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.

 

[FullMonte]

We're 15 post in, and the only ones so far suggesting that there was an assignation plan against Yovanovich are contained in these post below (all by posters on the right defending Trump). You guys are really practiced at setting up extreme strawmen and then arugring against that, instead of discussing the truly disturbing information that just came out.

If it's so far-fetched to talk about this as if it was a potential assassination plot...can you give us some other way to interpret the message:

If you want her out they will have to meet with security forces

 

[FullMonte]

and...here's another one....Remember the president standing on the White House lawn, completely stunned when he was asked about Lev Parnas...since he didn't know who that was....

The players:
Jay Sekulow-US attorney who is part of President Trump's legal team, and part of the team that will represent the president in his impeachment Trial
John Dowd-US attorney who represent(s)(ed) Lev Parnas and former attorney for the President.


Email dated 2 October 2019 11:14 AM
=============================================
From: Jay Sekulow
To: John Dowd

John,

I have discussed the issue of representation with the President. The President consents to allowing your representation of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Furman.

Jay Sekulow
Counsel to the President
=============================================

 

[coldseat]

If it's so far-fetched to talk about this as if it was a potential assassination plot...can you give us some other way to interpret the message:

If you want her out they will have to meet with security forces

I'm not saying it's out of the realm of possibility that there was an assassination plot, but given that we know of no attempts on her life and this happened a couple of years ago, I would consider it unlikely. To be sure, I don't know what the meaning of the message is. It's certainly cryptic and concerning and something that needs to be followed up on, but I think it's extreme at this point to consider it proof of an assassination plot.

For all of Trumps faults (and the list is a mile long), I don't know of any previous alleged murder attempts. So I would consider something like that outside his normal character.

None of that makes any of this okay or acceptable. The fact that she was under surveillance by a couple of goons at the behest of the presidents and his personal attorney is more than enough for me to impeach Trump. Just on that fact alone!

 

[samiam5211]

I'm not saying it's out of the realm of possibility that there was an assassination plot, but given that we know of no attempts on her life and this happened a couple of years ago, I would consider it unlikely. To be sure, I don't know what the meaning of the message is. It's certainly cryptic and concerning and something that needs to be followed up on, but I think it's extreme at this point to consider it proof of an assassination plot.

For all of Trumps faults (and the list is a mile long), I don't know of any previous alleged murder attempts. So I would consider something like that outside his normal character.

None of that makes any of this okay or acceptable. The fact that she was under surveillance by a couple of goons at the behest of the presidents and his personal attorney is more than enough for me to impeach Trump. Just on that fact alone!

I wouldn’t call it proof of an assassination plot, but I think it is a more reasonable conclusion than saying there is nothing to see here.

I’ve seen enough to conclude they were discussing taking out the ambassador, and that conclusion is more supported by the facts than the position of those saying nothing nefarious was going on.

 

[insidejob]

I wouldn’t call it proof of an assassination plot, but I think it is a more reasonable conclusion than saying there is nothing to see here.

I’ve seen enough to conclude they were discussing taking out the ambassador, and that conclusion is more supported by the facts than the position of those saying nothing nefarious was going on.

The middle of the night phone call to Yovanovitch telling her to get on the next plane to DC for fear of her safety would lead one to believe that she was, in fact, in danger, would it not?

 

[superchuck500]

and...here's another one....Remember the president standing on the White House lawn, completely stunned when he was asked about Lev Parnas...since he didn't know who that was....

The players:
Jay Sekulow-US attorney who is part of President Trump's legal team, and part of the team that will represent the president in his impeachment Trial
John Dowd-US attorney who represent(s)(ed) Lev Parnas and former attorney for the President.


Email dated 2 October 2019 11:14 AM
=============================================
From: Jay Sekulow
To: John Dowd

John,

I have discussed the issue of representation with the President. The President consents to allowing your representation of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Furman.

Jay Sekulow
Counsel to the President
=============================================

That doesn't necessarily mean anything - it's an attorney conflict/consent procedure that has to be done when an attorney has prior representation of a party with actual or potential conflicts with a party that the attorney now seeks to represent. Consent by the prior represented party doesn't mean that the party has any interest or knowledge of the to-be represented party. It just means they won't raise a conflict problem.

 

[coldseat]

I wouldn’t call it proof of an assassination plot, but I think it is a more reasonable conclusion than saying there is nothing to see here.

I’ve seen enough to conclude they were discussing taking out the ambassador, and that conclusion is more supported by the facts than the position of those saying nothing nefarious was going on.

