US Secretary Of State Mike Pompeo Harangues Reporter With Claim That No One Cares About Ukraine
Mike Pompeo sat today for an interview with NPR.
The reporter asked Pompeo about Iran and Ukraine.
In the course of the questions about Ukraine the reporter asked Pompeo if he owed the one time ambassador Marie Yovanovitch an apology for the way she was treated before and at the time of her firing last year. Pompeo said he has said all he is going to say etc. , defended his tenure , and apparently got up and left the room. Shortly afterwards he asked to speak to the reporter with the recording turned off, and according to NPR he shouted at her, using expletives, and asked, "Do you think Americans care about Ukraine? " , which sure seems like a rhetorical question intended to be answered with a "no".
The Secretary of State has essentially announced that Ukraine should be of no interest to Americans.
It probably meant more to him when the Biden investigations were still on the table there.
Tags
Who is online
40 visitors
Was that an 'icy' or a 'through-you' stare. Oooo, the horrors
Um, shouldn't it probably concern us all that the United States of America's Secretary of State is maybe a full blown 100% Certified Nut Cake? Isn't that maybe disqualifying? I am asking for a friend...
Oh good. More psych evals from afar.
Pompeo is a fundie wacko and conspiracy nut.
No votes for you...lol
Sounds delicious.
I just listened to the NPR audio story about this, and apparently Pompeo was a bigger ass to the female reporter than the written article makes it appear, including using the F word to her.
Yup. I have a link below.
Friendship? Falafel?
j/k I'm sorry, you're right. That's rude.
Some Evangelical Christian Pompeo is; I’m sure Jesus is so proud.
John 11:35
Jesus wept
When I learned to drive in the 60's, it was during the Rizzo era, when he was Chief of Police of Philadelphia...
I was stopped numerous times to ask me if I was a Commie hippie, no other offense.
Sometimes I was roughed up for no reason, other than my long hair and antique car.
Sometimes they let me go because the smallest HS team in the region bested the the vast metropolitan Catholic and Public League Champions.
At least twice I was "beaten" because I was part of that Championship Season.
Strangely never ticketed.
I wonder if that could happen today with all of the electronics and body cams....
Don't be naive, of course it can, just not a fraction as much...
“Every day you turn more and more folks who hate Trump into his future voters. The people who wouldn't vote for him in 2016 and were planning on doing the same in 2020 are done with your sh*t,” she wrote.
“Keep going on CNN and making an ass of yourself. It'll make Donald Trump's reelection all the much sweeter for those of us who you look down on,” she added. She also said that she’s college-educated, aced her geography class, and is not really a fan of Trump, but this nonsense the condescending elitism inherent in liberal America, is what she despises even more.
The fact is that this Wilson idiot of Lincoln project infamy was showing sheer and utter contempt for thevsry people he’s supposed to be trying to lure away from Trump. That’s ok because we have the same feelings toward him and the Lincoln project. Don lemon has always been an idiot.
Are you "Verklempt" because you think he was an ass to a "Reporter", or because she was a "Women", that happened to be a "Reporter" ?
This
And Mulvaney publicly stated that people should "get over" the fact that quid pro quo was part of foreign policy.
We are watching the destruction of our democratic republic as we speak.
I wouldn't say "get over it," but I would say "open your eyes." You have to be Pollyanna herself to think quid pro quo and foreign policy aren't business as usual.
It might be neat if we all got outraged at a system that allows and encourages that kind of thing rather than sanctimoniously pretend Trump is the first person ever to do anything like that.
[Deleted]
You have PROVEN through your repeated comments about this, that you dont understand why it was wrong for Trump to want to do a "quid pro quo" with the Ukrainan president Zelensky "we''ll trade you 400 million dollars in military assistance for an announcement that your government will investigate my main election opponent". Thats your quid quo pro right there.
You dont get it.
[Deleted]
Its not business as usual for the US president to try and jack up a foreign leader, for the US presidents personal benefit, if it was Trump wouldnt be being impeached right now.
[Deleted]
Not for political agendas.
[deleted]
Neither can I.
i don't get it....
possibly,
i was too busy,
laughing.
I find it hilarious that when people don't actually have any valid defense or argument, they often resort to broad unspecific rhetoric like "Farce!" , "Absurd!", "Travesty!", "Mockery!", "Sham!"... It's what we heard repeated over and over by the Republicans in the house and will now hear in the Senate, because they also have zero valid defense or argument. Friday they got torn to pieces by the well spoken, reasoned Democrat impeachment managers. All you're going to hear from Republicans for the next three days is whine, bitch, moan, and complain about process and how the Democrats hate Trump and it's all a "sham", "travesty", "absurdity" and "mockery". It's all they have left because they can't actually refute the facts presented.
