American Oversight Calls on @US_OSC and @StateOIG to Investigate Pompeo’s Email Rush Before the Election #WSOS

 


 

 

 

Burn Bag: If you donate $10,000, you will receive a “personal visit with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo”

Via Burn Bag from Sender A:
“Secretary Pompeo is attending the Florida Family Policy Council (FFPC) annual dinner on October 3.  The invitation for the event states that if you donate $10,000 (Diamond Table Sponsor) to the organization you will receive a “personal visit with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.”  If you donate $3-5,000 you will receive “2 VIP Tickets to Reception with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.”  (https://ffpc.regfox.com/2020dinner)
This is an obvious pay-to-play situation and a clear violation of the federal regulations on fundraising activities (5 CFR 2635.808).  The statute lists below an example of a prohibited activity:
A nonprofit organization is sponsoring a golf tournament to raise funds for underprivileged children. The Secretary of the Navy may not enter the tournament with the understanding that the organization intends to attract participants by offering other entrants the opportunity, in exchange for a donation in the form of an entry fee, to spend the day playing 18 holes of golf in a foursome with the Secretary of the Navy. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/2635.808)
This is exactly what Secretary Pompeo is doing.  The Florida Family Policy Council is charging thousands of dollars for the opportunity to meet the Secretary of State.  Moreover, the Department and U.S. government – and, by extension, U.S. taxpayers – are paying for the Secretary to fundraise for the FFPC.  The Department will send staff to support his travel and he will fly a government plane to/from the event.  Significant resources will be spent so the Secretary can fundraise and promote the cause of an organization that is very openly hostile to the LGBTQ+ community.  
Not only does Secretary Pompeo’s pay-for-play participation violate statute, it marginalizes State’s LGBTQ+ community and is wholly inconsistent with the remarks of Deputy Secretary Biegun at the virtual panel discussion on U.S. engagement on LGBTQ+ issues:  “We need to lead by example. At the State Department, our management team, led by Under Secretary for Management Brian Bulatao and our Director General Carol Perez, is working hard to recruit, retain, and promote a diverse workforce, and to build a culture of inclusion. We continue to identify ways our workplace can be more inclusive for our LGBTI employees as well as for all of our employees.”  (https://www.state.gov/remarks-at-a-virtual-panel-discussion-on-u-s-engagement-on-lgbti-issues/).”
(Also see https://www.flfamily.org/issues-research/marriage-family/lgbt-issues).

Hatch Act Complaints Filed Against Most Partisan Secretary of State in Memory #WSOS

 

So and So Wandering Around Jerusalem to Address Republican Convention in Private Capacity #whodis

 

Secretary of Trump Mike Pompeo to Address Republican Convention From Jerusalem #politicalprops

 

5 U.S. Code § 7321.Political participation
Memorandum of President of the United States, Oct. 24, 199459 F.R. 54121, provided:
Memorandum for the Secretary of State: Pursuant to authority vested in me as the Chief Executive Officer of the United States, and consistent with the provisions of the Hatch Act Reform Amendment regulations, 5 CFR 734.104, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I delegate to you the authority to limit the political activities of political appointees of the Department of State, including Presidential appointees, Presidential appointees with Senate confirmation, noncareer SES appointees, and Schedule C appointees.
Under 3 FAM 4546  LIST OF DISCIPLINARY OFFENSES AND PENALTIES, the  penalty for  #12. improper political activity (5 U.S.C. 7321, et seq.) is suspension or removal.
Oh. But … but see, this only apply to some people, not all people.
Apparently, four sets of lawyers are saying no rules apply to Mike Pompeo because he will be speaking in his private capacity and because no DOS resources will be used? Where is he going to deliver his address, in a tent? Oh, a rooftop. They better have the seal of Embassy Jerusalem or we won’t know where he is. Are they’re allowed to borrow it? Hey, we all know this is not really a question of resources. Also the secretary of state is secretary of state 24/7. There is no such thing as personal capacity in that job whether he likes it or not. That’s just the reality of it.
Although if you were writing Pompeo’s EER since he got to Foggy Bottom, and you did not expect this, you were not paying attention.
Now, wouldn’t it be nice to see those legal opinions by the best people? We’re guessing they’re going to tell us it’s not/not expressly prohibited so it must be A-okay …. or the presidential memo doesn’t specifically mention cabinet secretaries … or it’s old, that presidential memo oh, so old …. or the memo was issued by a president who had been impeached, imagine that?! Oh, wait, maybe not that. Ah, we get it, the memo doesn’t spell out that Michael R. Pompeo, the 70th secretary of state is not/not allowed to deliver a speech at the Republican National convention from Jerusalem. Their bad for not anticipating this. Yes, of course. That must be it.

