Parnas document release details Giuliani-arranged surveillance, possible threat to Amb. Yovanovitch (3 Viewers)

[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.

 

[dtc]

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?

Why do you characterize things in such a Trumpy way?

Nobody went crazy. There were arguments and opinions and discussion.

That's how things work especially when the guy in charge has a very questionable pattern of not listening or understanding what's going on before plunging us into questionable actions.

And, as I recall, it wasn't only liberals who had disagreements with Trump's foreign and military directives.

 

[dtc]

If noone besides me and Dad enjoy this bit of journalistic sarcasm it'll be too bad, but ok by me.

The last thing we need is to see a great president, who we Trump supporters have built up to be an avatar of American strength and decency, get knocked down by stupid things like facts. Next thing you know we’ll be hearing evidence that suggests Trump-aligned actors were plotting against a U.S. ambassador using language that sounds like they watched too many episodes of “The Sopranos” while drunk!

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colu...0200115-x6yd67tipza3pbrufpfrlavwbu-story.html

 

[JimEverett]

Why do you characterize things in such a Trumpy way?

Nobody went crazy. There were arguments and opinions and discussion.

That's how things work especially when the guy in charge has a very questionable pattern of not listening or understanding what's going on before plunging us into questionable actions.

And, as I recall, it wasn't only liberals who had disagreements with Trump's foreign and military directives.

I will stand by my characterization of the response as being crazy - a whole lot of "Oh my God, Russia . . ." in so many words.

And there was certainly GOP opposition, as expected, which is exactly my "point" (in quotes because the post was mostly intended to be humorous).

 

[samiam5211]

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?

I remember a time when you could disagree with a persons ideas instead of disagreeing with a person.

If I found out Bolton loved bacon, it wouldn’t turn me into a warhawk or cause me to give up bacon.

 

[Optimus Prime]

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?

This reminds me of the exchange at the end of A Few Good Men

“I believed that private Santiago’s life was in danger”

“Grave danger?”

“Is there any other kind?”

 

[The moose]

This reminds me of the exchange at the end of A Few Good Men

“I believed that private Santiago’s life was in danger”

“Grave danger?”

“Is there any other kind?”

Oh are we gonna get a fat guy yelling you can't handle the truth?

Or are the ones that can't handle the truth the flocks of trump supporters?

 

[wardorican]

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.

Agreed. But it's shady as heck.

 

[wardorican]

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?

Jim. C'mon man.

Just about all of what you said is just false.

Trump didn't "just suggest" those things.

In Syria, He pulled troops stationed near allied Kurds, so that the Turkish forces could march in and attack folks. He just walked our troops like 10 miles down the road to allow murder. Sure, I may be a bit hyperbolic about that, but it's pretty much what happened no?

Afghanistan.. I must be missing a memo. I think the freshest news I'm aware of is the news that potentially both wars were fraught with misleading reasoning. I honestly am not aware of any blow back to pulling out of there. Aren't they pretty much stable? Or is the Taliban still an issue? I haven't kept up as much.

Pulling out of Iraq? Do you mean a while back when there were concerns about if the Iraqi's new government could handle things on their own? The concern was just that a power vacuum could invite ISIS back. Or the more recent threats of being kicked out of Iraq due to the recent Iran kerfuffle?

I don't think anyone is falling in love with Bolton. He's a war hawk. If anything, he's probably a big reason we got where we did with Iran lately. He's a big proponent for pushing them around more. That doesn't mean he's completely useless and devoid of ethics. It just means he's a war hawk. Immoral and illegal aren't always the same thing.

Just like I can think Trump isn't a good president, is a total jackass of a person, but, he has very good comedic timing, even if offensive. He's a naturally funny guy. He can work an audience. I can appreciate his strengths, while fully aware of his weaknesses and faults.

 

[wardorican]

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?

It's really sad that Jim didn't reply to this post, but went after the one replying to another poster about the source of narratives.

See, these are the turns in a conversation that impact how a thread goes.

 

[efil4]

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.

Educated guess based on what education? You disclaim "impending harm" from folks giving and educated guess, but then follow with your own??
And impending harm could mean something as simple as putting her in a compromising situation. Doesn't mean physical harm or even assassination.


And again, for what purpose was her location needed?

I'll take an educated guess. My guess is they were looking to set her up in some manner to precipitate her recall. I wouldn't be surprised if they created this "security" issue to have her recalled asap.

Point in all of this... They all have dirt on hands and not sure how this simply dies out.

 

[SaintForLife]

Why do you characterize things in such a Trumpy way?

Nobody went crazy. There were arguments and opinions and discussion.

That's how things work especially when the guy in charge has a very questionable pattern of not listening or understanding what's going on before plunging us into questionable actions.

And, as I recall, it wasn't only liberals who had disagreements with Trump's foreign and military directives.

Yeah the neocons also disgreed with Trump's foreign policy and military directives. Haven't we learned by now the neocons should be ignored when it comes to foreign policy?

 

[MT15]

Just watched the Parnas interview. I’m glad someone said it was happening because I hadn’t heard about it. Maddow asked him about the texts on Yovanovitch. FWIW he says that the Republican candidate, Hyde?, is a total drunk, and not to be taken seriously. He said he doesn’t believe he had any surveillance on the ambassador, and he didn’t take any of those texts seriously. He feels sure she was never in any physical danger.

He also said a whole bunch of other stuff that is pretty damning about Trump, Rudy, Pence and Barr. He says Bolton knows everything that happened. Maddow said they didn’t air parts of the interview, because they wanted to do more research before putting it out there. So we shall see. He seemed very credible, no boasting, just matter of fact.

He said he wanted to apologize to Yovanovitch for smearing her. He said that the stories about her being disrespectful to Trump were lies and he feels bad for spreading those lies. The push to oust her comes from that Russian mob connected oligarch, who promised he had dirt on the Bidens if they would take care of his impending legal troubles and get rid of Yovanovitch. I believe this guy is fighting extradition to the US where he has been indicted. Parnas said that Rudy promised him he could get his charges dropped.

There was a lot more. I’m sure it will be all over the news.

 

[wardorican]

This is the Friendliest interpretation of the interview, I'd imagine. Even here, look about half way in..

Giuliani associate nixes Dems' suggestions diplomat was stalked -- but claims to implicate Trump, Pence

Lev Parnas, the indicted associate of President Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, on Wednesday night undercut House Democrats' explosive new suggestion that the Trump team had former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch under surveillance -- saying in a televised interview that text...

www.foxnews.com

At the same time, Parnas said the Trump team publicly accused Yovanovitch of corruption because she stood in the way of the plot to get an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden started.

"That was the only motivation," Parnas said.

................................................................................

"Yeah, it was all about Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and also Rudy had a personal thing with the [Paul] Manafort black ledger stuff," Parnas claimed. "But, it was never about corruption, it was strictly about Burisma, which included Hunter Biden and Joe Biden." The so-called "black ledger" purportedly showed millions of dollars from former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman.

Parnas said Giuliani told him to deliver a "harsh" message to Ukraine that "all aid" to the country would be halted unless "there was an announcement of the Biden investigation," among other demands.

 

[The moose]

Just watched the Parnas interview. I’m glad someone said it was happening because I hadn’t heard about it. Maddow asked him about the texts on Yovanovitch. FWIW he says that the Republican candidate, Hyde?, is a total drunk, and not to be taken seriously. He said he doesn’t believe he had any surveillance on the ambassador, and he didn’t take any of those texts seriously. He feels sure she was never in any physical danger.

He also said a whole bunch of other stuff that is pretty damning about Trump, Rudy, Pence and Barr. He says Bolton knows everything that happened. Maddow said they didn’t air parts of the interview, because they wanted to do more research before putting it out there. So we shall see. He seemed very credible, no boasting, just matter of fact.

He said he wanted to apologize to Yovanovitch for smearing her. He said that the stories about her being disrespectful to Trump were lies and he feels bad for spreading those lies. The push to oust her comes from that Russian mob connected oligarch, who promised he had dirt on the Bidens if they would take care of his impending legal troubles and get rid of Yovanovitch. I believe this guy is fighting extradition to the US where he has been indicted. Parnas said that Rudy promised him he could get his charges dropped.

There was a lot more. I’m sure it will be all over the news.

Yep that was about what I got out of it.

Actually the Yovanovitch thing just made him seen more creditable for some reason. He did seem truly sorry.

Yeah I posted it was happening because it was an interview. I know lots of people here have problems with Rachel Maddow for some reason or another.

 

[MT15]

She is actually a good interviewer. She lets her subjects talk, and has a way of getting good material out without inserting herself into the interview.

 

[wardorican]

Remember when Devin Nunes said he never talked to him, and maybe it was a staffer, etc...whelp...

Devin Nunes Now Remembers Call With Lev Parnas

Nunes also claims the first time he “heard the name Yovanovitch was not until this impeachment sham started.”

www.thedailybeast.com

Moments after Parnas told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that the president “knew exactly what was going on” with Ukraine, Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum asked Nunes about phone records that show he spoke to Parnas, noting he previously said he couldn’t “recall” having a phone conversation with the Giuliani henchman. Claiming that the information was “brand new” at the time and he just didn’t “recognize the name Parnas,” the pro-Trump congressman added that he was able to recall “where he was at the time” and now “remembered that call, which was very odd and random.”

He's still playing it off that he really didn't pay that much attention to him and "yeah yeah, talk to my staff", which is a great blow off line. Might be true. I mean, I'm sure Congressman are like that.

Just waiting for the next shoe to drop.

 

[BobE]

excuse my bumbassery but who the hell is Hyde? and what is he running for?

 

[dtc]

It's really sad that Jim didn't reply to this post, but went after the one replying to another poster about the source of narratives.

See, these are the turns in a conversation that impact how a thread goes.

Forgive me if I don't follow your point although I do agree it's too bad that nobody that supports Trump seems to want to defend the specific acts in question rather, preferring to obfuscate, shuck and resort to process or character defenses.

It is not unhinged to wonder if when there are numerous little fires there might also be smoke. And, it is certainly not poor form to point it out in conversation on a political discussion board.