Thoughts on Michael McKinley’s testimony. He is a career foreign service officer who has worked for both R and D administrations and was an advisor to Pompeo. d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11…
McKinley makes clear as a foreign service officer he tried to steer clear of the political machinations at State. From his experience he knew of Maria Yovanovitch but was not necessarily close to her.
When the summary memo of the call was released and he saw Trump’s disparaging comments about Yovanovitch, he had *three* conversations with Pompeo about issuing a statement in support of her. At no time did Pompeo ever reveal that he was on the call. 
McKinley notes that it is the President’s prerogative to recall an ambassador but what struck him was the President disparaging Yovanovitch on the Ukraine call. Whether this was a direct threat, it definitely would have created problems on the ground for her.
McKinley notes that the ambassadors and State Dept. employees serving abroad at times deal with threats that become personal. Now, they are having to deal with threats from within their own government. This is McKinley speaking here 👇
Here McKinley talks about why the summary of the call raised alarms for him.
As he saw articles in the media impugning the character and service of Yovanovitch and got no response from Pompeo, McKinley wrote emails to try to get a statement of support to the public. State refused to turn over documents to the HPSCI.
On the left, is what McKinley emailed his colleagues. He said he received positive response from everyone on the email chain but did not hear back from David Hale. They then decided to present this to Pompeo.
*Not turning this document to the committee is obstructing Congress btw.
It was Morgan Ortagus who approached Pompeo with the mutual idea for a statement of support for Yovanovitch. Pompeo said he thought it would bring too much undue attention to Yovanovitch. McKinley took this to mean that Yovanovitch didn’t *want* a statement.
When McKinley finally reached out to Yovanovitch, she told him contrary to his understanding of Pompeo’s comments, she wanted a public statement of support from leadership at State.
Shortly before she was recalled, Yovanovitch was asked to extend her time as ambassador by a month or two which refutes the idea she was doing a bad job.
As the impeachment inquiry/oversight got rolling, the State Dept. provided no advice, support or legal counsel to these career federal civil servants. (FYI for all federal employees out there.) Employees were left on their own to navigate this mess and retain their own counsel.
McKinley goes on to recount how the State Dept. was absolutely gutted during Tillerson’s tenure. Not only cutting positions but implementing policies that negatively impacted quality of life and morale for those serving abroad.
Under Tillerson, State lost 20% of their senior leadership.
This is important. At this point, a Republican staff member is questioning McKinley. McKinley goes on to say how disturbing it is that foreign governments were being approached to dig up negative information on American citizens.
Under questioning by Republicans about a possible political agenda by State employees (aka being a Never-Trumper), McKinley notes that he was appointed under Reagan. Even during tumultuous times, he doesn’t remember politics creeping into the the foreign service ranks.
Pretty telling that some of the most damning information is coming out under cross-examination by Republican staff. No wonder we have not seen any leaks from their side. They got nothing.
Here the Republicans try to say that McKinley over-reacted and that State was just being deliberative in their response. Keep in mind Pompeo was *on the call* in July. McKinley didn’t resign until September.
McKinley also hits back. Hard. Saying that from all his years of experience, that “good commanders support their troops in moments of crisis”. Pompeo and State should have supported Yovanovitch instead of leaving her twisting in the wind.
Oops. Pompeo and State lied to Congress *in writing* citing the reason for the delays in providing Congress with information was because they were supporting and protecting employees; providing legal support. Here McKinley is relaying a conversation he had with George Kent. 👇
Here is the letter in question. In the letter Pompeo indicates that State is busy having conversations with employees, implies he is protecting State employees when in reality none of this was happening according to witnesses. washingtonpost.com/context/read-s…
State employees had to retain their own counsel at their own expense. Here Kent tells McKinley that he thought the State lawyers were trying to “shut him up”. This is Pompeo protecting himself and Trump vs. protecting the State Dept. and it’s employees.
Kent wrote a contemporaneous memo to the file detailing allegations of bullying tactics, accusations and “inaccuracies” by State Dept. lawyers. Let’s repeat that - lawyers lying to Congress in writing.
Employees were being targeted based on their political views by the Assistant Secretary and his aide. His aide left but the Assistant Secretary still works at State. It is an issue with State employees that has been broached not only in an IG report but in a department town hall
Schiff here laying out a good case for impeaching Pompeo based on incompetence or malice. Pompeo was silent on accusations of employees being bullied by the department’s lawyers and allegations of the lawyers lying to Congress.
Pompeo was silent when one of his career foreign service officers was being attacked.
Pompeo is allowing United States foreign policy to be contingent on other governments providing negative information on U.S. citizens.
Finally, attorney working for Pompeo at State are trying to silence employees who *want* to cooperate with Congressional oversight.
Pompeo has allowed the politicization of the State Dept., something that started under Tillerson, to continue by failing to address the employees and appointees responsible and identified in the IG report.
This part is hard to follow but it seems that people who would have been responsible for supplying Congress with documents (McKinley, Kent) weren’t even aware that the department had been subpoenaed for documents.
They weren’t informed about the subpoena for documents until just before or even after the subpoena deadline. This testimony is extremely damning for Pompeo as the leader of a federal department.
Another damning section of testimony. McKinley talks about the danger of coopting foreign policy into the domestic political fray. Remember McKinley began his service under Reagan. Foreign Service should project non partisanship overseas no matter their political leanings.
I think what McKinley is saying here is that when the foreign service, especially at the higher levels, becomes politicized, there is a danger that their work serves a political party and not necessarily the interests of the United States writ large.
Back to Pompeo’s letter to Congress where he said employees felt threatened by Congress. McKinley states that employees called to testify did *not* feel threatened by Congress.
Here the staff attorney for the Republicans on the committee suggesting that complying with a “friendly” subpoena from Congress is...like...optional. If only Hillary Clinton knew about this rule. (Mother truckers).
The Republicans wrap up their questioning by suggesting that the reason aid was held up to Ukraine and that Pompeo didn’t defend his employees against attacks by the President and his lackeys is that basically...people are busy. That’s their defense.
Lastly, McKinley makes the distinction that Volker is *not* a career foreign service official. He gave up that title and entered the political realm when he took a position at the McCain Institute and became a Trump political appointee. /end
