Replies

The press has a talking point to push - they claim holding the G7 at a Trump resort is POTUS reaping a profit and brand recognition. Full stop. That's pretty much all they want to talk about. POTUS doesn't collect a salary as president, he already had brand recognition going in, he's hated by the left so brand recognition cuts both ways. Their other points include Ukraine/Biden/China, a repulsive video made portraying POTUS as shooting the press - the MSM wants moar than a statement by the whitehouse, and a reporter states the Judiciary Committee (Nadler) will certainly investigate the selection of the Doral resort for the G7. I enjoyed Mulvaney's response to that (excerpted below)

Excerpts:

Mulvaney: SNIP I did want to come out here with my Nationals hat on, but they told me that that would violate some type of rule, so I couldn’t do that. I was also going to wear my Montreal Expos hat, and then they said that would be foreign interference in the World Series, so I can’t do that either.

SNIP

Q Very quickly. This is a business optics. How is the President going to stand on the debate stage — if, in fact, Vice President Biden wins the nomination — and try to make an argument that he profited off of his vice presidency, or his family did, when he’s hosting the G7 (inaudible)?

MR. MULVANEY: He’s going to do that extraordinarily well.

SNIP

Q Yeah. A video shown last weekend at that resort –actually, a doctored video — showed the President killing members of the news media and his political opponents. Why do you think he hasn’t spoken directly about the sentiment behind that video?

MR. MULVANEY: Have you asked him?

Q I’m sure —

Q We have asked him. Yes.

Q We’ve asked. We’ve asked for comment over and over again, yes.

MR. MULVANEY: But we put out a statement. And you had a chance to ask him that question yesterday and you asked him something else, which is fine. But —

Q But to be clear, he’s been asked multiple times and hasn’t responded.

MR. MULVANEY: Hold on a sec. Hold on a second. Her question was why he hasn’t answered. We did, as a White House, we listened to that. We didn’t like that. I think we condemn that. That’s not —

Q But he’s the President.

Q (Inaudible) Twitter with 65 million followers, sir.

MR. MULVANEY: Do you — we didn’t. We did not. Did you think that we would?

Q What has the President said about it, Mr. Mulvaney?

Q I mean, that doesn’t sound like a very strong condemnation.

MR. MULVANEY: Oh, come on, Jon.

SNIP

Q Yes. There will almost certainly be a House Judiciary Committee hearing about this site selection.

MR. MULVANEY: You think so?

Q Jerry Nadler has already talked about that. Will —

MR. MULVANEY: Do you, though? Do you really think so? Do you think they have time to do that?

Q I really think so. Yeah. Will the administration participate, cooperate, with that?

MR. MULVANEY: You know, that’s a — by the way, that’s a fascinating question. I had not thought that — that this would prompt a Judiciary Committee investigation. On one hand, I’m thinking to myself, “They don’t have time to do it because they’re too busy doing impeachment.” Right. And then I think to myself, “No, this is entirely consistent with how they’ve spent the first 18 months in office.” Right? Or 12 months — however long they’ve been here. I guess it’s been a year, right?

That, yeah, they’d rather do that than talk about tax policy, than talk about drug policy, than talk about opioids; talk about healthcare. So, that’s a fascinating question. I don’t know if there will be a Judiciary Committee inquiry into this. My guess is there probably will be. And we look forward to participating in it.