While Bergoglio seems to have summoned some Vatican experts and canonists, as well as Francesco Coccopalmerio to study a formula to punish Viganò, It seems very interesting to read this article, where Catholic ecclesiastical titles are attributed to the occupants of the Sacred Palaces, because the site is officially sedeplenist
Reporting of Roman correspondence

Of Emmanuele Barbieri
The documentation provided by Archbishop Viganò regarding the "Kim Davis case" does much more than deny the version of events presented by the declared homosexual Juan Carlos Cruz on New York Times according to which Pope Francis fired Nuncio Viganò because he was "guilty" of having sabotaged his trip to the USA in 2015 organizing a meeting, not wanted by the Pope, with Mrs. Davis, champion of the battle against "gay marriage".
According to Cruz, Nuncio Viganò arranged for Pope Francis to meet with Mrs. Davis without the Pope wanting it and with the aim of sabotaging the Bergoglian policy of openness to the liberal demands of the then Obama administration. Papal wrath and the decision to fire Viganò would follow. Now, however, Monsignor Viganò provides documents that attest beyond any doubt that:

• The Pope's meeting with Mrs. Davis was decided with the Secretariat of State;
• That the Pope personally agreed to the meeting;
• That the Pope never reproached Nuncio Viganò for having promoted this meeting but rather praised him for the excellent organization of the trip.

However, the documentation provided by Viganò shows that:

• The Vatican Press Office helped generate the idea that the Pope's meeting with Mrs. Davis had taken place against Pope Francis' wishes;
• Father Lombardi and Father Rosica artfully fueled the controversy;
• The Secretary of State card. Parolin summoned the nuncio Viganò to Rome and concluded the papal trip to the USA by asserting: «You must come to Rome immediately because the Pope is furious with you». As they said, this new intervention by Monsignor Viganò is much more than a denial by Cruz on the case, certainly interesting, but limited to the Bergoglio/Davis meeting.

