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.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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?

Parnas:

Democrats release more Parnas evidence, including voicemails with Trump associates

The previously undisclosed documents underscore the evolving nature of the investigation.

www.politico.com

Parnas was subpoenaed as part of the impeachment inquiry last year, but he initially refused to comply. He was arrested in October and indicted on campaign-finance charges. A federal judge authorized Parnas earlier this month to begin turning over documents and other information to the House Intelligence Committee, which led the impeachment inquiry.

Pompeo:

Democrats subpoena Pompeo as part of impeachment inquiry

The subpoena, which demands Pompeo provide documents by Oct. 4, was accompanied by a plan to depose five State Department officials.

www.politico.com

Mulvaney:

Mulvaney stands up Democrats in impeachment probe

WASHINGTON (AP) — Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney has stood up Democrats in their impeachment inquiry, skipping his 9 a.m. deposition as Democrats wrap up closed-door interviews and move into a public phase of the investigation.

apnews.com

 

[MT15]

SaintForLife, I’m pretty sure this has been asked and answered, maybe multiple times. How many times do you think you will ask about this? This is the type of thing I was talking about the other day.

the WH counsel sent a letter saying the administration will not be cooperating, point blank. No documents, no witnesses, nothing. People were subpoenaed and refused to come.

it was a tactic to try to run out the clock on these investigations. The Ds decided to go with the people who would cooperate to avoid wasting any more time. They felt they needed to get the whole thing done before the middle of the campaign. You don’t know anyone in the Senate who might refuse to do his duty because of an impending election do you? cough, Mitch, cough.

Your timeline is off, anyway. Which was pointed out to you, but you still insist on using it. Four months is NOT plenty of time for the courts to rule on this type of thing. That would be lightening speed. When it happened during the Obama Administration the ruling on something Holder was withholding came just last year, IIRC.

Your assertion that these things always go to the courts is also off. Most of the time Congress and the WH negotiate what will be provided and what will be withheld. Going to the courts is not the “normal” way Congressional oversight happens. It has happened before when negotiations have broken down, but I do not believe any previous administration has refused to supply anything to a Congressional investigation.

We have been reduced to FOIA requests to pry stuff out. Obama ran a pretty opaque administration but this one is far worse.

Wherever you are getting your information, they aren’t doing you any favors.

 

[Farb]

This reminds me of the old saying "Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on mine."
The House should have done a better job to hand the senate a complete investigation. Leaking information to the press while the articles are in front of the senate is not a good look.

 

[MT15]

What was leaked? Some of the information has come out because of a FOIA request and other stuff was released by one of the House committees. I don’t remember anything being leaked.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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?

So, can you give me an example and we can go through their testimony, and if you think that Hunter Biden has something of similar value to add, then I might support asking for his testimony.

However, I think we already established that no one, including Trump or anyone on this board, thinks the Biden's did anything worth investigating.

 

[SaintForLife]

Parnas:

Democrats release more Parnas evidence, including voicemails with Trump associates

The previously undisclosed documents underscore the evolving nature of the investigation.

www.politico.com

Pompeo:

Democrats subpoena Pompeo as part of impeachment inquiry

The subpoena, which demands Pompeo provide documents by Oct. 4, was accompanied by a plan to depose five State Department officials.

www.politico.com

Mulvaney:

Mulvaney stands up Democrats in impeachment probe

WASHINGTON (AP) — Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney has stood up Democrats in their impeachment inquiry, skipping his 9 a.m. deposition as Democrats wrap up closed-door interviews and move into a public phase of the investigation.

apnews.com

Which is why House Democrats’ milquetoast response to widespread defiance of congressional subpoenas is both perplexing and disturbing. When faced with credible evidence of serious misconduct, Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the president accountable on behalf of the people. Yet House leaders have psyched themselves out of fully exercising that duty.

House leaders have left a long list of subpoenas for dead: Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney refused to testify about his knowledge of Trump’s decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine. So did Robert Blair, a top Mulvaney aide who listened to the July 25 call in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for the “favor” of announcing a criminal investigation into a domestic political rival, Joe Biden; John Eisenberg, a National Security Council lawyer who put a summary of the call on a top-secret computer server; Michael Ellis, Eisenberg’s deputy; State Department counselor T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, who was also on the July 25 call; Brian McCormack, former chief of staff to Energy Secretary Rick Perry; Russell T. Vought, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget; and a White House budget official named Michael Duffey. The House also requested the testimony of former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman, but withdrew the subpoena on the curious rationale that Kupperman’s lawsuit seeking clarification on his subpoena obligations could slow down the impeachment investigation.

