Records show contact between Pompeo and Giuliani ahead of Ukraine ambassador's ouster

[W_Heisenberg]

Just another slow Friday news night....

Records show contact between Pompeo and Giuliani ahead of Ukraine ambassador’s ouster

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had several phone calls with President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, toward the end of March, weeks before U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was unceremoniously recalled from her post, according to documents released under court order late Friday.

The documents – released by the State Department in the course of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by American Oversight, an ethics watchdog – do not offer details about what was discussed in the calls. They do show staff efforts to set up phone conversations between Pompeo and Giuliani, and confirmation that the calls took place.

--

An interesting little tidbit:

Pages 47, 57, and 58 - March 2019, Pompeo spoke with Giuliani shortly before speaking with Nunes and then Mnuchin.

State Department Releases Ukraine Documents to American Oversight - American Oversight

Non-pay-wall article:

White House helped arrange call between Giuliani and Pompeo after handover of Biden allegations - CNNPolitics

 

[Captain Adverse]

Just another slow Friday news night....

Records show contact between Pompeo and Giuliani ahead of Ukraine ambassador’s ouster

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had several phone calls with President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, toward the end of March, weeks before U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was unceremoniously recalled from her post, according to documents released under court order late Friday.

The documents – released by the State Department in the course of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by American Oversight, an ethics watchdog – do not offer details about what was discussed in the calls. They do show staff efforts to set up phone conversations between Pompeo and Giuliani, and confirmation that the calls took place.

--

An interesting little tidbit:

Pages 47, 57, and 58 - March 2019, Pompeo spoke with Giuliani shortly before speaking with Nunes and then Mnuchin.

State Department Releases Ukraine Documents to American Oversight - American Oversight

Non-pay-wall article:

White House helped arrange call between Giuliani and Pompeo after handover of Biden allegations - CNNPolitics

I honestly don't understand. This is important because?

The President can appoint or dismiss ambassadors almost at will. Ms. Yovanovitch was appointed by Obama in 2016. It is not unusual for incoming Presidents to recall old and appoint new ambassadors as political favors or for other reasons.

She is still a State Dept. employee. She's just not Ambassador to the Ukraine anymore. :shrug:

 

[Port & Starboard]

Just another slow Friday news night....

Records show contact between Pompeo and Giuliani ahead of Ukraine ambassador’s ouster

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had several phone calls with President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, toward the end of March, weeks before U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was unceremoniously recalled from her post, according to documents released under court order late Friday.

The documents – released by the State Department in the course of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by American Oversight, an ethics watchdog – do not offer details about what was discussed in the calls. They do show staff efforts to set up phone conversations between Pompeo and Giuliani, and confirmation that the calls took place.

--

An interesting little tidbit:

Pages 47, 57, and 58 - March 2019, Pompeo spoke with Giuliani shortly before speaking with Nunes and then Mnuchin.

State Department Releases Ukraine Documents to American Oversight - American Oversight

Non-pay-wall article:

White House helped arrange call between Giuliani and Pompeo after handover of Biden allegations - CNNPolitics

Obama fired a good many (not all) of Bush's appointees without a whisper from the democrats, or most republicans for that matter.

So, where exactly is your beef?

 

[TomFitz]

I honestly don't understand. This is important because?

The President can appoint or dismiss ambassadors almost at will. Ms. Yovanovitch was appointed by Obama in 2016. It is not unusual for incoming Presidents to recall old and appoint new ambassadors as political favors or for other reasons.

She is still a State Dept. employee. She's just not Ambassador to the Ukraine anymore. :shrug:

It’s important because it demonstrates that the scheme to lean on the Ukranians was coordinated with the Secretary of State, outside his own normal channels of authority and without knowledge or briefing of his staff.

Since there is no doubt now about what the real objective of the scheme was, this further implicates Pompeo.

Which, of course, is why the Administration is trying to hide him (and Guliani, and Mulvaney) from testifying.

All the while, right trash media orchestrates a chorus of “heresay” to be parroted by a Trumpster mob that doesn’t seem to think ahead far enough to see that the only thing holding back their “heresay” objection is the man they are cheering for!

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I honestly don't understand. This is important because?

It's another indication Pompeo was involved in this whole scheme involving Ukraine, and it becomes another justification to put him under oath.

The President can appoint or dismiss ambassadors almost at will. Ms. Yovanovitch was appointed by Obama in 2016. It is not unusual for incoming Presidents to recall old and appoint new ambassadors as political favors or for other reasons.

