The conspiracy to harm Marie Yovanovitch

[oxmixmudd]

MOM, make him STOP!!!!

Take a look at this CP. You can stop it anytime you want it to stop ...

[Cow Poke]

Take a look at this CP. You can stop it anytime you want it to stop ...

Yes, Jim, I'm aware. That was just a bit of humor. You know, like when kids are fighting? Humor, Jim.

[Cow Poke]

Oh, how convenient. Don't use the words "raca" or "fool" but say someone "totally lost it" and it is perfectly fine.

Correct. Mine was the expression of an opinion....

At this point, I have to believe you've simply totally lost it.

What Ox did was, by his own admission, calling names. (and it kinda sounded like a little temper tantrum)

And yes, I am calling ALL of you that have mocked and slammed the FBI or whoever for investigating Trumps associations with these people Fools. Because you are.

Anything else?

[Mountain Man]

You're wrong -- you manufacture insult where there is none -- it's your vain imaginings, Jim. I have ZERO animosity toward you. And that "twisting my words at every turn" is a steaming pile of horsie poo.

At this point, I have to believe you've simply totally lost it.

The way Jim tells it, he's the only righteous Christian on this forum, but perhaps he should reconsider when non-Christians who have shown contempt for the gospel for years are his biggest cheerleaders.

[Sam]

March 23: "Wow. Can't believe Trumo [sic] hasn't fired this [expletive]. I'll get right in that"

March 23: "She has heavy protection outside Kiev"

March 25: "They are moving her tomorrow:

March 25: "The guys over they asked me what I would like to do and what is in it for them"

March 25: "She's talked to three people. Her phone is off. Computer is off."

March 25: "She's next to the embassy"

March 25: "Not in the embassy"

March 25: "Private security. Been there since Thursday."

March 25: "And they'll let me know when she's on the move."

March 25: "I mean where if they can find out."

March 25: "That address I sent you checks out"

March 25: "It's next to the embassy"

March 25: "They are willing to help if you would like a price"

March 25: "Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money... what I was told"

March 26: "Update she will not moved special security unit upgraded force on the compound people are already aware of the situation my contacts are asking what is the next step because they cannot keep going to check people will start to ask questions."

March 26: "If you want her out they need to make contact with security forces"

March 26: "From Ukrainians"

March 27: "It's confirmed we have a person inside"


Now, it seems to me that someone says "If you want her out", he can get people to help for a price (because you can do anything in Ukraine with money) and is giving regular updates on not just the target's presence but when she'll be moved outside the special security force protection, that implies a good deal more than "mere" surveillance. It's not an unreasonable conclusion at all that Parnas and Hyde were talking about a way to eliminate Yovanovitch ... and not through the collection of adverse information.

--Sam

[seanD]

March 23: "Wow. Can't believe Trumo [sic] hasn't fired this [expletive]. I'll get right in that"

March 23: "She has heavy protection outside Kiev"

March 25: "They are moving her tomorrow:

March 25: "The guys over they asked me what I would like to do and what is in it for them"

March 25: "She's talked to three people. Her phone is off. Computer is off."

March 25: "She's next to the embassy"

March 25: "Not in the embassy"

March 25: "Private security. Been there since Thursday."

March 25: "And they'll let me know when she's on the move."

March 25: "I mean where if they can find out."

March 25: "That address I sent you checks out"

March 25: "It's next to the embassy"

March 25: "They are willing to help if you would like a price"

March 25: "Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money... what I was told"

March 26: "Update she will not moved special security unit upgraded force on the compound people are already aware of the situation my contacts are asking what is the next step because they cannot keep going to check people will start to ask questions."

March 26: "If you want her out they need to make contact with security forces"

March 26: "From Ukrainians"

March 27: "It's confirmed we have a person inside"


Now, it seems to me that someone says "If you want her out", he can get people to help for a price (because you can do anything in Ukraine with money) and is giving regular updates on not just the target's presence but when she'll be moved outside the special security force protection, that implies a good deal more than "mere" surveillance. It's not an unreasonable conclusion at all that Parnas and Hyde were talking about a way to eliminate Yovanovitch ... and not through the collection of adverse information.