I find it Hilarious, when "The Left" people only listen to only one "Left" side, and then constantly say "there is no defense or argument worth listening too".
It's what we heard repeated over and over by the Democrats in the house.
"All you're going to hear from Republicans for the next three days is whine, bitch, moan, and complain about process and how the Democrats hate Trump"
So far, listening to the defense right now.....your so wrong.
Odd. Clearly the right wing is concerned because one of the only defenses that they have is, "But....but....but...OBAMA withheld aid toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!".
I am listening to the hearings right now. Right out of the gate Cipillo{sp}, said that the dems are trying to over turn the 2016 election. Which is impossible because the election was legally certified.
So far, all I have heard is, "Clinton, Obama, Biden, etc..". The right has nothing but rhetoric, spin and bullshit. They have NO facts and NO witnesses which means they cannot prove their case.
What does Impeachment do if processed in an entirety of agreement ?
"So far, all I have heard is, "Clinton, Obama, Biden, etc..".
You must be watching " Lazy Town" . Nothing of the sort has been brought up by the Defense.
This is too funny. Democrats of course, claimed the Clinton impeachment was an attempt to overturn the 1996 election. Hell, just a few years ago they were claiming the government shutdown was an attempt to overturn the 2012 election.
But now that Republicans are using the same rhetoric, they pretend to be aghast.
What new?
Yes, for political agendas. People are suddenly willfully naive. Because . . . Trump!
Facts? No. Just last night we saw one of the House managers describing a meeting between two people for which he had no witnesses and said "they likely talked about . . . "
Seriously. "They likely talked about" is factual evidence? We should give weight to this crap?
And utterly uninformed if you believe that the Ukraine hold was conduced as 'business as usual'.
We've heard Trump's lawyers insist that this isn't the first time that Trump has withheld funding and that's true. Yet what they don't want to say is that we KNOW about that because Trump followed the fucking rules and notified Congress of the hold AND documented his reasons for doing so.
We all KNOW that Trump didn't do that when withholding the funds for Ukraine. So it's BS to claim that it was 'business as usual'.
The 'system' allows it because SHIT HAPPENS between passage of appropriation bills and the actual obligation of those funds. An example of that is the coup in Eqypt. The 'system' also REQUIRES the POTUS to inform Congress and get their approval.
Trump IS the first person ever to withhold funding for his personal political benefit.
Listened to this on the way home.
We should be so grateful we have journalists doing this valuable work.
Have a listen, about ten very worthwhile minutes.
Lol, yeah, sure, the big bad journalist beat up on the poor lying sack of shit Secretary of State pomp ous eo.
That would be so funny if I had actually said anything remotely like that.
C'mon, stop already. The article isn't about what he said on the record
but what he said in private "off the record" which has already been leaked...
Stop what, exactly? Why do people feel like they can tell me to not express myself?
Yes, I know. What leads you to think otherwise? Where did I reference anything he said as being on the record? The comment you are replying to wasn’t even about that.
Leaked,
And accepted hook, line, and sinker by the anti Trumpers. Just like every other leak that fits their weak narrow minded views.
Of course no one asked the relevant question if Ukraine was not a topic to be discussed before the interview? Nah, that wouldn't make any damn difference; nor explain his reaction.
As for the question. All Ambassadors serve at the behest of the President and can be removed at any time and any reason. Something she even publicly admitted.
Obama can shit can a general that questions his decisions in a Rolling Stone article- can even get his underlings to smear the general afterwards with no repercussions; but Trump can't remove an Ambassador that has openly bad mouthed him? Love the double standard. Of course Bush face the same damn thing when removing Federal prosecutors. Seems the trappings of the Presidency only apply when anyone with a D behind their name holds the office.
My only question for Trump is what the hell took him so long? I am sure he was told about the optics of it; but who gives a damn. You don't allow someone that doesn't respect you, and openly undermines you, to hold any post in your government.
And any adult with an open mind who is aware of Pompeo's short fuse.
Is that a personal attack? LOL
Actually, that is Pompeo's position. He never wants to talk about Ukraine or anything that is embarrassing to the President. He is insisting that Ukraine or anything connected (Burisma, Biden1 or Biden2 or the Ambassador(s), AG's or their Presidents ) was "off topic". He also insists that the post interview was off the record, she says she agreed to no recording devices, nothing else. So we have an SoS acting like Trump, great./s
Comments about the ambassador are irrelevant. Comments by the Ambassador would be relevant.
