second, he wants to say “f-you” to his critics.

The fallback position of these critics is that, although Trump may not profit from the use of Doral, his decision gives the appearance of impropriety. To be sure, Trump has never worried about appearing to act improperly.

But if Trump won’t profit from the decision — if all he gains is a little of personal satisfaction — I don’t see why there’s even an appearance of impropriety.

  

Mick Mulvaney’s presser, a closer look

Posted: 19 Oct 2019 08:11 AM PDT

(Paul Mirengoff)I want to take another look at Mick Mulvaney’s presser — the one that Democrats and the mainstream media claim nails down the existence of a quid pro quo arrangement between President Trump and Ukraine (or offer thereof) involving U.S. military aid. My previous post focused on the fact that if Mulvaney was talking about a quid pro quo, it wasn’t military aid in exchange for conducting an investigation of the Bidens. Rather it was military aid for cooperating with an investigation of Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election campaign.

I argued that even if such a pro quid quo was offered, it wasn’t corrupt because investigating foreign involvement in our election is a legitimate national interest.

In this post, I want to look more closely at whether Mulvaney confessed to any quid pro quo. Having listened more closely to what Mulvaney said, it’s not clear that he did.

Mulvaney cited two reasons for the holding up of military aid to Ukraine: (1) lack of a contribution by European countries and (2) corruption in Ukraine. Then he added:

Did [Trump] also mention to me in 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.

Previously, instead of transcribing “in past,” I transcribed “in passing.” But on further review, it sounds like Mulvaney said “in past.” I assume he meant to say “in the past.”

Thus, Mulvaney was telling reporters that Trump initially withheld the aid because of lack of European participation and because of corruption. The “DNC server” was merely something Trump had mentioned in the past as an example of the corruption that concerned him.

This is not a confession by Mulvaney that, when aid was withheld, there was a quid pro quo involving investigating the DNC, a server, and/or interference in the 2016 election. It is not a confession that Trump wanted to pressure Ukraine into investigating matters relevant to the 2016 election, or anything else.

This, though, was not the end of discussion. A reporter followed up by saying/asking, “So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason why [Trump] ordered to withhold funding to the Ukrainians?”

Mulvaney did not adopt that statement. Instead, he said, “the look back to what happened in 2016 was part of the thing he was worried about in corruption with that nation.”

The reporter then said, “withholding the funding.” Mulvaney said “yeah, which ultimately then flowed.”

At this point, Mulvaney still has not said that there was a quid pro quo in connection with an investigation. All he has said is (1) that the funding was withheld because of (a) lack of European participation and (b) Ukrainian corruption and (2) that what Ukraine did (or might have done) relating to 2016 was part of the corruption concern.

A reporter then claimed, erroneously, that Mulvaney has described a quid pro quo:

Let’s be clear. What you have just described in a quid pro quo. It is ‘funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well.’

Mulvaney neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement. All he said was “we do that all the time with foreign policy.” (A number of commentators, such as John and Andy McCarthy, have made this point. By doing so, they don’t concede that there was a quid pro quo in this case, and neither, necessarily, did Mulvaney.)

Mulvaney is saying we do quid pro quos — aid in exchange for policy adjustments — all the time. He’s not saying we demand investigations — of Democratic servers or anything else — all the time. Clearly, we do not.

Given Mulvaney’s previous statements, the demand here, to the extent there was one, is to satisfy the administration that we wouldn’t be aiding a hopelessly corrupt country. Mulvaney still hasn’t said or agreed that aid was conditioned on an investigation of Democrats.

Democrats and their media allies are also trying to make something of Mulvaney’s statement later on that “there’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.” Here, though, all Mulvaney was saying is that the substance of foreign policy changes as the result of elections.

This is clear from his statement, in the middle of this part of the discussion, that “elections have consequences.” In fact, Mulvaney said this twice. He added that “foreign policy is going to change from the Obama administration to the Trump administration.” Obviously.

That’s the sense in which Mulvaney was saying that politics influences foreign policy. Mulvaney certainly wasn’t saying that foreign policy is or should be influenced by the desire to investigate political opponents.

It’s possible that Trump did withhold military aid for a time because he wanted to pressure Ukraine to investigate matters of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. If so, I see little, if anything, wrong with this. But Mulvaney didn’t really say that happened.

It’s possible that Trump withheld military aid for a time because he wanted to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. If so, I think this would be a serious wrong. But Mulvaney certainly didn’t say this happened.

  

The Week in Pictures: LeBron 2020 Edition

Posted: 19 Oct 2019 03:30 AM PDT

(Steven Hayward)So LeBron James is now a foreign policy and educational expert. Please don’t ask him about North Korea (though he probably cedes North Korean diplomacy to Dennis Rodman), whose crazy dictator this week apparently had a tantrum because he’s slipped down the power rankings of tyrants the U.S. is giving the love to below Assad, Erdogan, and China’s Xi, and responded by riding a white horse in the mountains. He thinks that will impress Trump? The world grows weirder by the day.

These don’t need a caption:

 

 

Headlines of the week:

                  

     

          

I have questions. . .

  

 

And finally. . .

  

You are subscribed to email updates from Power LinePower Line.
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
Email delivery powered by Google
Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States
Attachments area
Preview YouTube video Mulvaney Tells Reporter: ‘Get Over’ Quid Pro Quo: ‘It Happens All The Time’ | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC

Leave a Reply