Subpoenas for documents also remain unanswered and unenforced. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Perry, and Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani have all rebuffed requests. Meanwhile, none of these witnesses has been subpoenaed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee—nor has former National Security Adviser John Bolton—despite their deep knowledge of the president’s role in the Ukraine affair.
There’s no reason House Democrats could not have pursued lawsuits to compel compliance with all of the subpoenas while at the same time maintaining the brisk pace of the impeachment inquiry thus far. Courts can move quickly—but only if asked.

The House Is Making This Fight Too Easy for Trump

Democrats should try harder to compel testimony from the president’s underlings.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Which is why House Democrats’ milquetoast response to widespread defiance of congressional subpoenas is both perplexing and disturbing. When faced with credible evidence of serious misconduct, Congress has a constitutional duty to hold the president accountable on behalf of the people. Yet House leaders have psyched themselves out of fully exercising that duty.

House leaders have left a long list of subpoenas for dead: Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney refused to testify about his knowledge of Trump’s decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine. So did Robert Blair, a top Mulvaney aide who listened to the July 25 call in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for the “favor” of announcing a criminal investigation into a domestic political rival, Joe Biden; John Eisenberg, a National Security Council lawyer who put a summary of the call on a top-secret computer server; Michael Ellis, Eisenberg’s deputy; State Department counselor T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, who was also on the July 25 call; Brian McCormack, former chief of staff to Energy Secretary Rick Perry; Russell T. Vought, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget; and a White House budget official named Michael Duffey. The House also requested the testimony of former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman, but withdrew the subpoena on the curious rationale that Kupperman’s lawsuit seeking clarification on his subpoena obligations could slow down the impeachment investigation.

Subpoenas for documents also remain unanswered and unenforced. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Perry, and Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani have all rebuffed requests. Meanwhile, none of these witnesses has been subpoenaed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee—nor has former National Security Adviser John Bolton—despite their deep knowledge of the president’s role in the Ukraine affair.
There’s no reason House Democrats could not have pursued lawsuits to compel compliance with all of the subpoenas while at the same time maintaining the brisk pace of the impeachment inquiry thus far. Courts can move quickly—but only if asked.

The House Is Making This Fight Too Easy for Trump

Democrats should try harder to compel testimony from the president’s underlings.

www.theatlantic.com

Democratic leadership has seemed inept for a while. I think it's a good question to ask why they weren't subpoened, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to assume that they believed they could subpoena them for the Senate trial, and they had enough evidence to send to the Senate.

 

[SaintForLife]

SaintForLife, I’m pretty sure this has been asked and answered, maybe multiple times. How many times do you think you will ask about this? This is the type of thing I was talking about the other day.

the WH counsel sent a letter saying the administration will not be cooperating, point blank. No documents, no witnesses, nothing. People were subpoenaed and refused to come.

it was a tactic to try to run out the clock on these investigations. The Ds decided to go with the people who would cooperate to avoid wasting any more time. They felt they needed to get the whole thing done before the middle of the campaign. You don’t know anyone in the Senate who might refuse to do his duty because of an impending election do you? cough, Mitch, cough.

Your timeline is off, anyway. Which was pointed out to you, but you still insist on using it. Four months is NOT plenty of time for the courts to rule on this type of thing. That would be lightening speed. When it happened during the Obama Administration the ruling on something Holder was withholding came just last year, IIRC.

Your assertion that these things always go to the courts is also off. Most of the time Congress and the WH negotiate what will be provided and what will be withheld. Going to the courts is not the “normal” way Congressional oversight happens. It has happened before when negotiations have broken down, but I do not believe any previous administration has refused to supply anything to a Congressional investigation.

We have been reduced to FOIA requests to pry stuff out. Obama ran a pretty opaque administration but this one is far worse.

Wherever you are getting your information, they aren’t doing you any favors.

I believe it took 3 months for the courts to rule on the Nixon impeachment so 4 months is plenty of time. If there is a dispute between the executive and Congress, the courts are where those issues are settled. Is there another option that I'm not aware of? Also see the article I posted above that questions why the Democrats didn't use the courts.

