Trump allegedly requests foreign election interference

[Agema]

So instead, most of the statements by politicians are rehearsed, and when the press asks a question that they didn't expect they try to divert their answer over to something they've planned and practiced ahead of time. Televised debates especially are all about anticipating the questions and criticisms beforehand, because none of these people are really that good at improv, nor should they need to be.

Bluntly, every senior politician in the land should be a competent public speaker: it's a fundamental job skill in their line of work. And of course they have to think on their feet: so do we all. It's like a job interview: you need to prepare, but you're not delivering a script, either.

What it's more about is controlling the message. Politicians want to talk about what they talk about, and not what other people want to talk about, so they have tactics to keep diverting discussion onto their talking points and denying the initiative or room for other topics.

The specific charge is that Republicans are saying "we don't know" about things we have good evidence for and then supporting outlandish conspiracy theories the next. That's not worrying about gaffes, that's a deliberate strategy of misinformation based on plainly inconsistent evidential standards.

 

[Silvanus]

For context, the whistleblower's name has been basically public information for a very long time, people guessed it about a week before that article. That's when it changed from "whistleblower getting ready to testify" to "well, secretly testify". Shortly after that, Schiff released Bill Taylor's testimony which mentioned the name unredacted, at which point they stopped entertaining the idea of whistleblower testimony at all. Probably because said person left the White House over concerns of press leaks, and acknowledging that identity would really hurt the credibility of the information.

Republicans demanding the identity of the whistleblower are doing so because they know who it is and know it would basically torpedo the whole inquiry. Schiff denies that he knows (despite knowing before the person was even a whistleblower to begin with) because he knows it would torpedo the whole inquiry.

None of this addresses the facts that 1) staff-only depositions were merely one of several proposed approaches not taken forward, and 2) It was never proposed to do so on party political lines, and 3) These measures were a direct response to intimidation.

You've just shifted the conversation. We were talking about "no-Republicans-allowed" depositions, and how that was never proposed and never took place.

 

[tstorm823]

None of this addresses the facts that 1) staff-only depositions were merely one of several proposed approaches not taken forward, and 2) It was never proposed to do so on party political lines, and 3) These measures were a direct response to intimidation.

You've just shifted the conversation. We were talking about "no-Republicans-allowed" depositions, and how that was never proposed and never took place.

1) I never said they went forward with it, I said they wanted to, 2) it was proposed based entirely on political party lines, they were explicitly trying to find ways to prevent the GOP from knowing, and 3) these weren't measures in response to intimidation, claims of intimidation were made as a pretext to cover up their blunders. They were willing to have him publicly testify until the news outed him as an alleged leaker who had worked for Joe Biden.

Frankly, it doesn't matter as far as fact finding. Vindman was the whistleblower's source to begin with, that was confirmed when Schiff gavelled down Republicans for asking who Vindman told about the July 25th call, so we don't really need the whistleblower anymore. But before all that happened, Democrats wanted the whistleblower on record, because they were using him and Vindman as independant corroboration of one another rather than the same information twice. Which is to say, they wanted to lie to the American people but got caught and panicked.

 

[Agema]

But before all that happened, Democrats wanted the whistleblower on record, because they were using him and Vindman as independant corroboration of one another rather than the same information twice. Which is to say, they wanted to lie to the American people but got caught and panicked.

That's just your opinion, presented as if fact as negatively to the Democrats as possible.

It's more likely that they had the whistleblower lined up in case of need (for instance if Vindman declined to testify); once he and others did, the whistleblower was no longer necessary.

The whistleblower is of course also basically a red herring, precisely because we have enough testimony from government staff to support the case against Trump without him/her. It doesn't really matter how partisan the whistleblower might be, his/her evidence is largely independently corroborated and a great deal of people - including many legal experts - think there's a good case. Banging on about the whistleblower is therefore really just another attempt at digression to pretend this is merely a political trick.

 

[tstorm823]

That's just your opinion, presented as if fact as negatively to the Democrats as possible.

