The one thing Ezra did not mention in his post, is that some say Pompeo was supposed to be the vice president for Nikki Haley. So not only did he want a massage assassinated, he wanted Trump assassinated He wanted to be the next deep state in charge. if Pompeo would’ve been vice president for her, they would’ve taken her out to put him in charge. 🤷♀️
"evangelical Christians" are a cancer in the country, and presidential candidates must stop bending over backwards for them. Nothing good ever comes from pandering to them.
I don’t know… I’m an evangelical Christian. And the best thing that it’s ever come to me is my salvation. I’m not sure how it all works in politics though, but I’m grateful for my salvation. Never dismissed the power of the blood of Christ.
The evangelicals, the one-issue voters that candidates always pander to. As long as a candidate is pro-life, it seems they don't care about anything else. Let a billion people in, ban and confiscate firearms, increase the lowest tax bracket to 40%, throw people in prison for thought crime, it doesn't matter as long as a candidate is pro-life.
Again, generalized statements can never accurately reflect the ideology of any group of people. I defend your right to think and speak for yourself. I hope you consider that your generalized thinking may need reconsideration.
This might be a great read for you (and many of us)...
Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion by AllieBeth Stucky.
Having been a fence rider, intentionally, on all these people, at great effort (with intermittent errors, but I’m human), it’s going to be nice to finally be able to start putting my feet down on some of them.
Doubtful any of these ever affect most people personally, but it’s nice to know narratively, that it’s safe to say “nah, he’s over there.”
And yet, at my last reading, this story is unsubstantiated. Source is "A congressional staffer and a person familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss personal security details, confirmed the change, but neither could offer an explanation"
All the mainstream media is reporting, that is, all the Marxist propaganda rags, including politico:
Two people familiar with the decision — granted anonymity to discuss sensitive decisions — confirmed to POLITICO that Pompeo’s security detail has been pulled back.
So, I'll wait. If its confirmed in official documents, then sure.
But confirmation bias dies hard, right? Let's see if this story is actually substantiated (in something other than the Propaganda Press) in the next 72 hours before going off and saying somehow its proof, shall we?
Reuters:
A source familiar with the situation confirmed earlier reports that Pompeo's security detail had been withdrawn.
The New York Times first reported that security for Pompeo, as well as former Iran envoy Brian Hook, was pulled on Tuesday, citing four sources familiar with the situation.
If I recall correctly, when he rescinded the security clearances, he specifically names the 51 IC officials, AND Bolton, but zero mention of Pompeo was made.
So, until I see actual official documentation or Trump directly citing Pompeo, I'm not going to take Propaganda reporting as gospel.
It all starts with the New York Times, quoting anonymous sources. I'm looking at lots of reports in MSM about this.
There seems to be a big effort to tie Bolton to Pompeo and Hook. Trump has spoken very clearly about Bolton, but did he say anything similar about Pompeo? Ever?
Let's say its true. What does it mean? I mean, Trump is right, isn't he? You cannot have security for your entire life, especially if the risk is minimalized or reduced. So, I do not see how security being revoked means the person is dirty. Correlation does not mean causality.
That said, reportedly:
Late Monday, his first day in office, Trump announced on Truth Social that he fired Hook from the Wilson Center for Scholars, for not being "aligned with our vision to Make America Great Again."
If Pompeo is indeed dirty, I would expect (and hope) DJT to clarify this via direct statements. Otherwise..... I think there is a lot of illogical leaps in the arguments against Pompeo, and a lot of logical arguments in support of Pompeo.
At this point in time, I believe that anybody who loses their security clearance or their security detail moving forward… This is some kind of signal from Trump - Do Not Trust ✋🛑
This is the way…Security Clearances should be examined with a fine tooth comb. If you are not in the Military or the Administration your clearance should reflect a dumbed down clearance so that you can’t have access to what you used to have. Eliminate the Fuckery!
I don't understand. Why would a low level guy like Bolton and Pompeo have a protection detail? Those are reserved for presidents, vice presidents, and ex-pres/VP. Bolton was not active in Xiden's government neither was Pompeo. So why 4 years after they still had a protection detail? No one is asking this question. Unless they were a witness in a trial and needed US Marshalls guarding them.
Perhaps as Trump removes their security detail one person at a time, it’s gonna start to expose how many people are getting taxpayer funded security for no apparent reason at all whatsoever
I am unsure if it's the same for Pompeo, but apparently for Bolton he's on a hitlist from...Iran was it? Which caused him to be eligible for protection.
Q also said “Trust Wray”, and we see how that panned out.
It’s my belief that Q falsely said to “trust” enemies in order to make the DS question their loyalty. It’s a great way to remove pieces from the board.
Q never stated that Kansas=Pompeo. That was always just some horseshit theory thrown out there by random people on the internet. Unfortunately, that theory gained more traction than it deserved, and in short time, Kansas=Pompeo became the gospel truth. I never bought into that theory btw.
Do don't let the enemy know how much you know. Disinformation is necessary. Most ordinary Americans love of honesty is naive, and not a great trait in an unconventional war.
Yea this one tricked me. I honestly did trust this fella back in the day. And just reason 34832938 of why I don’t trust most people anymore. Just reminds me of the C_A crap. I know John Ratcliffe got approved, and I think he’s great. But in reality his job should last about a month. And that is just so they can remove all the furniture and stuff out. Shut that criminal organization down. “Splinter it into a thousand pieces.”
It makes a lot more sense than to remove his protection and risk him getting taken out and then Trump gets the blame and we lose an important witness or whatever Pompeo is.
Unlike former national security adviser John Bolton, Pompeo and Hook had been loyal to Trump and were not public critics of him. Hook has even done work on the transition between the two administrations during the 2024 campaign period. Pompeo and Hook had worked with the first trump administration on the maximum pressure campaign against Iran, as were serving at the time of Qassem Soleimani's killing in a drone strike ordered by Mr. Trump in his first term.
At this hour, neither Diplomatic Security nor the State Department have provided a response to the CBS request for comment.
The New York Times was first to report the news about Pompeo and Hook.
Is it rational to make the leap that removing the security from Pompeo, (if true) means that somehow, Pompeo is dirty?
Reportedly, this is Trump's comment on protection on Monday:
Asked about it while speaking to reporters in the Oval Office on Monday, President Trump said "when you have protection you can't have it for the rest of your life—do you want to have a large detail of people guarding people for the rest of their lives? I mean, there's risks to everything."
I think that taking the removal of security (if true, as reported by the Propaganda News Machine) directly means that Pompeo is somehow bad, that's a big leap. It's confirmation bias.
Are there other possible explanations? Can you think of no other possible explanations why such security might be removed?
From my perspective, Trump is moving forward with his administration like a bull in a China shop. He’s going after everything that he promised, and things that have been a net negative for America. So for me personally, seeing all these people losing their security clearances at the same time, is a message. You are no longer necessary, we do not trust you, and I’m moving on to securing his vision of America first.
Whether or not, Mike Pompeo is a white hat or a black hat, I cannot personally say. But by removing his security detail, says he’s no longer needed. I think we could at least agree on that.
But by removing his security detail, says he’s no longer needed. I think we could at least agree on that.
Yes, I agree with you on that! I think Mike's job is done, one way or the other.
Whether or not, Mike Pompeo is a white hat or a black hat, I cannot personally say.
Lol, but you DID.
"He is a traitor and should never be granted a security protection again."
keks.
Between you and me, maybe a lot of this derives from stylistic issues. I read your posts, comments, especially the takes on Pompeo that you consistently (it seems to me) put out. All the things that you (seem to me) to quote as proof, evidence.
So maybe when you make unequivocal statements, they are really just ... emphatic? Cause I thought you are convinced that Pompeo is dirty (black hat) and that you really hold no doubt on the matter. kek.
Maybe its a personal flaw, or pet peeve, but I always get jumpy when I see big assertions posted on GAW and overwhelming (in my view) "jumping on the bandwagon" rather than rational, objective discussions with a strong tendency towards acknowledging the limitations on what we actually know, and identifying the differences between knowable facts on one hand and narrative on the other.
Too much of that here, imo. I mean the jumping, and just open statement of opinion as if they are facts.
Anyway, thanks again for responding, clarifying, advancing the discussion, and apologies again for putting words in your mouth if I did.
So while the anonymous sources providing info to Marxist Globalist Media say that Pompeo's security was withdrawn, let's assume that it is. It could also easily be that the threat against Pompeo and others has been neutralized.
Trump is cutting back on govt spending big time. If Pompeo's security was no longer needed, should Trump still keep it in place?
Edit: removed remarks that do not represent OPs view.
Where have I ever said that I hated Mike Pompeo? For the record I don’t even listen to Tucker Carlson, a lot of the headlines and people that he interviews I’m just not interested in. You don’t have to get personal about it. All I did was post a story for people to discuss. We are discussing it, but please don’t put words in my mouth.
Perhaps the reason why Mike Pompeo security has been removed, is because he’s expendable now?
