Ratting Russian rumps Rump on eve of impeachment trial, ROTFLMAO!!!!!

I have little doubt that certain sausage lipped, block headed, no neck, blubbery, stumpy legged, psychotic, stalking runt is already squawking "No collusion! No collusion!" like the brain dead parrot that he is.:nohead:!~))!:laughingb:bbsmile:



https://www.yahoo.com/news/lev-parn...ve-of-senate-impeachment-trial-025646046.html

Lev Parnas implicates Trump on the eve of Senate impeachment trial

David KnowlesEditor
January 15, 2020, 6:56 PM PST






Lev Parnas, a key player in President Trump’s efforts to obtain a Ukrainian investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, gave a bombshell interview to MSNBC Wednesday that undercut the president’s defense just hours before the Senate was scheduled to begin his impeachment trial.

“It was all about Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and also Rudy had a personal thing with the Manafort stuff,” Parnas said of the efforts to convince Ukraine’s government to announce an investigation of the Bidens, “but it was never about corruption, it was strictly about Burisma, which included Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.”

Parnas, a Soviet-born U.S. citizen who has been indicted by the Southern District of New York on campaign finance violations, turned over notes, text messages and other information to House investigators Wednesday. In his interview with Rachel Maddow, Parnas, who sat beside his lawyer, said he came forward because “I want to get the truth out because I think it’s important to the country, it’s important to me.”

Trump has sought to distance himself from Parnas and Igor Fruman, both of whom worked with Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer, on the efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation of the Bidens, and on the campaign to oust U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.

“I don’t know those gentlemen,” Trump said in October about Parnas and Fruman, despite the fact that the men had been photographed together numerous times.

“He lied,” Parnas said, adding, “He knew exactly who we were.” Parnas said the president was fully aware that he was working with Giuliani to secure Zelensky’s cooperation in an effort to tarnish the reputation of Biden, the leading Democratic candidate to run against Trump this year.


Lev Parnas on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show on January 15, 2020. (Photo: Kelli R. Grant/Yahoo News)"Trump knew exactly what was going on,” Parnas said, adding he “wouldn't do anything without consent of Rudy Giuliani or the president.”

Maddow asked Parnas about a handwritten note made during a phone conversation with Giuliani that he turned over to House investigators that included the line: “get Zalensky [sic] to announce that the Biden case will be investigated.”

“That was always the main objective," Parnas said of Trump’s motive for pressuring Ukraine’s government.

Parnas and Fruman, who has also been indicted, were given access to Ukrainian officials that Parnas, a Florida
businessman with no diplomatic credentials or official post, said he would not have received otherwise.
"Why would President Zelensky’s inner circle, or Minister Avakov, or all these people, or President Poroshenko, meet with me?” Parnas told Maddow. “Who am I? They were told to meet with me. And that’s the secret that they’re trying to keep. I was on the ground doing their work.”

Parnas also said the Trump administration’s attempts to convince Ukraine to announce an investigation of the Bidens extended to Vice President Mike Pence.

Pence canceled his planned attendance at Zelensky’s inauguration as a way to further pressure him, Parnas said.
On his efforts with Giuliani to have Yovanovitch removed from office because she was not sufficiently supportive of Trump and was impeding efforts to secure the promise of an investigation into the Bidens, Parnas expressed regret.

“I don’t believe Ambassador Yovanovitch badmouthed Trump, and I want to apologize to her,” Parnas said.

The materials turned over to the House this week included text messages Parnas exchanged with a Trump campaign hanger-on named Robert Hyde. The messages referenced efforts to oust Yovanovitch, who was viewed as an obstacle to the deal Giuliani hoped to strike with Ukraine. Some of the messages had what appeared to be sinister overtones, implying that Yovanovitch was being followed and might be in danger, but Parnas downplayed that possibility to Maddow, saying he was only stringing Hyde along.

Parnas also told Maddow that Attorney General William Barr was aware of the efforts launched by Trump and Giuliani to discredit the Mueller investigation and procure an investigation of the Bidens.

“Mr. Barr had to have known everything," Parnas said, adding that he was in the room when Giuliani and others spoke with the attorney general.

grinchgif dafinch who stole Xmas is back
Jk man, don't sue

Gas Man said:

Click to expand...