It's more likely that they had the whistleblower lined up in case of need (for instance if Vindman declined to testify); once he and others did, the whistleblower was no longer necessary.

The whistleblower is of course also basically a red herring, precisely because we have enough testimony from government staff to support the case against Trump without him/her. It doesn't really matter how partisan the whistleblower might be, his/her evidence is largely independently corroborated and a great deal of people - including many legal experts - think there's a good case. Banging on about the whistleblower is therefore really just another attempt at digression to pretend this is merely a political trick.

Again, I don't really care about the whistleblower. The vast majority of the complaint was corroborated by Trump himself. The issue about the whistleblower is the Democrats' behavior, not the facts of the complaint. They're not explicitly acknowledging that Vindman was the whistleblowers' source. He was being treated as a "second whistleblower" coming forward.

And any legal expert who thinks there's a good case here is an idiot. Not because there so obviously was or wasn't a crime (I'd argue not, but hey), but rather because they have almost literally no evidence of direct action by the person being prosecuted. There's yet to be a single witness testifying that Trump told them to demand investigations for anything. They've testified he wanted investigations, that doing investigations would make Trump like Ukraine more. They've testified that he told them to work with Giuliani, who was pushing Ukraine. To my knowledge, nobody has claimed Trump told them to demand investigations in exchange for anything. You think there's a good case? No, not a chance. That's why they can't even write up articles of impeachment for any concrete crime. A good old vague "abuse of power" and an utterly false "obstruction of Congress".

Abuse of power isn't a crime itself, criminal abuse of power is using your position to commit a crime, one can't criminally abuse power if there isn't an underlying crime. It's like a hate crime, you can't commit a hate crime if there's no other crime, then it's just hate which isn't illegal. Obstruction of Congress is an utterly illegitimate claim, there are appeals to the courts going on right now to determine what the executive branch is required to submit to the legislature. If appealing a conflict between the executive and legislative branches to the judicial branch is obstruction, then the constitution and separation of powers are basically toilet paper. So ultimately, they've written up articles of impeachment without any crimes listed, suggesting that perfectly legal actions of the president not only warrant but necessitate removal from office. No, that's not a good case.

 

[Agema]

And any legal expert who thinks there's a good case here is an idiot. Not because there so obviously was or wasn't a crime (I'd argue not, but hey), but rather because they have almost literally no evidence of direct action by the person being prosecuted.

It's not open and shut to take down the president - in large part because the WH has blocked key personnel from testifying or supplying documents. But there is a superb case to pursue the impeachment, and sufficient evidence that could see someone go down in a court of law. After all:

1) Motive is straightforward - and we have direct evidence from the transcript, from public statements where Trump has invited foreign countries to supply dirt on his opponents, and the Mueller report goes towards having a previous history.

2) The offence is established: we know that Ukraine was pressurised into opening investigations (or promising to) into Trump domestic opponents. We have key personnel admitting that, and that's what the State Department was working towards. Remember, the leveraging the aid is the most serious part, but in fact the wider campaign is also an offence as well.

3) The issue then is tying Trump to it personally. Sondland's testimony clearly does. Giuliani's involvement also does. Let's remember, he was acting in a private capacity employed by Trump personally to dig dirt on the Democrats and mostly Joe Biden. Trump clearly directs the State dept to liaise with Giuliani. The Trump-Zelenskyy phone call also clearly identifies Trump personally getting involved with improper requests. We know the aid was blocked by Trump personally. Now, what we don't have is as clear as daylight an explicit statement where Trump tells government staff that Ukraine is to be squeezed for investigations. There is of course some remote possibility someone like Pence, Mulvaney or Pompeo was somehow tricking the unwitting president, but this is far from the most credible option.

But, to use an analogy, we've got a body, a murder weapon, we can place Trump at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed, with the means to commit it, knowledge of what was going on, and a motive. All we don't have cast iron proof of is that he pulled the trigger. In an ordinary court for an ordinary crime, a lawyer would probably be floating the idea of a plea bargain to his client.

