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.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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

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.

 

[TaylorB]

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?

Respectfully, SFL, you're certainly aware of the other potential reason because it's been discussed extensively, so I'm having a hard time accepting that you just have no idea what else it could be besides Dems being scared to lose in court. But I'll bite and lay it out once more: it was a strategic decision based on politics. The upside was that they could still easily support their theory of the case with the witnesses they did have access to, without getting into months-long court battles that would potentially have cost them momentum publicly -- particularly as the length of the Mueller investigation had been a major sticking point with the right. The downside if they didn't fight was that the opposition would start screaming about lack of first-hand info, then later use it to claim Dems did a bad/incomplete job in the inquiry, or make dubious claims about how they didn't follow through because they were scared to lose in court. While it's likely they expected Trump defenders to make this claim, it almost certainly wasn't because of the risk of losing on the witnesses in court, because there's no legal reason to think that they'd have lost.

It's an interesting debate about whether they'd have been better served politically from waiting out the subpoena fights in court. In my view, whatever new incriminating or first-hand info the witnesses had, Trump defenders would still be deflecting about FISA and the dossier and about how they issued all these subpoenas and still proved nothing. Parnas is a good example -- he told us a bunch of really specific incriminating stuff, much of it with documentary and circumstantial support, and immediately after the interview you just dismissed him because he's indicted. What are the odds if Bolton suddenly testified to Trump having shaken down Zelensky that you'd all of a sudden change your mind and say "you know what, maybe I was wrong and this definitely did happen and it's really bad conduct?"

The question for Dems was whether the undecided people who weren't following closely would be better persuaded by a quick inquiry with the story told by career people outside the inner workings of the plot, or a drawn out inquiry told by people on the inner circle who still risked being wood-shedded or holding out. The kicker for Option A was that the Dems could point out the fact that if the story were untrue, Trump or the Republicans easily could have (and still could) let those people testify to the truth. And it's a point if you're defending Trump on the facts that there's no real rebuttal to. Pelosi was gambling on that point by holding out the articles while demanding that the GOP vote to call witnesses. Acquittal by the Senate is highly likely either way, so the question will be whether 2020 voters see the GOP as having protected an unlawful president, which could potentially hurt them in the Senate and presidency. I'm not predicting that strategy will work -- I truly have no idea with the poll numbers still being more or less stagnant -- I'm just saying that's most likely their line of thinking.

 

[Beach Friends]

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.

Trump would have been an absolute fool to cooperate in that silly kangaroo court. Let Schiff come up with his own material for his parodies.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Trump would have been an absolute fool to cooperate in that silly kangaroo court. Let Schiff come up with his own material for his parodies.

Cooperate in what way? Are you saying that the process was unfair, so he was right to claim executive privilege and prevent as many people from testifying as possible and withhold as much requested documentation as possible?

 

[Beach Friends]

Cooperate in what way? Are you saying that the process was unfair, so he was right to claim executive privilege and prevent as many people from testifying as possible and withhold as much requested documentation as possible?

Yes the process was unfair to the point that the impeachment has helped Trump and hurt the Democrats. That's my opinion, but I think that the polls showed that support for impeachment declined the further along with the proceedings they went.

The impeachment ceremonies started with Schiff's dramatic reading of his parody and they ended with Nancy passing out souvenir pens with her signature on them. All the while, the House Democrats tried to convince us this was a somber occasion. Which tells me they knew how they should act, but they just could not help themsleves.

And I think Trump had every right, and even a responsibility to the office, to claim executive privilege as broadly as possible.

There are very sound reasons for privileges. The relationships that they protect are more important than the information that could be gained.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Yes the process was unfair to the point that the impeachment has helped Trump and hurt the Democrats. That's my opinion, but I think that the polls showed that support for impeachment declined the further along with the proceedings they went.

The impeachment ceremonies started with Schiff's dramatic reading of his parody and they ended with Nancy passing out souvenir pens with her signature on them. All the while, the House Democrats tried to convince us this was a somber occasion. Which tells me they knew how they should act, but they just could not help themsleves.

And I think Trump had every right, and even a responsibility to the office, to claim executive privilege as broadly as possible.

