Pompeo Fights Back

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo today advised (actually schooled) the Democrats, explaining that current and former State Department officials will not testify before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs this week. Pompeo also complained that the committee’s letters (not subpoenas) appeared to be attempts to

intimidate, bully, and treat improperly the distinguished professionals of the Department of State.

The Secretary of State informed these House Democrats that he’s well aware of other letters sent to State Dept. employees outside the expected and “customary” method of communications, which is through the Bureau of Legislative Affairs.

Pompeo’s full letter explains how House Democrats (in their haste to unilaterally create and then ram articles of impeachment against President Trump through the House of Representatives) are

  • violating the constitutional rights of those they want to testify (by denying them the right to have legal counsel present);
  • failing to follow their own House procedures;
  • improperly claiming authority to compel testimony absent subpoenas;
  • refusing to give those requested to testify adequate time to prepare; and
  • demanding of them State Dept. records that “are not theirs to produce,” records which may contain privileged and/or classified information (again, without subpoenas).

More outrageous, the letters threaten current and former officials with obstruction if they do not appear (voluntarily, because there are no legal subpoenas) on the artificially accelerated timeline that is unilaterally imposed by House Democrats.

Make no mistake. This has been planned for a long, long time. House Democrats are using 6 Democrat members of the House, who head these various committees, to overturn the will of the more than 63 million people who voted to elect President Donald J. Trump.

So much for the Democrats’ professed claims to value democracy, fairness, and equality. Republicans and all the citizens whom they represent are totally disenfranchised by this “impeachment inquiry” sham.

If an impeachment inquiry is analogous to a grand jury, which hands down indictments, then this inquiry being unilaterally run by Democrats, much of it in secret without the input of even one Republican, is like having to go before a grand jury that’s been deliberately stacked with people who hate your guts and already believe you’re guilty before they hear even one word of testimony or consider one piece of evidence.

Because of the secrecy involved (on the excuse of protecting the whistleblower’s identity), nobody will ever know what happened during the alleged testimony and there’s nobody but Democrats to oversee the process.

The Democrats will, without doubt, try to charge the President and anybody from his administration that gets in their way with obstruction of Congress and contempt of Congress. In particular, they’ll go for “inherent contempt:

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, or release from the contempt citation).

You can read more about it here to see how this “advice” from (where else?) an NBC/MSNBC “legal analyst” helpfully laid it all out for them just a few weeks before the alleged whistleblower’s complaint allegedly was made.

Is there even a whistleblower or is he a composite character, like those in Barack Obama’s fictional autobiography, with the complaint written by a committee of anonymous partisans?

The only fly in the “inherent contempt” ointment is this:

Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. A Committee may also cite a person for contempt but not immediately report the resolution to the floor. In the case of subcommittees, they report the resolution of contempt to the full Committee, which then has the option of rejecting it, accepting it but not reporting it to the floor, or accepting it and reporting it to the floor of the chamber for action. On the floor of the House or the Senate, the reported resolution is considered privileged and, if the resolution of contempt is passed, the chamber has several options to enforce its mandate.

Now, I’m no lawyer but I read this to mean that the full House (the chamber) enforces the “mandate” and only after having passed the resolution of contempt.

Only a lawyer would be able to tell us whether these conditions will have been met regarding House subpoenas, should any actually be issued:

As announced in Wilkinson v. United Statesa Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be “legally sufficient.”

First, the committee’s investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue “a valid legislative purpose” but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.

Are any subpoenas sent out by Pelosi’s Star Chamber legally sufficient? Has the chamber (i.e., the full House) authorized the investigation? Have the other conditions been met? Again, only a lawyer (or a judge, or the Supreme Court, perhaps) can enlighten us.

Keep in mind that House committees and subcommittees contain members from each political party. In the past, no single party has unilaterally tried to begin an impeachment inquiry and write articles of impeachment without any input from the opposing party. That would be un-American, anathema to our system of government, wouldn’t it?

Here are some interesting excerpts from Judge Gesell, in a decision during the Watergate scandal:

At this juncture in the so-called Watergate controversy, it is the responsibility of all three branches of the Federal Government to insure that pertinent facts are brought to light, that indictments are fairly and promptly tried, and that any accusations involving the conduct of the President or others are considered in a dignified manner and dealt with in accordance with established constitutional processes. …

That the President himself may be under suspicion does not alter this fact, for he no less than any other citizen is entitled to fair treatment and the presumption of innocence. …

To be sure, the truth can only emerge from full disclosure. A country’s quality is best measured by the integrity of its judicial processes. Experience and tradition teach that facts surrounding allegations of criminal conduct should be developed in an orderly fashion during adversary proceedings before neutral fact finders, so that not only the truth but the whole truth emerges and the rights of those involved are fully protected.