--Sam

Whatever they were planning, the fact they express perplexity that Trump hadn't fired her pretty clearly tells me it was independent of Trump. It's also interesting you snipped this part...

Robert F. Hyde: Hey brother do we stand down??? Or you still need intel be safe

Robert F. Hyde: She had visitors

Robert F. Hyde: It's confirmed we have a person inside

Robert F. Hyde: Hey broski tell me what we are doing what's the next step

I'm guessing the reason you snipped it is that it suggests surveillance.

[Sam]

Whatever they were planning, the fact they express perplexity that Trump hadn't fired her pretty clearly tells me it was independent of Trump. It's also interesting you snipped this part...



I'm guessing the reason you snipped it is that it suggests surveillance.

I doubt whatever Hyde and Parnas were doing here had Trump's consent or knowledge, other than he knew from Giuliani and others that getting rid of Yovanovich was part-and-parcel to getting the investigations.

The whole text exchange is filled with Hyde providing intel to Parnas. He's asking, at that point, what the "next move" is and whether Parnas wants him to keep providing the intel he's providing about Yovanovich's movements. Why do they need to talk about the presence and condition of security details if all they're doing is observing? Why are security details being talked about if "want[ing] her out" implies just the collection of information?

One of these conclusions is a short, straight walk and the other is a labyrinthine maze.

--Sam

[seanD]

I doubt whatever Hyde and Parnas were doing here had Trump's consent or knowledge, other than he knew from Giuliani and others that getting rid of Yovanovich was part-and-parcel to getting the investigations.

The whole text exchange is filled with Hyde providing intel to Parnas. He's asking, at that point, what the "next move" is and whether Parnas wants him to keep providing the intel he's providing about Yovanovich's movements. Why do they need to talk about the presence and condition of security details if all they're doing is observing? Why are security details being talked about if "want[ing] her out" implies just the collection of information?

One of these conclusions is a short, straight walk and the other is a labyrinthine maze.

--Sam

You don't think killing this woman would have raised all sorts of red flags? I could assume they were planning a hit on her only if they were actually working against Trump's admin and wanted to set him up or make him look bad. Otherwise, it's totally illogical they were attempting to help Trump's admin this way. Their concerns for security would presumably be an obstacle to their surveillance plans. Getting "someone inside" suggests to me that that was part of the surveillance plan and that it was made difficult because of security.

[DivineOb]

I doubt whatever Hyde and Parnas were doing here had Trump's consent or knowledge, other than he knew from Giuliani and others that getting rid of Yovanovich was part-and-parcel to getting the investigations.

In Parnas interview with Maddow from tonight he says Trump knew everything. Mobsters are going to mob so I guess take it with a grain of salt.

[Sam]

You don't think killing this woman would have raised all sorts of red flags? I could assume they were planning a hit on her only if they were actually working against Trump's admin and wanted to set him up or make him look bad. Otherwise, it's totally illogical they were attempting to help Trump's admin this way. Their concerns for security would presumably be an obstacle to their surveillance plans. Getting "someone inside" suggests to me that that was part of the surveillance plan and that it was made difficult because of security.

None of these people have shown themselves to be particularly bright. And while I very much doubt any of them would have the courage of cause and commitment to actually order a hit, it's a straight line to the conclusion that they'd be the kind of people talking about doing something like that if it helped Trump "be rid of this troublesome priest" when it became clear to them that he wasn't getting traction in firing her (Hyde texts in April that Trump fired Yovanovich "again" and Parnas replies "I pray it happens this time"). But you don't need to be talking about security details and how Yovanovich is being moved from secure places to be talking about mere surveillance. Having a "man on the inside" appears to clearly be related to those movements and security details, not about someone in a position to glean oppo against Yovanovich (which Hyde never shares and Parnas never asks for in the texts).