Apologies, TIHIS. I should not be putting words in anyone's mouths.
I guess I developed this impression. You seem pretty passionate about Pompeo. If you don't consider this hate, then neither will I.
But you made a big assertion.
"Trump has spoken" and for those 'riding on the fence on Pompeo'
Firstly, Trump has not said anything recently about Pompeo that I know of. Secondly, the reports of the security being revoked come via anonymous sources to the New York Times. Thirdly, even if accurate, can we KNOW why the security is/was removed? Does it necessarily mean X? or Y?
I guess I don't really think you are discussing it objectively. I mean, you have your opinion and view, and nothing wrong with sharing that. But collectively, there is so much narrative around Pompeo, I personally do not think that people, including you, are approaching the matter objectively. Rather, like mob rule, when someone has been accused of being dirty, a lot of folks simply pile on rather than actually looking at the data and information objectively.
That said, maybe I'm not being objective. But my fundamental position is, until there is a threshold of credible evidence that cannot be explained in any other way, its not fact, it's theory.
And, fundamentally, I'm not going to engage my emotional attachments based on theories.
*There's a plethora of material about Tucker/Pompeo.
But there was a segment Tucker posted on his site about Pompeo undermining Trump at every turn during the first term. There is also one about Pompeo being a criminal.
There are newer stories shedding Tucker influenced Trump's decision to avoid Pompeo in the current administration, but I'm not citing those.
The name of those segments? A search of the website using the "pompeo" factor only yields the Assange Extradition Hearing.
EDIT: Read the WSJ article about Carlson reportedly influenced DJT to avoid Pompeo. It certainly seems that Tucker enjoys close connection to Trump and his inner circle.
WSJ says Carlson argued that Pompeo is a warmonger, but curiously, it was Pompeo who with Trump was able to establish the Abraham Accords, an amazing accomplishment that completely altered the dynamic in the middle east.
Very disappointed in Pompeo He had so many opportunities to do the right thing and chose wrong. He will now be reaping what he has sowed against Donald. The folks at the time warning ‘once a spook always a spook’ were right
I'm going to save this post, and perhaps come back to it.
A lot of people see a collection of assertions, stories and such, and draw their conclusions. They are convinced that their view MUST BE right. But that's not objective.
Personally, I am still waiting for tangible actual evidence showing Pompeo to be a clown.
The reports about his security being revoked come from anonymous sources speaking to the Globalist Corporate Media. Do we trust them when they say something that confirms our biases, but not trust them when they say something we disagree with or despise?
BUT, I think it needs to be acknowledged that the mere removal of a security detail does NOT necessarily mean "That person is dirty". DJT spoke out about Bolton very clearly, numerous times. I've never heard him say anything about Pompeo like that.
Whether that means Pompeo is a good guy, a flawed guy, or a bad guy, its hard to say. All we can be sure of is that Bolton is pretty bad.
Mike Pompeo used his position of influence to install Senator Dan Coats as Director of National Intelligence during the first administration, with the mission objective to hamstring President Trump and ensure the “six ways from Sunday” group could lead the internal attacks.
ODNI Dan Coats operated to block all declassification efforts of President Trump during the first administration until he was ultimately fired, too late, and replaced by Acting DNI Ric Grenell; later replaced by DNI John Ratcliffe.
Mike Pompeo misled President Trump about issues of national intelligence, blocked any information adverse to the interests of the “six ways from Sunday” group, and operated a stealth mission to destroy the presidency. That agenda included lying to President Trump about military engagements, CIA activity, foreign missions and organizing military attacks without the approval of the Commander in chief.
While doing this, Mike Pompeo attempted to organize a covert assassination effort against Julian Assange, and later worked with the corrupt interests inside the Robert Mueller team and DOJ-NSD to exfiltrate Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London (joint black-ops mission with GCHQ) with hopes to finish the Assange operation in prison.
Additionally, for CONTEXT – […] (3) Joint Chief Chairman Milley, and SoS Mike Pompeo traveled to Mar-a-Lago in December 2019, where they informed President Trump of military strikes in Syria and Iraq after they took place. [Background Here] [Background Here]. President Trump made Esper, Milley and Pompeo hold a press conference without Trump supporting them; then President Trump remained silent on the issue for days.
I don't think that Sundance is in the habit of including bogus information in his articles. Every single thing the NYT publishes is not junk. Sometimes they get it right, and Sundance has enough knowledge of the truth to spot what is fake, and what is not. At least that's the way I see it.
As far as a I know, Sundance is a pretty stable and good source.
One should take that into account.