Well I certainly wouldn't fall in the ladder category. I definitely think something nefarious was going on, otherwise why did they have her under surveillance? I just don't know that the evidence is enough to primarily suspect that it was as nefarious as an assignation plot at this point.

 

[FullMonte]

I'm not saying it's out of the realm of possibility that there was an assassination plot, but given that we know of no attempts on her life and this happened a couple of years ago, I would consider it unlikely. To be sure, I don't know what the meaning of the message is. It's certainly cryptic and concerning and something that needs to be followed up on, but I think it's extreme at this point to consider it proof of an assassination plot.

I don't think that the fact that there were no attempts on her life supports the idea that there wasn't a plot in place. If the rationale behind trying to kill her was that she was in the way of what they were trying to accomplish, then once she was removed and a friendly asset was put in her place, there was no longer a need to get rid of her.

For all of Trumps faults (and the list is a mile long), I don't know of any previous alleged murder attempts. So I would consider something like that outside his normal character.

I don't think that anyone has suggested that Trump ordered this, or was even aware of it. I doubt that is the case. I think the most likely scenario is that Rudy got his goons Parnas and Furman to try and dirty up the ambassador to get her out of the way, and he didn't realize the type of people he was working with...or that they would be working with in Ukraine.

 

[samiam5211]

Well I certainly wouldn't fall in the ladder category. I definitely think something nefarious was going on, otherwise why did they have her under surveillance? I just don't know that the evidence is enough to suspect that it was as nefarious as an assignation plot at this point.

I wasn't including you in with the Trump defenders. I was just pointing out that many of the people accusing some of us of hysterics or Speaker Pelosi of being crazy, actually hold a position that has less factual support than the positions they are attempting to discredit.

 

[samiam5211]

I don't think that anyone has suggested that Trump ordered this, or was even aware of it. I doubt that is the case. I think the most likely scenario is that Rudy got his goons Parnas and Furman to try and dirty up the ambassador to get her out of the way, and he didn't realize the type of people he was working with...or that they would be working with in Ukraine.

I think that we can agree that even though Trump probably didn't know about it, his sending Rudy as a back channel to the pro Russia wing of the Ukrainian mob makes Trump responsible for anything they planned on doing.

 

[wardorican]

The conclusion that they were planning to murder the US Ambassador based upon the available context is an outlandish interpretation.

Embassy personal are routinely under constant surveillance by the host country everywhere in the world. The fact that the fruit of that surveillance would be for sale in a corrupt country like Ukraine is not all that surprising.

Its fairly obvious Hyde had access to the Ukraine government surveillance of Yovanovitch and was telling Parnas that they were willing to continue feeding information for a price.

However, feel free to run with the Guiliani assassination narrative. It certainly is more amusing.

Lev Parnas Steps Back From Texts Alleging Surveillance Of U.S. Ambassador In Ukraine

"They are moving her tomorrow," U.S. congressional candidate Robert F. Hyde wrote on WhatsApp in March. Parnas, a Rudy Giuliani associate, said he didn't believe Hyde was credible.

www.npr.org

Btw, not sure you meant it this way or not, but the NPR article doesnt run with the murder narrative. Not sure how much play that really has. It was just talking about surveillance. And, I can see where some would see these exchanges as a possible threat. It would be something they'd look into or act on, if your job was in a protection detail.

 

[wardorican]

and...here's another one....Remember the president standing on the White House lawn, completely stunned when he was asked about Lev Parnas...since he didn't know who that was....

The players:
Jay Sekulow-US attorney who is part of President Trump's legal team, and part of the team that will represent the president in his impeachment Trial
John Dowd-US attorney who represent(s)(ed) Lev Parnas and former attorney for the President.


Email dated 2 October 2019 11:14 AM
=============================================
From: Jay Sekulow
To: John Dowd

John,

I have discussed the issue of representation with the President. The President consents to allowing your representation of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Furman.

Jay Sekulow
Counsel to the President
=============================================

I don't often consent to things where I've never even heard of the person before.

Unless it was, "I am going to take other clients while I work for you".

"Sure, ok"

Edit - Chuck's answer is better.

 

[FullMonte]

That doesn't necessarily mean anything - it's an attorney conflict/consent procedure that has to be done when an attorney has prior representation of a party with actual or potential conflicts with a party that the attorney now seeks to represent. Consent by the prior represented party doesn't mean that the party has any interest or knowledge of the to-be represented party. It just means they won't raise a conflict problem.

I'm not suggesting that Trump was involved in the day to day operations that Parnas was undergoing...but it's a standard with Trump.....

We have seen photos of Parnas with Trump, his family, and his staff. We now know that Trump's lawyer met with Trump and discussed that Lev Parnas was seeking Dowd to represent him, and Trump said that was ok with him.

