"Co-equal branch? Co-equal branch?! How DARE he!"
Posted on 10/02/2019 10:03:41 AM PDT by bitt
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is holding meetings in Italy, held a press conference on Wednesday afternoon in Rome.
Secretary of State Pompeo told reporters he was on the July 25th Ukrainian call which would be expected. He also said the policy with Ukraine is consistent. Of course, this is what the liberal media latched onto.
But then Pompeo dropped these bombs on the street thugs and goons running the US House committees.
Pompeo told reporters how Democrats in the House violated fundamental principles, contacted State Department officials directly and told them NOT to contact legal counsel.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: Back to first principles. The predicate of your final question about objecting to what the folks on Capitol Hill have asked. It’s fundamentally not true. What we objected to was the demands that were put that deeply violate the fundamental principle of separation of powers. They contacted State Department employees directly. They told them NOT to contact legal counsel at the State Department. That’s been reported to us. They said the the State Department wouldn’t be able to be present. There are important constitutional prerogatives that the executive branch has to be present so that we can protect the important information so our partners, countries like Italy, can have confidence that the information they provide can have with the State Department will continue to be protected. So the response that I provided them was one that could acknowledge that we will of course do our constitutional duty to cooperate with this co-equal branch but we are going to do so in a way that is consistent with the fundamental values of the American system. And we won’t tolerate folks on Capital Hill bullying, intimidating State Department employees.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
p
Pompeo seems very passive....but don’t poke him.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo: Back to first principles. The predicate of your final question about objecting to what the folks on Capitol Hill have asked. It’s fundamentally not true. What we objected to was the demands that were put that deeply violate the fundamental principle of separation of powers. They contacted State Department employees directly. They told them NOT to contact legal counsel at the State Department. That’s been reported to us. They said the the State Department wouldn’t be able to be present. There are important constitutional prerogatives that the executive branch has to be present so that we can protect the important information so our partners, countries like Italy, can have confidence that the information they provide can have with the State Department will continue to be protected. So the response that I provided them was one that could acknowledge that we will of course do our constitutional duty to cooperate with this co-equal branch but we are going to do so in a way that is consistent with the fundamental values of the American system. And we won’t tolerate folks on Capital Hill bullying, intimidating State Department employees.
Thanks bitt.
Ah, the things the MSM doesn't let the public know.
Did that tidbit make the cutting room floor?
Is there video of him saying it?
Let's go to the video replay! Watch live: Pompeo holds news conference with Italian foreign minister amid Ukraine probe clash (jip at 17:30)
Thank you Cpt. Obvious! Now, by our Constitution,there are remedies to this. The problem is that not many give zero feks to the Constitution.
Down right criminal... They have absolutely no self legal restraint at all.
Time for a little hemp party on the hill....
These NWO DC establishment pukes know a house divided can not and will not stand. It’s coming folks and it’s clear that it’s all being orchestrated to collapse into chaos. For out chaos will come order, the NWO! This has been the mechanism used for centuries by the wealthy elites to expand their wealth and power. It works. Time to eliminate those wealthy elites who keep orchestrating these conflicts.
If a poll was ever conducted with the question “Is our two party system working” ? Would the response would be 90% negative. What is being employed by This so called coup d’ etat against Trump should not be viewed as against Trump but an impeachment of our constitution.
Aided by key media venues which creates a distorted international and national evaluation when it comes to dealing with the US
Everything the man has attempted to get done has been blocked by a radical group composed mainly of members of the democrat party in top leadership legislative and judicial branches of government who view the constitution as an obstacle to their concepts of government intrusion on individual liberty guaranteed by it as they advance their policies.
You say this, and I agree, but we have “FReeper trolls” who say Trump is the problem and that he could have unilaterally fixed everything in his first year.
We have “FReepdiots.”
I know liberals well. These liberals thought they could bully the State Department targets to show up without legal counsel, and they could bully them into divulging information they otherwise are not to have.
Liberals believe everybody other than them, and their clique are stupid.
Well, the tactic worked on General Flynn...