Archbishop Viganò, providing documents that disprove Cruz, he implicitly tells Oltretevere and the international press that the nunciature in Washington was equipped with excellent photocopiers and that it is not difficult for the nuncio to equip himself with large document holders. Every single statement he made, Viganò is ready to prove it with documents in hand!
It seems that the news of the excellent functioning of the photocopiers in the nunciature was already known in the Vatican which was careful not to deny the merits of Monsignor Viganò's testimony. Any denial would follow, Indeed, the rejoinder of the former nuncio to the USA who, with supporting documents, it would demonstrate the possible Vatican version as false.
But there's more! From the documents made public by Viganò on the Davis case, as well as already from the Testimony of the former nuncio to the USA regarding the McCarrick case, a disturbing picture emerges regarding the will and freedom of Pope Francis.
Pope Francis during his trip to the USA in 2015 agrees to meet Mrs Davis - a civil official who opposed "gay marriage" and ended up in prison for this - as proposed to him by Nuncio Viganò and following the positive opinion of the Secretariat of State. The Pope meets Mrs. Davis on 24 September 2015.
The Vatican Press Office first denies the meeting, saying that the Pope only granted an audience to one of his former homosexual students, then he reduces the meeting with Davis to a courtesy greeting without any meaning. Finally, Secretary of State Parolin summons Viganò to Rome, informing him that the Pope is furious about the meeting with Davis. Viganò goes to Rome and is received by the Pope who praises him for the excellent organization of the trip... not even a word about the meeting with Mrs. Davis, not even the shadow of a reproach.
Because the Roman Pontiff agrees to a proposal from his nuncio to the USA but then allows the Vatican Press Office and his Spokesperson to launch a media operation aimed at presenting his Nuncio and the meeting he had with Mrs. Davis in a bad light? Because the Secretariat of State first approves Viganò's proposal regarding the meeting with Davis and only after a few days does the Secretary of State summon Viganò to Rome telling him that the Pope is furious? Why, se furente, the Pope receives Viganò, he praises him and doesn't say a word about the meeting with Davis?
Is it the Pope who has changed and reciprocated his mind in a few days or have forces moved around the Pope that are not controlled by him and divergent from each other? Why, whether the Pope has personally agreed to meet Mrs. Davis, the Vatican Press Office acted as it did? The action of Father Lombardi and Father Rosica is in obedience to the Pope? If yes, because the Pope would have denied what he had decided only the day before? If not, because the Pope allowed his Spokesman and his Press Office to act autonomously and against his decision? Because if the Pope personally agreed to meet Mrs. Davis, he would then become furious against the nuncio Viganò who promoted that meeting? And if he was angry at Viganò because he praised him? If instead it were hypothesized that Francesco was ever furious with Viganò for the meeting with Davis, because Cardinal Parolin had Viganò urgently come to Rome, telling him that the Pope was furious with him? Parolin acted in obedience to the Pope or independently?
In his long Testimony on the McCarrick case, Archbishop Viganò writes about the meeting he had with Pope Francis on 21 June 2013: «And the pope, with a very different tone, friendly, almost affectionate, he told me: "Yes, the Bishops in the United States must not be ideological, they don't have to be right-wing like the archbishop of Philadelphia, (the pope did not mention the name of the archbishop to me) they must be shepherds; and they must not be left-wing – he added, raising both arms – and when I say left-wing I mean homosexuals”. Naturally, the logic of the correlation between being left-wing and being homosexual escaped me, but I didn't add anything else».
Nuncio Viganò notes that the Pope's words regarding the archbishop of Philadelphia seem to have come from the lips of Cardinal McCarrick: «Once I returned to Washington everything became very clear to me, thanks also to a new event that happened just a few days after my meeting with Pope Francis. Upon the takeover of the diocese of El Paso by the new bishop Mark Seitz the 9 July 2013 I sent the first Counselor, Mons. Jean-François Lantheaume, while that same day I went to Dallas for an international bioethics meeting. Back, Mons. Lantheaume told me that in El Paso he had met Card. McCarrick, which, took him aside, he had said almost the same words to him that the Pope had said to me in Rome: “The Bishops in the United States must not be ideological, they don't have to be right-wing, they must be shepherds...". I was astonished! It was therefore clear that the words of reproach that Pope Francis had addressed to me that 21 June 2013 they had been put in his mouth the day before by the card. McCarrick. Even the mention by the Pope “not like the Archbishop of Philadelphia”led to McCarrick, because there had been a strong disagreement between the two regarding the admission to communion of politicians in favor of abortion: McCarrick had manipulated a letter from the then Cardinal in his communication to the bishops. Ratzinger who forbade giving them communion. In fact I knew as much as certain cardinals like Mahony, Levada and Wuerl, were closely linked to McCarrick, had opposed the most recent appointments made by Pope Benedict, for major locations like Philadelphia, Baltimore, Denver and San Francisco».
It will be noted, however, that the Pope did not limit himself to saying what McCarrick probably suggested to him – «The Bishops in the United States must not be ideological, they don't have to be right-wing, they must be shepherds» – but completed the thought by balancing it with «and they must not be left-wing – he added, raising both arms – and when I say left-wing I mean homosexual». Which McCarrick could hardly have suggested, left-wing and homosexual!
If this in the 2013 it was Pope Francis' idea of ​​the American Church because Francis himself not only freed McCarrick from any restrictions previously inflicted on him for his grossly immoral and criminal conduct, but he elected him as his grand advisor for American affairs and took advice from McCarrick on quite a few appointments (episcopal and cardinalates)? Why Pope Francis, after having told Viganò so explicitly that he did not want "left-wing" or "homosexual" bishops, proceeded with appointments that were almost all "left-wing", often friends and protégés of McCarrick? Because he created Cardinal Farrell, McCarrick's deputy? Why, In short, Pope Francis acted as if he were in full agreement with McCarrick and the powerful lobby of which McCarrick was godfather?
The question arises spontaneously: It's Pope Francis, for its psychological constitution, to change his opinion so radically and quickly? To contradict himself with such sensational evidence? To say and unsay, affirm and act the opposite? Or the Pope is part of a bigger game that sees him as a pawn and not dominus real?
If we assumed the Pope was absolutely free and master of his decisions and, Therefore, doing and undoing were attributed to his will alone, saying and contradicting would emerge clearly and even with a certain factual violence, the problem of man's mental balance Jorge Mario Bergoglio. In fact, it is legitimate to doubt the mental health of a man capable of contradicting himself so suddenly and systematically. If this were the case, the word should be left to psychiatry and canon law.
If instead Pope Francis were assumed to be sane and therefore the obvious contradictions were attributed, reported by Viganò, not to psychic lability but to pressure suffered and the independent action of ecclesial forces not controlled by the Pope, we should ask ourselves what these forces are capable of influencing Pope Francis so heavily. Why Pope Francis, despite knowing McCarrick was homosexual and guilty of abuse for decades and not wanting "left-wing" or "homosexual" bishops, he elected McCarrick himself as his grand advisor? Why Pope Francis, despite having approved the meeting with Mrs Davis and lovingly met and encouraged her, allowed his Press Office to assert the opposite and to foment the idea that the Pope had been subjected to a "trap"? Why was the audience granted to Davis denied while the fact that the Pope had met a former homosexual student of his was publicized to the maximum? Only two possibilities: either the Pope is part of a deliberately destabilizing strategy that systematically uses lies and falsification of news or the Pope is not free!
In the latter case, what stops Pope Francis from freeing himself? What past shadows link him to the lobby of which McCarrick was godfather?