Go bang your "Playmate wife" on your "yacht,' Gas Bag.Loser!@#0:madasshol:trx-smly0:bigfinger:tongue2::Countdown:fckmad:

Yahoo and DaPinch catching up with last November's news. Even Schiff doesn't find this guy credible.

And another abandoned thread.

I'm wondering how long DuhFelcher is going to hide for when Trump gets re-elected?

looks like another lawsuit coming against Maddow and CNN...keep bringing these people on TV to just fabricate stories and they'll be out of money soon enough....

Ukraine's saying this is 100% false that these conversations never took place and the guy doesn't even spell Zelensky's name correctly. NYT reported this same stuff 2 months ago and it was immediately debunked so Maddow must be out of guests to invite this fella back on TV.

keep suing CNN until they're completely out of business. it's the only way they're gonna learn

She works for MSNBC my friend. I know it doesn't make a difference, same difference, just saying

Do either of them have any money? They may be judgement proof

You may recall that back in March 2017, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow shocked the world by declaring “we’ve got Trump’s tax returns!” Then she later clarified she had obtained Donald Trump’s 1040 form from … 2005. Those who tuned in to her program that evening had to watch a meandering 19-minute soliloquy and a commercial break before Maddow showed anything from the tax return, which wasn’t much. Her guest, David Cay Johnson, speculated that Trump may have also leaked nude photos of Melania.

That night was a massive letdown for those who believed Maddow’s initial announcement, but it previewed what we could expect from Maddow for the next three years, as the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple lays out in exhaustive detail in a review of Maddow’s reporting and discussion of the Steele dossier. His assessment is scathing:

When small bits of news arose in favor of the dossier, the franchise MSNBC host pumped air into them. At least some of her many fans surely came away from her broadcasts thinking the dossier was a serious piece of investigative research, not the flimflam, quick-twitch game of telephone outlined in the Horowitz report. She seemed to be rooting for the document.

And when large bits of news arose against the dossier, Maddow found other topics more compelling.

She was there for the bunkings, absent for the debunkings — a pattern of misleading and dishonest asymmetry.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued his report earlier this month and concluded, “much of the material in the Steele election reports, including allegations about Donald Trump and members of the Trump campaign relied upon in the Carter Page FISA applications, could not be corroborated; that certain allegations were inaccurate or inconsistent with information gathered by the Crossfire Hurricane team; and that the limited information that was corroborated related to time, location and title information, much of which was publicly available.”


The night Horowitz released his report, Maddow ignored that and emphasized other conclusions: “The inspector general debunks that there was any anti-Trump political bias motivating these decisions. They debunked the idea that the Christopher Steele dossier of opposition research against Trump was the basis for opening the FBI’s Russia investigation.”

Wemple writes: “Asked to comment on how she approached the dossier, Maddow declined to provide an on-the-record response.”

Like other prime-time cable news hosts who receive much more criticism, Maddow shows up every weeknight and tells a devoted audience, “the world is as you want it to be.” Trump is the worst, he’s committed many terrible crimes, a reckoning is coming, we will be vindicated. Her audience is not interested in hearing the host or guests declare: “While we are vehemently opposed to Trump, but there is no evidence he’s being blackmailed or controlled by the Russian government.” Her program includes bits of news and other substances that appear to be like news, but are not — fervent speculation, conjecture, assumptions, theories. If it is too harsh to call it “fake news,” then it is news with artificial flavors and sweeteners, designed to make it more exciting and appealing than it really is.

For the past two years, Rachel Maddow has been a hero of her own spy-thriller. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/27/rachel-maddows-deep-delusion-226266

She has written, directed and starred in a hit production based on the unlikely premise of a prime-time cable TV show host unraveling the most dastardly plot in American history — one opening monologue at a time.


Only the story had a surprise twist at the end — she was completely wrong.

Few people invested more in the Russia probe, night after night, monologue after monologue, with an ever-building sense of anticipation.

It is perhaps unfair to say that Maddow believed in a conspiracy theory, although her theory was quite literally that there was a conspiracy between Donald Trump and the Russians, perhaps an ongoing one.

