Parnas document release details Giuliani-arranged surveillance, possible threat to Amb. Yovanovitch (1 Viewer)

FullMonte

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
367
Age
52
Location
Bossier City
Offline
I do not think anything has been proven. But there is evidence that Trump asked for both - an investigation into Burisma and investigation into Ukraine's role in 2016 election.
In all fairness, since we were discussing the nuance between violating the law and committing a criminal act, I think we should address the nuance here as well.

There is no evidence that Trump asked for an investigation into Burisma. He asked Zelenskyy to investigate the Bidens. According to the memo released by the White House, Trump said "The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."
 

FullMonte

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
367
Age
52
Location
Bossier City
Offline
Your first paragraph has a lot of assumptions that have yet to be proven true. If evidence comes out that shows Trump was directing the two goons to spy on the Ambassador then you are right. But until then your assumptions are nothing more than assumptions. I mean we all know Trump is a horrible person so he had to have told his attorney to spy on the Ambassador amirite?
So, if evidence comes out that shows that Trump directed the two goons to spy on the Ambassador, that's bad on Trump, right?

Do you go further? If Trump directed Rudy to get Ukraine to announce the investigation into the Bidens, and Rudy worked with Parnas towards that end, and Parnas and Hyde decided they needed to get the Ambassador out so they started spying on her. Do you put that on Trump?
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
349
Reaction score
692
Location
Virginia
Offline
So, I'm quoting a bunch of posts here into one response. Hopefully this works

It is enlightening that you consider the FBI violating basic civil rights the lesser.

Anything to get Trump.
I consider the allegation that Trump pressured a foreign leader to announce an investigation in Joe Biden a violation of a basic civil right. If that is what Trump did, then he was trying to circumvent our justice system to damage a political opponent.

And the manner in which is he alleged to have done this indicates that he wasn't interested in pursuing justice, but in trying to damage a political adversary. Which seems worse to me b/c he's supposed to be the highest authority with fewer checks on him.

We also know from the indictment of Parnas also says that he made illegal campaign contributions in order to remove Yovanovitch for a Ukrainian official and to advance his personal and business interests.


Do you think it's possible that whatever Guiliani had him doing overlapped with what the indictment said he was doing for himself? The accusation, it seems are qualifiers from you that show a lot of assumptions are being made and some of it is based off someone with HUGE credibility problems.
IMG_20200116_204315.jpg

A woman who accuses Parnas of scamming her family out of $500,000 -- one of several allegations of fraud -- said: "Mr. Parnas is a con man, he is a crook."

It's also curious that you label the FBI fabricating evidence, gaming the FISA court by using opposition research from Hillary that is most likely Russian disinformation on a FISA warrant that didn't even support what they claimed and was never corroborated as just playing fast and loose with procedures and irregularities.
Yes, I am aware of Parnas credibility issue. He's more of a corroboration of what was alleged by other sources in testimony so far. Of particular interest is his note that he said he wrote after meeting Giuliani that said the goal was to get an announcement into Biden.

As far as the FISA abuse, yes it was gaming the system, which I think happens quite a bit, and if nothing else comes out of it, if this leads to less of that sort of thing happening, I'll be happy. I just hope that Republican commitment to civil rights and due process doesn't stop after this. It's a refreshing change. I'd like it if Democrats re-found their commitment to it. But that is what the FBI did, they assumed that Carter Paige had info they wanted into Russian interference and gamed the system to get it. The worse part of it was the lawyer who altered a document to obfuscate exculpatory information. That seems illegal to me.

I meant "pure speculation" as to exactly what the intent/purpose of the actions. You are also taking everything as true on its face. I am not sure that is exactly what will be the end result (if we get one). Which is a large point of my point about bringing up the IG investigation vs. the House investigation on impeachment There is a big difference between the evidence we have from Parnas' docs and the evidence we have from the abuse of the FISA court. And the fact the House did not think it important to question Parnas is an important part of that.

This further ties into the fact that comparison with what we know from the Parnas docs vs. what we know from the IG investigation is silly. It is beyond even an apples - oranges comparison.
I am not taking everything as true on its face. I'm saying that each piece adds to a whole. At this point do you think there isn't enough information to say that Trump held up aid to Ukraine unless they announced an investigation into Joe Biden and his son?

The House did subpoena Parnas' information, so they clearly did think it was important. They just didn't wait for it b/c they believed they had enough evidence to continue.

I meant to add a point that addressed the substance of the comparison. While I think Administrations using intelligence services to spy on people closely connected to opposition party campaigns is far worse than interpreting facts in the light that makes the Trump aDministration look as bad as possible - it should be pointed out that with the FISA court you have a systemic problem. I don't think the issue with Trump can fairly be classified as systemic.
I get what you're saying about the FBI and a systemic problem. But I think allowing a system where there are no meaningful checks on the behavior of a single man with large amounts of power is worse.