There is no double standard. Every President since Reagan has been replacing the previous President's US Attorney appointees, in some cases 100%. Not an issue.
and yet there is no proof...they certainly didn't fire her. She was reportedly surveilled for months and second guessed and disrespected by the dream team of Guilliani and Parnes. Yet in the end, she got a better stateside job out of this mess.
In fact the only thing it shows is that Trump and many of his appointments simply aren't ready for prime time.
Now, the topic was Pompeo.
NPR, PBS and a conservative Tennessee TV station....
And when Pompeo wants positive press for his Kansas Senate run, or his 2024 Presidential run, these "post interview" outbursts will haunt him.
Have a good weekend, friend Ronin2
Oh come on, Tacos. Pompeo had dreams. Governor, Senator, even President some day.
The longer his legacy is attached to Trump
the less likely that is unless we become Russia lite, a single party, all hail the leader, type of corporation.
Governments be damned. Russia doesn't have a government, nor does China or North Korea or Saudi Arabia.
Long live Barron Trump.
I don't believe the media is all that bad, for certain there are party or ideological syncophants
but not that many.....
Certainly not enough to cloud the vision of the average voter.
Just my opinion, mind you.
Well the format is certainly questionable. Thank Ted Turner for that.
Now we only have reasonable news on the local affiliates because they only have 30 to 60 minutes to report actual news
three or four times a day.
Cable news tries to be hip, relevant, sassy, snarky and in your face 24/7.
The talking head BS on "cable" every night improves nothing in my opinion. Just conspiracy lite and filler.
According to the reporter , Pompeo shouted obscenities at her for many minutes.
I think that qualifies as a harangue in anybody's book.
My comment is appropriate based on the information you provided. [Deleted]
Trump loves him, says he gives the best handies around.
Pompeo pretends Trump is a relatively normal human being, so I'm sure he is one of the president*'s favorites.
Wrong era, apparently...
That would be true if he was the one trying to make people focus on Ukraine. He’s not. The reporter is. Therefore - assuming she wants people to read her writing - it’s her job to explain why Americans should care about Ukraine.
You left out one of his more annoying qualities. The man speaks like he has a mouth full of marbles. My mother taught me to never trust a man who speaks like he has a mouth full of marbles.
Which in any other Administration would preclude one from being our 'lead' diplomat.
Never liked or trusted Pompeo. Always thought he had more 'gawd than brains'. Other than that, I wouldn't leave my wallet lying in the open when he was around either. The guy reeks of sleaze.
This is another one of those stories where we are expected to take the word of NPR's Mary Louise Kelly. Kelly is part of the resistance. She asked a question meant to pit the Secretary of State against the President. Something that has become routine with the left wing media.
Well I'm not the Secretary of State (I'm not in the middle representing any State department employees). So I'll answer that question. If Marie Yovanovitch was either talking against the President or actively working against his policies - she deserved to be fired - and with NO apologies!!!
But she wasn't. She was working on the official State department policy. Her firing came at the request of corrupt Ukrainians officials telling rim-job Rudy to get rid of her and because she was seen as being tough on corruption. The last thing Trump and his lackeys wanted was someone with a spine getting in the way of their corrupt scheme to coerce the Ukrainian President to publicly announce an investigation into Joe Biden.
I do believe that the attempt to sabotage Biden was more of an afterthought, the main thing Trump wanted was for them to publicly announce the investigation into possible Ukrainian meddling in 2016. That was the big ticket item he was going to run on this year and it's all fallen flat. The little man baby Trump was so excited at the possibility of using the Ukrainians to falsely support the Russian created conspiracy theory that it was Ukraine, not Russia, who interfered and hacked the DNC. And that fat turd with no brains sitting in the oval office might actually have believed Putin because he's just that monumentally stupid and gullible. But it doesn't matter if dishonest Donald believed it or not, what he did was definitely an abuse of power. And then in his attempt to cover it up he obstructed congress and is continuing to do so to an extent no other President in US history has ever done.
What is that? There is American foreign policy, and that is set by the President. State doesn't have an independent policy.
She was working on the 'official' policy, as she clearly testified. Rudy and the other goons were working on Trump policy, which diverged from official to personal at that intersection for her. Why would she have known Trump had his side deal in play?
So far this defense is a big whine fest about dems and how much time they talked, which should not have even phased Trumpers, who were treated to the Trump narrative on Fox, who didn't show the hearings. What is interesting is they are playing the defense side now.