 

[MT15]

I believe it took 3 months for the courts to rule on the Nixon impeachment so 4 months is plenty of time. If there is a dispute between the executive and Congress, the courts are where those issues are settled. Is there another option that I'm not aware of? Also see the article I posted above that questions why the Democrats didn't use the courts.

The case with Nixon was decided in record time, this is an extreme example of an exception, not the rule.

I honestly don’t think you read what I say, so there really isn’t a point in discussing it further. Your second and third sentences were covered in my previous post, and the time it takes was illustrated with the time it took the courts to rule on the Holder case.

This really isn’t what this thread is about anyway, so it’s better to stick to the topic at hand.

 

[SaintForLife]

The case with Nixon was decided in record time, this is an extreme example of an exception, not the rule.

I honestly don’t think you read what I say, so there really isn’t a point in discussing it further. Your second and third sentences were covered in my previous post, and the time it takes was illustrated with the time it took the courts to rule on the Holder case.

This really isn’t what this thread is about anyway, so it’s better to stick to the topic at hand.

I read your posts and noticed you talking about the executive and congress negotiating. But when they aren't negotiating then the courts settle it. The Atlantic suggests that the Democrats should have used the courts to settle the matter. You act as if I'm proposing something radical. What did you think of the Atlantic's position on using the courts to resolve the issue?

 

[SaintForLife]

Democratic leadership has seemed inept for a while. I think it's a good question to ask why they weren't subpoened, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to assume that they believed they could subpoena them for the Senate trial, and they had enough evidence to send to the Senate.

IMO the Democrats purposely didn't use the courts to enforce the subpoena and it wasn't due to ineptness. Most likey they thought they would lose in court. If we are assuming they did that purposely, what other reason's could it be besides them being afraid of losing in court?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

IMO the Democrats purposely didn't use the courts to enforce the subpoena and it wasn't due to ineptness. Most likey they thought they would lose in court. If we are assuming they did that purposely, what other reason's could it be besides them being afraid of losing in court?

If it wasn't due to ineptness, it was because they believed they have enough evidence to prove that Trump withheld aid from Ukraine until they announced an investigation into Joe Biden. And since Trump (or any other conservative) doesn't believe that Biden did anything illegal, then it was to damage him politically.

 

[JimEverett]

There are two options here and I guess it comes down to what you believe the 'intent' was. My thinking is this:

1. If Trump asked for an investigation into Biden because of the 2020 election, then I think we have something that, at the very least, should be looked into.

2. If Trump asked for an investigation into Biden because he was trying to investigate the 2016 election, then I don't think there is a there there. At least not enough for removal and maybe not enough for an impeachment.

I am leaning to #2.;

Edit: I also want to be clear that I think Trump made a mistake on this whole thing, from start to finish. I think he made a mistake listening

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?

It doesn't. I was just making a point about the lack of facts and context surrounding Parnas in response to a comparison between Parnas and the IG report on FISA abuses.we

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I draw the distinction between wanting an investigation into Burisma (notwithstanding FullMonte's point about the transcript) and an investigation into

And I think it's important to note that Ukraine had already finished an investigation into Burisma, which Trump knew about.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

And I think it's important to note that Ukraine had already finished an investigation into Burisma, which Trump knew about.

And for those that actually care, Ukraine has widened their probe into Burisma's founder. So, there's that.

 

[JimEverett]

And I think it's important to note that Ukraine had already finished an investigation into Burisma, which Trump knew about.

Not that its a big point, but wasn't the idea that the investigation was compromised by the prosecutor?

 

[MT15]

I read your posts and noticed you talking about the executive and congress negotiating. But when they aren't negotiating then the courts settle it. The Atlantic suggests that the Democrats should have used the courts to settle the matter. You act as if I'm proposing something radical. What did you think of the Atlantic's position on using the courts to resolve the issue?

I guess I don’t get why you think all the blame goes to the democrats for not wanting to wait on the courts and no blame goes to Trump for refusing to turn over a single item and refusing to even negotiate.

Sure in a perfect world dems would have waited to build their case, but we have an election approaching and their case is that Trump is actively looking for help from Ukraine to tilt the election in his favor.

I can understand why they made that decision. It was prudent.

 

[dtc]

And for those that actually care, Ukraine has widened their probe into Burisma's founder. So, there's that.

Not only, but they've opened a probe into the surveillance of our ambassador and a wide enough scope could actually implicate Trump via his minions, Parnas and Giuliani.