Has it already been proven, factual that Trump was asking for the investigation into Biden/Barisma to aid in the 2020 elections or was he asking for an investigation into the 2016 election tampering? Because to me that is the main issue.

It seems that it has by the recent posts but I don't recall hearing/reading that but there is also a good chance that I missed it because I have not paid a lot of attention to the impeachment thing once the articles were held up in the house.
I do not think anything has been proven. But there is evidence that Trump asked for both - an investigation into Burisma and investigation into Ukraine's role in 2016 election.

I thought the difference in reaction from Democrats between both of those requests/demands was interesting. Once the request for investigation into the 2016 election included in the Abuse of Power Article?
I got that he asked for investigations into both Biden and Barisma. Like I said, I have not been paying attention to the impeachment narrative in a while. I don't think it will amount to anything of worth for the democrats. I just remember reading that Trump said "we have been through a lot" meaning the country so I took that as he was asking them to look into the 16 fiasco. I am sure I will be corrected but that is why I asked about this point.
Multiple people have testified that they were either told or led to believe that the aid to Ukraine was held up until Zelenskiy announced an investigation into the Biden's.
 

Archies Ghost

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
503
Reaction score
379
Age
52
Location
Houston
Offline
Multiple people have testified that they were either told or led to believe that the aid to Ukraine was held up until Zelenskiy announced an investigation into the Biden's.
The problem is that none of them have said Trump directly told them that. They all seem to have assumed it.
 

Farb

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
366
Reaction score
192
Age
44
Location
Mobile
Offline
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 to Rudy, much less letting him run around a do an investigation on the side.
 
Last edited:

Archies Ghost

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
503
Reaction score
379
Age
52
Location
Houston
Offline
That’s exactly how michael Cohen said trump operates

He tells you what he wants without explicitly telling you what he wants
I don't doubt it for one second. It is incredibly common. I have been on both sides of those sorts of things myself.

However, in those sorts of things the onus for appropriate behavior is on the one making the assumption because the assumption may be totally in error.

The one person who directly confronted Trump got a very direct (paraphrasing) 'I don't want anything. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.'

If the standard for impeachment is the assumption of intention by the staff, we will have entered our equivalent of the Praetorian Guard deciding the emperors fates.
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
349
Reaction score
692
Location
Virginia
Offline
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 to Rudy, much less letting him run around a do an investigation on the side.
So, things to answer.

Why did Trump do this outside of the normal Justice Department process? Why did he want a public announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden? What does that have to do with the 2016 election? Ukraine had already investigated Burisma, so what did Trump want?
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
349
Reaction score
692
Location
Virginia
Offline
I don't doubt it for one second. It is incredibly common. I have been on both sides of those sorts of things myself.

However, in those sorts of things the onus for appropriate behavior is on the one making the assumption because the assumption may be totally in error.

The one person who directly confronted Trump got a very direct (paraphrasing) 'I don't want anything. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.'

If the standard for impeachment is the assumption of intention by the staff, we will have entered our equivalent of the Praetorian Guard deciding the emperors fates.
I'm not sure that speaks well of Trump if a lot of people around him assume he wants them to do the wrong thing. And Trump's quote is obviously contradictory -- b/c he says he does want something, for Zelenskiy to do the right thing. Considering Ukraine had already investigated Burisma, it doesn't appear that Trump thinks the right thing was to investigate Burisma.
 

TaylorB

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
451
Age
33
Location
Louisiana
Offline
I don't doubt it for one second. It is incredibly common. I have been on both sides of those sorts of things myself.

However, in those sorts of things the onus for appropriate behavior is on the one making the assumption because the assumption may be totally in error.

The one person who directly confronted Trump got a very direct (paraphrasing) 'I don't want anything. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.'

If the standard for impeachment is the assumption of intention by the staff, we will have entered our equivalent of the Praetorian Guard deciding the emperors fates.
You'd have to ignore a mountain of evidence to conclude this was all one big misunderstanding. Trump went on TV when this story broke and couldn't even bring himself to deny it without saying he wanted Biden investigated. Within 90 minutes of the call with Zelensky there are emails to OMB telling them to hold up the aid but not telling them why. Plenty of people have said Giuliani's intentions were made clear to them in the April - August time frame -- and Trump and Giuliani spoke all the time. Giuliani never once mentioned to Trump what he was up to? Giuliani's letter as Trump's personal lawyer to Zelensky wanting to speak about a matter he won't state in the letter? Pence cancelling his trip to the inauguration? Zelensky cancelling his CNN interview when the story broke? The efforts to get Yovanovitch out of the way? Trump asking Sondland loudly on the phone whether Zelensky was going to announce investigations? Sondland saying Trump didn't give a s*** about Ukraine? "I want you to do us a favor, though"?