It is not fair or dignified to hear the head of the impeachment inquiry parodying the telephone conversation at the heart of the accusations against President Trump, instead of simply reading the transcript of the call.

It is certainly not fair and constitutional, in my opinion, to exclude the entire Republican party from the inquiry, thus disenfranchising half, if not more, of the American people from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Star Chamber.

And it’s certainly not fair to change the rules of the whistleblower complaint procedure after the fact, in order to very suspiciously shoehorn second-hand, unverified gossip and innuendo masquerading as an “urgent” concern into the intelligence community whistleblower process. (Pay particular attention to the timeline of events recounted in this story.)

There is no fair treatment of the accused or public “full disclosure” when an anonymous “whistleblower” is allowed to testify in secret, before only enemies of the President (hardly neutral fact finders), about allegations and accusations made against the President (some already debunked), allegedly made to him by other anonymous, alleged government officials. Are the President’s rights being protected here? Hardly. Will the whole truth emerge from this Star Chamber process? Highly unlikely. The “jury” is rigged.

Remember the ratio

6 Democrat House members / more than 63,000,000 U.S. voters.

President Trump wrote today:

As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of The United States of America!

Looks that way to a lot of us, Mr. President.


97 responses to “Pompeo Fights Back

  1. https://truepundit.com/ukraine-donated-the-most-cash-of-any-country-to-the-clinton-foundation/

    “A shocking new report reveals that Ukraine donated more money to the Clinton Foundation than any other county on Earth.

    Ukraine beat out both of those countries — and everyone else — by donating a whopping $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. …”

    You think they were BRIBING her in return for favors? What other favors might they have done in return for favors? Maybe “digging up dirt” on Trump? Maybe “interfering in the election?” We do know that the guy who leads Crowdstrike is a Ukrainian (or he may be Russian. Some say he was born in Moscow, which doesn’t rule out being Ukrainian. Ukraine was part of the USSR when he was born.) So they may have done LOTS OF FAVORS for Clinton. But the question is: What did THEY GET in return?

    ““Ukraine became a vast pool of U.S. taxpayer-funded ‘aid’ that poured into that long-corrupt nation and then saw piles of kickbacks returned to powerful and politically connected recipients,” according to a report in DC Clothesline.”

    Maybe THIS is why the DemoncRATS want so badly to get rid of Trump and Pence and with them Bill Barr?

  2. https://truepundit.com/nonpartisan-group-aiding-lawyers-for-whistleblower-tied-to-democrats-far-left-organizations/

    Whistleblower Aid, a small nonprofit helping the lawyers for the so-called whistleblower at the center of the impeachment movement targeting President Donald Trump, is heavily tied to far-left activist organizations and Democratic politics.

    One of the co-founders of Whistleblower Aid previously worked at several liberal activist organizations financed by billionaire activist and Democratic Party megadonor George Soros. The other co-founder currently leads a separate organization that boasts on its four-person advisory board John Podesta, who led Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, served as Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton and founded the Soros-funded Center for American Progress pushing a progressive agenda.

    Working with the so-called DC whistleblower’s lawyers, Whistleblower Aid set up a GoFundMe page seeking to raise funds for the purported whistleblower’s defense. The page already brought in some $206,225 with a goal of raising $300,000.
    John Tye, co-founder of Whistleblower Aid, told Fox News that he is working with the so-called whistleblower’s lawyers at the Compass Rose Legal Group.

    Whistleblower Aid was founded in September 2017 in the wake of Trump’s presidency to encourage government whistleblowers to come forward. …”

    Convenient! Founded before any of this current “whistleblower” crap began. So were they working all this time to get the rules on what constitutes whistleblowing changed? And then planning this current coup?

    • Now this here is very interesting for a “non-profit:”


      When Whistleblower Aid was first formed, the main banner for the mission statement of its website contained clearly anti-Trump language.

      “Today our Republic is under threat. Whistleblower Aid is committed to protecting the rule of law in the United States and around the world,” read the previous statement which can still be viewed via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

      That part of the mission statement received attention in the conservative media.