Of course, in a ordinary case in an ordinary court, we wouldn't even need to prove Trump specifically pulled the trigger, because the whole lot of them would in the dock as co-conspirators for the one crime.

There's yet to be a single witness testifying that Trump told them to demand investigations for anything.

Although Trump is on record asking for the investigations from Zelenskyy as a condition. Oops!

Abuse of power isn't a crime itself, criminal abuse of power is using your position to commit a crime, one can't criminally abuse power if there isn't an underlying crime.

You need to check up on the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanours", specifically what this represented under common law as the writers of the US Constitution would have understood it. This covers not only actual crimes, but forms of serious misconduct and incompetence: think for instance of all the things you could do wrong in a job that aren't technically illegal, but would most certainly get you deservedly fired.

There is also the possibility of things like obstruction of justice should it appear that actions have been taken to avoid proper scrutiny.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

And any legal expert who thinks there's a good case here is an idiot. Not because there so obviously was or wasn't a crime (I'd argue not, but hey), but rather because they have almost literally no evidence of direct action by the person being prosecuted. There's yet to be a single witness testifying that Trump told them to demand investigations for anything.

Okay, I'll ask you again -- what do YOU think happened here? If you're so sure a crime or impeachable act didn't take place here, then explain what you think took place. When officials asked Trump about Ukraine funding and he says "Talk to Rudy," and Giuliani issues the demands for the investigation into the Bidens, then what's the explanation? A miscommunication? Something got lost in translation? Giuliani went rogue?

 

[tstorm823]

Okay, I'll ask you again -- what do YOU think happened here? If you're so sure a crime or impeachable act didn't take place here, then explain what you think took place. When officials asked Trump about Ukraine funding and he says "Talk to Rudy," and Giuliani issues the demands for the investigation into the Bidens, then what's the explanation? A miscommunication? Something got lost in translation? Giuliani went rogue?

That series of events didn't actually happen in the order you have them. In May, the delegation to Zelenskyy's inauguration came back from Ukraine and told Trump he should invite Zelenskyy to the White House. Ultimately, Trump sent them off with a letter to Zelenskyy agreeing to a White House meeting at some point in the future, but that direction, "talk to Rudy", was when Giuliani had been just been burned by Lutsenko and rebuked by Zelenskyy's advisors and was telling Trump that Ukraine worked against him in 2016 (which in the vaguest sense, isn't entirely untrue). But that was well before anything was withheld.

And it doesn't seem like they do much following that instruction, but instead tell Ukrainians that Giuliani is making them look bad to Trump. Andriy Yermak asks Kurt Volker to set up a meeting for them. We don't know what happened between those two, we haven't heard from either other than statements to the press, and they both very much insist there was nothing done wrong. But that's the point where Giuliani's interests get to the Zelenskyy administration, and we have no reason to believe that either of those people knew Trump had frozen the aid.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

Okay, I'll ask you again -- what do YOU think happened here? If you're so sure a crime or impeachable act didn't take place here, then explain what you think took place. When officials asked Trump about Ukraine funding and he says "Talk to Rudy," and Giuliani issues the demands for the investigation into the Bidens, then what's the explanation? A miscommunication? Something got lost in translation? Giuliani went rogue?

That series of events didn't actually happen in the order you have them. In May, the delegation to Zelenskyy's inauguration came back from Ukraine and told Trump he should invite Zelenskyy to the White House. Ultimately, Trump sent them off with a letter to Zelenskyy agreeing to a White House meeting at some point in the future, but that direction, "talk to Rudy", was when Giuliani had been just been burned by Lutsenko and rebuked by Zelenskyy's advisors and was telling Trump that Ukraine worked against him in 2016 (which in the vaguest sense, isn't entirely untrue). But that was well before anything was withheld.