DR News: Santo Domingo Gets Pompeo Visit, a UN Shout Out, a Newly Purchased US Embassy Housing Campus

 

 

Pompeo’s ‘Diplomacy Weak’ Update: US Alone at the UNSC For All the World to See

Remember When an Ex-Army Captain/SecState Displaced a General/Flag Officer For Military Housing?

Via Politico

In his early months on the job, Mike Pompeo sought an unusual perk for a secretary of State: permission to rent a Washington, D.C.-area house that was controlled by the U.S. military.

Pompeo and his aides initially tried to arrange for the chief U.S. diplomat and his family to live close to the State Department in the Potomac Hill campus, where the Navy maintained some homes. But ultimately the Pompeos moved into U.S. Army housing at the Fort Myer base in Virginia, according to people familiar with the issue.

Along the way, the request set off legal and logistical alarms, raising questions about whether Pompeo is eligible for any sort of military housing.

According to a memo obtained by the watchdog group American Oversight and shared this week with POLITICO, a top Navy lawyer warned that the Pompeos’ initial request for housing was “problematic” and raised “factual, legal, fiscal and ethical” issues, not the least of which was whether he’d be displacing military officers already in line for the limited housing.

[…]

The memo even questioned whether State Department officials should be trying to secure housing for the secretary of State seeing as it’s arguably not their job. The department could be violating the “Antideficiency Act” by devoting time and resources to the issue, the memo warned.

“Given that obtaining and paying for housing is a personal responsibility of civilian employees of the Government, [Department of State] Office of Counsel may need to consider whether the agency has been authorized by law and provided appropriations by Congress to expend time and agency resources to locate and secure personal housing for the Secretary of State,” the Navy memo states.

Excerpt from memo discussing Ethical Considerations:

(1) Use of Government Resources.

DOS Office of Counsel will need to determine whether the effort to obtain GFOQ housing for the Secretary of State constitutes an official agency act within the scope of their authority and funding, or whether the search for housing is more properly characterized as a personal matter of the Secretary. Subject to this determination, the Office of Counsel will then be able to determine, based upon their agency’s rules of ethics, together with the U.S. Government Standards of Ethical Conduct For Employees of the Executive Branch, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 & 705, whether it is proper to permit the use of employee time and agency resources to locate and obtain housing for the Secretary of State.

(2) Appearance of Impropriety.

The DOS Office of Counsel will require an opportunity to consider to what extent there might be a negative public perception relating to a civilian Secretary of State displacing a uniformed member of the military in a tight housing market. In accordance with CNICINST 11103.3B, Enclosure 3, Paragraph 5, Flag Officers are referred to Privatized GFOQs within each Navy Region. As mentioned earlier, there is a housing waiting list of Navy Flag personnel. DOS Office of Counsel may wish to consider whether placing the Secretary of State in Navy Flag quarters, while actual Navy Flag Officers—who are unquestionably entitled to such housing—continue to wait for assigned quarters, would raise the specter of the appearance of impropriety proscribed by the Standards of Ethical Conduct, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(14).

So the Pompeos have occupied this military housing for a while now, and yet, their rental, which State Department folks say is “fair market value” for the residence still does not include a dollar amount?
The report also says that State Department spokespersons “defended Pompeo’s current arrangement by saying it made sense security-wise as well as financially, and that the department’s lawyers had fully vetted the topic.”
Are these the same legal folks who signed off on the nonemergency weapons sale to Saudi Arabia and UAE as emergencies? Or these folks: @StateDept Skirts Thresholds in Arms Transfers to Saudi Arabia and UAE, Avoids Congressional Notifications?

HFAC Chairman Calls Out @StateDept For ‘Temper Tantrum’ Over Canceled Hill Briefings

 

Dominican Republic Gets a Pompeo Visit After Failed UN Vote