I'm still waiting to hear any statements from DJT re: Pompeo. The one thing in the treehouse article you quote here that interests me is(3) the Mar-A-Lago thing. That feels like it has some signal.
The Assange thing, well that story was 'broken' and came out of the writings of three very anti-Trump 'journalists', one of whom wrote a big book on the Russia Collusion by Trump.
I don't think that NYT 'sometimes gets it right'. That seems to infer that they are bonafide media, who screws it up because of the their biases some times. I see them as a propaganda machine, supporting the globalist propaganda agenda. For that reason, whether they report truth or lies, I will always be asking what their motive is.
Propaganda doesn't work simply by telling lies, but by telling half lies, truths, and lies, but always with an agenda and purpose behind it. So, even if their reports here are accurate (even though again, its scummy stuff by unidentified sources 'familiar with the situation'), the question I ask is "why?" What is their reason for reporting this? What spin do they put on it? In other words, when they lies, they do it deliberately. When they tell the truth, they do it deliberately.
To that point, consider how many people here have responded as if somehow removing a security detail PROVES that Pompeo is corrupt.
If Pompeo is (their guy) would they want the Maga crowd to hate him? If Pompeo is DS, then what benefit do hardline Marxist propaganda operations (referring to the journos that 'exposed' Pompeo's alleged plot to kill assange) and globalist propaganda machines have to run down Pompeo and paint him in a bad light?
While I'm more likely to take the writings of the Treehouse seriously than I am the NYT, CBS or CNN, I'm not convinced what he writes is gospel.
And here is his opinion about Trump (nov 9, post election):
Currently, the entire mechanism of the DC system under the control of the “six ways from Sunday” group, are organizing the Presidential isolation filters again.
We are watching it unfold.
There are no current indications that President-elect Trump, nor his immediate circle of close advisors or influence agents, are aware of the scale of the problem. They believe the system of government is good but simply operated by bad people. This is not the case.
He does not seem to have a very high opinion of Trump, nor does it seem he gives any credence to the idea of the Plan, the Q operation, and/also Devolution.
I don't read him enough to know really what his attitude is, but personally, I find his take on Trump in the above paragraph to contrast strongly with my own view of DJT, Q and the Plan.
The DNI is a cabinet level position and only the President appoints that position.
President-elect Trump appointed Dan Coats to the director of national intelligence position.
Pompeo had nothing to do with appointing Dan Coats.
Very true! I kind of feel like this is a form of disclosure. As we start to get into Trump’s second administration, some of the intentional disinformation from Q is being clarified. We’re only at day three! There are several other people that are losing their security details and their security clearances. I think this is a message that loud and clear.
I just think it’s interesting on the timing of many people losing their security, and their security clearance within the first three days of his administration. I’m not sure if Trump is purposefully grouping these people all together as a signal, or just executive function efficiency. But like you said, only time will tell.
President Donald Trump has officially revoked Mike Pompeo's security protection.
This move comes less than 24 hours after Trump revealed Pompeo blocked the release of the JFK files during his first administration.
Pompeo has also been accused of playing a key role in plotting the a*sassination of Julian Assange.
He is a traitor and should never be granted a security protection again.
Pompeo fooled me with his "evangelical Christian" persona. He appeared at a few churches in California and talked the talk.
I've learned the hard way not to judge someone by words--but by actions.
Lock him up, throw away the key, and do what needs to be done if found guilty of treason.
The one thing Ezra did not mention in his post, is that some say Pompeo was supposed to be the vice president for Nikki Haley. So not only did he want a massage assassinated, he wanted Trump assassinated He wanted to be the next deep state in charge. if Pompeo would’ve been vice president for her, they would’ve taken her out to put him in charge. 🤷♀️
The corruption is shocking--I have a feeling we are in for a white-knuckle shock when the truth of all the corruption comes out...
It’s only day three… Literally only day three and he’s coming through like a bull in a China shop.
I know, I can't keep up! Incredible!
I am loving it because the last five four years has been tough.
I’m completely shocked. I wondered why he wasn’t considered for this administration and now we know why.
Agree. I thot I knew it all (ah, laughter from the peanut gallery).
Not just a white-knuckle shock, but a kick in the belly. Arrrrgh.
This is not Ezra. This is Shadow of Ezra. Ezra Cohen's account is different, right?
Yes, I was just being brief because we were on topic.
Ok, that was kinda nitpicky on my part. Sheesh. Get a life, Fractal!
<walks away sheepishly>
"evangelical Christians" are a cancer in the country, and presidential candidates must stop bending over backwards for them. Nothing good ever comes from pandering to them.
