Parnas document release details Giuliani-arranged surveillance, possible threat to Amb. Yovanovitch (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

This thread of the Parnas documents seems to deserve its own discussion apart from the impeachment thread. Yovanovitch has called on the State Department to investigate, and Secretary Pompeo has yet to address the disturbing matter.

In the document trove released yesterday, it appears that Giuliani's Ukraine activities included arranging surveillance of U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch through Lev Parnas and Robert F. Hyde, a Trump donor and now Republican candidate for Congress in Connecticut. The documents reveal the detail to which Yovanovitch was under surveillance and the exchanges (mostly from WhatsApp) suggest that actors were prepared to harm Yovanovitch.

In November, Yovanovitch testified that shortly after these exchanges, she was urged to immediately return to the United States for her own physical safety - advice that she heeded an returned the next day.

 

[JimEverett]

Well, yes, it is speculation, but it isn't "pure speculation". We know that Parnas and Hyde were working for Giuliani. We know that Giuliani claimed that Trump was 100% on board with whatever they were doing. We know that Yavonovitch was viewed as Trump's enemy by Hyde. We know that Hyde told Parnas that he was tracking Yavonovitch's movements and her security detail as part of the work that Giuliani hired them to do. Now, he could have just been bragging or exaggerating or whatever. But it isn't "pure speculation" because we know Yavonovitch was pulled from Kiev because of perceived threat on her safety. We don't have evidence that she was pulled because of anything Hyde was doing on Trump's behalf - but there is a proximity between his texts and her being pulled, which takes this a bit beyond "pure speculation".

I'm confused on why you think the House not calling Parnas to testify during their hearings has any bearings on whether he has value in testifying in the actual trial. Clearly the House felt they had enough evidence to proceed. That is not saying they don't think they could continue to use more information in the actual trial, right?

And I'm sorry, I don't think the comparison is silly. The FBI being loose with the rules to pursue someone they think has intelligence value in an ongoing criminal investigation is not good, and should be cleaned up and punishment should be dealt in an appropriate manner. However, I'm not sure hiring people to act on your behalf outside the normal investigative process while using Congressional funding to pressure a foreign government to fabricate an investigation in order to politically damage your opponent is not actually worse.

I meant "pure speculation" as to exactly what the intent/purpose of the actions. You are also taking everything as true on its face. I am not sure that is exactly what will be the end result (if we get one). Which is a large point of my point about bringing up the IG investigation vs. the House investigation on impeachment There is a big difference between the evidence we have from Parnas' docs and the evidence we have from the abuse of the FISA court. And the fact the House did not think it important to question Parnas is an important part of that.

This further ties into the fact that comparison with what we know from the Parnas docs vs. what we know from the IG investigation is silly. It is beyond even an apples - oranges comparison.

 

[JimEverett]

And I'm sorry, I don't think the comparison is silly. The FBI being loose with the rules to pursue someone they think has intelligence value in an ongoing criminal investigation is not good, and should be cleaned up and punishment should be dealt in an appropriate manner. However, I'm not sure hiring people to act on your behalf outside the normal investigative process while using Congressional funding to pressure a foreign government to fabricate an investigation in order to politically damage your opponent is not actually worse.

I meant to add a point that addressed the substance of the comparison. While I think Administrations using intelligence services to spy on people closely connected to opposition party campaigns is far worse than interpreting facts in the light that makes the Trump aDministration look as bad as possible - it should be pointed out that with the FISA court you have a systemic problem. I don't think the issue with Trump can fairly be classified as systemic.

 

[Saintamaniac]

It is enlightening that you consider the FBI violating basic civil rights the lesser.

Anything to get Trump.

Both are bad. But only one involves cheating to win the highest office in the country granting the cheater almost unlimited power and according to his supporters, total immunity from prosecution. Only one impacts national security and the entire nation. Is say that one is significantly lesser than the other and it's not the civil rights violation.

 

[dtc]

I meant "pure speculation" as to exactly what the intent/purpose of the actions. You are also taking everything as true on its face. I am not sure that is exactly what will be the end result (if we get one). Which is a large point of my point about bringing up the IG investigation vs. the House investigation on impeachment There is a big difference between the evidence we have from Parnas' docs and the evidence we have from the abuse of the FISA court. And the fact the House did not think it important to question Parnas is an important part of that.

This further ties into the fact that comparison with what we know from the Parnas docs vs. what we know from the IG investigation is silly. It is beyond even an apples - oranges comparison.