      The sentence “today our Republic is under threat,” has since been scrubbed from the website. The mission statement now only reads, “Whistleblower Aid is committed to protecting the rule of law in the United States and around the world.” …

      Upon its founding, Whistleblower Aid actively sought to attract the attention of Trump administration government employees by reportedly blasting advertisements for its whistleblower services on Metro trains, using mobile billboards that circled government offices for 10 hours a day, and handing out whistles on street corners as a gimmick to gain attention.

      Tye himself is a whistleblower. He is a former State Department official who went public in 2014 about U.S. government electronic surveillance practices.

      Tye’s bio on Whistleblower Aid’s website brandishes his work for far-left groups.

      The bio reads:

      Mr. Tye has worked at the Southern Poverty Law Center, Avaaz, and also Southeast Louisiana Legal Services as a Skadden Fellow. He was on the board of directors of the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana. …”

      So many, many of the usual suspects. Remembering the truism that whatever the DemoncRATS accuse you of is what they are doing or have done, dare we call this what it is? A VAST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY!!!

      • There’s so much more in that article. Check this out:

        “Whistleblower Aid’s ties to Soros funding and far-left groups furthers a theme of such organizations being closely linked to numerous aspects of the so-called whistleblower’s complaint.

        Some of those common threads run through an organization repeatedly relied upon in the so-called whistleblower’s complaint and are tied to CrowdStrike, the outside firm utilized to conclude that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee’s servers since the DNC would not allow the U.S. government to inspect the servers.

        CrowdStrike founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council.
        [And a UKRAINIAN]

        The Atlantic Council is funded by and works in partnership with Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

        Breitbart News reported that a staffer for Rep. Adam Schiff’s House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence took a trip to Ukraine last month sponsored and organized by the Atlantic Council think tank. Schiff’s office denied any impropriety.

        The Schiff staff member, Thomas Eager, is also currently a fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Congressional Fellowship. Burisma in January 2017 signed a “cooperative agreement” with the Council to sponsor the organization’s Eurasia Center.

        Besides Burisma funding, the Council is also financed by Google as well as Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. and the U.S. State Department.

        Google Capital also led a $100 million funding drive that financed Crowdstrike directly.

        Google, Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower’s complaint alleging Trump was “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country” in the 2020 presidential race. …”

        Omidyar is also involved. We’ve encountered them during the Obama administration with regard to the fake birth certificate, iirc.

        After reading all this, it occurs to me that probably the reason that another “whistleblower” is considering filing a complaint is that the President said it’s important to find out who it was within the WH who gave the information to the other so-called whistleblower, because that was a CRIME to leak classified and privileged information, and it was. The media tell us that this new potential whistleblower is indeed one of the first guy’s “sources” who told him the so-called urgent information. So this guy probably heard the POTUS say the other day that it’s important to track these illegal sources down and identify them. Therefore, he’s likely “considering” filing a whistleblower complaint himself.

        Now do you think he believes that he can retroactively cover for his potential crimes by making a complaint and then HIDING BEHIND THE STATUTE GIVING HIM ANONYMITY, so then if Trump “retaliates” they can charge Trump with the “impeachable crime” of retaliation and/or obstruction of justice?

        How can he be a “whistleblower” AFTER THE FACT? After he’s already been interviewed during an investigation by the ICIG? He had to be hunted down. He’s no whistleblower and leaking classified and privileged information can’t be covered up after the fact by suddenly deciding to make a whistleblower complaint in the hopes of hiding your identity from the POTUS. I’m thinking that DOJ likely can get information about these sources from the ICIG.

  3. I’m still waiting to see if the “subpoenas” that the DemoncRATS sent to the WH are actually subpoenas or if they’re more letters, not legally sufficient subpoenas. Even IF they’re subpoenas, then they’re only issued under the committees’ legislative authority and so can be contested in court and they are subject to rules that pertain only to the committees’ legislating purposes, if any. In this case, there can be NO legislative interest in what the POTUS said to a foreign president because the Congress does NOT oversee the President’s running of foreign affairs, which is wholly the job of the President under the Constitution. They can’t write ANY legislation to control what the POTUS says to foreign government officials or control how he runs foreign policy, whether or not he’s asking for cooperation on criminal investigations. This is NOT an “impeachment inquiry” because the full “chamber”, the full HOUSE, has not granted them that authority so the clause in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to subpoena the executive (and which will still be subject to judicial review, if requested by POTUS), has not been activated.

