I just played that and loved it. Yes, it is soooo easy to get stressed with all this barrage of news, and then life’s real obstacles getting one down. It is so easy to go down the rabbit hole on it…in the attempt to…“I think we got him this time.”
Yes…get it out…have some laughs…move a little, divert your attention…I went HERE this week…big BREAK.
and saw this too Malibu at sunset…
Remember…IT WILL ALL COME OUT…HE IS INFURIATING…and a bit more than half of AMERICA THINKS SO TOO.
All coming out…
What happened today
- Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman , two associates of Rudy Giuliani , were indicted on campaign finance charges. They were part of the pressure campaign on Ukraine to investigate President Trump ’s political rivals, including Joe Biden .
- Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York said Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman “conspired to circumvent the federal laws against foreign influence by engaging in a scheme to funnel foreign money to candidates for federal and state office,” including by making donations to a pro-Trump super PAC. Read the indictment.
- The indictment refers to a “Congressman-1” — identified in campaign finance filings as former Representative Pete Sessions , Republican of Texas — who was the beneficiary of approximately $3 million that the super PAC spent during the 2018 cycle. The men sought Mr. Sessions’s assistance in removing the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, “at least in part at the request of one or more Ukrainian government officials,” according to the indictment. (The men were also seeking political assistance setting up a legal marijuana business in Nevada.)
- Shortly after the indictment became public, House impeachment investigators issued subpoenas to Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman, compelling them to speak with Congress about their work with Mr. Giuliani in Ukraine.
- Energy Secretary Rick Perry was subpoenaed for records that could shed light on any role he may have played in Mr. Trump’s attempts to pressure the Ukrainian government. Investigators also want to know whether Mr. Perry tried to influencethe management of Ukraine’s state-owned gas company.
A complementary run-through by Axios:
Despite orders from the Trump regime to not do so, Marie Yovanovitch, the ex-Ukraine ambassador Rudy forced out, just walked into the capital ready to testify.
Some doors are about to get blown off their hinges.
Uncertain on Sondland, if he really intends to testify or is a poison pill intended to obstruct further. He feels like a bad actor all the way.
Decision from DC court of Appeals below…
T’s tax returns must become available to Congress.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1trAO6IWcy-WZlVQJTzZFUz1551RIwe7w/view
The former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine whose abrupt ouster in May has become a topic of interest for House impeachment investigators said Friday that her departure came as a direct result of pressure President Trump placed on the State Department to remove her, according to her prepared remarks before Congress obtained by The Washington Post.
Marie Yovanovitch told lawmakers that she was forced to leave Kiev on “the next plane” this spring and subsequently removed from her post, with the State Department’s No. 2 official telling her that, though she had done nothing wrong, the president had lost confidence in her and the State Department had been under significant pressure to remove her since the summer of 2018.
Read Marie Yovanovitch’s prepared deposition statement
In explaining her departure, she acknowledged months of criticisms by Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani, who had accused her of privately badmouthing the president and seeking to protect the interests of former vice president Joe Biden and his son who served on the board of Ukrainian energy company.
Yovanovitch denied those allegations and said she was “incredulous” that her superiors decided to remove her based on “unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives.” She also took direct aim at Giuliani’s associates whom she said could’ve been financially threatened by her anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.
“Contacts of Mr. Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine,” she said.
She arrived on Capitol Hill on Friday despite the White House’s stated objections and refusal to cooperate with the Democrat-led proceedings.
She is one of several current and former diplomats whom the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees have identified as witnesses in their probe into whether Trump leveraged U.S. military aid and official diplomatic interaction to pressure Ukraine’s president to investigate his Trump’s political rivals.
U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland will testify next Wednesday before the House committees investigating President Trump and Ukraine, despite being blocked by the State Department from appearing at a closed-door deposition this week, 4 congressional sources tell Axios.
Driving the news: Sondland’s lawyer confirmedFriday that the ambassador does plan to testify — “notwithstanding the State Department’s current direction not to testify.”
- He also said while Sondland wants to produce documents requested by the committees, that decision is ultimately up to the State Department.
Why it matters: One source familiar with the rescheduling tells Axios that after the State Department pulled the plug on Sondland’s testimony, Republicans close to Trump encouraged the president to let the ambassador come before the committees. Trump’s allies believe Sondland’s testimony will be helpful to their side.
- “Republicans are looking for any silver lining they can get,” the source said. “Sondland could be a silver lining. … He donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural. He’s a Trump guy. Whereas [former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie] Yovanovitch is a career person.”
The backdrop: Text messages turned over by former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker revealed that Sondland, who was named in the whistleblower complaint that set off the impeachment inquiry, was an intermediary in Trump and Rudy Giuliani’s alleged efforts to push Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.