This is true, but the President's power to appoint or dismiss ambassadors has a limit. The President cannot engage in an official act which results in Treason, Bribery, or High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

She is still a State Dept. employee. She's just not Ambassador to the Ukraine anymore. :shrug:

With respect to this document release we now know Pompeo was made aware of the propaganda against Yovovanich, Pompeo was made aware it was bunk by other State Dept. officials, and still, Pompeo did nothing to protect her.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Obama fired a good many (not all) of Bush's appointees without a whisper from the democrats, or most republicans for that matter.

So, where exactly is your beef?

My beef with Trump concerns two things:

1) The known fact that Trump fired Yovanovich on the basis of an attack against her which originated from foreigners who saw her as an obstacle to their corrupt schemes, RATHER than a national foreign policy goal of the President.

2) The strong suspicion that he fired this particular ambassador, apparently, to advance some sort of bribery scheme whereby he tried to trade an official act of the government in exchange for a personal benefit.

 

[Captain Adverse]

It’s important because it demonstrates that the scheme to lean on the Ukranians was coordinated with the Secretary of State, outside his own normal channels of authority and without knowledge or briefing of his staff.

Since there is no doubt now about what the real objective of the scheme was, this further implicates Pompeo.

Which, of course, is why the Administration is trying to hide him (and Guliani, and Mulvaney) from testifying.

All the while, right trash media orchestrates a chorus of “heresay” to be parroted by a Trumpster mob that doesn’t seem to think ahead far enough to see that the only thing holding back their “heresay” objection is the man they are cheering for!

What?

The "staff" of the Secretary of State works FOR the Secretary of State, not the other way round. The Secretary of State heads a Department of the Administration, and that Department was created to provide service and support for the policies of the seated President who happens to hold office.

The "staff" is there to give advice when and if requested, and to otherwise follow those policies. They do not have to be "read in on everything." There is no requirement for their approval of said policies and actions. They may raise questions, or voice concerns, which can be considered or ignored. But once given their marching orders, they can do their jobs or quit.

Whenever I hear arguments like yours which posit the idea that bureaucrats get to determine which polices they agree with and decide which goals they will or will not work towards, I wonder if you recognize it is an argument for "the tail wagging the dog?"

 

[Fletch]

Just another slow Friday news night....

Records show contact between Pompeo and Giuliani ahead of Ukraine ambassador’s ouster

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had several phone calls with President Donald Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, toward the end of March, weeks before U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch was unceremoniously recalled from her post, according to documents released under court order late Friday.

The documents – released by the State Department in the course of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by American Oversight, an ethics watchdog – do not offer details about what was discussed in the calls. They do show staff efforts to set up phone conversations between Pompeo and Giuliani, and confirmation that the calls took place.

--

An interesting little tidbit:

Pages 47, 57, and 58 - March 2019, Pompeo spoke with Giuliani shortly before speaking with Nunes and then Mnuchin.

State Department Releases Ukraine Documents to American Oversight - American Oversight

Non-pay-wall article:

White House helped arrange call between Giuliani and Pompeo after handover of Biden allegations - CNNPolitics

The CT forum is thattaway ------------>

 

[W_Heisenberg]

What?

The "staff" of the Secretary of State works FOR the Secretary of State, not the other way round. The Secretary of State heads a Department of the Administration, and that Department was created to provide service and support for the policies of the seated President who happens to hold office.

The "staff" is there to give advice when and if requested, and to otherwise follow those policies. They do not have to be "read in on everything." There is no requirement for their approval of said policies and actions. They may raise questions, or voice concerns, which can be considered or ignored. But once given their marching orders, they can do their jobs or quit.

Whenever I hear arguments like yours which posit the idea that bureaucrats get to determine which polices they agree with and decide which goals they will or will not work towards, I wonder if you understand the notion of "tail wagging the dog?"

It's very simple. The President does not have the authority to abuse the office of the Presidency.

The President was not advancing a policy that furthered the interests of the United States. The President was advancing a policy to advance his own personal interests. The framers of the Constitution were aware people like Trump might be tempted to do things like this, that's why they wrote in the impeachment clause.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

The CT forum is thattaway ------------>

So, which aspect of this post are you associating with a conspiracy theory?

 

[Mr Person]

The CT forum is thattaway ------------>

So, which aspect of this post are you associating with a conspiracy theory?

Oh, he doesn't actually think any such thing. The goal is just to get as much deflecting/distracting noise within the early posts, generally first ten.

 

[Captain Adverse]

It's very simple. The President does not have the authority to abuse the office of the Presidency.

The President was not advancing a policy that furthered the interests of the United States.