How do you come to the conclusion that " the House did not think it important to question Parnas?"

 

[MT15]

We also know from the indictment of Parnas also says that he made illegal campaign contributions in order to remove Yovanovitch for a Ukrainian official and to advance his personal and business interests.

Lev Parnas And Igor Fruman Charged With Conspiring To Violate Straw And Foreign Donor Bans

www.justice.gov

Do you think it's possible that whatever Guiliani had him doing overlapped with what the indictment said he was doing for himself? The accusation, it seems are qualifiers from you that show a lot of assumptions are being made and some of it is based off someone with HUGE credibility problems.

A woman who accuses Parnas of scamming her family out of $500,000 -- one of several allegations of fraud -- said: "Mr. Parnas is a con man, he is a crook."

‘He conned us from day one’: Giuliani’s Ukraine ally leaves trail of South Florida debts

Over the summer, Dianne and Michael Pues got an ominous phone call from the business partner of a Ukrainian-American entrepreneur who owes the couple more than $500,000 over a movie deal gone bad.

amp.miamiherald.com

It's also curious that you label the FBI fabricating evidence, gaming the FISA court by using opposition research from Hillary that is most likely Russian disinformation on a FISA warrant that didn't even support what they claimed and was never corroborated as just playing fast and loose with procedures and irregularities.

SFL, I know you want to defend Trump. But take a minute and consider what you are saying in his defense. Do you know who Parnas gave those illegal campaign donations of foreign money to? Trump’s largest PAC. He didn’t do what he got indicted for all by himself. It’s all tied to Trump.

Why is Trump using Giulliani to operate outside of normal government channels to game the election? He broke the law by withholding the military aid, and he supported the stuff Rudy and his henchmen were doing.

If what Parnas says is true, and right now we have some reason to believe him, Trump not only knew Parnas, he met with him and encouraged him and his cohorts, including Giulliani. We know for a fact Trump was pushing Giulliani’s actions because we saw him do it in the phone call with Zelensky. So far, most of what Parnas has said tracks with other testimony, and he has provided some documentation.

Every defense of what Trump was doing with Ukraine has been falling apart. Don’t reflexively just go along with the folks who have a vested interest in defending Trump. Just try to distance yourself from the noise and view his words and actions objectively.

 

[Maxp]

I don't want to sound like I am defending Hilary Clinton, but I'd like to take the opportunity to highlight how she was raked over the coals for her response to an embassador being threatened. Yes, I know he lost his life. Maybe she deserved that grilling. Now we have an agent of the President of the United States plotting to harm a U.S. embassador and crickets from the pitch fork crowd. This is a crazy world.

 

[MT15]

How do you come to the conclusion that " the House did not think it important to question Parnas?"

they asked him to come and he refused, at the insistence of the President’s attorneys. So yeah, saying they didn’t think it important is not supported, and a pretty partisan spin. They didn’t subpoena him, but once they received word from the administration that no subpoenas would be honored, and considering he was being represented at the time by the president’s own legal team, they made the decision to move on and concentrate on the people who were willing to honor their subpoenas.

 

[TaylorB]

I don't think the issue with Trump can fairly be classified as systemic.

I can classify the issue with Trump as systemic. Among those implicated in the pressure campaign to have Ukraine announce Burisma investigations for the President's personal benefit are the President, the Vice President, the Attorney General, a Congressman defending the President, that Congressman's aide, the head of OMB, Pentagon officials, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy, the Ambassador to the EU, the NATO Ambassador, Ukrainian officials, the President's lawyer, and two oligarch-connected men, one of whom claimed to work for the President's lawyer. The withholding of military aid apparently resulted from the withholding of public support for Ukraine's leadership -- which had gone on for many months before the aid was withheld -- not obtaining the desired result. Most, if not all, of the people above knew that the military aid was being withheld for reasons that did not relate to national security. While the Constitution doesn't say "systemic treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," this would still be a good case if it did.

 

[Farb]

Has it already been proven, factual that Trump was asking for the investigation into Biden/Barisma to aid in the 2020 elections or was he asking for an investigation into the 2016 election tampering? Because to me that is the main issue.

It seems that it has by the recent posts but I don't recall hearing/reading that but there is also a good chance that I missed it because I have not paid a lot of attention to the impeachment thing once the articles were held up in the house.