The Mueller probe was a real thing, and obviously newsworthy. Yet Maddow approached it with a notably conspiratorial cast of mind and style.

She covered the story with a consistent breathlessness. She took evident pleasure over even minor jail sentences for minor players. No proceeding related to the probe was too small for her long, involved explications. She did dramatic readings of courtroom transcripts.

Pervading it all was the sense that she could see the deeper forces behind the headlines, she could discern the pattern in all the dots, and you could, too, as long as you paid close enough attention to her program. The reward would be everything finally making sense from the 2016 presidential election to President Trump’s foreign policy — all traceable back to Russia and its sinister tentacles.

She worried in March 2017 that the Russians had not just stolen the election, but our government: “We are also starting to see what may be signs of continuing influence in our country. Not just during the campaign, but during the administration. Basically signs what could be a continuing operation.”

She saw the installation of Rex Tillerson as secretary of State in this light: “Silencing the U.S. State Department, putting a friend of Vladimir Putin’s in charge at the U.S. State Department, who stands by quietly while the State Department gets hollowed out, gets gutted … That’s a dream for Putin.”

Indeed, she saw most things in this light.

No matter how alarming all this was, there was always an underlying sense of glee in Maddow’s coverage, the bastards were finally getting their due, the whole treacherous plot steadily coming undone via Robert Mueller’s investigation and the brilliant, long-form explications of it by America’s champion at 9 p.m., please set your DVRs.

It was almost touching how excited Maddow was to come back from a trout-fishing trip last Friday to host her show on an emergency basis upon the arrival of the long-anticipated report. Little did she know she only was setting the stage for her own discrediting.

No one should deny Maddow’s considerable talents. She’s smart and a sprightly writer who does her homework and who can carry an hour of TV compellingly almost entirely on her own — a rare skill.

This wasn’t simply mindless partisanship. It was a deeper delusion.

Yes, there were disturbing developments in the Mueller probe, but the evidence always tilted away from any Trump-Russian conspiracy.

Believing otherwise required ignoring common sense (why would the Russians need to collude with the Trump campaign in the first place?), ignoring statements from more sober-minded intelligence officials that there was no evidence of collusion, ignoring the policy areas where Trump was tougher on Russia than Obama, and ignoring how the Mueller probe was unfolding, with no indictments for espionage or conspiracy with the Russians.

The Roger Stone indictment should have been the final indication, demonstrating in detail how the Trump campaign was on the outside looking in on the WikiLeaks operation. Always vigilant, Maddow didn’t let it shake her.

Even now, all she has is more questions. She’s right to want the release of the full report, which will surely have its share of new embarrassing details for Trump, yet she still hasn’t truly grappled with the fact that Mueller came up empty on collusion.

Not only should she do that, she should consider how she did the left a grave disservice in feeding its paranoia, stoking its unrealistic expectations and diverting it from more politically fruitful paths.

Some of her critics say it was all about the ratings. We shouldn’t doubt her sincerity, but surely she must have noticed how her Russian obsession was boosting her show to No. 1 in cable and felt the urge to be even more monomaniacal.

The Russia episode demonstrates how, even though it’s odd to say, Nancy Pelosi is now one of the more restrained, politically astute progressives on the national stage. You can be entirely in the business of checking and defeating Donald Trump, or you can be in show business; Pelosi is in the former, Rachel Maddow is in the latter.

The MSNBC host staged a hell of a drama during the Mueller probe, but life usually isn’t a John le Carré novel.

Maddows own lawyers say the things she says "“Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ‘of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false,’” LMAO hahahahaha, why would anyone even watch her to get news?

https://timesofsandiego.com/busines...-uc-linguistics-professor-in-defamation-suit/

This fat, sloppy, stupid moron-I'm speaking of Twittler, not the Blubber Runt-doesn't seem to realize that cameras and video tape exist, whatta moron:

Trump Says He Doesn’t Know Parnas Despite Multiple Photos

See article on: www.bloomberg.com
Mario Parker
7 hrs ago

(Bloomberg) -- Donald Trump insisted he doesn’t know Lev Parnas, a Rudy Giuliani associate who says he helped the president’s personal lawyer dig up dirt on Joe Biden in Ukraine, despite multiple pictures of Parnas with Trump and his family.
“I don’t know Parnas other than I guess they had pictures taken which I do with thousands of people,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday. “I don’t know him at all, don’t know what he’s about, don’t know where he comes from, know nothing about him.”