I don’t know… I’m an evangelical Christian. And the best thing that it’s ever come to me is my salvation. I’m not sure how it all works in politics though, but I’m grateful for my salvation. Never dismissed the power of the blood of Christ.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion; perhaps it's better to avoid blanket statements regarding groups of individuals.
There are many good and well-meaning Christian believers.
I have the right to my opinion, not an entitlement.
tThrice, Of course, you have the right to your opinion.
Everyone here would agree to that--
I am very sorry you feel that Christians are a "cancer in the country"-- how unfortunate for you.
But, you have the right to feel that way and say it.
The evangelicals, the one-issue voters that candidates always pander to. As long as a candidate is pro-life, it seems they don't care about anything else. Let a billion people in, ban and confiscate firearms, increase the lowest tax bracket to 40%, throw people in prison for thought crime, it doesn't matter as long as a candidate is pro-life.
Again, generalized statements can never accurately reflect the ideology of any group of people. I defend your right to think and speak for yourself. I hope you consider that your generalized thinking may need reconsideration.
This might be a great read for you (and many of us)...
Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion by AllieBeth Stucky.
I wish you good day--end of topic for me.
Downvoted thrice for retarded blanket statements.
Having been a fence rider, intentionally, on all these people, at great effort (with intermittent errors, but I’m human), it’s going to be nice to finally be able to start putting my feet down on some of them.
Doubtful any of these ever affect most people personally, but it’s nice to know narratively, that it’s safe to say “nah, he’s over there.”
Added to https://greatawakening.win/p/19AKFXFrNL/trump-20-baidan-devolution-archi/
And yet, at my last reading, this story is unsubstantiated. Source is "A congressional staffer and a person familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss personal security details, confirmed the change, but neither could offer an explanation"
All the mainstream media is reporting, that is, all the Marxist propaganda rags, including politico:
So, I'll wait. If its confirmed in official documents, then sure.
But confirmation bias dies hard, right? Let's see if this story is actually substantiated (in something other than the Propaganda Press) in the next 72 hours before going off and saying somehow its proof, shall we?
Reuters:
If I recall correctly, when he rescinded the security clearances, he specifically names the 51 IC officials, AND Bolton, but zero mention of Pompeo was made.
So, until I see actual official documentation or Trump directly citing Pompeo, I'm not going to take Propaganda reporting as gospel.
Sauce
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-davos-remarks-2019724
I’m not a fan of Ezra either. I get it.
Thanks for this, TIHIS.
It all starts with the New York Times, quoting anonymous sources. I'm looking at lots of reports in MSM about this.
There seems to be a big effort to tie Bolton to Pompeo and Hook. Trump has spoken very clearly about Bolton, but did he say anything similar about Pompeo? Ever?
Let's say its true. What does it mean? I mean, Trump is right, isn't he? You cannot have security for your entire life, especially if the risk is minimalized or reduced. So, I do not see how security being revoked means the person is dirty. Correlation does not mean causality.
That said, reportedly:
If Pompeo is indeed dirty, I would expect (and hope) DJT to clarify this via direct statements. Otherwise..... I think there is a lot of illogical leaps in the arguments against Pompeo, and a lot of logical arguments in support of Pompeo.
At this point in time, I believe that anybody who loses their security clearance or their security detail moving forward… This is some kind of signal from Trump - Do Not Trust ✋🛑
This is the way…Security Clearances should be examined with a fine tooth comb. If you are not in the Military or the Administration your clearance should reflect a dumbed down clearance so that you can’t have access to what you used to have. Eliminate the Fuckery!
Just heard that John Brennan lost his too!
lol yes and he’s crying like a bitch traitor about it on the news
Oh my …I’m getting excited! How are they going to go on CNN or MSNBC?
They can’t because they don’t get the information anymore. He’s literally shutting them up.
That won't be hard. They'll just keep on lying to the tune the cabal wants to hear like they always did.
Pompeo = King of the Thugs.
Trust Kansas = misinformation. Now we know.
I don't understand. Why would a low level guy like Bolton and Pompeo have a protection detail? Those are reserved for presidents, vice presidents, and ex-pres/VP. Bolton was not active in Xiden's government neither was Pompeo. So why 4 years after they still had a protection detail? No one is asking this question. Unless they were a witness in a trial and needed US Marshalls guarding them.
Perhaps as Trump removes their security detail one person at a time, it’s gonna start to expose how many people are getting taxpayer funded security for no apparent reason at all whatsoever
I am unsure if it's the same for Pompeo, but apparently for Bolton he's on a hitlist from...Iran was it? Which caused him to be eligible for protection.