And it doesn't seem like they do much following that instruction, but instead tell Ukrainians that Giuliani is making them look bad to Trump. Andriy Yermak asks Kurt Volker to set up a meeting for them. We don't know what happened between those two, we haven't heard from either other than statements to the press, and they both very much insist there was nothing done wrong. But that's the point where Giuliani's interests get to the Zelenskyy administration, and we have no reason to believe that either of those people knew Trump had frozen the aid.

First....

READ.
THE.
TIMELINE.
(You can skip to just the May section)
https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

Second, you still haven't answered the question with a reasonable explanation of what took place here.

 

[tstorm823]

First....

READ.
THE.
TIMELINE.
(You can skip to just the May section)
https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

Second, you still haven't answered the question with a reasonable explanation of what took place here.

You keep expecting that timeline to contradict me, but you never say how.

May 11, 2019 ? Giuliani cancels trip to Ukraine
May 23, 2019 ? Volker and Sondland aimed to persuade Trump that Ukraine under Zelenskyy would be a reliable ally and would address corruption, and that the presidents should meet to signal to Russia that the U.S. continued to support an independent Ukraine... ?He was clearly receiving other information from other sources, including Mayor Giuliani, that was more negative, causing him to retain this negative view?. (this was the meeting where Trump told them to talk to Rudy)
June 18, 2019 ? The Department of Defense announces its $250 million plan ?for additional training, equipment, and advisory efforts to build the capacity of Ukraine?s armed forces,? under the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI).
June 21, 2019 ? David Hale, undersecretary of state for political affairs, ?first started to hear that there was a problem? with security funding for Ukraine, ?that OMB had stopped the aid,?
July 2, 2019 ? Volker meets with Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian leader?s chief of staff, Andrei Bohdan, during the Ukraine Reform Conference in Toronto, and explains to them that Giuliani is spreading ?a negative narrative about Ukraine? to President July 10, 2019 ?Trump and that it was hurting Ukraine?s image in the United States.
Yermak texts Volker to thank him for the breakfast meeting and says, ?I feel that the key for many things is Rudi and I [am] ready to talk with him at any time.?
Early to mid-July ? Trump orders suspension and review of U.S. aid to Ukraine
About July 19, 2019 ? Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Zelenskyy, reportedly asks Volker to help him make contact with Giuliani.
July 22, 2019 ? Yermak speaks with Giuliani for the first time by phone... Yermak called Mr. Giuliani to ask him to tone it down, according to a person familiar with the call. Mr. Giuliani in response suggested that Ukraine investigate Hunter Biden?s relationship with Burisma.

Oh hey look. It says what I said.

Trump didn't want to work with Ukraine in part because Giuliani was saying Ukraine sucks.
We have public record of Giuliani saying Ukraine sucks.
We have testimony from plenty of people that Giuliani was saying Ukraine sucks.
Yermak figures he has to talk to Giuliani to get him to shut up about it.
Trump holds the aid after that. After. After that.

So no, they did not ask about the freeze and were told to talk to Rudy about it. That isn't the timeline.

I've answered your questions thoroughly. That you insist I haven't doesn't make it true. But I'll entertain it.

Giuliani spent at least a year hunting Ukrainian rumors only to be betrayed by Lutsenko at the last minute.
Trump withheld aid and a meeting because Giuliani told him the new Ukrainian administration sucks and Trump is inherently malleable to those around him.
Zelenskyy and Yermak tried to orchestrate investigations with the US state department to win Giuliani's favor while maintaining an air of legitimacy.
Their cooperation led to Giuliani recommending Trump make that phone call.
Yermak tried to leverage the investigations Giuliani wanted (and was telling Trump to want) to get a fixed date for the White House visit, creating the suggestion of a quid pro quo. But that exchange was verbalized by Yermak and never gone through with.
The hold on the aid was made public. Everyone pressed Trump to release it, so he did, because once again the man is basically Gumby.
The end.

