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.

 

[TaylorB]

I have a general idea what you mean, but could you get more specific when you said the Trump campaign knew about the help and welcomed it?

These are just a few examples from the Mueller report of the campaign being aware of the help from Wikileaks and welcoming it (much of the Wikileaks section is still redacted).

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

These are just a few examples from the Mueller report of the campaign being aware of the help from Wikileaks and welcoming it (much of the Wikileaks section is still redacted).

And you can fill in some of those blanks from the recent Stone trial.

 

[TaylorB]

And you can fill in some of those blanks from the recent Stone trial.

I'll be happy to fill in some of the blanks. Below are some highlights from the Stone indictment (Organization 1 = Wikileaks). It's crazy that much of the Wikileaks contact was going on after Trump had received a mid-August 2016 national security briefing during which he was told by US intel that Russia was behind the DNC hacks (see link). And after that national security briefing, he was still publicly denying Russian involvement while surrogates of his campaign, including his children, were in touch with Wikileaks.

Intel officials told Trump the Russians were behind the election hacks

On Sunday, Trump again said he didn't know if Russia was behind the U.S. election hacks, but U.S. intel officials had already told him so in private.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[JimEverett]

The investigation started after the prosecutor that Biden pressured to be fired was in fact fired. I think the issue was Shokin was actually impeding investigation into corruption (more than just Burisma) which is why a lot of European countries and the US wanted him fired. After he was fired, the subsequent prosecutors have not been accused of anything improper that I am aware of.

Do you think that pressuring the Ukraine to fire their top national prosecutor is within the proper exercise of power for a US President?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Do you think that pressuring the Ukraine to fire their top national prosecutor is within the proper exercise of power for a US President?

Yes.

Do you think Joe Biden has the right of due process?

 

[JimEverett]

Yes.

Do you think Joe Biden has the right of due process?

So, a President working to get a foreign official in government fired puts pressure on that government to so fire the official is a proper exercise of power in all cases? What if doing so helped the President and/or his party with re-election? What if the PResident promised aid or said aid might stop?


I am not sure why due process rights would be an issue.
Does an American have due process rights within foreign countries for actions they take in that foreign country?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So, a President working to get a foreign official in government fired puts pressure on that government to so fire the official is a proper exercise of power in all cases? What if doing so helped the President and/or his party with re-election? What if the PResident promised aid or said aid might stop?

If they are acting on behalf of the United States and advancing US interests, then any action they take that helps US interests will help them win reelection. That isn't a problem. You've advanced this line of inquiry before to what I thought was a dead end. I thought we already established doing something that helps you in election isn't a problem - using US government resources primarily for your own benefit is.

And since we already know that Trump didn't think Biden committed any illegal acts, that leaves no plausible US interest in pressuring Ukraine to announce an investigation into Joe Biden.

I am not sure why due process rights would be an issue.
Does an American have due process rights within foreign countries for actions they take in that foreign country?

If the US government is pressuring the government to conduct that investigation on its behalf, yes. You don't agree? The president can pressure any foreign government to lock up a US citizen, for any reason whatsoever with no due process?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I can't believe people on this board are ready to give a potential President Elizabeth Warren the right to get any annoying CEO that organizes resistance to her agenda detained in a foreign country. Or at the very least, announce a fake fraud investigation that tanks their stock prices.

 

[JimEverett]

If they are acting on behalf of the United States and advancing US interests, then any action they take that helps US interests will help them win reelection. That isn't a problem. You've advanced this line of inquiry before to what I thought was a dead end. I thought we already established doing something that helps you in election isn't a problem - using US government resources primarily for your own benefit is.

And since we already know that Trump didn't think Biden committed any illegal acts, that leaves no plausible US interest in pressuring Ukraine to announce an investigation into Joe Biden.

I don't think its dead end, I think its a good point.

You are not advancing a particularly good standard. The standard is simply a political one. Did Republicans think the Iran deal was primarily advancing U.S. interests? Using your standard, impeachment inquiry would have been a logical and reasonable step. So impeachment becomes a political weapon.

If the US government is pressuring the government to conduct that investigation on its behalf, yes. You don't agree? The president can pressure any foreign government to lock up a US citizen, for any reason whatsoever with no due process?

Asking for an investigation is not anywhere close to pressuring a foreign government to lock up an American citizen - not understanding your comparison.

What if pressuring Ukraine to fire its prosecutor resulted in just that, and the new prosecutor investigated and jailed an American. Would you consider that violative of the American's due process rights by the President? If not, what level of causality is necessary?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I don't think its dead end, I think its a good point.

You are not advancing a particularly good standard. The standard is simply a political one. Did Republicans think the Iran deal was primarily advancing U.S. interests? Using your standard, impeachment inquiry would have been a logical and reasonable step. So impeachment becomes a political weapon.

It is not a political standard. Using the power of the United States to damage your political enemies is not in the country's interest.

And since we know that Trump does not believe that Biden broke any laws, it seems highly unlikely that he was pursuing US interests in this matter.

Asking for an investigation is not anywhere close to pressuring a foreign government to lock up an American citizen - not understanding your comparison.