There are very sound reasons for privileges. The relationships that they protect are more important than the information that could be gained.

Should he then be prepared to provide those witnesses and documents in a process that has more Republican influence, like the Senate trial?

 

[SaintForLife]

Respectfully, SFL, you're certainly aware of the other potential reason because it's been discussed extensively, so I'm having a hard time accepting that you just have no idea what else it could be besides Dems being scared to lose in court. But I'll bite and lay it out once more: it was a strategic decision based on politics. The upside was that they could still easily support their theory of the case with the witnesses they did have access to, without getting into months-long court battles that would potentially have cost them momentum publicly -- particularly as the length of the Mueller investigation had been a major sticking point with the right. The downside if they didn't fight was that the opposition would start screaming about lack of first-hand info, then later use it to claim Dems did a bad/incomplete job in the inquiry, or make dubious claims about how they didn't follow through because they were scared to lose in court. While it's likely they expected Trump defenders to make this claim, it almost certainly wasn't because of the risk of losing on the witnesses in court, because there's no legal reason to think that they'd have lost.

It's an interesting debate about whether they'd have been better served politically from waiting out the subpoena fights in court. In my view, whatever new incriminating or first-hand info the witnesses had, Trump defenders would still be deflecting about FISA and the dossier and about how they issued all these subpoenas and still proved nothing. Parnas is a good example -- he told us a bunch of really specific incriminating stuff, much of it with documentary and circumstantial support, and immediately after the interview you just dismissed him because he's indicted. What are the odds if Bolton suddenly testified to Trump having shaken down Zelensky that you'd all of a sudden change your mind and say "you know what, maybe I was wrong and this definitely did happen and it's really bad conduct?"

The question for Dems was whether the undecided people who weren't following closely would be better persuaded by a quick inquiry with the story told by career people outside the inner workings of the plot, or a drawn out inquiry told by people on the inner circle who still risked being wood-shedded or holding out. The kicker for Option A was that the Dems could point out the fact that if the story were untrue, Trump or the Republicans easily could have (and still could) let those people testify to the truth. And it's a point if you're defending Trump on the facts that there's no real rebuttal to. Pelosi was gambling on that point by holding out the articles while demanding that the GOP vote to call witnesses. Acquittal by the Senate is highly likely either way, so the question will be whether 2020 voters see the GOP as having protected an unlawful president, which could potentially hurt them in the Senate and presidency. I'm not predicting that strategy will work -- I truly have no idea with the poll numbers still being more or less stagnant -- I'm just saying that's most likely their line of thinking.

Do you think it's possible that I haven't read every post that talks about what you claim I should already know? Or that I'm not on this forum every day and something could be missed. That's probably something good to consider before you get condescending with someone.

For arguments sake lets assume your theory about why they went about it they way the did is true. That sure does seem like a bad strategy that would eventually backfire on them because they weren't looking for a fair impeachment. Think about how it looks to the public. The Democrats could have compelled the courts to force the testimony of the actual first hand witnesses but they chose not to because they didn't want it to take too long. Do you honestly think the Democrats cared about how the Republicans complained about the length of the Mueller investigation? Now they want those same witnesses to testify eventhough they passed on their chance of getting them to testify.

The Democrats seem to be using the same tactics that we saw during the Russia investigation. Oh look there is a new bombshell that we must look into and this is the thing that will bring Trump down. I guess the media and the democrats haven't learned it's best not to rely of frauds and liars as their main witnesses like Cohen and now Parnas. I did say in my previous posts that what he's saying could turn out to be true, but the media and democrats are setting themselves up for another disappointment. I've also already said that while I think what Trump did was concerning I don't think it rises to the level of impeachment. Shouldn't you be aware that I've already said that?

A quick inquiry with career people outside the inner working of the plot seems like a bad way for an impeachment hearing especially if you want the public behind you. That seems like the total opposite of what they should have done.