One particularly explosive exchange that Democrats have keyed in on was a text sent to Sondland by the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor.
- “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Taylor texted.
- Sondland texted back: “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” The New York Times reported that Sondland’s response came after he spoke to the president.
After the State Department blocked Sondland’s testimony , Trump tweeted that he didn’t want the ambassador “testifying before a totally compromised kangaroo court, where Republican’s [sic] rights have been taken away, and true facts are not allowed out for the public.”
- Sondland was subpoenaed hours later by the committees.
- Later that day, the White House sent a letterinforming House Democratic leaders that the Trump administration will not participate in their impeachment inquiry, condemning it as “constitutionally illegitimate.”
The big picture: On Thursday, the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees sent out the following schedule, obtained first by Axios, to committee members and staffers outlining the officials who are expected to testify over the next week, per the congressional sources.
- Friday: Former U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.
- Monday: Trump’s former Russia adviser Fiona Hill.
- Tuesday: Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent.
- Wednesday: U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland.
- Thursday: Counselor of the State Department Ulrich Brechbuhl.
Yes, but: These sources acknowledge that they can’t say with 100% certainty that the Trump administration will allow these officials to testify.
- “We’re never sure until the morning of,” one of the sources said.
- But they all said that as of now, the committees are preparing as if each of these individuals are appearing.
House Democrats have requested a deposition from Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, as part of their impeachment inquiry, but his interview has not yet been formally scheduled, multiple sources familiar with the issue told CNN.
The request, if met by expected White House and State Department opposition, is likely to present a quandary for the longtime diplomat, according to former State Department officials who know him.
Those former officials close to the former ambassador suggested that if Taylor were made to choose between staying on to guide US policy as charge d’affaires in Kiev – a post he came out of retirement to take – or resigning to be able to testify, he would choose the former.
Nine former State Department officials who spoke to CNN about Taylor described him as a person of high character and professionalism – a “very quiet guy,” in the words of retired Ambassador Ronald Neumann – who is deeply respected in the diplomatic world and seen as more likely to put sound foreign policy before politics.
The business relationship between President Donald Trump’s private lawyer Rudy Giuliani and the men charged Thursday in a campaign finance scheme is a subject of the ongoing criminal investigation being conducted by federal authorities in New York, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
The investigation became public after the FBI had to quickly move to arrest Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman before they boarded a flight out of the country from Washington Dulles Airport with one-way tickets. They have been named as witnesses named in the ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
The good news: There should be a paper trail showing the process by which the aid for Ukraine was frozen.
The bad news: The Office of Budget and Management is fighting tooth and nail any requests for information. Why?
These documents are supposed to be routine stuff. Congress appropriates money, then the OMB does the paperwork to ensure it’s distributed. They are not supposed make any political judgments whatsoever. It would be as if you wrote a check to buy a car and your bank stopped the check because they thought you were making a bad decision.
It looks like a Trump appointee, Michael Duffey, intervened to hold up this aid. I say there’s no way he did this independently. Congress needs to call him on the carpet and ask him who directed him to take the unprecedented step of obstructing funds that Congress had duly appropriated. However, as you’ll see in the article, the Director of the OMB has politicized the investigation, claiming the requests for information are a “a sham process that’s designed to relitigate the last election.” Say what? You’re a government bureaucrat. Do your job. Distribute money that Congress has appropriated and if asked about the process, simply answer the questions. Period.
A political appointee at the Office of Management and Budget took the unusual step of getting involved in signing off on freezing US aid to Ukraine this past summer – a process normally reserved for career budget officials, according to sources familiar with the matter.
Michael Duffey, OMB’s associate director for national security programs and a Trump political appointee, signed at least some of the documents delaying aid to Ukraine, two sources told CNN. Normally a career budget official signs such documents. Sources told CNN it is highly unusual for a political appointee to be involved in signing off on such a freeze.
In this case, career budget officials raised concerns about signing the documents because they believed such a move may have run afoul of laws requiring OMB to spend money as it is appropriated by Congress, according to a congressional aide.
Duffey’s role is of interest to House Democrats who are conducting an impeachment inquiry over Trump’s moves to pressure Ukraine for help investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either.
Congressional impeachment investigators believe that there may be a paper trail at OMB that sheds light on the decision to block aid to Ukraine this summer as Trump and his allies were pressuring the new government. …
The Wall Street Journal first reported that Duffey’s involvement is of interest to the impeachment inquiry.
