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

Users who are viewing this thread

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    4,722
    Reaction score
    11,960
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    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.



     
    I have long thought it was possible this whole impeachment episode is an attempt to stop any investigation into the Biden's.

    Evidence that other Republicans were privy to private investigatory ops in Ukraine makes it seem a little more likely.

    Plus, withholding the articles from the Senate and insisting on witnesses, which extends the length of the Senate trial only helps Biden as four of his opponents will be off the campaign trail for the duration.

    If I were Warren or Sanders I would recuse myself from impeachment and watch the DNC squirm.
     
    I have long thought it was possible this whole impeachment episode is an attempt to stop any investigation into the Biden's.

    Evidence that other Republicans were privy to private investigatory ops in Ukraine makes it seem a little more likely.

    Plus, withholding the articles from the Senate and insisting on witnesses, which extends the length of the Senate trial only helps Biden as four of his opponents will be off the campaign trail for the duration.

    If I were Warren or Sanders I would recuse myself from impeachment and watch the DNC squirm.

    You have to ignore reality to think Joe Biden’s pushing for the firing of the prosecutor was improper.

    It wasn’t done in secret. We all had access to all of the same facts that are available today as these events happened.

    It never even hit Trey Gowdy’s radar.

    I’m not going back over the facts again just so you can ignore them to preserve the narrative you find comforting.
     
    You have to ignore reality to think Joe Biden’s pushing for the firing of the prosecutor was improper.

    It wasn’t done in secret. We all had access to all of the same facts that are available today as these events happened.

    It never even hit Trey Gowdy’s radar.

    I’m not going back over the facts again just so you can ignore them to preserve the narrative you find comforting.
    So you would be happy to see the impeachment trial call the Bidens as witnesses?
     
    Actually, at this point I don't there's a Trump supporter left who thinks Hillary was even remotely corrupt.
     
    So you would be happy to see the impeachment trial call the Bidens as witnesses?

    Whether or not Hunter and Joe Biden are guilty has no bearing on whether or not Trump should be impeached.

    I’m fine with calling Hunter to plead the 5th as long as it gets us Bolton’s testimony.
     
    Sorry, UTJ, I think you’re giving far too much credit there. There are members here who will go to their grave excusing every single thing Trump does as just par for the course and maintaining that Hillary Clinton is the devil.

    it defies reality and reason at this point, but it is what it is.
     
    I don't mind in theory, but what information do you think they would provide in relation to this. We already know Trump doesn't think Joe Biden broke any law.
    What about all the "witnesses" the Democrats brought up to testify in the House impeachment hearings that weren't witnesses to anything and were merely giving their opinions?
     
    What about all the "witnesses" the Democrats brought up to testify in the House impeachment hearings that weren't witnesses to anything and were merely giving their opinions?

    What do you want Hunter Biden’s opinion on?
     
    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.
    It is part of the phone call, trump brought up the Bidens, various comments from Sondland and others. Text messages...

    He also asked separately about crowdstrike, which was about 2016.
     
    If Trump was going after Biden for the reason for the 2020 election then I see enough for an impeachment trial.
    If Trump was following bad information from someone he trusted and shouldn't have trusted and delayed aid in order to help with an investigation that Trump had Rudi running (big mistake having Rudi anywhere around your administration), I just don't see that as enough for an impeachment.
    Although, two things can be true at once.

    The fun part is that we will all see this play out in the next couple of weeks so we will actually have some closure and then we can all compare who got what right. FUN!

    I would also bet anything I have that regardless of what is found in the 'trial', one side will refuse to believe it and cling to what their politicians tell them to believe.
     
    If Trump was going after Biden for the reason for the 2020 election then I see enough for an impeachment trial.
    If Trump was following bad information from someone he trusted and shouldn't have trusted and delayed aid in order to help with an investigation that Trump had Rudi running (big mistake having Rudi anywhere around your administration), I just don't see that as enough for an impeachment.
    Although, two things can be true at once.

    The fun part is that we will all see this play out in the next couple of weeks so we will actually have some closure and then we can all compare who got what right. FUN!

    I would also bet anything I have that regardless of what is found in the 'trial', one side will refuse to believe it and cling to what their politicians tell them to believe.
    I think a bit of both are true.

    But I think the bad info was more the crowdstrike stuff.
     
    When did Trump say he would block Parnas' testimony????????
    I think you are being unintentionally ignorant.

    Perhaps you're correct, but where does it say that the trial is to be without witnesses? Where do you get that the house not having Parnas testify precludes him from being called forth today?
    I'd be curious to hear his opinion on LSU's season.

    I don't listen to crack heads about football. I gave that up around the time of Bountygate.
     
    If Trump was going after Biden for the reason for the 2020 election then I see enough for an impeachment trial.
    If Trump was following bad information from someone he trusted and shouldn't have trusted and delayed aid in order to help with an investigation that Trump had Rudi running (big mistake having Rudi anywhere around your administration), I just don't see that as enough for an impeachment.
    Although, two things can be true at once.

    The fun part is that we will all see this play out in the next couple of weeks so we will actually have some closure and then we can all compare who got what right. FUN!

    I would also bet anything I have that regardless of what is found in the 'trial', one side will refuse to believe it and cling to what their politicians tell them to believe.

    But one side is trying to avoid having a trail. Ironically, that side has pre-ordained that no objective vote will be had. Hell, that side has presumably already signed a sworn oath and lied. Still, the calling of witnesses will present the info needed for the other 330 million of us and from there WE can make our own decisions.

    The idea of not having a trial because the allegation in impeachment hasn't been previously accepted by the defense is asinine.
     
    We have sworn testimony that Trump didn’t care if the investigation actually took place. We have Parnas saying the same thing. We have several career officials who also thought that this was all about political advantage for Trump.

    So far we have been prevented from hearing from the people who were actually part of talks with Trump about this, but I don’t share Farb’s optimism that we will have anything resembling a trial that is trying to uncover the facts of this situation.

    If we were to have that trial we would be hearing from Pompeo, Pence, Mulvaney, Parnas, Barr, etc. etc. under oath. Instead the Rs are talking about hearing from Hunter Biden. That tells you right there they don’t care about the truth about what Trump did and why he did it.
     
    We have sworn testimony that Trump didn’t care if the investigation actually took place. We have Parnas saying the same thing. We have several career officials who also thought that this was all about political advantage for Trump.

    So far we have been prevented from hearing from the people who were actually part of talks with Trump about this, but I don’t share Farb’s optimism that we will have anything resembling a trial that is trying to uncover the facts of this situation.

    If we were to have that trial we would be hearing from Pompeo, Pence, Mulvaney, Parnas, Barr, etc. etc. under oath. Instead the Rs are talking about hearing from Hunter Biden. That tells you right there they don’t care about the truth about what Trump did and why he did it.
    The Democrats had their chance to subpoena those people and let the courts compel their testimonies. Four months was plenty of time to get a ruling from the courts. They refused to do that. But now they demand to hear from those witnesses. It sure looks like the Democrats thought they would lose that battle in court so they decided to try to pressure the Senate to take it up. Why do you think the Democrats refused to subpoena them?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom