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.

 

[SaintForLife]

this is a confusing statement. Cohen never claimed he was in Prague, that was apparently disinformation. And Cohen appears to have stopped lying since he has renounced Trump, you know, the person who instructed him to break campaign finance laws and then lie about it. Also the person who instructed Cohen to lie about the Trump Tower Moscow Project.

Of course we should be skeptical of Parnas, but he does bring documents and text messages. Let’s hear from Bolton. Heck, let’s hear from everyone. I’d love to hear testimony from Pence, Pompeo, Trump, etc. etc. It appears that they’ve all been lying to us.

Cohen being in Prague was disinformation? I agree and do you think the rest of the Steele dossier was disinformation as well?

I was fine with hearing from anyone during the House's impeachment inquiry, but they punted on subpoenaing Bolton and anyone else that could have shed light on the situation. The House said they had to impeach Trump because it was urgent, but then they wasted 4 months which was plenty of time for the courts to force Bolton and anyone else's testimony. The House refused to use the courts to force the testimony which is the normal course of action. Now they want Bolton to testify. Why do you think the Democrats refused to use the courts?

 

[samiam5211]

Cohen being in Prague was disinformation? I agree and do you think the rest of the Steele dossier was disinformation as well?

I was fine with hearing from anyone during the House's impeachment inquiry, but they punted on subpoenaing Bolton and anyone else that could have shed light on the situation. The House said they had to impeach Trump because it was urgent, but then they wasted 4 months which was plenty of time for the courts to force Bolton and anyone else's testimony. The House refused to use the courts to force the testimony which is the normal course of action. Now they want Bolton to testify. Why do you think the Democrats refused to use the courts?

I seems like you're a couple of years behind.

Who cares whether or not Cohen went to Prague?

Who cares why the house didn't use the courts?

There is so much information out there that shows Trump's disregard for the law.

You're still stuck on Cohen never going to Prague? Really?

I guess the Carter Page FISA warrant is still important too.

 

[wardorican]

Cohen being in Prague was disinformation? I agree and do you think the rest of the Steele dossier was disinformation as well?

I was fine with hearing from anyone during the House's impeachment inquiry, but they punted on subpoenaing Bolton and anyone else that could have shed light on the situation. The House said they had to impeach Trump because it was urgent, but then they wasted 4 months which was plenty of time for the courts to force Bolton and anyone else's testimony. The House refused to use the courts to force the testimony which is the normal course of action. Now they want Bolton to testify. Why do you think the Democrats refused to use the courts?

The dossier was raw intelligence. It was what Steele heard people say. He didn't verify the claims, just reported them. Using that in that light, it's easy to know a lot of it wouldn't check out.

 

[bdb13]

Cohen being in Prague was disinformation? I agree and do you think the rest of the Steele dossier was disinformation as well?

Possibly.

Why do you think the Democrats refused to use the courts?

Pelosi wanted to maintain control of the timeline, imo.

 

[SaintForLife]

The dossier was raw intelligence. It was what Steele heard people say. He didn't verify the claims, just reported them. Using that in that light, it's easy to know a lot of it wouldn't check out.

Ah I see. Do you think that's a good standard for evidence on FISA warrants?

 

[wardorican]

Ah I see. Do you think that's a good standard for evidence on FISA warrants?

By its self, depends. Probably not. But you usually don't know the answers until you investigate. So, where there's smoke.. take a look.

 

[The moose]

Cohen being in Prague was disinformation? I agree and do you think the rest of the Steele dossier was disinformation as well?

I was fine with hearing from anyone during the House's impeachment inquiry, but they punted on subpoenaing Bolton and anyone else that could have shed light on the situation. The House said they had to impeach Trump because it was urgent, but then they wasted 4 months which was plenty of time for the courts to force Bolton and anyone else's testimony. The House refused to use the courts to force the testimony which is the normal course of action. Now they want Bolton to testify. Why do you think the Democrats refused to use the courts?

Dude did the white house turn over anything?

Did the white house not demand people to not play ball?

Bingo!

That sir is obstruction!

 

[SaintForLife]

Dude did the white house turn over anything?

Did the white house not demand people to not play ball?

Bingo!

That sir is obstruction!

It's not obstruction because the House refused to subpoena people like Bolton to compel their testimony. That's the proper way to do it. Had the courts ordered Bolton to testify and Trump refused to follow the court's orders then it would be obstruction.

 

[MT15]

SFL, moose, you both need to calm down. Jeesh. This isn’t a grade school playground.

 

[The moose]

No just because she's a fraud and pushed a conspiracy theory for 3 years.

So what might that be that Russia hacked the DNC? That Russian trolls targeted people thru Facebook.

Oh and that a Cambridge analylica board member ran the trump election to some extent.

Where do you exactly think the tin foil hat comes in?

 

[The moose]

It's not obstruction because the House refused to subpoena people like Bolton to compel their testimony. That's the proper way to do it. Had the courts ordered Bolton to testify and Trump refused to follow the court's orders then it would be obstruction.

I don't know about all that.

Clinton during his impeachment for blow jobs was much more open with everything.