Are there things Trump did that I think are mistakes? Sure. He shouldn't want Biden investigated in the first place, but Trump's campaign was wiretapped and turnabout is fair play. He shouldn't trust Giuliani with or about anything, but trusting anyone who praises him is just who Trump is. He shouldn't be giving little guidance so they're all trying to figure out what he wants, but then again I trust most of those diplomats more than Trump so maybe it's better that way. But none of those things are remotely criminal. Trump never offered an exchange of anything. If anything, the hold on the aid is uncharacteristically wise (it makes a lot of sense not to hand missiles to new leadership in a notoriously corrupt country without a chance to judge their character).

But Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) are liars. They want people to think an exchange of one thing for another was offered, even though the Ukrainians were the ones pursuing interaction and the news told them the aid was frozen. They want everyone to think that Ukrainian interference in 2016 is a crazy counter-theory to Russians meddling in the election, when "both" is the obvious truth. They want you to think that Trump, the man who previously we were told would be everyone's puppet, is now apparently an elite puppet master getting everyone to help his 2020 run against a candidate that was never going to win the primary. And all so they can put up their hands and say "Look everyone, we tried to get rid of him! Really!" What a load.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

Oh hey look. It says what I said.

No. It doesn't.

Also, you conveniently skipped over SEVERAL entries in early May, including the first, which I can only assume based on your subsequent argument was a deliberate choice on your part.

Trump didn't want to work with Ukraine in part because Giuliani was saying Ukraine sucks.
We have public record of Giuliani saying Ukraine sucks.
We have testimony from plenty of people that Giuliani was saying Ukraine sucks.
Yermak figures he has to talk to Giuliani to get him to shut up about it.
Trump holds the aid after that. After. After that.

So no, they did not ask about the freeze and were told to talk to Rudy about it. That isn't the timeline.

1) Wrong -- read the part about Lev Parnas, on behalf of Giuliani, delivering a message to Ukraine officials that "the United States would freeze aid" if they didn't anounnce an investigation into the Bidens.

And if you think that report is unreliable...Rudy TOLD THE NEW YORK TIMES, in a story dated May 9th, that was his exact plan for his trip to Ukraine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html

Like I keep saying.... READ. THE. TIMELINE.

2) Yes, you finally answered the question with..."Rudy said Ukraine sucks." Nothing really to do with Biden. Rudy just didn't like Ukraine. Mistakes were made, but everything was really above board and there was never any political pressure applied to force Ukraine to merely *announce* publicly an investigation into the Bidens.

 

[tstorm823]

1) Wrong -- read the part about Lev Parnas, on behalf of Giuliani, delivering a message to Ukraine officials that "the United States would freeze aid" if they didn't anounnce an investigation into the Bidens.

And if you think that report is unreliable...Rudy TOLD THE NEW YORK TIMES, in a story dated May 9th, that was his exact plan for his trip to Ukraine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html

Like I keep saying.... READ. THE. TIMELINE.

2) Yes, you finally answered the question with..."Rudy said Ukraine sucks." Nothing really to do with Biden. Rudy just didn't like Ukraine. Mistakes were made, but everything was really above board and there was never any political pressure applied to force Ukraine to merely *announce* publicly an investigation into the Bidens.

Lev Parnas didn't deliver that message. He's a liar. It's not just unreliable evidence, it's factually contradictory evidence. Parnas claims he threatened to have the aid withheld a month before the DoD announced the plan on how to spend it. Parnas's lies are obvious and stupid, he was just trying to buy a plea deal to avoid jail.

And Rudy did not tell the New York Times that was his exact plan for his trip to Ukraine. His plan was to press for investigations, withholding anything from Ukraine was not part of that plan, military aid certainly isn't mentioned at all.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

1) Wrong -- read the part about Lev Parnas, on behalf of Giuliani, delivering a message to Ukraine officials that "the United States would freeze aid" if they didn't anounnce an investigation into the Bidens.

And if you think that report is unreliable...Rudy TOLD THE NEW YORK TIMES, in a story dated May 9th, that was his exact plan for his trip to Ukraine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html

Like I keep saying.... READ. THE. TIMELINE.

