Each allegation already has the potential to fuel new investigations — on Thursday morning alone, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mused about a special prosecutor and the Ukrainian government opened its own probe — and change the landscape of Trump’s Senate trial.
And Parnas might not be done.
“You understand what’s going on,” said his attorney, Joseph Bondy, earlier this week. “Stay tuned.”
Here’s what the latest revelations mean and what to watch for from Parnas in the coming days.
Parnas is likely angling for a lighter punishment
Parnas and his attorney are doing what they think will be most beneficial for them, even if they are arguing it’s also what’s best for the country.
When Parnas handed his personal documents over to Congress, it was likely an attempt to show federal prosecutors and the judge assigned to his case, U.S. District Court Judge J. Paul Oetken, that Parnas wanted to help investigators however he can. And it may have been a move the legal team adopted after a cooperation agreement with federal prosecutors did not work out.
Oetken — an appointee of President Barack Obama and known as a light sentencer in the legal world — was seen as a fortunate draw for Parnas. The current strategy may be an attempt to appeal to that reputation.
“We have decided to speak to the audience that will listen to us,” Bondy said. “It’s in Lev’s best interest to be as truthful as he can be.”
Addressing the possibility of a cooperation agreement, Bondy noted, “with regard to the Southern District of New York … we’ve achieved many objectives I would have in trying to get a cooperation agreement with the federal government.”
“But,” he added, “we are also doing what’s in the best interest of America.”
Parnas pleaded not guilty last October to the federal indictment accusing him and Igor Fruman of funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars in foreign money into U.S. elections, including a pro-Trump super PAC. Federal prosecutors told Oetken in December they were considering filing additional charges against the two men, one of several issues that have delayed the judge from setting a trial date in the case.
More Trump allies targeted Yovanovitch
The documents released this week fill in more blanks about why Yovanovitch was specifically targeted.
Previously, sworn testimony from career diplomats and foreign service officers had shown that the Yovanovitch smear campaign was waged by Parnas, Fruman, Giuliani and the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko. The circle was actually wider than that, though, according to the new Parnas materials. A lawyer with close ties to the White House, Victoria Toensing, was also eager to see Yovanovitch removed.
„Is the Wicket Witch gone?“ Toensing wrote on March 23, 2019. Parnas replied with some images and said “the [Daily] wire and Breitbart are doing story’s,” referencing the conservative media’s drumbeat of negative coverage about the ambassador.
Still, Toensing pressed: „And still no movement?“
Toensing and her husband, Joe diGenova, represent Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash, who is fighting extradition to the U.S. and reportedly leveraged his network of sources in Ukraine to help pursue the political probes sought by Giuliani and Trump. Parnas told MSNBC on Wednesday that he tried to get the extradition order quashed in exchange for Firtash’s help undermining special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation and digging up dirt on Biden.
Harry Sargeant III, an American businessman and influential GOP Trump donor, also appeared invested in Yovanovitch’s departure.
“She’s gone,” Parnas texted Sargeant on March 23. “AWESOME!!!” he replied.
Parnas thought he was Trump’s direct proxy
Parnas’ documents and interviews have also undermined Trump allies’ claims that Giuliani and his associates were freelancing with their scheme to oust Yovanovitch and gather dirt on the Bidens.
“He lied,” Parnas told MSNBC on Wednesday when asked about Trump’s claims that he didn’t know Parnas or his associate, Fruman.
„He was aware of all my movements,” Parnas said. “I wouldn’t do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani or the president.”
When meeting with Ukrainian officials, Parnas said, he would call Giuliani and put him on speakerphone in front of the Ukrainains to prove that he was legitimate and acting on behalf of the president and his personal lawyer.
The documents also include an email from Trump’s other lawyer, Jay Sekulow, revealing that Sekulow spoke to Trump about his former lawyer John Dowd representing Parnas and Fruman. “The president consents to allowing your representation of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Furman [sic],” Sekulow wrote on October 2, 2019.
Parnas handed over photos of himself with members of Trump’s family and his administration — including Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, and then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions — further highlighting his ties and access to the president and members of his inner circle.
Giuliani represented himself as acting on Trump’s behalf, too. Included in the trove of new documents is a letter Giuliani wrote to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on May 10, 2019, asking for a meeting in his “capacity as personal counsel to President Trump and with his knowledge and consent.”
At the time, Giuliani signaled in the media that the visit was related to his pursuit of investigations that might be beneficial to Trump.
“I’m asking them to do an investigation that they’re doing already and that other people are telling them to stop,” Giuliani said at the time. “And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”
Giuliani has not responded to requests for comment about the Parnas charges. In a text to a Washington Post reporter, the former New York mayor replied, “Believe him at your peril.”
There could be new investigations
The fresh details from Parnas has Capitol Hill and the legal world buzzing about whether it has created new avenues for prosecutors.
Already, the Ukrainian government has said it will look into the surveillance allegations, which came out in text exchanges between Parnas and a Trump donor, Robert F. Hyde. It’s unclear if the U.S. government will do the same. Bondy said the FBI has “never” questioned Parnas about the stalking issue.
The FBI declined to comment, citing its “standard practice of neither confirming nor denying the existence of an investigation.”
On Capitol Hill on Thursday, Pelosi suggested that in the past, the mounting evidence that was emerging would normally lead to a special prosecutor. But she conceded that such a route was unlikely with the administration’s current leadership.
The veracity of some of Parnas’ most explosive claims in recent interviews — including that Attorney General Bill Barr was “on the team” pursuing Biden dirt — has also been called into question. The documents released so far don’t corroborate the Barr accusation, for example, and Hyde’s surveillance claims are being described by Parnas and others as an odd, unserious boast. Additionally, Hyde has a history of erratic behavior and outlandish statements, POLITICO reported on Wednesday.
Still, FBI officials did visit both the home and business of Hyde on Thursday, CNN reported. It’s unclear whether that action was spurred by the newly released documents or if it was a bid to ensure that the GOP operative didn’t destroy potential evidence as they continue to investigate the case.
Overall, though, legal experts noted that some of the latest Parnas claims and document dumps represent hearsay evidence — appearing largely based on what he was hearing second-hand from figures like Rudy, instead of directly from Trump or Barr.
The evidence could influence the Senate trial
Democrats on Thursday used the Parnas discoveries to stump for their argument that Trump’s Senate impeachment trial should include witnesses and fresh evidence.
Senators have still not set down the final rules governing the trial, leaving an opening for Democrats to keep pounding the drum for their preferred trial. But Republicans showed no indication that their stance had changed — most want a contained, quick trial with no unexpected testimony or revelations.
Source: politico.com
See more here: news365.stream