The fact they wanted everything to drag out in court while all of this is time sensitive it a glaring flag.

 

[Farb]

Time sensitive. When used to describe this process, it always cracks me up.

 

[First Time Poster]

I'm late to this, but wanted to say...

I'm 100% certain that if the everything were exactly the same except people involved were the associates/administration under the name Clinton instead of Trump, that exact scenario would be ALL over right-wing media and Yavanovich's name added to the "attempted" part of the Clinton body count list.

I think what some of us are struggling with understanding is how Trump supporters can be very up in arms about "secret FISA courts" and the surveillance of Carter Page and, yet, contrast that with their seemingly very cavalier, nonchalant attitudes towards this "back-alley" surveillance of Yovanovitch. At least with the "secret courts", there was documentation that was provided to request the surveillance, documentation that we are now able to examine and scrutinize the veracity of the claims. With this, we are having to filter through WhatsApp conversations and ascertain the meaning of cryptic mobspeak. It's shady. If you thought/think the FISA process was shady then how can you think this is not? If you think the FISA process, an official channel, is susceptible to corruption and needs oversight, then how can you be comfortable with this shadow operation the POTUS and Giuliani were running in Ukraine using these really suspicious actors and methods, outside of official channels? And if you feel that way, why not just clearly state that?

Why the vociferous defense of everything the POTUS does that we all know smells fishy? None of this jives with their stated reason for operating this way in Ukraine. By all credible accounts, Yovanovitch was THE person helping mitigate and eliminate corruption in Ukraine. If your goal was to expose and rid Ukraine of corruption, why treat her as a target and not an ally? Why the campaign of disinformation and lies to ruin her reputation? Why remove her and not work with her? You have this dark operation that she is the target of and it spooked enough persons out to have her leave the country immediately. Why? If ending corrupting is your endgame?

All any of us want is just some consistency from Trump supporters, if you have any to offer. Otherwise, you are just more partisan noise that you are railing against others for having.

 

[dtc]

It's not obstruction because the House refused to subpoena people like Bolton to compel their testimony. That's the proper way to do it. Had the courts ordered Bolton to testify and Trump refused to follow the court's orders then it would be obstruction.

Upon what legal basis are you making this statement?

I ask, not being a lawyer, but having a pretty fair understanding of the definition of obstruction and knowing that nowhere in the law is it defined as refusing a subpoena.

 

[SaintForLife]

Upon what legal basis are you making this statement?

I ask, not being a lawyer, but having a pretty fair understanding of the definition of obstruction and knowing that nowhere in the law is it defined as refusing a subpoena.

Claiming executive privilege is not obstruction of Congress. When there is a dispute between the executive and legislature the remedy is to let the courts decide right? The Democrats didn't go to the courts because they said it would take too long...and then they proceeded to wait 4 months before delivering impeachment articles to the Senate. The Democrats could have subpoenaed Bolton and whoever else they wanted to testify and let the courts compell their testimonies. Why do you think the Democrats skipped that crucial step?

 

[SaintForLife]

I think what some of us are struggling with understanding is how Trump supporters can be very up in arms about "secret FISA courts" and the surveillance of Carter Page and, yet, contrast that with their seemingly very cavalier, nonchalant attitudes towards this "back-alley" surveillance of Yovanovitch. At least with the "secret courts", there was documentation that was provided to request the surveillance, documentation that we are now able to examine and scrutinize the veracity of the claims. With this, we are having to filter through WhatsApp conversations and ascertain the meaning of cryptic mobspeak. It's shady. If you thought/think the FISA process was shady then how can you think this is not? If you think the FISA process, an official channel, is susceptible to corruption and needs oversight, then how can you be comfortable with this shadow operation the POTUS and Giuliani were running in Ukraine using these really suspicious actors and methods, outside of official channels? And if you feel that way, why not just clearly state that?

Why the vociferous defense of everything the POTUS does that we all know smells fishy? None of this jives with their stated reason for operating this way in Ukraine. By all credible accounts, Yovanovitch was THE person helping mitigate and eliminate corruption in Ukraine. If your goal was to expose and rid Ukraine of corruption, why treat her as a target and not an ally? Why the campaign of disinformation and lies to ruin her reputation? Why remove her and not work with her? You have this dark operation that she is the target of and it spooked enough persons out to have her leave the country immediately. Why? If ending corrupting is your endgame?

All any of us want is just some consistency from Trump supporters, if you have any to offer. Otherwise, you are just more partisan noise that you are railing against others for having.

It's definitely shady that the Ambassador was being surveilled and it should be investigated. It's ridiculous to try to compare the Government using opposition research and fabrications on FISA warrants to spy on a Presidential campaign to two private citizens spying on an Ambassador. Thats about as weak as a comparison as it gets, but I understand you are grasping at straws to try find a comparable situation.

Also please stop with the strawman that if any of us defend anything that Trump does or says that it amounts to us defending everything.

 

[superchuck500]

...and then they proceeded to wait 4 months before delivering impeachment articles to the Senate.

I think you meant four weeks.

 

[BobE]

I think you meant four weeks.

But it felt like 4 months