…
"This is a highly unusual set of circumstances that would have raised serious red flags for career officials at the Department of Defense, the State Department and OMB," said Sam Berger, a vice president at the left-leaning Center for American Progress and a former senior counselor and policy adviser at OMB.
Congressional investigators looking to follow the money – or rather, where it was frozen – have so far hit a wall at OMB.
OMB’s acting director Russell Vought made it clear Wednesday that he’s prepared to block requests for information from House Democrats, in line with the White House position.
"We will not be participating in a sham process that’s designed to relitigate the last election," Vought said on Fox News.
The documents that Duffey signed – known as apportionments – are part of the normal protocol at OMB and would reveal when military aid to Ukraine – intended in part to help the country counter Russian aggression – was halted and what explanation was offered.
The apportionment process isn’t designed as a tool to carry out policy priorities or to advance political interests. If directed to freeze aid to Ukraine, OMB staffers may have been concerned they were running afoul of the law by not spending the money as appropriated.
…
OMB faces another deadline Friday to hand over another set of documents to those committees, but sources told CNN they wouldn’t be surprised if the budget office now refuses to hand over any documents to any committee for any purpose.Asked repeatedly Wednesday whether a paper trail exists at OMB, Vought dodged the questions and offered up a non-response instead.
“OMB continues to do the job that is statutorily required to manage the people’s money in a way that’s consistent with the law and on behalf of the priorities of the President,” Vought told Fox, “there’s no question about that.”
Giuliani was paid big money by the two political operatives just arrested for campaign finance fraud.
When Rudolph W. Giuliani set out to dredge up damaging information on President Trump’s rivals in Ukraine, he turned to a native of the former Soviet republic with whom he already had a lucrative business relationship.
Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian-American businessman with a trail of debts and lawsuits, had known Mr. Giuliani casually for years through Republican political circles. Last year, their relationship deepened when a company he helped found retained Mr. Giuliani — associates of Mr. Parnas said he told them he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars — for what Mr. Giuliani said on Thursday was business and legal advice.
Even as he worked with Mr. Parnas’s company, Fraud Guarantee, Mr. Giuliani increasingly relied on Mr. Parnas to carry out Mr. Trump’s quest for evidence in Ukraine that would undercut the legitimacy of the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference on his behalf in the 2016 election and help him heading into his 2020 re-election campaign.
Mr. Giuliani dispatched Mr. Parnas and an associate, Igor Fruman, a Belarusian-American businessman, to Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, where, despite fending off creditors at home, BuzzFeed reported, they ran up big charges at a strip club and the Hilton International hotel. Their mission was to find people and information that could be used to undermine the special counsel’s investigation, and also to damage former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a prospective Democratic challenger to Mr. Trump.
Over the past year, the two men connected Mr. Giuliani with Ukrainians who were willing to participate in efforts to push a largely unsubstantiated narrative about the Bidens. They played a key role in a campaign by pro-Trump forces to press for the removal of the United States ambassador to Ukraine on the grounds that she had not shown sufficient loyalty to the president as he pursued his agenda there.
They met regularly with Mr. Giuliani, often at the Trump International hotel in Washington. And all the while, they were pursuing their own business schemes and, according to an indictment unsealed on Thursday, illegally funneling campaign contributions in the United States in the service of both their political and business activities.
The indictment, along with interviews and other documents, show Mr. Parnas, Mr. Fruman and their associates as somewhat hapless operators, scrambling recklessly to use their new connections to the highest levels of American politics to seek financial gain while guiding Mr. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor, into a Ukrainian political culture rife with self-dealing and ever-shifting alliances.
The indictment provided new details about the dealings of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman, as well as a pair of associates, including David Correia, who with Mr. Parnas helped found Fraud Guarantee, the fraud prevention and mitigation company that retained Mr. Giuliani. The four men were charged with campaign finance violations related to their efforts to enlist public officials in their moneymaking efforts and their political efforts in Ukraine.
The congressional committees overseeing the impeachment inquiry have subpoenaed Mr. Giuliani for records related to his efforts in Ukraine, including records related to Mr. Parnas, Mr. Fruman and Semyon Kislin, another Ukrainian-born businessman.
…
The two men did get something useful for their Ukrainian efforts from Pete Sessions, then a Republican member of Congress from Texas, who is not identified in the indictment. It says that after making substantial campaign donations to him, Mr. Parnas asked Mr. Sessions for help last year in pressing the Trump administration to remove the United States ambassador to Ukraine, Marie L. Yovanovitch. Mr. Sessions subsequently wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo criticizing Ms. Yovanovitch and seeking to have her dismissed.Mr. Parnas had told associates that she was not open to his proposals related to the lucrative gas business in Ukraine, where Mr. Parnas pitched a natural gas deal to the chief executive of Naftogaz, as The New York Times reported last month.