I figure Stalin and Beria look up from Hell green with envy!
USSR takes over the House: Adam “Fullof” Schiff, Nasty Nancy and Nazi Nadler are so vile as to warn the president of “obstruction” if he even questions the legality of the “impeachment proceedings” (aka: Kangaroo court). #AntiJustice!
Imagine the prosecutor in your trial warning you and your defense attorney that any attempt for a proper legal defense... is “proof” you’re guilty? #ProsecutionOrPersecution?
Let him do his job.
Pompeo is a fact witness? We have the transcript. Fact witness to what?— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) October 2, 2019
Our system "isn’t working” precisely because of the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision and its interpretation. The 1964 Sullivan decision asserted that it would be a violation of the First Amendment for a judge or political official to be allowed to sue for libel.That Warren Court decision was unanimous, with enthusiastic concurrences. But then, absent the vote of then-freshman Justice Scalia, Morrison v. Olson would’ve been unanimous, too - and nobody now thinks Morrison would be upheld if tested. Because Scalia’s dissent was promptly vindicated by history.
Fundamentally, there are at least two flaws in the use of Sullivan as precedent. Not the least of which is that it cannot be correct as a legal principle. Stay with me here:
The entire Bill of Rights was crafted to ensure that - aside from the explicit changes explicit in the text of the Constitution - there would be no change in the rights of the people or of the states. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments make that explicit:Another reason that Sullivan is not generally applicable is that the history of “the media” since 1964 has made it painfully obvious that national “MSM” journalism is a cartel. “People of the same trade seldom meet together", Adam Smith asserted, "even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” And the wire services, especially the Associated Press, have been continuous virtual meetings of all major journalism which have been ongoing since before the Civil War. To assume that the members/subscribers of the wire services do not “conspire again the public” is therefore a manifestation of naiveté.
- Amendment 9
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- Amendment 10
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Second Amendment echoes that by explicitly referring to “the right of the people” independent of the Constitution - and so, in its way, does the First Amendment. Because 1A does not simply refer to “freedom . . . of the press - it refers to the freedom . . . of the press - freedom as it existed before the Constitution itself was ratified. Ever wonder why the First Amendment didn’t eliminate libel and slander laws, and didn’t eliminate pornography laws? There’s your answer.
The right to sue for libel or slander preexisted the Constitution, and neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights touched that right. In reality, an appeal to the First Amendment is no different from an appeal to the Ninth Amendment - it can only be adjudicated by reference to American common law. Not by simply saying, “freedom of the press.” The above analysis was articulated by Antonin Scalia.
The “conspiracy against the public” by the journalism cartel is the propaganda campaign to the effect that journalists are objective - and that journalists express the public interest. Journalists are not objective, journalists are biased in favor of reporting bad news - that is not a matter of dispute. Journalism is negative towards society, and thus systematically suggests the need for more government. And actually trying to be objective is hard work - and no guarantee of getting along with the cartel. What guarantees getting along with the journalism cartel? Why, going along with the rest of the cartel, of course.
Nothing in the Sullivan case raised any inkling of the existence of that cartel. Let alone the fact that it politically homogenizes journalism. In the Sullivan case the plaintiff was not a Republican, but a Southern Democrat in bad odor in liberal circles. But de facto, the journalism cartel defines “liberalism” as “going along and getting along with the journalism cartel” - and defines “objective” the same way. Of course, the cartel insists on difference usages for the two “synonyms” - “liberal” is never to be applied to any journalist - and “objective" always is.
The upshot is that Democrats - who go along assiduously with the journalism cartel - get along perfectly with it, and are never libeled. And that Democrats’ opponents are routinely libeled. A decision that politicians cannot sue for libel is therefore a decision that Republicans cannot sue for libel. A decision that Republicans cannot sue for libel is a decision that Democrats are entitled not only to their own opinions but to their own facts.
And we wonder where “political correctness” comes from!
Pompeo’s letter outlines felonies the committee has committed without making a direct accusation that they broke the law. Warning shot across the bow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.