2) Yes, you finally answered the question with..."Rudy said Ukraine sucks." Nothing really to do with Biden. Rudy just didn't like Ukraine. Mistakes were made, but everything was really above board and there was never any political pressure applied to force Ukraine to merely *announce* publicly an investigation into the Bidens.

Lev Parnas didn't deliver that message. He's a liar. It's not just unreliable evidence, it's factually contradictory evidence. Parnas claims he threatened to have the aid withheld a month before the DoD announced the plan on how to spend it. Parnas's lies are obvious and stupid, he was just trying to buy a plea deal to avoid jail.

And Rudy did not tell the New York Times that was his exact plan for his trip to Ukraine. His plan was to press for investigations, withholding anything from Ukraine was not part of that plan, military aid certainly isn't mentioned at all.

1) So you *did* read those entries in the timeline, you just chose to ignore them.

2) Yes, Parnas is a liar and a criminal and I don't have any issue with you or anyone calling him that and deciding he's less than trustworthy. However, he's currently indicted, and he's obviously going to be under oath if he testifies, either in court or Congress or both. So what's the theory? That federal prosecutors and Trump's own DoJ will just, what, take his word for everything without checking his claims? That Parnas will lie and face perjury and obstruction charges (on top of what he's already facing)? I supposed it's an extremely slim possibility, but for the sake of your argument, you'd better hope he's full of shit because it sounds like he's offering up the goods.
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1206622682206425088

3) Regarding Giuliani....what do you think his plan was to get what he wanted -- ask nicely? Give Zelenskyy a fruit basket and some chocolates? In June OMB stopped the aid package, which had just be signed off by the DoD the previous month. Are we supposed to believe that's a coincidence?

 

[tstorm823]

1) So you *did* read those entries in the timeline, you just chose to ignore them.

2) Yes, Parnas is a liar and a criminal and I don't have any issue with you or anyone calling him that and deciding he's less than trustworthy. However, he's currently indicted, and he's obviously going to be under oath if he testifies, either in court or Congress or both. So what's the theory? That federal prosecutors and Trump's own DoJ will just, what, take his word for everything without checking his claims? That Parnas will lie and face perjury and obstruction charges (on top of what he's already facing)? I supposed it's an extremely slim possibility, but for the sake of your argument, you'd better hope he's full of shit because it sounds like he's offering up the goods.
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1206622682206425088

3) Regarding Giuliani....what do you think his plan was to get what he wanted -- ask nicely? Give Zelenskyy a fruit basket and some chocolates? In June OMB stopped the aid package, which had just be signed off by the DoD the previous month. Are we supposed to believe that's a coincidence?

1) Dismiss, not ignore.

2) No fear here. Parnas has nothing. I don't know if he'll face perjury charges if he lies under oath, as that would take an unnecessary amount of effort to prove and he's already facing easier charges to convict on, but he's got nothing.

3) Yes... sort of. Lawyer's aren't known for asking nicely, rather they state cases for things. Giuliani was going over to state the case for doing investigations, probably the same as he did with Lutsenko. No fruit basket needed.

And do I believe it's a coincidence that Trump had the Office of Management and Budget hold the aid to Ukraine when the aid package got passed on to the Office of Management and Budget? Does it require a coincidence for Trump to put a hold on the aid only after the Department of Defense removes their hold? Or would it just be stupid to double hold something? "DoD holds aid while deciding whether Ukraine deserves it, then the DoD agrees to release it, so Trump puts his own freeze in place" is not exactly a conspiratorial sequence of events.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

The invisible man: Text messages reveal former golfer's role in Ukraine scandal [https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/23/politics/correia-text-messages-ukraine-parnas-giuliani/index.html]

When Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman traveled to Ukraine last winter to help Rudy Giuliani dig up dirt on President Donald Trump's political opponents, they were accompanied by a 44 year-old American named David Correia.

A former pro golfer and restaurateur, Correia had gotten to know Parnas and Fruman in South Florida, where he'd gone into business with Parnas years earlier.