After the way the media and Democrats like Schiff acted during the Russia investigation is it really surprising that Trump acted the way he did by resisting everything to do with the Ukraine investigation? Both investigations looked like fishing expeditions even while there were some parts of it worth investigating. Pelosi wanted her cake and eat it too. She knew she had no power to dictate any rules to the Senate. There is also the theory going around that she waited on delivering the articles of impeachment to harm Sanders and Warren so they couldn't be out campaigning.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Do you think it's possible that I haven't read every post that talks about what you claim I should already know? Or that I'm not on this forum every day and something could be missed. That's probably something good to consider before you get condescending with someone.

For arguments sake lets assume your theory about why they went about it they way the did is true. That sure does seem like a bad strategy that would eventually backfire on them because they weren't looking for a fair impeachment. Think about how it looks to the public. The Democrats could have compelled the courts to force the testimony of the actual first hand witnesses but they chose not to because they didn't want it to take too long. Do you honestly think the Democrats cared about how the Republicans complained about the length of the Mueller investigation? Now they want those same witnesses to testify eventhough they passed on their chance of getting them to testify.

The Democrats seem to be using the same tactics that we saw during the Russia investigation. Oh look there is a new bombshell that we must look into and this is the thing that will bring Trump down. I guess the media and the democrats haven't learned it's best not to rely of frauds and liars as their main witnesses like Cohen and now Parnas. I did say in my previous posts that what he's saying could turn out to be true, but the media and democrats are setting themselves up for another disappointment. I've also already said that while I think what Trump did was concerning I don't think it rises to the level of impeachment. Shouldn't you be aware that I've already said that?

A quick inquiry with career people outside the inner working of the plot seems like a bad way for an impeachment hearing especially if you want the public behind you. That seems like the total opposite of what they should have done.

After the way the media and Democrats like Schiff acted during the Russia investigation is it really surprising that Trump acted the way he did by resisting everything to do with the Ukraine investigation? Both investigations looked like fishing expeditions even while there were some parts of it worth investigating. Pelosi wanted her cake and eat it too. She knew she had no power to dictate any rules to the Senate. There is also the theory going around that she waited on delivering the articles of impeachment to harm Sanders and Warren so they couldn't be out campaigning.

So, let's flip this around a little bit -- "after the way Trump behaved during the Russia investigation, is it really surprising that the Democrats act the way they do during the Ukraine investigation?"

Remember, the Mueller report and subsequent convictions of Stone establish that Russia helped the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign knew about that help and welcomed it, they coordinated with Wiki Leaks over the release of information that Russia stole from the Democrats serves, and then they LIED about all of it, and Trump himself instructed his employees to lie to investigators about it.

The entire Russia investigation was not a witch hunt. But Trump did everything he could to quash it, including instructing people to lie to investigators about their knowledge.

Do you think the Democrats would expect cooperation from Trump after that?

The Democrats have no discipline, because they totally allowed Trump to bait them during the Russia investigation. As you said, they let things come out in drips and drabs, and allowed Trump to define the investigation as the most extreme members of the Democrat party defined it -- ie, definitive proof that Trump was a Russian agent, so anything less than that seems like a nothing burger. Even though, it has come out that the Trump campaign welcomed illegal help from Russia (in the form of the Russian hack on DNC servers, and then coordinating with WikiLeaks over the leak), and we don't even know the extent of what happened because Trump directed his staff to not cooperate with the investigation and in fact told them to lie to investigators.

If the Democrats had kept their mouth shut and all the leaks were stopped (which might have been illegal in their own right). The effect would have been bigger, IMO.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I also find it curious that you mention the Democrats reliance on criminals for testimony, without mentioning that those criminals worked for Trump. That is who Trump surrounds himself with.

These accusations don't happen in a vacuum. They happen because of actions Trump himself takes, and then the way he acts when those actions come to light. Just look at the way this played out.

"No, there was no demand of Ukraine"
"OK, we did make a request, but there was no quid pro quo. We didn't hold up aid over this"
"OK, we did hold up aid, but the President has absolute right to do whatever he wants"
"OK, so the President doesn't have absolute right to do whatever he wants, but this isn't impeachable"

That was pretty similar to the way Russia investigation played out.

 

[TaylorB]

Do you think it's possible that I haven't read every post that talks about what you claim I should already know? Or that I'm not on this forum every day and something could be missed. That's probably something good to consider before you get condescending with someone.