However one wants to imagine it, it's impossible to read these texts and not see a plausible conspiracy to threaten a US ambassador. Might be something that justifies a through investigation!

--Sam

[seanD]

None of these people have shown themselves to be particularly bright. And while I very much doubt any of them would have the courage of cause and commitment to actually order a hit, it's a straight line to the conclusion that they'd be the kind of people talking about doing something like that if it helped Trump "be rid of this troublesome priest" when it became clear to them that he wasn't getting traction in firing her (Hyde texts in April that Trump fired Yovanovich "again" and Parnas replies "I pray it happens this time"). But you don't need to be talking about security details and how Yovanovich is being moved from secure places to be talking about mere surveillance. Having a "man on the inside" appears to clearly be related to those movements and security details, not about someone in a position to glean oppo against Yovanovich (which Hyde never shares and Parnas never asks for in the texts).

However one wants to imagine it, it's impossible to read these texts and not see a plausible conspiracy to threaten a US ambassador. Might be something that justifies a through investigation!

--Sam

Well, I mean folks are going to see what they want no matter how absurd it is. Ordering a hit and thinking that would help is just beyond the scope of realism for me. The fact he asks whether they should stand down or provide more intel (the part you snipped) pretty clearly suggests to me they were discussing surveillance (ways to get someone passed security inside in order to gather more intel?) and how to move forward with that plan.

[NorrinRadd]

Why did the inspector general come to the conclusion that the FISA application for Page was appropriate and justified? That's the conclusion coming out of Barr's Justice Department!

Like 95% of the things mentioned in Civics, this has already been repeatedly discussed at length. Under questioning at his hearing, the IG readily acknowledged that the fact that all 17 or more documented "errors" all pointed in the same direction could quite reasonably *imply* malicious intent. His conclusion was based on the fact that there was no direct documentary evidence showing such intent.

[DivineOb]

Like 95% of the things mentioned in Civics, this has already been repeatedly discussed at length. Under questioning at his hearing, the IG readily acknowledged that the fact that all 17 or more documented "errors" all pointed in the same direction could quite reasonably *imply* malicious intent. His conclusion was based on the fact that there was no direct documentary evidence showing such intent.

Ok. So I'm correct in what the IG report concluded, right?

Sorry to bring up an old topic. Everyone decided to discus everything other than what this thread was supposed to be about :).

[Cow Poke]

Sorry to bring up an old topic. Everyone decided to discus everything other than what this thread was supposed to be about :).

No, no, no.... that NEVER happens!

[Sam]

Well, I mean folks are going to see what they want no matter how absurd it is. Ordering a hit and thinking that would help is just beyond the scope of realism for me. The fact he asks whether they should stand down or provide more intel (the part you snipped) pretty clearly suggests to me they were discussing surveillance (ways to get someone passed security inside in order to gather more intel?) and how to move forward with that plan.

Having a troublesome ambassador disappear in a country experiencing a hot war sure does sound absurd ... but is also the only clear and consistent interpretation. You don't need to talk about the ambassador's movements if you're trying to insert someone into security to gather intel for opposition research. You don't need to say "anything can be done in the Ukraine with money" while talking about her movements from place to place and where she's residing when not in the embassy. None of that is relevant to just getting a mole inserted. And never -- even after Hyde says he has a "person on the inside" -- do the two exchange oppo intel: if that was, indeed, the goal and Hyde got someone "on the inside" then why wasn't he getting that intel and sharing it with Parnas?

Entirely possible that Hyde is one of Trump's stupider and more boorish associates and he's making the whole thing up to integrate himself deeper in this cadre of Trump-Ukraine interlopers. But what he's [i]talking[i] about with Parnas leads exactly one direction. And there's no way, zero chance, that it wouldn't be a red-banner story for months or years under previous presidents.

--Sam