Well, maybe he should stop starting war with them. He’s a warmonger, there’s consequences for that. He put a target on his own back.
No disagreement here, fuck Bolton.
"Trust Kansas"
The main Q team consists of 6 to 9 people. Quite possible someone threw in their own personal opinions.
But how do we know Pompeo is Kansas. This is still up for discussion.
Q also said “Trust Wray”, and we see how that panned out.
It’s my belief that Q falsely said to “trust” enemies in order to make the DS question their loyalty. It’s a great way to remove pieces from the board.
Yeah...I wonder more and more if this was the tactic to fuck up the DS.
Q never stated that Kansas=Pompeo. That was always just some horseshit theory thrown out there by random people on the internet. Unfortunately, that theory gained more traction than it deserved, and in short time, Kansas=Pompeo became the gospel truth. I never bought into that theory btw.
Do don't let the enemy know how much you know. Disinformation is necessary. Most ordinary Americans love of honesty is naive, and not a great trait in an unconventional war.
Trump is RINO and traitor hunting only a few days into his term.
I can't wait to see how much of the DS is gone by the time summer rolls around.
This cunt won't be able to walk down the street.
F$$k Kansas. And all Clowns. And all DOD traitors to their oath!
What bastion of demonry
Lawyer up Mike.
Yea this one tricked me. I honestly did trust this fella back in the day. And just reason 34832938 of why I don’t trust most people anymore. Just reminds me of the C_A crap. I know John Ratcliffe got approved, and I think he’s great. But in reality his job should last about a month. And that is just so they can remove all the furniture and stuff out. Shut that criminal organization down. “Splinter it into a thousand pieces.”
This could mean that he is protecting Pompeo regardless of Pompeo's position as a friend or foe.
Protecting him while removing his protection. That’s a bold statement.
It makes a lot more sense than to remove his protection and risk him getting taken out and then Trump gets the blame and we lose an important witness or whatever Pompeo is.
The fact that Trump has removed, his security detail tells me that he’s expendable.
Hmmm...
CBS news:
Is it rational to make the leap that removing the security from Pompeo, (if true) means that somehow, Pompeo is dirty?
Reportedly, this is Trump's comment on protection on Monday:
I think that taking the removal of security (if true, as reported by the Propaganda News Machine) directly means that Pompeo is somehow bad, that's a big leap. It's confirmation bias.
Are there other possible explanations? Can you think of no other possible explanations why such security might be removed?
From my perspective, Trump is moving forward with his administration like a bull in a China shop. He’s going after everything that he promised, and things that have been a net negative for America. So for me personally, seeing all these people losing their security clearances at the same time, is a message. You are no longer necessary, we do not trust you, and I’m moving on to securing his vision of America first.
Whether or not, Mike Pompeo is a white hat or a black hat, I cannot personally say. But by removing his security detail, says he’s no longer needed. I think we could at least agree on that.
Yes, I agree with you on that! I think Mike's job is done, one way or the other.
Lol, but you DID.
"He is a traitor and should never be granted a security protection again."
keks.
Between you and me, maybe a lot of this derives from stylistic issues. I read your posts, comments, especially the takes on Pompeo that you consistently (it seems to me) put out. All the things that you (seem to me) to quote as proof, evidence.
So maybe when you make unequivocal statements, they are really just ... emphatic? Cause I thought you are convinced that Pompeo is dirty (black hat) and that you really hold no doubt on the matter. kek.
Maybe its a personal flaw, or pet peeve, but I always get jumpy when I see big assertions posted on GAW and overwhelming (in my view) "jumping on the bandwagon" rather than rational, objective discussions with a strong tendency towards acknowledging the limitations on what we actually know, and identifying the differences between knowable facts on one hand and narrative on the other.
Too much of that here, imo. I mean the jumping, and just open statement of opinion as if they are facts.
Anyway, thanks again for responding, clarifying, advancing the discussion, and apologies again for putting words in your mouth if I did.
So while the anonymous sources providing info to Marxist Globalist Media say that Pompeo's security was withdrawn, let's assume that it is. It could also easily be that the threat against Pompeo and others has been neutralized.
Trump is cutting back on govt spending big time. If Pompeo's security was no longer needed, should Trump still keep it in place?
Edit: removed remarks that do not represent OPs view.
Where have I ever said that I hated Mike Pompeo? For the record I don’t even listen to Tucker Carlson, a lot of the headlines and people that he interviews I’m just not interested in. You don’t have to get personal about it. All I did was post a story for people to discuss. We are discussing it, but please don’t put words in my mouth.
