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
    5,020
    Reaction score
    12,818
    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.



     
    "The Ukrainians"

    1579121932807.png
     
    look on the other thread - there is more than a couple of posters suggesting there was a plan to kill the Ambassador.
    And it wa not Trump supporters claiming Tump's election was going to collapse the economy, that Trum was a Russian agent, that Trump was going to start WW3 - and a host of other crazy claims.
    Just to be clear, I am not suggesting that concern with this is evidence of anti-Trumpers being unhinged. I think I have been consistent from day 1 in saying something is too weird with Giulliani playing a role in these Ukrainian activites. But here we are some 7 r 8 months later and I don;t think there has been much clarification as to what, exactly Giulliani was doing or trying to do. This sheds some light on that - clearly - so I agree it is important information.

    But, my point was, I can see that there will be a substantial faction of people who say this is proof that Trump tried to kill the Ambassador, and they will run with it. And I think this is partly how Trump seems to "win" a lot of these battles - "see, they said the economy would collapse after I was elected; see, they said I was a Russian agent; see, they said I was going to start WW3; see, they said I tried to kill a U.S. ambassador . . . "

    Trump "wins" battles with his supporters because he dictates what is/isn't true and they repeat it. As his personal attorney and campaign manager sat in their prison cells last night, there was literally a "lock her up" chant at his rally. On allegations pertaining to his corruption, Trump and his defenders have had success cherry-picking the viewpoints of some of his stronger opponents, manipulating them slightly to make them sound more extreme, and ascribing them to everyone who doesn't support him. So while most of us didn't say -- and I'm being deliberate with my wording here -- that Trump "was a Russian agent," that he was "going to start WW3," or in this case, that "this is proof he tried to kill the Ambassador," we can't stop Trump from telling his defenders we all said those things and having them believe and repeat it.

    I agree with you that this information may be relevant in determining "what exactly Giuliani was doing or trying to do" -- which necessarily is relevant in determining what the president was doing or trying to do through his personal lawyer. Leading with the prediction that Dems will "go off the deep end" on conspiracy theories preemptively discredits some of the more nefarious potential explanations for conduct that has yet to be explained.

    There is an ominous tone to the texts that -- in the context of Yavanovitch's sudden removal from Kiev -- makes it hard to rule out the possibility that at least some of the actors involved contemplated physical removal or something worse. There's not nearly enough evidence from the recent tranche of documents alone to support such a serious allegation, but since none of this was done through legitimate government channels, and since Trump and his defenders are making procedural arguments seeking to prevent impeachment witnesses from testifying, we're left to speculate for now.

    Even if we assume there was no murder plot in the works -- which I'm perfectly fine doing without more evidence -- a Ukrainian with connections to the Russian mob was using an encrypted app to text with one of Trump's buddies about a plot to surveil and oust the US Ambassador to Ukraine as part of a larger plot by Trump's personal attorney to seek assistance from a foreign government for the 2020 election. Yet we're all still being told by Trump defenders in Congress that the impeachment over Ukraine is a partisan witch hunt by extreme Trump-hating Democrats.
     
    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.

    You read the transcripts of the texts, right?

    Please tell me which of those actors were Ukranian. Also, please tell me why Americans, outside of the official envoy, were so interested in here exact location at specific times. And finally, what did they mean by "for a price" .

    thanks.

    im totally baffled by anyone that defends some of the actions of this POTUS. I really have no clue how yall reconcile some of his actions. Compartmentalize?
     
    Keep suggesting that Trump was involved in a conspiracy to physically harm an Ambassador. And call claims to put the brakes on such as "partisan drivel."

    Unhinged to say the least.

    You just called me unhinged.

    As much as I could care less about it, it's rude and inaccurate.

    There are texts that show them to be monitoring her whereabouts at a time when Trump is openly suggesting she's going to be enduring tough times. My god, she was recalled as an emergency by her superiors for a reason.

    Why? Is asking the question about all these bits of smoke really "unhinged" or is deluding ones' self into believing everything from Trump is true?
     
    Last edited:
    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.


    Where do you get the "assassination narrative" stuff?

    Does it come from WND or The Blaze or something?
     
    Where do you get the "assassination narrative" stuff?

    Does it come from WND or The Blaze or something?
    Perhaps from you when you suggested it could be a conspiracy to "harm" the Ambassador. But also people on this board.
     
    Perhaps from you when you suggested it could be a conspiracy to "harm" the Ambassador. But also people on this board.

    If you took from my post an "assassination narrative" then you misread the post and ignored the actual intent.

    Perhaps that explains the direct insult you included.
     
    Perhaps from you when you suggested it could be a conspiracy to "harm" the Ambassador. But also people on this board.

    #metoo

    I am happy to own that position.

    What is you position on what Rudy and the gang we doing in Ukraine based on the information available?

    I know it’s been asked and answered, but that was several news cycles ago.

    The question is the same, just wondering if the answer is.
     
    Well if you guys want to hear what Lev has to say he is giving Rachel maddow an interview tonight.
     
    Well if you guys want to hear what Lev has to say he is giving Rachel maddow an interview tonight.

    I’m not sure how I feel about this.

    I’ll be watching, but it’s the first time I’ve watched since she was going nuts about having Trumps tax returns and it turned out to be only slightly better than Al Capone’s vault.
     
    You read the transcripts of the texts, right?

    Please tell me which of those actors were Ukranian. Also, please tell me why Americans, outside of the official envoy, were so interested in here exact location at specific times. And finally, what did they mean by "for a price" .

    thanks.

    im totally baffled by anyone that defends some of the actions of this POTUS. I really have no clue how yall reconcile some of his actions. Compartmentalize?
    As to the question "Who were the Ukrainians", I believe (just an educated guess) that the surveillance in question was being done by Ukrainians that Hyde is associated with.

    Possibly, you should read my posts again.
     
    WhatsApp exchange between Lev Parnas and Harry Sargeant on 9/11/19, the day the Ukraine aid was released:

    1579131852205.png


    Trump tried to leverage bipartisan funds intended for an ally in a war against Russia to solicit a bribe to help him win the 2020 election. Bolton f****ed up his plan. Trump defenders, our country is better than this.
     
    Maddow? One would be better off reading some fiction than tuning into the queen of black helicopters and the poster girl for aluminium foil hats. Might as well tune into Hannity after Maddow.


    Since it’s an interview, determining the credibility of Parnas is reason enough to watch.

    It’s not really in his interest to lie to the media at this point when the feds probably know everything.

    He didn’t seem to have the body language of someone who was lying in the clip of the interview I saw.
     
    Politics sure does make strange bedfellows. After liberals went crazy when Trump suggested pulling out of Syria, Afghanistan, and hated the idea of pulling out of Iraq - we will see them now fall in love with Bolton. What is next - Warren/Cheney 2020?
    :LOL:
     
    WhatsApp exchange between Lev Parnas and Harry Sargeant on 9/11/19, the day the Ukraine aid was released:

    1579131852205.png


    Trump tried to leverage bipartisan funds intended for an ally in a war against Russia to solicit a bribe to help him win the 2020 election. Bolton f****ed up his plan. Trump defenders, our country is better than this.

    If this is real and can be verified, there's nothing left to say.

    Hang them all!
     

    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