You seem to be saying that the US can use foreign countries to circumvent a US citizen's right to due process. Is that your position or not?

What if pressuring Ukraine to fire its prosecutor resulted in just that, and the new prosecutor investigated and jailed an American. Would you consider that violative of the American's due process rights by the President? If not, what level of causality is necessary?

Intent and direct causality. Is the US government trying to circumvent a citizen's right to due process? And it should be incumbent on the US government to show why they are using a foreign government to carry out an investigation on one of its citizens. Do you disagree?

 

[MT15]

I’ve seen it said that US citizens are subject to US investigation even if their crimes were committed in a foreign country. This may only apply to non-violent crimes ie white collar crimes. If that is true, why would a US president ever press for an investigation into a US citizen by a foreign country? Has it ever happened before?

IMO, the ask is problematic, in and of itself, if what I said is correct. If a US citizen commits a white collar crime in a foreign country, then the President should expect the DOJ to investigate. Period.

 

[JimEverett]

It is not a political standard. Using the power of the United States to damage your political enemies is not in the country's interest.

What standard do you use to determine that?
Does an Administration's abuse of the FISA Court to use U.S. intelligence services to spy on people closely connected to an opposition party's candidate for President fit the standard?

Or something far less "controversial": What about using the power of the United States to start a trade war that could result in huge damage to the opposition party?

It seems to me that the only defense of such examples is to claim that there is some "benefit" to the U.S. in each case - which is, of course, going to be political.


As far as the due process angle - I do not think foreign policy should be limited, in a pre-policy-making-way, by concern about potential outcomes based on Americans' conduct in foreign countries.

And I do not understand how opening an investigation, even if it were done domestically, is violative of a person's due process. It is not. At least not without some other behavior attached to it. But investigations in and of themselves are not violative of any due process.

 

[Nebaghead]

What standard do you use to determine that?
Does an Administration's abuse of the FISA Court to use U.S. intelligence services to spy on people closely connected to an opposition party's candidate for President fit the standard?

Or something far less "controversial": What about using the power of the United States to start a trade war that could result in huge damage to the opposition party?

It seems to me that the only defense of such examples is to claim that there is some "benefit" to the U.S. in each case - which is, of course, going to be political.


As far as the due process angle - I do not think foreign policy should be limited, in a pre-policy-making-way, by concern about potential outcomes based on Americans' conduct in foreign countries.

And I do not understand how opening an investigation, even if it were done domestically, is violative of a person's due process. It is not. At least not without some other behavior attached to it. But investigations in and of themselves are not violative of any due process.

Coincidental benefit for a politician when making a decision that benefits the US is not the same as no benefit for the US but benefits a politician. The excuse that they were rooting out corruption is laughable when there is nothing in writing or even spoken that remotely mentions any kind of anti-corruption policy from the WH. Even then, how the WH approached this whole ordeal is concerning. They withheld legally appropriated funds, used private citizens who aren't subject to government oversight to coordinate a foreign policy decision and what they were asking for was not even a legitimate investigation but just an announcement.

 

[JimEverett]

Coincidental benefit for a politician when making a decision that benefits the US is not the same as no benefit for the US but benefits a politician.

If that is your standard then impeachment is just a political weapon, because the parties routinely disagree on what is a benefit to the U.S.

 

[Nebaghead]

If that is your standard then impeachment is just a political weapon, because the parties routinely disagree on what is a benefit to the U.S.

When there is only benefit for the politician, that is considered abuse of power. Determining there is no benefit seems pretty obvious in this case. Retaliating against Iran is an example where he received benefit but there was justification in protecting US interests.

 

[JimEverett]

I think I am repeating myself, so this is the last thing I will say on this point - the idea of having impeachment or no impeachment boil down to the question of "what benefits the U.S." is nothing more than turning impeachment into a political tool. How could it not? Our whole party system is built on disagreements about what benefits the U.S.

 

[Nebaghead]

I think I am repeating myself, so this is the last thing I will say on this point - the idea of having impeachment or no impeachment boil down to the question of "what benefits the U.S." is nothing more than turning impeachment into a political tool. How could it not? Our whole party system is built on disagreements about what benefits the U.S.

I agree that determining benefit could be some what political but if their is abundant evidence no benefit exists it will surpass political lines. In this case there is evidence that there was no benefit to the US for an investigation. The way he handled it shows it wasn't beneficial to the US or he would have used government resources.

 

[Beach Friends]

so, Pelosi didn’t use souvenir pens with her name written on them. They were standard pens. But you know who does use a specially made Sharpie with his name inscribed on it? I’ll bet you can guess.

when you parrot right wing disinformation it just displays your partisanship and gives people who pay attention to credibility or such things reason to ignore your points.

BTW, I just took your correction at face value and didn't double check. But, I have seen a couple of articles that have stated as a matter of fact that Pelosi did use pens that had her signature on them (and for some reason were shaped like rounds of ammo). I lifted the photo attached below from an article by the Guardian. Are you sure that her use of such pens has been debunked?