While Parnas and Fruman, who had high-level contacts in Ukraine, worked to gather documents that they believed showed evidence of corruption by Joe Biden and his son Hunter, Correia was there to make the effort pay off in lucrative business deals, according to people who talked to him at the time, as well as copies of text messages obtained by CNN.

Before the trip, Correia texted an American associate that he wanted to "be fully prepared to close specific deals in Ukraine while we are there," according to the message viewed by CNN. Though he had no experience in the gas or energy business prior to working with Parnas, Correia was bent on securing a deal to sell US liquified natural gas to Ukraine through a pipeline in Poland.

When the three men were indicted in October for illegally funneling foreign money into Republican political circles, attention quickly focused on Parnas and Fruman, who have become key characters in the ongoing impeachment saga of President Donald Trump.
Meanwhile Correia's role has gotten little scrutiny. In part, that's due to the lack of detail in the indictment beyond Correia's alleged involvement in an effort to lobby for a marijuana business that, according to the indictment, was secretly backed by a Russian businessman. Compared to the four counts Parnas and Fruman face, Correia was charged with just one. All three men have pleaded not guilty.

But sources and documents obtained by CNN shed new light on the crucial role Correia played in furthering the business interests of Parnas and Fruman. The three men weren't just there to help the President by digging up dirt on his political opponents. They were there to make money.

Correia was often the trio's point person in dealing with business contacts in Ukraine, and his work included drafting contracts and memorandums of understanding that the group could present to potential business partners, according to four sources who deal with them.

Sources who dealt with the men said that Correia's smooth, conscientious manner was a helpful contrast to Parnas and Fruman, who sometimes struck people as hustlers.

"Lev was flamboyant; he only got out of bed at 2 p.m. in the afternoon," says one person who talked business regularly with the trio on the East Coast. "Correia was the worker, the one really trying to make a business out of all their connections."

"Correia came across as likeable and professional," said another person who dealt with the group. "Without him, Parnas and Fruman really had no credibility,"

Several days after Fruman and Parnas were nabbed at Dulles International Airport, Correia landed on October 16 at JFK International Airport in New York and turned himself in. Following a brief court appearance that same day, where he was asked to post $250,000 bail, Correia has stayed out of the limelight.

 

[tstorm823]

But sources and documents obtained by CNN shed new light on the crucial role Correia played in furthering the business interests of Parnas and Fruman. The three men weren't just there to help the President by digging up dirt on his political opponents. They were there to make money.

No, CNN, you're drunk again. It's not that they weren't "just" there to help the President, they weren't there to help the President. They were just there to make money. If this was a political charade to help Trump, they wouldn't need to put up $500k to get Giuliani's name on their business. They were circulating dirt on Democrats to make money. Later in the article:

Like Parnas, Correia always seemed to be scrambling to raise money for his business ventures. He'd sometimes ask richer friends for a loan, according to two people who received such requests.
By the time Trump was elected, Parnas, Fruman and Correia had tapped into a network of wealthy Floridians, many of whom were Republican donors.

There, that's the reason. Wealthy Republican donors were a major revenue stream for these guys, even before Trump was elected, and telling everyone the dirt they had on Democrats was to keep the money flowing. So if CNN would stop pretending Trump personally deputized them to take down Joe Biden, that'd be fantastic. And they're like "Correia's kept himself out of the limelight" like they aren't the news and can put anyone they want in the limelight. CNN, you put Lev Parnas in the spotlight because he's the one lying about the White House to try and get a plea deal, which should never have been reported on in the first place, but it made Trump look worse so I guess mission accomplished. Stupid, slimy CNN.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

And do I believe it's a coincidence that Trump had the Office of Management and Budget hold the aid to Ukraine when the aid package got passed on to the Office of Management and Budget? Does it require a coincidence for Trump to put a hold on the aid only after the Department of Defense removes their hold? Or would it just be stupid to double hold something? "DoD holds aid while deciding whether Ukraine deserves it, then the DoD agrees to release it, so Trump puts his own freeze in place" is not exactly a conspiratorial sequence of events.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here -- that it makes sense for Trump to undermine the DoD's judgment about approving the aid? -- but it's not based in logic or, more importantly, law. You should definitely read this exclusive from JustSecurity, which obtained unredacted emails/documents about the aid and the hold. Here's an excerpt:

"The documents reveal growing concern from Pentagon officials that the hold would violate the Impoundment Control Act, which requires the executive branch to spend money as appropriated by Congress, and that the necessary steps to avoid this result weren?t being taken. Those steps would include notifying Congress that the funding was being held or shifted elsewhere, a step that was never taken. The emails also show that no rationale was ever given for why the hold was put in place or why it was eventually lifted."

https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/exclusive-unredacted-ukraine-documents-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/

And also, some additional reading:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/us/politics/trump-ukraine-military-aid.html

 

[tstorm823]

And do I believe it's a coincidence that Trump had the Office of Management and Budget hold the aid to Ukraine when the aid package got passed on to the Office of Management and Budget? Does it require a coincidence for Trump to put a hold on the aid only after the Department of Defense removes their hold? Or would it just be stupid to double hold something? "DoD holds aid while deciding whether Ukraine deserves it, then the DoD agrees to release it, so Trump puts his own freeze in place" is not exactly a conspiratorial sequence of events.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here -- that it makes sense for Trump to undermine the DoD's judgment about approving the aid?

The arguement was only about the timing of events. An email was obtained that showed the DoD was notified of the hold the same day as the phone call with Zekenskyy. Some here are speculating that Trump must have given the final order to freeze the aid as a result of the phone call. But we have no evidence Trump gave such an instruction, we have plenty to suggest the freeze was fully in motion before the phone call was scheduled, and there is seemingly no pushback from Zelenskyy in the call to inspire Trump to make a move like that at that time.

 

[Agema]

It's not that they weren't "just" there to help the President, they weren't there to help the President. They were just there to make money...

... by helping the president.

Profiting from it was the motive.

The arguement was only about the timing of events. An email was obtained that showed the DoD was notified of the hold the same day as the phone call with Zekenskyy. Some here are speculating that Trump must have given the final order to freeze the aid as a result of the phone call. But we have no evidence Trump gave such an instruction.

So let's have some documentation or testimony in an impeachment hearing and find out for sure. Seriously. Why would you NOT want to know? Do you not think getting to the bottom of whether the president of the US is corrupt is kind of important?

At minimum, Exley's point is kind of important irrespective of the wider picture for an insight into the current White House. Holding the aid was done in a breach of process and maybe even law. Does that not bother you at all? We have transparency and accountability through these sorts of rules and regs for a reason, chief of which is to restrict corruption.

 

[Exley97_v1legacy]

And do I believe it's a coincidence that Trump had the Office of Management and Budget hold the aid to Ukraine when the aid package got passed on to the Office of Management and Budget? Does it require a coincidence for Trump to put a hold on the aid only after the Department of Defense removes their hold? Or would it just be stupid to double hold something? "DoD holds aid while deciding whether Ukraine deserves it, then the DoD agrees to release it, so Trump puts his own freeze in place" is not exactly a conspiratorial sequence of events.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here -- that it makes sense for Trump to undermine the DoD's judgment about approving the aid?

The arguement was only about the timing of events. An email was obtained that showed the DoD was notified of the hold the same day as the phone call with Zekenskyy. Some here are speculating that Trump must have given the final order to freeze the aid as a result of the phone call. But we have no evidence Trump gave such an instruction, we have plenty to suggest the freeze was fully in motion before the phone call was scheduled, and there is seemingly no pushback from Zelenskyy in the call to inspire Trump to make a move like that at that time.

If your argument is about the timing of events then I urge you to read the JustSecurity exlcusive. The whole thing. These are official unredacted emails and documents that show the Pentagon repeatedly warned the White House that holding the aid was in violation of the law, but the Trump Administration did it anyway, and offered no plausible explanation.
https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/exclusive-unredacted-ukraine-documents-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/

So again -- what's your explanation in light of this new evidence?