On your AP article. I don't care about when the portrait was hung. You are taking advice of when the portrait arrived from when other offices received it and no discussion of when she didn't hang it. It might of arrived late but she claims she hung it after that. Did she? You are blindly trusting someones word that is openly speaking out against the President. You now need to proceed with caution. You just already eat up anything fed to you.

The second piece was how Trump had the claim that we need to stop funding Ukraine and why are we always the sucker? If you weren't an idiot and actually read the article it said our administration is just paying 400 million for this aid package. That did not include money from NATO. It said overall the EU has donated 16 billion. NATO organizations donate more. Guess who the top donator of NATO is? The United States by a VERY large margin.

You article is terribly written and doesn't understand that we not only send aid through the administration but through NATO funding as well as the top donator.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/674578...-target-trump/

"The United States contributes the most to the alliance, funding around 70 per cent of Nato spending.

This adds up to roughly £501billion, or two thirds of total spending on national budgets."

"America first"

HA HA JAY KAY

“Let me be clear, there was absolutely no quid pro quo between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election,” he said in the statement. “The president never told me to withhold any money until the Ukrainians did anything related to the server. The only reasons we were holding the money was because of concern about lack of support from other nations and concerns over corruption . . . There never was any condition on the flow of the aid related to the matter of the DNC server.”

Like I said you are arguing for Mulvaney like "See he admitted it and if you ask him, he will admit it!" They've asked multiple times. And just for a second clarification on the actual reference you misinterpreted.

"In a news conference, Mulvaney for the first time conceded that the lack of a Ukrainian inquiry into the origins of the Russia investigation played a role in the United States withholding military aid from it over “corruption” issues.

“[Did] he also mention to me, in the past, that the corruption related to the DNC server?” Mulvaney said. “Absolutely, no question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money. ... The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.”

Mulvaney said Trump had not, however, had a similar quid pro quo involving the other investigation he desired — the one involving the Bidens. “The money held up had absolutely nothing to do with Biden,” he said.

The point he is making is that we hold funds all the time while we working with countries for political decisions. If a certain country isn't upholding to the nations standards, it is common place to hold money while you investigate the issue or work on reform. This was even a thing with Venezuela not long again. If NATO was taking advantage of money, you hold the money while you investigate. The democrats are just upset that he was asking to investigate one of their own and consider that abusing power to have political influence in the elections. The democrats are already guilty of that, look at the celebrities they utilize to try and reach millions. The media companies they utilize to push the same talking points. It's a pretty even field if you ask me and if Trump is looking into how far the DNC is corrupt, he should be able to within the realm of not uttering the words that would violate law. He needs to threaten and then hold. You never got the threat. Quid Pro Quo in law refers to "A contract must involve consideration: that is, the exchange of something of value for something else of value."

There was never a verbal, written or any form of agreement.

instead of quid pro quo, which is problematic wording, let's just call it what it is: extortion or bribery.

"Such conduct becomes bribery only when there is an identifiable exchange between the contribution and official acts"

Can you at least see where that definition would be problematic too?

I'll let you check out extortion.

Withholding congressionally approved aid in order to dig up dirt on your political rival is hardly something that is commonplace.

Oh boy here comes Horza the Hillary Clinton of p99

'