The conspiracy to harm Marie Yovanovitch

[JimL]

I don't accept your premise.

What you call a premise is a fact. The foriegn minister said: I never met Parnas, and I don't trust a thing he says.

[Cow Poke]

What you call a premise is a fact. The foriegn minister said: I never met Parnas, and I don't trust a thing he says.

That's not the premise I reject.

[JimL]

Confirmed: FBI Was Spying on the Trump Campaign

Surveillance of members of the Trump campaign for legitimate reasons is not the same thing as spying on Trump.

[JimL]

That's not the premise I reject.

Whatever it is you object to, the fact of the matter is that Lev Parnas' accusations are corroborated by documentary evidence, so whatever the foreign ministers reason, for saying, "I don't trust a thing he says" is moot, and the reason for his saying it, in question.

[Cow Poke]

Surveillance of members of the Trump campaign for legitimate reasons is not the same thing as spying on Trump.

Keep repeating that, Jim....

[Cow Poke]

Whatever it is you object to, the fact of the matter is that Lev Parnas' accusations are corroborated by documentary evidence, so whatever the foreign ministers reason, for saying, "I don't trust a thing he says" is moot, and the reason for his saying it, in question.

Here's the part of your premise I don't accept....

....a man who knows nothing at all about another man ...

Can you substantiate that? Cause you frequently just toss out speculation as though it were fact. It's not at all unusual for you to set up some goofy premise, then come to a conclusion based on that false premise.

[JimL]

Here's the part of your premise I don't accept....

Can you substantiate that? Cause you frequently just toss out speculation as though it were fact. It's not at all unusual for you to set up some goofy premise, then come to a conclusion based on that false premise.

Here is his quote: "I understand that this individual, which I don't know personally, is trying to save his own case, and I again, I don't trust what he is saying.

Okay, so if he doesn't know him personally, never met with him, never talked to him, then his reasons for not trusting a word he says, has nothing to do with Parnas himself. That leaves one wondering why he so vehemently mistrusts this man he doesn't know. Obvious reasons are that he is covering up what he does know, or what he himself may have been in on, or he wants to keep good relations between his country and the Trump Administration.

[Cow Poke]

See, here's the problem, Jim... when you said "who I have absolutely no knowledge of" - - I strongly suspected you were telling a big 'un. Here is your claim....

Right, that's because being neutral is not in the foriegn ministers or Ukraines best interests, but saying, "I don't believe a word the man, (who I have absolutely no knowledge of) says" is.

I strongly suspected that was your version, which is why I said...

In your version.

I questioned you, so you came up with...

Well, let's hear your version as to why a man who knows nothing at all about another man says, "I don't believe a word he has to say?"

And I clarified that I was challenging the premise that he had actually said "who I have absolutely no knowledge of".

Then you provide an alleged actual quote (as usual, without any cite, but I managed to find it) and it's different....

Here is his quote: "I understand that this individual, which I don't know personally, is trying to save his own case, and I again, I don't trust what he is saying.

And there's a big difference between...

A) "which I don't know personally", (apparently the actual quote) and
2) "who I have absolutely no knowledge of" - your Jimminized version.

Okay, so if he doesn't know him personally,

That's what he said, but then you go on to add....

never met with him, never talked to him

and even added

who I have absolutely no knowledge of

I KNEW you were being deceptive, which is why I couldn't accept your premise. You seem absolutely incapable of telling the truth the first time.

It's like I have to beat it out of you. Sheeeeesh!!!!! Use ACTUAL QUOTE function or ACTUAL CITES, because simply cannot be trusted to give an honest report.

[Sam]

The video can be watched here and I'd recommend watching the full interview before spending too much more time on this tangent. Prystaiko's claim is not merely that he doesn't have a personal relationship with Parnas but -- as a close personal adviser to Zelensky and now the Foreign Minister -- he was never approached by Parnas or other "unofficial channel" characters about a quid pro quo.

That's newsworthy -- but Amanpour does the right journalism when she brings up Giuliani, Sondland and others approaching other Ukrainian officials. Here, Prystaiko doesn't deny that happened but positions himself as someone who reiterated the need for Zelensky not to be caught up in US affairs and maintain a straight formal channel of diplomacy. This is tacit acknowledgement of what's already heavily evidenced from documentary and testimonial evidence and renders Prystaiko's interview null -- it doesn't advance any new facts that support or contradict Parnas' claims or the larger set of claims around Trump's impeachment.

--Sam

[Sam]

The fence-sitting is obvious throughout the interview but, in case people need further elaboration, Prystaiko became foreign minister on August 29, 2019 -- after the whistleblower complaint and shortly before the implosion of Trump's quid pro quo demands. Before then, he was head of the Mission of Ukraine to NATO, which does not seem a likely target for the "irregular channel" actors.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

For the record, Sondland's claim that he offered a quid pro quo is denied by the guy Sondland supposedly spoke with.

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...land-testimony

[Cow Poke]

For the record, Sondland's claim that he offered a quid pro quo is denied by the guy Sondland supposedly spoke with.

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...land-testimony

I thought this was old news. Maybe I'm just having a deja vu.

[Sam]

I thought this was old news. Maybe I'm just having a deja vu.

Not to beat this dead horse any more than necessary but whether Yermak is narrowly telling a truth regarding a meeting with Sondland as described, he very much was aware of the quid pro quo and understood it to be corrupt, as George Kent testified:



Contemporaneous account from Taylor, not disputed by Volker.

--Sam

[rogue06]

Not to beat a dead horse any more than necessary but Kent was relating what others had told him as he candidly acknowledged. IOW, hearsay. And often hearsay several times removed.

He testified that his information was not based on first hand knowledge but was based upon what William Taylor (who testified that he had no first hand knowledge) told him and Taylor in turn said he heard it from Tim Morrison (who also testified that he has no first hand knowledge) who in turn got his gossip from Gordon Sondland. So you have Kent testifying about what Taylor said, which was based on what Morrison may or may not have said, based upon what Sondland assumed and guessed.

[Juvenal]

There are a few posts in this thread where CP went to the trouble to look up and post original documentation.