Perhaps the reason why Mike Pompeo security has been removed, is because he’s expendable now?
Apologies, TIHIS. I should not be putting words in anyone's mouths.
I guess I developed this impression. You seem pretty passionate about Pompeo. If you don't consider this hate, then neither will I.
But you made a big assertion.
"Trump has spoken" and for those 'riding on the fence on Pompeo'
Firstly, Trump has not said anything recently about Pompeo that I know of. Secondly, the reports of the security being revoked come via anonymous sources to the New York Times. Thirdly, even if accurate, can we KNOW why the security is/was removed? Does it necessarily mean X? or Y?
I guess I don't really think you are discussing it objectively. I mean, you have your opinion and view, and nothing wrong with sharing that. But collectively, there is so much narrative around Pompeo, I personally do not think that people, including you, are approaching the matter objectively. Rather, like mob rule, when someone has been accused of being dirty, a lot of folks simply pile on rather than actually looking at the data and information objectively.
That said, maybe I'm not being objective. But my fundamental position is, until there is a threshold of credible evidence that cannot be explained in any other way, its not fact, it's theory.
And, fundamentally, I'm not going to engage my emotional attachments based on theories.
👍🙏
Tucker told us as much
And I believe everything that Tucker Carlson says, right? Right?
One doesn't have to believe everything a person says to believe one thing they say-that's called discernment. .
And Carlson had dealings with Pompeo before he was friendly with Trump.
So in this case, I can take what he says with more than a pinch of salt.
Or I could whinge about for 33 paragraphs on a subject that should take all of two sentences to flesh out-right? RIGHT?
Right.
What were the dealings that Carlson had with Pompeo pre-Trump era?
And do you mean before Carlson was friendly, with DJT, or before Pompeo was friendly with DJT?
Before Tucker was friendly with Trump
*There's a plethora of material about Tucker/Pompeo.
But there was a segment Tucker posted on his site about Pompeo undermining Trump at every turn during the first term. There is also one about Pompeo being a criminal.
There are newer stories shedding Tucker influenced Trump's decision to avoid Pompeo in the current administration, but I'm not citing those.
Thanks Donny.
The name of those segments? A search of the website using the "pompeo" factor only yields the Assange Extradition Hearing.
EDIT: Read the WSJ article about Carlson reportedly influenced DJT to avoid Pompeo. It certainly seems that Tucker enjoys close connection to Trump and his inner circle.
WSJ says Carlson argued that Pompeo is a warmonger, but curiously, it was Pompeo who with Trump was able to establish the Abraham Accords, an amazing accomplishment that completely altered the dynamic in the middle east.
I thought Trump did say Pompao asked him not to disclose it during his first term....?
Yes, he did. He was definitely trying to control the flow of information.
Ok thanks, it was the "less than 24 hours later" that got me doubting my memory. But it was less than 24 that he said it this time :).
Very disappointed in Pompeo He had so many opportunities to do the right thing and chose wrong. He will now be reaping what he has sowed against Donald. The folks at the time warning ‘once a spook always a spook’ were right
He was probably promised a long time ago that he would be either president or a vice president, and guess what… They were wrong 😂😂😂
Bummer, I had hoped he was a good guy.
I'm going to save this post, and perhaps come back to it.
A lot of people see a collection of assertions, stories and such, and draw their conclusions. They are convinced that their view MUST BE right. But that's not objective.
Personally, I am still waiting for tangible actual evidence showing Pompeo to be a clown.
The reports about his security being revoked come from anonymous sources speaking to the Globalist Corporate Media. Do we trust them when they say something that confirms our biases, but not trust them when they say something we disagree with or despise?
Hardly Q level thinking...
Thanks for pointing that out. I too will hold my judgement for now, as the mainstream news has shown itself to be untrustworthy.
Looks like a round-a-bout confirmation by DJT exists: see this clip
https://youtu.be/ttMxYsRlVaY?si=FHycHJirpkvGlg_C&t=1031
BUT, I think it needs to be acknowledged that the mere removal of a security detail does NOT necessarily mean "That person is dirty". DJT spoke out about Bolton very clearly, numerous times. I've never heard him say anything about Pompeo like that.
Whether that means Pompeo is a good guy, a flawed guy, or a bad guy, its hard to say. All we can be sure of is that Bolton is pretty bad.
Wow!!
snip (here)
Mike Pompeo used his position of influence to install Senator Dan Coats as Director of National Intelligence during the first administration, with the mission objective to hamstring President Trump and ensure the “six ways from Sunday” group could lead the internal attacks.
