Why I believe most of what Parnas said.

[Atticus]

First---I am no expert. I have no inside info and I understand that "confirmation bias" may play a part in my decision, but---

Most of what Parnas said in the interview with Rachel seemed to fit in with information we already have. There was little in the way of totally uncharted territory revealed by what he had to say.

And, what Parnas provided was not "just" his unsupported account of his communication and dealings with the Trump mob: he had contemporaneously created notes and lots of emails and documents.

And, the standard argument against believing someone like Mr. Parnas---who is currently facing several felony charges---is that he is inherently unbelievable and likely to lie due to his precarious legal situation. "Who you gonna believe? A guy out on bail or------" is the usual decisive inquiry. But, in this case, the "or" is followed by "---Donald Trump, who lies as often as he speaks about anything and everything."

So, I'll go with Lev for now.

[lapfog_1]

1. All except for his dismissive comments on the stalking and possible

contract on the Ambassador.

There he was trying to be self serving and stay away from legal issues where he would be in jeopardy.

[Atticus]

6. Yup. That gave me pause, too. That's why I said "most". nt

[Snoopy 7]

11. Of course

He’s got to dismiss what went on with the stalker. Or else he has to admit he was part of a plot to kill an America ambassador. But, I believe it really happened. Because, Hart, Parnov’s helper, was arrested in Florida 1-1.5 months later after the Ukraine President refused to make up a fake announcement about Biden. And what was he arrested for (?) running around a Trump Hotel that he was being followed and feared being killed. He probably made too many promises in Ukraine and when it fell through he feared for his life.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. I agree. The one thing I'm a bit skeptical about is his involvement with Robert Hyde.

Parnas just laughed him off as just a crazy drunk and a hanger-on at Trump hotel bars who was trying to seem important. Hyde probably is a crazy drunk, but why was he communicating with Parnas? Why did he have Parnas' cell number? If he was just a crazy drunk who was making a pest of himself by pretending to surveil Yovanovich, why didn't Parnas shut him down? I'd like to know more about how Hyde got mixed up in the whole scheme. Was he recruited precisely because he was a crazy drunk whom Parnas and Giuliani could disavow if he got caught?

[spooky3]

4. Good questions nt

[crickets]

9. This was a big sticking point for me as well.

Someone had to give him Parnas' cell number, most likely Parnas himself. Laughing off Hyde as a buffoon and a drunkard was too simplistic. There's more going on there.

[empedocles]

8. Glad that you're not prosecuting the bad guys.

[W_HAMILTON]

12. But you support a candidate that has argued in favor of not holding Trump accountable...?

[W_HAMILTON]

14. He has also talked down about impeachment, but that was not even what I was referring to.

I was referring to these comments:

Andrew Yang said he does not think Trump should be facing criminal charges and would consider pardoning Trump if he were in fact prosecuted.

"We do not want to be a country that gets in the pattern of jailing past leaders," Yang said, adding that "there's a reason why Ford pardoned Nixon."

"I'd actually go a step further and say not just, hey, it's up to my [Attorney General]. I would say that the country needs to start solving the problems on the ground and move forward."

"Would you consider a pardon then?" NBC News asked.

"I would," Yang said.

Taken from: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/nov-20-democratic-debate-live-updates-n1087226/ncrd1088231#liveBlogHeader

[W_HAMILTON]

17. You just got done saying that you were jaded by all the times you thought the bad guys...

...would go to jail, now you turn around and are arguing in support of a candidate that has said he doesn't want to get into "jailing past leaders" and would in fact consider pardoning Trump for his crimes.

How do you reconcile the two? I assume Yang can walk and chew gum at the same time -- can he not move forward with whatever agenda he has while the justice system holds Trump and his criminal cronies to account?

[localroger]

5. The only points of doubt

...are over things where Lev does seem to be protecting himself by whitewashing bits of his own involvement. But that just means things are even worse than he is depicting.

[Karadeniz]

7. Agreed!

[Arthur_Frain]

15. Maybe. IMHO he's tainted goods, unfortunately.

Reference your first point, that it all “already seemed to fit with the info we already have”, I’d worry about two things, first confirmation bias, and second, they tell you what they know you want to hear, knowing that you are already predisposed in that direction.

Not saying he isn’t in fact telling the truth, just saying what comes obviously to mind in this situation. The first time you falsely cry wolf, it affects your credibility every single time afterward.I want caution, because I don’t want this derailed by chasing an obviously bad fact line. Do we have enough to do the job? Let’s be very circumspect about what else we try to push.

As to your second point, one of the reasons that I don’t really have any interest in pursuing the Hunter Biden line of inquiry is because of the obvious bias and lying being live streamed by the GOP party in the house impeachment hearings.

Having said all that, I’d love for any or all of Lev’s info to be independently verified by other sources. Cue Ukrainian corruption investigation, only not the one shitbrain wanted.