THAT is YOUR opinion. One might counter-argue that all the crap allegations that were thrown at then candidate Trump, subsequently given enough credence after his election to create a worthless investigation were an abuse of this system.

Another would be this sudden anti-democratic argument that bureaucrats should not do their jobs and work towards Presidential policy goals, but instead should "actively resist by any mean necessary" is actually an abuse of the system.

Just because you don't agree that the President's policies further the "interests of the USA" does not mean you are correct. But it does allows you to opine about it, and VOTE your positions every four years. IMO it does not allow bureaucrats the "right and duty" to undermine from within though. That sets a dangerous precedent that can turn around on your chosen leaders in the future.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

To answer the assertion that Trump's actions were not a big deal...get over it, and so on....

Zephyr Teachout, Professor Fordham Law School (author of the book Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s Snuff Box to Citizens United) on Chris Hayes last night:

1. At the Constitutional Convention, the Framers talked about corruption 1/4 of the time.

2. The Framers were afraid Republics could easily be corrupted.

3. Quote from George Mason: "Shall the man who has practiced corruption and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt?"

The Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution in the Convention held at Philadelphia in 1787, vol. 5 (Debates in Congress, Madison’s Notes, Misc. Letters)
- Online Library of Liberty

Col. MASON. No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above justice? Above all, shall that man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice? When great crimes were committed, he was for punishing the principal as well as the coadjutors. There had been much debate and difficulty as to the mode of choosing the executive. He approved of that which had been adopted at first, namely, of referring the appointment to the national legislature. One objection against electors was the danger of their being corrupted by the candidates, and this furnished a peculiar reason in favor of impeachments whilst in office. Shall the man who has practised corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?"

--

Mr. DAVIE. If he be not impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no efforts or means whatever, to get himself reëlected. He considered this as an essential security for the good behavior of the executive.

--

So, it's not just corruption, but the corruption of the electoral process to get yourself into power again.

--

4. A few people objected to impeachment clause such as Charles Pinckney who said just don't worry if there is another election that is all you need. The majority said impeachment is necessary because the threat of corruption and even foreign corruption is so grave that we cannot wait for an election to solve the problem.


Mr. MADISON thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the executive magistracy was very distinguishable from that of the legislature, or any other public body holding offices of limited duration. It could not be presumed that all, or even the majority, of the members of an assembly would either lose their capacity for discharging, or be bribed to betray, their trust. Besides the restraints of their personal integrity and honor, the difficulty of acting in concert for purposes of corruption was a security to the public. And if one or a few members only should be seduced, the soundness of the remaining members would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body. In the case of the executive magistracy, which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity, or corruption, was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the republic.

--

The Framers were providing analogies to justify the addition of the impeachment clause that are directly related to Trump's alleged actions.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

THAT is YOUR opinion. One might counter-argue that all the crap allegations that were thrown at then candidate Trump, subsequently given enough credence after his election to create a worthless investigation were an abuse of this system.

Another would be this sudden anti-democratic argument that bureaucrats should not do their jobs and work towards Presidential policy goals, but instead should "actively resist by any mean necessary" is actually an abuse of the system.

Just because you don't agree that the President's policies further the "interests of the USA" does not mean you are correct. But it does allows you to opine about it, and VOTE your positions every four years. IMO it does not allow bureaucrats the "right and duty" to undermine from within though. That sets a dangerous precedent that can turn around on your chosen leaders in the future.

The President is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own truth. He is still bound to the logic of Objective Reality.

Can you provide ANY sort of FACT-BASED rationale to justify the President's actions on the grounds of U.S. national interests?

And when I say FACT-BASED rationale I am suggesting that the IDIOTIC conspiracy theories which Trump has been clinging to and which were debunked last night in the following NYT article, are OUTSIDE the bounds of discussion:

Charges of Ukrainian Meddling? A Russian Operation, U.S. Intelligence Says - The New York Times

 

[Captain Adverse]

It's very simple. The President does not have the authority to abuse the office of the Presidency.

The President was not advancing a policy that furthered the interests of the United States. The President was advancing a policy to advance his own personal interests. The framers of the Constitution were aware people like Trump might be tempted to do things like this, that's why they wrote in the impeachment clause.

Your arguments are circular. "The President abused his authority. Presidents may not abuse their authority. I agree that the President abused his authority, therefore the President abused his authority." :doh

In this instance, the President decided to replace an ambassador. He was given advice about it, which is alleged to be "unfair." He chose to replace the ambassador. "Fair or unfair" makes no more difference than "whim or no whim." It was within his power to do for any reason or no reason at all except he simply wanted someone he felt would work better for him. END OF STORY.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Your arguments are circular. "The President abused his authority. Presidents may not abuse their authority. I agree that the President abused his authority, therefore the President abused his authority." :doh

This is a mischaracterization of what I wrote. I did not put forward an argument proving that the President abused his authority because I've been doing that on this forum for the past two weeks.

I was putting forward ONLY the idea that the President does not have unlimited power, that his authority ends the moment when an official act represents an abuse of power.

In this instance, the President decided to replace an ambassador. He was given advice about it, which is alleged to be "unfair." He chose to replace the ambassador. "Fair or unfair" makes no more difference than "whim or no whim." It was within his power to do for any reason or no reason at all except he simply wanted someone he felt would work better for him. END OF STORY.

NO.

NOT END OF STORY.

You are wrong.

If the President removed Yovanovich to further his corrupt schemes that would not represent a valid and Constitutional act.

It is true this has yet to be proven, but we have yet to hear the testimony of Pompeo.

 

[Captain Adverse]

If the President removed Yovanovich to further his corrupt schemes that would not represent a valid and Constitutional act.

There is your partisan argument. That is the end of this discussion. :coffeepap:

 

[W_Heisenberg]

There is your partisan argument. That is the end of this discussion. :coffeepap:

I am saddened, but not surprised, someone advertising themselves as a Libertarian thinks that IF the President removed Yovanovich to further his corrupt schemes it would represent a valid and Constitutional act.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Don't you have to kinda give Donald Trump credit for being a pretty decent cook? He knows to use his personal attorney to do the dirty work. That's something I guess.

 

[prometeus]

I honestly don't understand.

Shocking, I say, shocking.

The President can appoint or dismiss ambassadors almost at will. Ms. Yovanovitch was appointed by Obama in 2016. It is not unusual for incoming Presidents to recall old and appoint new ambassadors as political favors or for other reasons.

Yes that is true, but only imbeciles stoop to demeaning remarks. Trump also did.

 

[prometeus]

Obama fired a good many (not all) of Bush's appointees without a whisper from the democrats, or most republicans for that matter.

About how many of them did he tweet moronic drivel?

So, where exactly is your beef?

It is way, way over your head and understanding and or honesty.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Yes that is true, but only imbeciles stoop to demeaning remarks. Trump also did.

Please let us know when what some may describe as a "moronic tweet" rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors," and maybe your post would have some actual relevance. :coffeepap:

 

[prometeus]

Please let us know when what some may describe as a "moronic tweet" rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors," and maybe your post would have some actual relevance.

Maybe if you improved your reading comprehension you would not make such moronic posts. I did not make any assertion about high crimes only that the imbecile made moronic tweets.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

It's very simple. The President does not have the authority to abuse the office of the Presidency.

The President was not advancing a policy that furthered the interests of the United States. The President was advancing a policy to advance his own personal interests. The framers of the Constitution were aware people like Trump might be tempted to do things like this, that's why they wrote in the impeachment clause.

One simply cannot reason with True Believers.

 

[TomFitz]

What?

The "staff" of the Secretary of State works FOR the Secretary of State, not the other way round. The Secretary of State heads a Department of the Administration, and that Department was created to provide service and support for the policies of the seated President who happens to hold office.

The "staff" is there to give advice when and if requested, and to otherwise follow those policies. They do not have to be "read in on everything." There is no requirement for their approval of said policies and actions. They may raise questions, or voice concerns, which can be considered or ignored. But once given their marching orders, they can do their jobs or quit.

Whenever I hear arguments like yours which posit the idea that bureaucrats get to determine which polices they agree with and decide which goals they will or will not work towards, I wonder if you recognize it is an argument for "the tail wagging the dog?"

Correct!

But it is impossible for staff to execute policy when their boss doesn’t tell, or even hint, that his real agenda is personal and political, and the opposite of the stated one.

No one said anything about requiring their approval.

But to deliberately mislead them, to deliberately smear one of their more able Ambassadors, for no apparant reason having to do with policy at all, and to be clearly working against the best interests of a country that we are telling the world we are working for is another matter.

Trump and Pompeo are undermining their own staff, and compromising the nation’s influence and trustworthiness with this band of idiots that he has surrounded himself with.

It is typical Trump. Getting people running around in all directions, playing the staff against the tv lawyer and his Russian elves, and talking smack through the whole thing.

It’s a snapshot of the Trump Presidency. Sleaziness, compromise, corruption, and rank stupidity.