Joseph Sabino Mistick: Mulvaney, Taylor, Trump & the truth |
Joseph Sabino Mistick, Columnist

Joseph Sabino Mistick: Mulvaney, Taylor, Trump & the truth

Joseph Sabino Mistick
Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff, at his memorable Oct. 17 press briefing.

In the old “cops and robbers” movies of the film noir era, they would usually have to sweat a guy or beat him with a rubber hose to get him to confess the way Mick Mulvaney willingly confessed at a recent White House press briefing.

For weeks, Donald Trump had been claiming that he never withheld military aid intended for Ukraine in exchange for “dirt” on Joe Biden, Trump’s potential Democratic opponent. Trump repeatedly stated that he never demanded a quid pro quo.

But Mulvaney, Trump’s acting chief of staff, told a different story. Brushing Trump aside, Mulvaney not only admitted that there was a quid pro quo, he brazenly stated that those kinds of trade-offs happen all the time as part of Trump’s foreign policy.

And he told the gathered press to “get over it,” as if they were a bunch of dopes with no clue how the real world works.

Within two hours, after Mulvaney paid a visit to the Trump woodshed for admitting that his boss had committed an impeachable offense, he reappeared. And he has spent every day since then denying that he said what he said, struggling to will it not so, trying to get the world to un-hear it.

Then things only got worse for Mulvaney. A few days after his public acts of contrition began, Mulvaney discussed Trump’s reversal of his decision to hold the G-7 gathering at one his own resorts, Trump National Doral.

Mulvaney said that Trump was “honestly surprised at the level of pushback.”

“At the end of the day he still considers himself to be in the hospitality business,” Mulvaney said, prompting more ridicule aimed at his boss.

For all the angst Mulvaney’s explanations caused him, each one was merely a political gaffe — which means that he inadvertently told the truth. Anyway, his actions would soon be footnotes in light of what happened next.

William B. Taylor Jr., a top diplomat to Ukraine during this time, stepped forward and told the truth intentionally, ignoring White House orders to ignore congressional subpoenas.

Taylor — West Point graduate, Vietnam infantry officer with the 101st Airborne Division, non-partisan State Department official under both Republican and Democratic administrations — was in the room for many of the critical events. He opposed Trump’s plan to require that Ukraine announce an investigation of Biden as a pre-condition to getting the military aid appropriated by Congress.

As he said in one text exchange with other top Trump administration officials in September, “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”

In addition to testifying that there was an explicit quid pro quo, Taylor described a shadow foreign policy run off the books by Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, all part of the plan to get Ukraine to “pay up” with political dirt before they got their military aid.

And it is Taylor and other career public servants like him who uphold the Constitution and defend American values. They may yet save the Republic.

Joseph Sabino Mistick is a Pittsburgh lawyer. Reach him at [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.