Then, a few days later, Trump was asked about Parnas. Most people would say something like, "I was told that he was arrested and charged with some serious crimes. I know that he and I had met at an event and had a photo with him. If he did the things he is accused of, he should be held accountable for those crimes." But, not Trump, Trump says "I don't know that man, I've never heard of him, I'm not even sure that's a real person." (NOTE: That's a parody of what Trump said, not his exact words. I don't want to be accused of fabricating a quote by the President) It's standard operation for him. A member of his campaign team is indicted, "I never met him, I think he showed up and bought us coffee one day." With Trump, it can never be, "I met that person, and we worked together, and I'm shocked that he would do something like that;" it always has to be so far detached from Trump that they never even were in the same area.

 

[samiam5211]

I'm not suggesting that Trump was involved in the day to day operations that Parnas was undergoing...but it's a standard with Trump.....

We have seen photos of Parnas with Trump, his family, and his staff. We now know that Trump's lawyer met with Trump and discussed that Lev Parnas was seeking Dowd to represent him, and Trump said that was ok with him.

Then, a few days later, Trump was asked about Parnas. Most people would say something like, "I was told that he was arrested and charged with some serious crimes. I know that he and I had met at an event and had a photo with him. If he did the things he is accused of, he should be held accountable for those crimes." But, not Trump, Trump says "I don't know that man, I've never heard of him, I'm not even sure that's a real person." (NOTE: That's a parody of what Trump said, not his exact words. I don't want to be accused of fabricating a quote by the President) It's standard operation for him. A member of his campaign team is indicted, "I never met him, I think he showed up and bought us coffee one day." With Trump, it can never be, "I met that person, and we worked together, and I'm shocked that he would do something like that;" it always has to be so far detached from Trump that they never even were in the same area.

I hope no one expects us to believe that it was just a coincidence and Lev found John Dowd's number in the yellowpages.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Btw, not sure you meant it this way or not, but the NPR article doesnt run with the murder narrative. Not sure how much play that really has. It was just talking about surveillance. And, I can see where some would see these exchanges as a possible threat. It would be something they'd look into or act on, if your job was in a protection detail.

I would not post an article that furthered that particular idea.

The only place I have seen the idea that they were planning a "hit" is on this board.

That the Ukrainians were surveilling the US ambassador should not be surprising. Even the fact that the information gleaned from said surveillance was for sale should not be surprising.

Why Parnas and Hyde needed the information is what needs some sort of answer.

The most likely explanation is not assassination, in my opinion.

 

[superchuck500]

I'm not suggesting that Trump was involved in the day to day operations that Parnas was undergoing...but it's a standard with Trump.....

We have seen photos of Parnas with Trump, his family, and his staff. We now know that Trump's lawyer met with Trump and discussed that Lev Parnas was seeking Dowd to represent him, and Trump said that was ok with him.

Then, a few days later, Trump was asked about Parnas. Most people would say something like, "I was told that he was arrested and charged with some serious crimes. I know that he and I had met at an event and had a photo with him. If he did the things he is accused of, he should be held accountable for those crimes." But, not Trump, Trump says "I don't know that man, I've never heard of him, I'm not even sure that's a real person." (NOTE: That's a parody of what Trump said, not his exact words. I don't want to be accused of fabricating a quote by the President) It's standard operation for him. A member of his campaign team is indicted, "I never met him, I think he showed up and bought us coffee one day." With Trump, it can never be, "I met that person, and we worked together, and I'm shocked that he would do something like that;" it always has to be so far detached from Trump that they never even were in the same area.

I hear you, I was just saying that Trump's consent to clear any prospective conflict for Dowd shouldn't be interpreted as Trump having knowledge of Parnas.

But I agree that Trump often flatly denies knowledge that later becomes very suspect, if not plainly false.

 

[samiam5211]

I would not post an article that furthered that particular idea.

The only place I have seen the idea that they were planning a "hit" is on this board.

That the Ukrainians were surveilling the US ambassador should not be surprising. Even the fact that the information gleaned from said surveillance was for sale should not be surprising.

Why Parnas and Hyde needed the information is what needs some sort of answer.

The most likely explanation is not assassination, in my opinion.

when you say "the Ukrainians" who exactly are you referring to? Do you believe that it was the Ukrainian government?

 

[superchuck500]

when you say "the Ukrainians" who exactly are you referring to? Do you believe that it was the Ukrainian government?

I think now is as good of a time as any to point out that Lev Parnas operated a company called "Fraud Guarantee" and Igor Fruman owned a club in Odessa called "Mafia Rave".