I apologize if I came off as condescending. I definitely don't assume you've read every post (and wouldn't blame you for not reading my lengthy posts), but I read a version of this same discussion with you and another poster earlier today: you said the Dems didn't go to court because they'd lose (Post #180), MT15 said it was to avoid protracted court battles (#182), then you quoted that post (#188). After that discussion, said you couldn't think of any reason they didn't fight it other than because the Democrats thought they'd lose. I've had other back-and-forth exchanges where I spell out that strategy and Trump defenders just ignore me and say "I guess they didn't fight in court because they knew they had a crappy case."

As to the merits of the strategy itself, I think you make some good points, and I have no doubt that lots of Americans will feel that way. Certainly my friends here in south Louisiana will. My point was never to convince you that the strategy would work, but rather just to get you to acknowledge it as a possible explanation for not fighting it out in court. And again, I don't think the targets of the strategy are people like you and me who are already entrenched, but rather for the people who aren't as plugged in. Either way, the current trajectory would tell us that there'll be an acquittal and that the polling needle might not move much between now and the 2020 election without some explosive new piece of information. Even then it's hard to imagine what that could even look like, so we should all plan to vote if we want to get our way.

 

[MT15]

Yes the process was unfair to the point that the impeachment has helped Trump and hurt the Democrats. That's my opinion, but I think that the polls showed that support for impeachment declined the further along with the proceedings they went.

The impeachment ceremonies started with Schiff's dramatic reading of his parody and they ended with Nancy passing out souvenir pens with her signature on them. All the while, the House Democrats tried to convince us this was a somber occasion. Which tells me they knew how they should act, but they just could not help themsleves.

And I think Trump had every right, and even a responsibility to the office, to claim executive privilege as broadly as possible.

There are very sound reasons for privileges. The relationships that they protect are more important than the information that could be gained.

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.

 

[samiam5211]

I bet the sharpie Trump used to draw that circle around Alabama is worth more than all of Pelosi’s pens combined.

It should be in LSU’s trophy case.

 

[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.

Oh wow. Really, you could have just said something like, "hey old friend, that photo with Nancy's signature- those are bogus." Ain't nobody got time for all that mean talk.

 

[MT15]

I really wasn’t trying to be mean, sorry if it came off that way.

We just need to keep all the disinformation off the board, imo. Disappointed to see it being spread.

 

[FullMonte]

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

It's my understanding that the investigation into Burisma was into the CEO of the company for actions that took place prior to Hunter Biden being added to the board.

It's also my understanding that a part of the reason the prosecutor was seen as corrupt is because the CEO of Burisma is believed to have paid a bribe to have the investigation dropped.

If that is correct, it basically means that there is nothing suspicious, regarding Hunter Biden's position with Burisma, and Joe BIden's withholding of aid until the prosecutor was fired. There was no investigation into anything that happened during Hunter Biden's tenure with the company. As far as I have heard, there is little credible evidence that Hunter Biden did anything wrong. I don't doubt for a second that Hunter Biden was added to the company simply because Burisma thought hiring the son of the US vice president would help them get preferential treatment by the US. But, to that end, I haven't heard of the US doing anything special for Burisma.

To make a comparison to the current administration...unless my timing is off, China gave Ivanka Trump dozens of trademarks in that country, and shortly thereafter, Trump began to help ZTE (a US-sanctioned Chinese company).

 

[wardorican]

Respectfully, SFL, you're certainly aware of the other potential reason because it's been discussed extensively, so I'm having a hard time accepting that you just have no idea what else it could be besides Dems being scared to lose in court. But I'll bite and lay it out once more: it was a strategic decision based on politics. The upside was that they could still easily support their theory of the case with the witnesses they did have access to, without getting into months-long court battles that would potentially have cost them momentum publicly -- particularly as the length of the Mueller investigation had been a major sticking point with the right. The downside if they didn't fight was that the opposition would start screaming about lack of first-hand info, then later use it to claim Dems did a bad/incomplete job in the inquiry, or make dubious claims about how they didn't follow through because they were scared to lose in court. While it's likely they expected Trump defenders to make this claim, it almost certainly wasn't because of the risk of losing on the witnesses in court, because there's no legal reason to think that they'd have lost.