Trump also said he was unfamiliar with a letter Giuliani, his personal lawyer, wrote to Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, asking for a meeting in the U.S. president’s name shortly after Zelenskiy’s election last year.
“I didn’t know about a specific letter, but if he wrote a letter it wouldn’t have been a big deal,” Trump said.
Read More: Giuliani Ally Says Trump Lied About What He knew on Ukraine
Parnas said in an interview on MSNBC Wednesday that the president has lied about not knowing what Giuliani and his associates were doing in Ukraine last year, when they sought the ouster of the U.S. ambassador and then pressured Zelenskiy to open an investigation into Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.
The Senate on Thursday began a trial to consider House-passed articles of impeachment accusing Trump of abusing his power in the Ukraine affair and of obstructing Congress from investigating the incident.
“I wouldn’t do anything without the consent of Rudy Giuliani or the president,” Parnas said. “President Trump knew exactly what was going on.”
Parnas’s lawyer, Joseph Bondy, has posted photos of Parnas with Trump and his children on Twitter.
“I guess he attended fundraisers, so I take a picture with him, I’m in a room, I take pictures with people,” Trump said. “I take thousands and thousands of pictures with people all the time, thousands during the course of the year.”
“I don’t believe I’ve ever spoken” to Parnas, he said.
--With assistance from Chris Strohm.
To contact the reporter on this story: Mario Parker in Washington at mparker22@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Alex Wayne at awayne3@bloomberg.net, Justin Blum

NFLTrends said:

Maddows own lawyers say the things she says "“Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ‘of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false,’” LMAO hahahahaha, why would anyone even watch her to get news?

https://timesofsandiego.com/busines...-uc-linguistics-professor-in-defamation-suit/

Click to expand...

She's obviously been instructed to use the word "allegedly" in each of her sentences, she can't seem to stop using that word now. Gotta cover your ass when you're making up shit that never happened.

Dafinch said:

This fat, sloppy, stupid moron-I'm speaking of Twittler, not the Blubber Runt-doesn't seem to realize that cameras and video tape exist, whatta moron:

Trump Says He Doesn’t Know Parnas Despite Multiple Photos

Click to expand...

I thought you brain dead, shit heel, TDS infected douche bags destested people who took millions from Russians and then lie to US courts about it. Are you making one of your hypocritical special exceptions? Yeah, of course you are, clown. You're too stupid to even understand what is going on here, but that's what makes you who you are, the forum brainless pinata.

bilbal said:

I thought you brain dead, shit heel, TDS infected douche bags destested people who took millions from Russians and then lie to US courts about it. Are you making one of your hypocritical special exceptions? Yeah, of course you are, clown. You're too stupid to even understand what is going on here, but that's what makes you who you are, the forum brainless pinata.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what your post means, other than you're making an incredibly clumsy and transparent attempt to deflect that Twittler is one of the worst-not to mention, prolific-liars in the history of the world. Oh, and, you're an idiot.^^:trx-smly0:tongue2::madasshol:fckmad::bigfinger

Dafinch said:

I have no idea what your post means, other than you're making an incredibly clumsy and transparent attempt to deflect that Twittler is one of the worst-not to mention, prolific-liars in the history of the world. Oh, and, you're an idiot.^^:trx-smly0:tongue2::madasshol:fckmad::bigfinger

Click to expand...

You save your $2500 per family yet with Obama care? Lol.. You're a putz

Dafinch said:

I have no idea what your post means, other than you're making an incredibly clumsy and transparent attempt to deflect that Twittler is one of the worst-not to mention, prolific-liars in the history of the world. Oh, and, you're an idiot.^^:trx-smly0:tongue2::madasshol:fckmad::bigfinger

Click to expand...

Of course you have no idea what my post means because your dumb head is shoved THAT far up your dumb ass. That what makes you who you are, the forum dunce.