Ms. Yovanovitch had also come under fire from a **Ukrainian prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenk**o, who was connected to Mr. Giuliani by Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman and played a key role in Mr. Giuliani’s efforts to promote investigations into Mr. Trump’s rivals.
While the indictment did not identify any officials by name, it said that Mr. Parnas, in his effort to oust Ms. Yovanovitch, acted, “at least in part, at the request of one or more Ukrainian government officials.”
Mr. Giuliani also said he provided legal advice to Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman after their efforts in Ukraine brought them into conflict with a powerful oligarch, Ihor Kolomoisky.
Mr. Kolomoisky said in interviews in the Ukrainian news media that Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman traveled to see him in Israel in April, ostensibly to talk about their plans to sell gas to Ukraine. But, he said, the two men then pushed him to arrange a meeting between Mr. Giuliani and Ukraine’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani had been seeking to press Mr. Zelensky to agree to investigate the Bidens and Ukraine’s role in the 2016 election, and had been working with Mr. Parnas to lay the groundwork for the effort, as The Times first reported in May.
Upon returning to Ukraine, Mr. Kolomoisky threatened in May to expose Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman. Mr. Giuliani, in turn, posted on Twitter that the oligarch had “defamed” Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman, “and I have advised them to press charges.” He also warned Mr. Zelensky not to surround himself with allies of Mr. Kolomoisky.
Mr. Parnas, Mr. Fruman and Mr. Giuliani were frequently spotted together over the past year at the Trump International hotel in Washington, and were overheard discussing politics and energy projects, including a methane initiative in Uzbekistan. Mr. Giuliani and his associates were to be paid at least $100,000 for the project, on which Mr. Parnas offered advice.
The project did not pan out, Mr. Giuliani said.
Mr. Parnas said in an interview last month that he and Mr. Fruman were self-financing their efforts on behalf of Mr. Giuliani’s political work in Ukraine and that those “have nothing to do with our business.”
He added, “My only business with Giuliani was a long time ago,” and involved an insurance company that Mr. Parnas suggested he owned that Mr. Giuliani “offered some advice on.”
In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Giuliani at first seemed to acknowledge having advised Fraud Guarantee in 2018, then backtracked.
“I can’t acknowledge it’s Fraud Guarantee, I don’t think,” he said.
“I can acknowledge I gave them substantial business advice,” he said, adding that one of his companies trains institutional customers in security work, including “how to investigate crimes, from murder to terrorism to fraud.” He said that “most of it is subdivisions of government, but every once in a while it is a private enterprise.”
…
Happy Friday!
RE: Deutsche Bank and their losing/not having T’s taxes. Sounds super fishy
(I know there was a recent post but I can not locate it)
Here are some updates…
NYT reporter David Enrich
A former Deutsche Bank executive who reviewed President Donald Trump’s tax returns reportedly said it is “not normal” that the institution no longer holds copies of those records.
Trump for many years relied on Deutsche Bank for loans to sustain his real estate business when many other institutions would not lend to him because of his rocky financial history.
The president is accused by some, including his former attorney Michael Cohen, of manipulating the value of his assets to either secure finance or reduce his tax bill.
He has broken with recent precedent for presidents and refused to release publicly all of his recent tax returns, despite pressure to do so.
Congress is investigating Trump’s finances and attempting to get hold of his tax returns from Deutsche. But the bank told the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals that it did not hold them.
David Enrich, finance editor at The New York Times , posted to Twitter a screenshot of his conversation with the unnamed executive in which they expressed surprise that Deutsche told a federal appeals court it did not have the president’s tax returns anymore.
“Holy f**k,” the executive wrote, per the screenshot. “The circumstance could be that they returned any physical copies or destroyed any physical copies under an agreement with a client and cleansed their servers. Not normal though.”
Deutsche Bank did not respond immediately to Newsweek 's request for comment.
And now the New York Times confirms.
Interesting that Rudy is using his legal research skills as a defensible postion. Giuliani has been under SDNY’s sites for a long while…he’s gonna get indicted.
And T saying Rudy is not his lawyer…
Yet…
I’m not a lawyer, but in reading this, it seemed to me that Giuliani is pretty much admitting to committing crimes – the least of which would be not registering as a lobbyist for a foreign government (even though in his own mind he thinks he’s not admitting to anything). He says loud and clear about his work in Ukraine: “… I was representing the president of the United States.” So, here he is working for the President, digging up dirt on the President’s political opponent in coordination with two (alleged) criminals who are now in custody in the U.S. – I mean really, WTF? Will some dirt finally stick to our teflon Don?