ODNI Dan Coats operated to block all declassification efforts of President Trump during the first administration until he was ultimately fired, too late, and replaced by Acting DNI Ric Grenell; later replaced by DNI John Ratcliffe.
Mike Pompeo misled President Trump about issues of national intelligence, blocked any information adverse to the interests of the “six ways from Sunday” group, and operated a stealth mission to destroy the presidency. That agenda included lying to President Trump about military engagements, CIA activity, foreign missions and organizing military attacks without the approval of the Commander in chief.
While doing this, Mike Pompeo attempted to organize a covert assassination effort against Julian Assange, and later worked with the corrupt interests inside the Robert Mueller team and DOJ-NSD to exfiltrate Assange from the Ecuadorian embassy in London (joint black-ops mission with GCHQ) with hopes to finish the Assange operation in prison.
Additionally, for CONTEXT – […] (3) Joint Chief Chairman Milley, and SoS Mike Pompeo traveled to Mar-a-Lago in December 2019, where they informed President Trump of military strikes in Syria and Iraq after they took place. [Background Here] [Background Here]. President Trump made Esper, Milley and Pompeo hold a press conference without Trump supporting them; then President Trump remained silent on the issue for days.
Note:
I don't think that Sundance is in the habit of including bogus information in his articles. Every single thing the NYT publishes is not junk. Sometimes they get it right, and Sundance has enough knowledge of the truth to spot what is fake, and what is not. At least that's the way I see it.
As far as a I know, Sundance is a pretty stable and good source.
One should take that into account.
I'm still waiting to hear any statements from DJT re: Pompeo. The one thing in the treehouse article you quote here that interests me is(3) the Mar-A-Lago thing. That feels like it has some signal.
The Assange thing, well that story was 'broken' and came out of the writings of three very anti-Trump 'journalists', one of whom wrote a big book on the Russia Collusion by Trump.
I don't think that NYT 'sometimes gets it right'. That seems to infer that they are bonafide media, who screws it up because of the their biases some times. I see them as a propaganda machine, supporting the globalist propaganda agenda. For that reason, whether they report truth or lies, I will always be asking what their motive is.
Propaganda doesn't work simply by telling lies, but by telling half lies, truths, and lies, but always with an agenda and purpose behind it. So, even if their reports here are accurate (even though again, its scummy stuff by unidentified sources 'familiar with the situation'), the question I ask is "why?" What is their reason for reporting this? What spin do they put on it? In other words, when they lies, they do it deliberately. When they tell the truth, they do it deliberately.
To that point, consider how many people here have responded as if somehow removing a security detail PROVES that Pompeo is corrupt.
If Pompeo is (their guy) would they want the Maga crowd to hate him? If Pompeo is DS, then what benefit do hardline Marxist propaganda operations (referring to the journos that 'exposed' Pompeo's alleged plot to kill assange) and globalist propaganda machines have to run down Pompeo and paint him in a bad light?
While I'm more likely to take the writings of the Treehouse seriously than I am the NYT, CBS or CNN, I'm not convinced what he writes is gospel.
More on "Six ways from Sunday" group by Treehouse.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/11/09/the-six-ways-from-sunday-problem/comment-page-7/
And here is his opinion about Trump (nov 9, post election):
He does not seem to have a very high opinion of Trump, nor does it seem he gives any credence to the idea of the Plan, the Q operation, and/also Devolution.
I don't read him enough to know really what his attitude is, but personally, I find his take on Trump in the above paragraph to contrast strongly with my own view of DJT, Q and the Plan.
The DNI is a cabinet level position and only the President appoints that position. President-elect Trump appointed Dan Coats to the director of national intelligence position.
Pompeo had nothing to do with appointing Dan Coats.
It goes to show you it takes longer to expose others to figure out if they are a white hat or black hat as many are grey hats.
Very true! I kind of feel like this is a form of disclosure. As we start to get into Trump’s second administration, some of the intentional disinformation from Q is being clarified. We’re only at day three! There are several other people that are losing their security details and their security clearances. I think this is a message that loud and clear.
We'll see.
If Pompeo was/is dirty, then no doubt justice will be done. I trust that DJT and Team know what they are doing.
But let's not forget that we are living in the midst of the most intense 5G war in the known history of humanity.
I just think it’s interesting on the timing of many people losing their security, and their security clearance within the first three days of his administration. I’m not sure if Trump is purposefully grouping these people all together as a signal, or just executive function efficiency. But like you said, only time will tell.
Hmmm. This makes sense. Could well be. Time will tell (fingers crossed).