 

[JimEverett]

Has it already been proven, factual that Trump was asking for the investigation into Biden/Barisma to aid in the 2020 elections or was he asking for an investigation into the 2016 election tampering? Because to me that is the main issue.

It seems that it has by the recent posts but I don't recall hearing/reading that but there is also a good chance that I missed it because I have not paid a lot of attention to the impeachment thing once the articles were held up in the house.

I do not think anything has been proven. But there is evidence that Trump asked for both - an investigation into Burisma and investigation into Ukraine's role in 2016 election.

I thought the difference in reaction from Democrats between both of those requests/demands was interesting. Once the request for investigation into the 2016 election included in the Abuse of Power Article?

 

[JimEverett]

I can classify the issue with Trump as systemic. Among those implicated in the pressure campaign to have Ukraine announce Burisma investigations for the President's personal benefit are the President, the Vice President, the Attorney General, a Congressman defending the President, that Congressman's aide, the head of OMB, Pentagon officials, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy, the Ambassador to the EU, the NATO Ambassador, Ukrainian officials, the President's lawyer, and two oligarch-connected men, one of whom claimed to work for the President's lawyer. The withholding of military aid apparently resulted from the withholding of public support for Ukraine's leadership -- which had gone on for many months before the aid was withheld -- not obtaining the desired result. Most, if not all, of the people above knew that the military aid was being withheld for reasons that did not relate to national security. While the Constitution doesn't say "systemic treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," this would still be a good case if it did.

I think the impeachment issues concern only Trump. I mean I guess you could say they are systemic just due to the nature of the Presidency - but that is a stretch.
Totally different from the FISA system we have set up.

 

[JimEverett]

How do you come to the conclusion that " the House did not think it important to question Parnas?"

He publically stated he would testify in November. They have yet to take his testimony and advanced the Impeachment Articles through the House without doing so, and then delayed sending the Articles to the Senate and during that time they never took his testimony.
What conclusion do you draw from that?

 

[coldseat]

Has it already been proven, factual that Trump was asking for the investigation into Biden/Barisma to aid in the 2020 elections or was he asking for an investigation into the 2016 election tampering? Because to me that is the main issue.

It seems that it has by the recent posts but I don't recall hearing/reading that but there is also a good chance that I missed it because I have not paid a lot of attention to the impeachment thing once the articles were held up in the house.

Wow.

Yes it's been proven. Proven by Trump himself, just read the readout of the conversation between Trump and Zelensky. It's right there in plain english. He definitely asked for an investigations into the Bidens and Barisma.

 

[dtc]

He publically stated he would testify in November. They have yet to take his testimony and advanced the Impeachment Articles through the House without doing so, and then delayed sending the Articles to the Senate and during that time they never took his testimony.
What conclusion do you draw from that?

That you're intentionally being obtuse and left out the fact that POTUS said he was going to block it and everything else.

 

[coldseat]

I think the impeachment issues concern only Trump. I mean I guess you could say they are systemic just due to the nature of the Presidency - but that is a stretch.
Totally different from the FISA system we have set up.

And yet, neither are directly connected to each other. Not sure why the need for constant comparison. These are separate issues.

The FISA issue is something that needs to be handled thought changes in polices and procedures of the FBI and Justice department. The Ukraine debacle should be handled by removing the person responsible for breaking the law from office, Trump.

 

[JimEverett]

And yet, neither are directly connected to each other. Not sure why the need for constant comparison. These are separate issues.

The FISA issue is something that needs to be handled thought changes in polices and procedures of the FBI and Justice department. The Ukraine debacle should be handled by removing the person responsible for breaking the law from office, Trump.

I didn't start the comparison. You shoukd make that point to the poster who did

 

[JimEverett]

That you're intentionally being obtuse and left out the fact that POTUS said he was going to block it and everything else.

When did Trump say he would block Parnas' testimony????????
I think you are being unintentionally ignorant.

 

[Farb]

Wow.

Yes it's been proven. Proven by Trump himself, just read the readout of the conversation between Trump and Zelensky. It's right there in plain english. He definitely asked for an investigations into the Bidens and Barisma.

I got that he asked for investigations into both Biden and Barisma. Like I said, I have not been paying attention to the impeachment narrative in a while. I don't think it will amount to anything of worth for the democrats. I just remember reading that Trump said "we have been through a lot" meaning the country so I took that as he was asking them to look into the 16 fiasco. I am sure I will be corrected but that is why I asked about this point.