It's an interesting debate about whether they'd have been better served politically from waiting out the subpoena fights in court. In my view, whatever new incriminating or first-hand info the witnesses had, Trump defenders would still be deflecting about FISA and the dossier and about how they issued all these subpoenas and still proved nothing. Parnas is a good example -- he told us a bunch of really specific incriminating stuff, much of it with documentary and circumstantial support, and immediately after the interview you just dismissed him because he's indicted. What are the odds if Bolton suddenly testified to Trump having shaken down Zelensky that you'd all of a sudden change your mind and say "you know what, maybe I was wrong and this definitely did happen and it's really bad conduct?"

The question for Dems was whether the undecided people who weren't following closely would be better persuaded by a quick inquiry with the story told by career people outside the inner workings of the plot, or a drawn out inquiry told by people on the inner circle who still risked being wood-shedded or holding out. The kicker for Option A was that the Dems could point out the fact that if the story were untrue, Trump or the Republicans easily could have (and still could) let those people testify to the truth. And it's a point if you're defending Trump on the facts that there's no real rebuttal to. Pelosi was gambling on that point by holding out the articles while demanding that the GOP vote to call witnesses. Acquittal by the Senate is highly likely either way, so the question will be whether 2020 voters see the GOP as having protected an unlawful president, which could potentially hurt them in the Senate and presidency. I'm not predicting that strategy will work -- I truly have no idea with the poll numbers still being more or less stagnant -- I'm just saying that's most likely their line of thinking.

Schiff pretty much flat out said it.

About 10 min into it.

House Democrats Announce Two Articles of Impeachment

House Democratic leaders announced two articles of impeachment against President Trump. Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the announcement. He told reporters, "Today, in service to our duty to the Constitution and to our country, the House Committee on the Judiciary is...

www.c-span.org

Schiff defends impeachment rush: ‘Why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election?’ - Washington Examiner

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said the House must move quickly to impeach President Trump to prevent him from cheating in the next election with “foreign help.” Schiff, a California Democrat, strongly suggested in a press conference Tuesday that Trump colluded with the...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said the House must move quickly to impeach President Trump to prevent him from cheating in the next election with “foreign help.”

Schiff, a California Democrat, strongly suggested in a press conference Tuesday that Trump colluded with the Russians to undermine the 2016 election and win the White House. A two-year investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller did not charge Trump with collusion, but Democrats say there is evidence Trump welcomed Russia’s help. Their impeachment articles charge him with seeking Ukraine’s help in investigating the Democrats ahead of the 2020 election.

Democrats are speeding through impeachment, and they will likely vote next week on the two articles announced Tuesday that accuse Trump of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress.

“The argument, 'Why don't you just wait?', amounts to this: Why don't you just let him cheat in one more election?” Schiff said Tuesday, explaining the expedited impeachment effort. “Why not let him have foreign help one more time?”

Schiff said the evidence is clear Trump is trying to influence the 2020 election by seeking information from Ukraine regarding Democrats who may have sought the country’s help investigating Trump’s 2016 campaign. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, went to Ukraine this week, Schiff said, “seeking to revive the same debunked conspiracy theory promoted at the president’s behest.”

Schiff said Trump’s efforts in Ukraine show the president is acting as if he can do “whatever he wants … including getting foreigners involved in our election.”

 

[Optimus Prime]

I read several articles about this and I finally saw clips from the Maddow interview which was the first time I heard Parnas speak

I just assumed that he was going to sound like a Russian gangster from a bad movie

I was a bit surprised that he didn’t

 

[SaintForLife]

Remember, the Mueller report and subsequent convictions of Stone establish that Russia helped the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign knew about that help and welcomed it, they coordinated with Wiki Leaks over the release of information that Russia stole from the Democrats serves, and then they LIED about all of it, and Trump himself instructed his employees to lie to investigators about it.

Stone was found guilty of lying, obstruction and witness tampering. What exactly did the Stone conviction establish? Do you mean hurting Hillary with the hacked emails in regards to Russia helping Trump?

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?

I might have missed this one, but how was it established that the Trump campaign coordinated with Wikileaks?