Some will never understand that the President of the United Staes running a drug deal through his personal lawyer, to coerce a foreign government, is illegal and obviously, impeachable.
Trump got wind of the conspiracy theory about Joe Biden in Ukraine from right web sites and other alternative media and ran with it. That is what he does. He hears crank ideas that have the appeal of making him look better than he deserves and he jumps on them.
No rocket science involved here.
He is also the head of the intelligence agencies and has access to top secret information that you don't.
Oh, you mean the intelligence agencies and generals who he doesn't believe and is better informed than?
Give me a break
The Republican managers defending Trump went into some length this morning claiming that Trump was very interested in dealing with general corruption in Ukraine.
To Trump , the only "corruption" in Ukraine he was interested in in Ukraine was one he could attach the name Biden to.
AFTER the scandal broke about his demand for an investigation of Joe Biden by Zelensky , Trump continued to call for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. No mention of any other corruption. And, for a kicker, he called for China to investigate... ta da..... the Bidens.
Trump and his lackeys want to assume the public is stupid. Is it?
C'mon man, where you been the last few months?
I'll lay it out for ya then. John Bolton, the National security Advisor at the time, described the undercover Ukrainian coercion campaign run by the presidents personal lawyer (rather than the usual official channels.....hhhhmmmmmm) Rudy Giulliani, as a "drug deal".
Now do you understand?
That claim is contrary to the facts highlighted this morning. But facts that undercut the impeachment haven't interested you, have they?
That's what Bolton called it.
Gee, that's kinda vague. Please cite some of those 'facts' you speak of about ACTUAL corruption in Ukraine.
Really Dean? That almost cost me a keyboard, lol
Well apparently they pay top executives too much according to our top executives, lol
Anyone not knowing that hasn't been paying attention...
As I have stated a couple of times now, IF Trump had a real justification or any real evidence of corruption by Biden in Ukraine, Bolton AND Barr would have been leading the charge on investigations instead of distancing themselves and calling it a 'drug deal'.
None of Trump's supporters here have wanted to address that. Wonder why?
Guess you should have watched this morning. But I can understand why you would have been afraid to do that. It was pretty devastating for the prosecution's case.
Actually, I have no fear of facts and I DID watch.
Yet you seem incapable of citing even one of those facts' you speak of about ACTUAL corruption in Ukraine.
Still waiting...
So now Ukraine isn't one of the most corrupt countries in the world according to the lefties? So why was Biden threatening to withhold money again?
The TDS sufferers are killing me.
If you had watched it, you'd know. Maybe you should watch it again.
It's just like when the idea that Russia was a threat was so laughable because Romney said it. They really have no idea what to believe beyond mocking what the other side says in a kind of "nanny nanny horsey" kind of way. It's like kindergartners mocking college professors - too ignorant to realize how dumb they sound.
If Ukraine is so damn corrupt then why in Hell were Trump, Pence and Guiliani illegally inducing Ukrainian to illegally interfere in our election? You can't have it both ways! SMH...
I did watch it and didn't hear them citing specific corruption in the Ukraine. So tell me all about what YOU heard that I must have missed.
As usual, what are you talking about?
Ukraine has a history of corruption are you arguing against this fact?
And I'm not surprised you missed it that the new Ukraine president ran on getting rid of the corruption in government and this subject was part of his phone call with President Trump if I remember correctly. I'm sure that wasn't in the rachel madcow talking points.
I never referred to a specific incident of corruption. The comment I responded to was about what Trump was interested in. I find it hard to believe you could have missed Trump's attorneys arguing that he a genuine concern for corruption in Ukraine.
When did they do that?
Nor has Trump or his lawyers.
Without supporting that claim with one iota of evidence.
In contrast, the House Managers DID present evidence that Trump made NO effort to have ANYONE review issues of corruption prior to or during the time he ordered the hold on aid to Ukraine.
John's comment reflects the evidence.
So unless and until Trump's lawyers submit EVIDENCE that Trump was ACTUALLY interested in corruption in the Ukraine that had NOTHING to do with the Bidens or the BS about hidden servers, proclamations from his lawyers are baseless.
Then stop asking for something no one is talking about! Geez!
I'm not.
It's a fairytale cabal invented by extremists to frighten their core, and invigorate their action.
I think it comes from Infowars level conspiracy theorists who saw it as a way to build their popularity and, well, make money.
yup,,,,well, it worked.
A reporter asked Pompeo a question about his conduct during a series of legally questionable events. How on earth is that considered 'pitting the Secretary of State against the President'?
If Marie Yovanovitch was either talking against the President or actively working against his policies - she deserved to be fired - and with NO apologies!!!
