‘Get over it.’ Should we?

Did Mick Mulvaney, President Donald Trump’s acting chief of staff, admit that the White House pressured Ukraine to conduct an investigation that could help Trump politically?

Or did the news media misconstrue what Mulvaney had said as part of a “witch hunt” against the president?

I saw a video recording of Mulvaney’s Oct. 17 press briefing and read a transcript of the questions and answers. It was clear to me that the news media accurately reported what Mulvaney conveyed to reporters.

Mulvaney acknowledged that the Trump administration was ready to release nearly $400 million in military aid if Ukraine investigated whether that country provided assistance to Democrats in the 2016 American election. The funding eventually “flowed,” he said.

Jonathan Karl, chief White House correspondent for ABC News, said, “What you have just described is a ‘quid pro quo.’”

A “quid pro quo” — literally “this for that” — could be grounds for impeachment if the “quid” is from the U.S. government and the “quo” is a personal political benefit to the president.

Mulvaney replied, “We do that all the time with foreign policy.”

A short time later, he added: “And I have news for everybody. Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy.”

What he said was news, all right — good news for Democrats and bad news for Republicans.

“We have a confession,” said Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California

“It’s quite concerning,” said Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. “I have no idea why he said what he said.”

Soon after he met with reporters, Mulvaney issued a statement in which he denounced news reports about the briefing as inaccurate.

“Once again, the media has decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump,” Mulvaney’s statement said.

“Let me be clear, there was absolutely no ‘quid pro quo’ between Ukrainian military aid and any investigation into the 2016 election.”

Stephanie Grisham, the new White House press secretary, told Fox News that Mulvaney “did a great job.”

She added: “We put a statement out clarifying some of the things that the media got themselves in a tizzy over.”

On his cable program, “Fox News Sunday,” Chris Wallace told Mulvaney “everybody thinks” the military aid was being withheld to get Ukraine to investigate the president’s political opponents.

Mulvaney said, “I never used that language because there is not a ‘quid pro quo.’”

Wallace pointed out that a reporter at the briefing called it a ‘quid pro quo.” Wallace noted that Mulvaney said, “That happens all the time.”

Mulvaney responded, “Reporters will use their language all the time. My language never used ‘quid pro quo.’”

I agree with Jonathan Karl. What Mulvaney described certainly was a “quid pro quo.”