  4. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/02/trump-is-still-getting-impeached-over-russia-229049

    “In its report on Trump’s call with the Australian prime minister, the New York Times says—in a news report, mind you—that the call “shows the president using high-level diplomacy to advance his personal political interests.” Trump is pleased with Barr’s investigation, and would be even more pleased if it unearthed anything untoward. That doesn’t make it merely a pet political project, or mean that there isn’t a genuine public interest in knowing in greater detail how and why the Russia story got started.

    The Times of London reported of Trump’s call to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson that he wanted “to gather evidence to undermine the investigation into his campaign’s links to Russia.” There’s not really anything to undermine, though, since the investigation has been over for months.

    Trump is basically being accused of the entirely new offense of obstruction after the fact. There were many novel theories of obstruction advanced during the Mueller probe, but this is the most creative. …”

    Isn’t this guy a never Trumper? It’s indicative of something when even they are defending the President. And guess what? The infamous Van Jones is saying impeachment is a mistake.

  5. So Atkinson, the ICIG, claims that he didn’t know Schiff and company spoke to the “whistleblower” before the complaint was made to him. Supposedly he did an investigation and now we hear that the new potential whistleblower is one of the first guy’s sources and that Atkinson interviewed him. Atkinson says at the time that the whistleblower, who apparently only fessed up to being a registered DemoncRAT, “appeared credible.” Atkinson did NOT review the transcript of the call or even ask to. What can we conclude now?

    Atkinson is incompetent, complicit, or was DUPED.

    Which is it? If incompetent, there’s not a lot anybody can do about it short of just removing him from office, if that’s even possible at this point.

    If complicit, then there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence to indicate that may be so and therefore somebody (Maguire?) needs to look into this or maybe we need a special counsel to do so and to also investigate the origins of this new apparent, potential Vast Left-wing Conspiracy against Trump, including Schiff and his “staff” of partisan lawyers who are connected to, who else? Soros. Atkinson allowed the change in the rules and the form. WHY did he do so, if he’s not complicit? It was a very timely change, even though he lamely claims the process to do it predated him, which is arguable. Has anybody seen any of the paperwork documenting this change? He’s not above the law, either. Did the whistleblower follow the appropriate process? NO. We know he didn’t because he went to Schiff first. Did he meet with Atkinson or just file the paperwork? There’re indications he met with Atkinson, according to reports of what Schiff’s people advised him to do, after hiring a lawyer connected to DemoncRATS, including Clinton and Schumer. Perhaps he never filed paperwork until after the fact. Why, if true, would Atkinson meet with the guy outside the usual procedure? Why did Atkinson ONLY send letters about the complaint to DemoncRATS on the committee instead of to the whole committee? Why didn’t Atkinson supply Congress with the ACTUAL COMPLAINT instead of with a summary of what he claims is the complaint? Is it true that Atkinson did NOT know the whistleblower spoke first to Schiff? IF so, then that …

    brings us to DUPE. How could a seasoned investigator not know he was being used by partisans? What would a duped person be expected to do after finding out he was duped, given the YUGE outcome of his duping? Would he perhaps revise his original judgment that the whistleblower seemed “credible?” Would it be plausible that he’d contemplate allowing the whistleblower’s source to file a complaint of his own? IF SO, then we perhaps are back at the second possibility–complicit–because why would he want to allow the DemoncRATS to rehabilitate their corrupt conspiracy and keep their impeachment meme going, knowing that he was used as a dupe to advance it? Why would he want to grant the source anonymity? IF he knows he was duped, then he ought to blow the whistle on the entire scheme, admit the duping, and try to fix it by publicly declaring the fact that he was tricked into deciding that the complaint had merit. He should declare that not being a valid whistleblower, the guy no longer has immunity from being outed. In addition, Atkinson should take steps to see the CIA analyst/agent/whatever he is is disciplined for NOT following the correct procedure and perhaps even investigated for passing on classified and privileged information outside the rules of the intel community (and the law)?

    He has done none of that. He’s only gone to ground, so far as I can tell.

    What is he? Incompetent? Complicit? A dupe?

  6. Gotcha! POTUS is cutting their staff and funding. It should be just the beginning, but is a step in the right direction, imho. They are obviously out of control: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/president-trump-orders-massive-cuts-to-national-security-staff-after-deep-state-cia-whistleblower-hit/

    Within that article is also evidence that the whistleblower committed perjury by not revealing first his contact with Schiff.

    “The complainant’s failure to disclose his interactions with Schiff or his staff could put him in legal hot water, as the whistleblower form he submitted requires individuals to disclose “other actions you are taking on your disclosure” under penalty of perjury. An entire page of the whistleblower form is dedicated to collecting information about previous disclosures so the ICIG can take appropriate action in response to the complaint.