Trump's response to the Lev Parnas comment about Ambassador Yovanovitch's unwillingness to look the other way, was to say, "...Get rid of her. Take her out." How interesting that he was taking the word of a man he had never met, a man with whom he had never had meaningful dialogue, a man known for criminal activity.
Trump needs his ass kicked, 'and with NO apologies!!!'.
You are very smart Sister !
Well thought out. Sadly reason and common sense aren't going to get you too far with this crowd.
What was the question? Let me give you a clue...it was one of those questions the left wing media is know for, like yesterday when George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. Lankford if he thinks it is ok to solicit a foreign government to interfere in our elections. The question assumed that Trump was asking for election interference in asking for a corruption investigation. In this case it's do you defend the State Department employees and say Trump is wrong or do you stand by the President and look like you don't care about your own agency.
The real questions are did Yovanovich really have a "do-not prosecute" list for Ukrainian investigators and/or did she really tell the Ukrainians that "this President was going to be removed from office?"
Trump needs his ass kicked
Everybody on the left needs a good ass kicking!
How long are you going to continue with the fantasy that Trump cared about corruption? He is the most personally corrupt president we have ever had. According to what has been leaked about Bolton's book, he says Pompeo told him that Yovanovitch was not corrupt.
If Trump supporters keep up with this nonsense, they will prove what some people already suspect, that they are the worst people in America.
Is that what I'm saying? How about he wanted a simple inquiry into possible Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election?
Did you listen to the audio of the interview, or read the transcript? The reporter did not ask him any questions that were out of line. Pompeo has a temper and he chose to exercise it against a female reporter who was willing to fight back by reporting on what happened.
If Pompeo still has a political career left after his association with Trump , maybe he will have learned a lesson on how to treat people.
Um-hum, starting with the Ukrainian Ambassador
I can still recall Lindsey Graham asking
still they will mindlessly scream it has been debunked
They will repeat it endlessly until somebody actually takes a look at it. Since the Politico article way back in 2017, it's been like the third rail!
I can still recall Lindsey Graham stating that he wouldn't bother reading the evidence because apparently, he knows he's a Trump toadie and doesn't give a crap if the evidence shows guilt or not. He will refuse to convict Trump no matter what.
The House will have their chance to make their case. They already took all of 21 hours for a very repetitive opening argument
BTW, Graham had a reason:
"I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I'm not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here," Graham said, adding, "What I see coming, happening today is just a partisan nonsense."
There is no reason good enough to outright say he would violate the oath he'd have to take to be an impartial juror. If he were a Democrat, you would have probably been calling for him to recuse himself - and I would have agreed with you.
But I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to when he said he wouldn't even bother reading the transcripts of the testimony back in early November, before what you brought up where he said he would violate his oath.
All but of a few of the dems in the House did exactly that. They wanted impeachment for this President from the day he was elected and btw that is reason enough for Graham to feel as he does.
A bogus impeachment just like a bogus investigation (2 of them as a matter of fact) do not merit one ounce of credibility. Case dismissed!
Then he should have read the SENATE report that looked into the issue and DEBUNKED it.
False.
Who debunked it and when?
Link please.
Don't like this source? Google it. It is common outside the far rightwing bubble. Try this one...
You are talking about the Senate Inquiry? As an investigation?
Here from The Hill piece you linked:
That says it all!
Yes, but Ukranian officials interfering in the election is "legitimate meddling" per the New York Times. The nonsensical lengths progressives will go to is quite amazing.
Thanks for your concern, but NO.
The topic is a reporter's pointed question of the Secretary of State.
I guess it depends upon one's point of view.
Did you miss the SENATE report part of my comment Vic?
It's been part of the record since May 2018.
I'm surprised that such an informed member doesn't know what it says. /s
Post a link to the article Vic, it's part of the CoC.
The link has already been provided and I already referred to it. Post 9.2.22
Stop trying to silence people and derailing articles.
From the same link:
So Burr's committee questioned Chalupa and realized that the allegations were BUNK. Everyone knows that Russia is fingering Ukraine to deflect from their own actions.
Yet you didn't.
The question: What specific remarks did Pompeo make in support of Yovanovitch?
Answer?
I never do when asking them to support their proclamations.
I saw that Obama's adviser David Axelrod attended a focus group with Democratic voters in Chicago. It was 80 minutes before a Democrat even brought up impeachment. Democrats don't care about Ukraine. Democrats don't care about impeachment.
No one who doesn't live on twitter cares about this.
What did Axelrod say that lead you to that conclusion?