Of all the documents, including emails and texts that have come to light (despite being blocked), we haven't seen a single one that contains some plausible alternative as to why the aid was withheld -- rather, they are generally incriminating. Only the people in the loop seemed to know what was up, and they all happened to think the same thing... what are the odds they all thought that incorrectly?

None of the people who talked to Trump are allowed to testify. None of the documents are provided voluntarily. This isn't how innocent people behave. The alternative scenario you're suggesting could have happened is extremely far-fetched. I'm not sure it's possible to be so grossly incompetent that your entire inner circle could incorrectly assume you're soliciting a bribe from a foreign country, but if you were, how much of a crook would you have to already be? The bad facts are simply overwhelming. As a civil or criminal litigator, it truly would be an ideal case to try as Trump's opposition if it weren't in an inherently political proceeding. The closing argument would write itself.
 

V Chip

Truth Addict
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
429
Reaction score
653
Age
52
Location
Outside Atlanta
Offline
Has it already been proven, factual that Trump was asking for the investigation into Biden/Barisma to aid in the 2020 elections or was he asking for an investigation into the 2016 election tampering?
The whole "Ukraine 2016 election tampering" was identified as a Russian propaganda effort, was it not?

 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
945
Reaction score
1,175
Location
Midwest
Offline
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 to Rudy, much less letting him run around a do an investigation on the side.
What does Biden have to do with the 2016 election, though? I’m not aware of any connection there, and the idea that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election is a bit of false info being pushed by Russia, according to intelligence. One of Ukraine’s government officials wrote an op-ed opposing Trump and that was the extent of their “interference”.

Trump mentioned Biden by name, both in the phone call and on the WH lawn to the press. Rudy and his henchmen knew that the announcement had to include the name Biden, and Sondland said Trump didn’t give a crap about any Ukraine investigation, all he wanted was the announcement. Evidently the announcement had to be on CNN as well.

Zelensky was already booked on CNN to make the announcement when the complaint was made known. He canceled shortly after that because the aid was then released.

This all seems pretty cut and dried. I don’t think anyone looking at the entire picture could really make a case that Trump cared only about corruption in Ukraine. Or even cared at all about corruption in Ukraine.
 

Archies Ghost

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
503
Reaction score
379
Age
52
Location
Houston
Offline
I'm not sure that speaks well of Trump if a lot of people around him assume he wants them to do the wrong thing. And Trump's quote is obviously contradictory -- b/c he says he does want something, for Zelenskiy to do the right thing. Considering Ukraine had already investigated Burisma, it doesn't appear that Trump thinks the right thing was to investigate Burisma.
I am pretty sure a few million Democrats assumed he was a Putin's puppet yet it turns out he isn't.
 

Optimus Prime

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
151
Reaction score
203
Age
43
Location
Washington DC Metro
Offline
House Democrats released new documents Friday evening showing extensive contact between an associate of President Trump’s personal attorney and an aide to the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee regarding the effort to obtain material from Ukrainian prosecutors that would be damaging to former vice president Joe Biden.

The text messages between Lev Parnas, who functioned as Rudolph W. Giuliani’s emissary to Ukrainian officials, and Derek Harvey, an aide to Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, indicate Nunes’s office was aware of the operation at the heart of impeachment proceedings against the president — and sought to use the information Parnas was gathering.............

 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
850
Reaction score
1,042
Age
42
Location
Earth
Online
House Democrats released new documents Friday evening showing extensive contact between an associate of President Trump’s personal attorney and an aide to the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee regarding the effort to obtain material from Ukrainian prosecutors that would be damaging to former vice president Joe Biden.

The text messages between Lev Parnas, who functioned as Rudolph W. Giuliani’s emissary to Ukrainian officials, and Derek Harvey, an aide to Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, indicate Nunes’s office was aware of the operation at the heart of impeachment proceedings against the president — and sought to use the information Parnas was gathering.............

Holy cow.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
422
Reaction score
266
Age
43
Location
Madisonville
Online
What does Biden have to do with the 2016 election, though? I’m not aware of any connection there, and the idea that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election is a bit of false info being pushed by Russia, according to intelligence. One of Ukraine’s government officials wrote an op-ed opposing Trump and that was the extent of their “interference”.
Actually it was more that just the op-ed. The DNC operative Chalupa worked with some Ukrainian government officials to dig up dirt on Manafort and they made a public statement that he was under investigation(he wasn't) and then restracted it after the 2016 election. Sounds pretty familiar with what Trump was looking for as well. It wasn't the same kind of interference as Russia. I know some on the right have tried to claim it was Ukraine instead of Russia that interfered. That's not what I'm talking about.

Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

 

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.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Fact Checkers News Feed

Top Bottom