    “I have previously disclosed (or am disclosing) the violations alleged here to (complete all that apply),” the form requires the complainant to attest. The form includes checkboxes for disclosures to other inspectors general, other agencies, the Department of Justice, the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Special Counsel, other executive branch departments, Congress and its respective committees, and media. It also includes a separate question asking the complainant to detail those previous disclosures to the ICIG.

    “Before going to Congress, the C.I.A. officer had a colleague convey his accusations to the agency’s top lawyer,” The New York Times reported earlier this week. “Concerned about how that avenue for airing his allegations was unfolding, the officer then approached a House Intelligence Committee aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump.”

    The New York Times noted that the anti-Trump complainant only notified the committee’s Democrats of his allegations. …” [Huh, as did the ICIG.]

    Now this could be exactly WHY the ICIG provided only a SUMMARY and NOT the actual form allegedly completed by the whistleblower. HAD HE BEEN TRUTHFUL then the ICIG would have KNOWN (and it would be proven that he knew) that the guy had gone to Schiff and lawyers first. So is THAT why he concealed the original form from Congress? COVER UP!!!! More evidence in the “complicit” column.

    Note: Upon finding out that the complaint potentially contains perjury, what will Atkinson do now? It’s his purview. It’s his job to find and act upon crimes and abuse in the intel community. Here it is, staring him in the face. Will he act? If he doesn’t, we’ll know more about whether he’s a dupe or complicit.

  7. When they begin to play the race and religion cards, you know that they know they’re in trouble:

  8. https://video.foxnews.com/v/6092557912001/#sp=show-clips

    This guy is bending over backwards to be hard on the Republican and “fair” to Biden, BUT he misses the point and outright states falsehoods. Trump DID IN FACT ask the Ukrainians to meet with and COOPERATE WITH BARR AND GIULIANI ON THEIR INVESTIGATION OF CORRUPTION. As for the missed point–he says Trump deals with other countries that are corrupt. True, but that’s NOT WHAT TRUMP is interested in so much, which is consistent with his policy not to intervene in other countries as we have in the past. The corruption Trump is interested in, rightly so because that’s HIS JOB UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, is AMERICAN LAW. When corruption exists in OUR COUNTRY. Why would it be our president’s charge to investigate or stop corruption in OTHER COUNTRIES? For sure, we don’t want to give them aid only to see it siphoned off in corruption. But that, if it happened, is EXACTLY WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED WITH THE BIDENS. How do we know that the money being paid to Biden’s son doesn’t some how get laundered to him via money WE SENT as aid? See how that works? Corruption there, if they’re getting money FROM US, concerns us. So certainly does corruption there instigated and participated in by our citizens and officials, breaking OUR laws. As for the other countries he mentions, do we give RUSSIA aid? No. So what do we care if there’s corruption there? Trump rightfully, imho, minds his own p’s and q’s. If there’s corruption in Russia, it’s the job of the Russian people to see it cleaned up. How? By elections or whatever other means are necessary, but it’s not our job to police the world. I think so and I believe, unless I’m mistaken, that’s Trump attitude, too.

  9. CLANK > CLANK > CLANK!!! … if I hear IT I say some-thing’ … clank?
    Brennan’s briefing of Sen. Harry Reid, which included information from the Steele dossier, certainly is a key indicator of his participation in the campaign to keep and/or kick Donald Trump out of the White House:

    Brennan is a ringleader in the deep state coup against Trump. Instead of accusing AG Bill Barr of being corrupt, this might be a good time for Brennan to exercise his right to be silent.


  10. She spoke with “Valley Girl” turns of phrase, which, combined with the other factors, made her seem much younger than her 70 -something years.

    • So like Hillary, she can put on a different persona? Remember how Hillary had her black speak and her southern speak and then her own type of Valley Girl speak? What a bunch of phonies.

  11. Ester’ .. other people THINK of U…of ME ..of TRUMP!!! .. Pastor Paul
    Love ya’ all … listen UP … so today … CONGRATULATION …
    R U Aware ? …. lalala

    • That’s actually a bit surprising, but you know. Progressives ARE cheapskates and not especially prone to being literate. Witness how they cannot even read nor comprehend things like John Solomon’s excellent exposes of what really goes on in DC.

    • That was an inspired bit of, as TCTH called it, “agitprop.” AOC apparently fell for it and some seemed to take it seriously. And why not, when they talk about eating deceased people? Well, aren’t aborted fetuses deceased people?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s