web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > House Committee on Intelligence

Lev Parnas Says He Has Recording of Trump Calling for Ambassador’s Firing

Westlake Legal Group 24dc-recording-facebookJumbo Lev Parnas Says He Has Recording of Trump Calling for Ambassador’s Firing Yovanovitch, Marie L United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Parnas, Lev impeachment House Committee on Intelligence Giuliani, Rudolph W Fruman, Igor ABC News

WASHINGTON — A former associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, said on Friday that he had turned over to congressional Democrats a recording from 2018 of the president ordering the removal of Marie L. Yovanovitch as the United States ambassador to Ukraine.

The associate, Lev Parnas, who worked with Mr. Giuliani to oust the ambassador and to pressure the Ukrainian government to pursue investigations to help Mr. Trump, located the recording on Friday after its existence was first reported by ABC News, said Joseph A. Bondy, Mr. Parnas’s lawyer.

Mr. Bondy said the recording was “of high materiality to the impeachment inquiry” of Mr. Trump and that he had provided it to the House Intelligence Committee, whose chairman, Representative Adam B. Schiff, is leading the impeachment managers in their presentation of the case.

The recording emerged as Democrats continued to press the Senate to call more witnesses and seek additional evidence for the trial.

While it does not appear to provide any substantive new information about the effort to oust Ms. Yovanovitch, the possibility of the recording being played in public could provide a powerful political moment for Democrats by hammering home Mr. Trump’s personal involvement. It also illustrates that there could be more revelations from untapped evidence, even as Democrats are wrapping up their case in the Senate.

That was precisely the argument they made on Friday as they sought to overcome Republican resistance to seeking new information and extending the trial.

Patrick Boland, a spokesman for the Intelligence Committee, declined to comment.

In the recording, ABC News reported, Mr. Parnas can be heard saying that “the biggest problem there, I think where we need to start is we gotta get rid of” Ms. Yovanovitch.

“She’s basically walking around telling everybody, ‘Wait, he’s gonna get impeached, just wait,’” Mr. Parnas says on the recording, according to ABC News.

“Get rid of her!” a voice that sounds like Mr. Trump’s responds, according to ABC News. “Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. O.K.? Do it.”

Those comments were directed at one of Mr. Trump’s aides who was in the room at the time, Mr. Parnas has previously said.

Ms. Yovanovitch remained in her job for another year after Mr. Trump’s remarks until she was recalled on the White House’s orders, according to testimony in the impeachment inquiry. It is not clear whether the president changed his mind, forgot about his order or was talked out of dismissing her.

Asked about the recording by Fox News, Mr. Trump said he was “not a big fan” of Ms. Yovanovitch. “I want ambassadors that are chosen by me,” he said. “I have a right to hire and fire ambassadors, and that’s a very important thing.”

The campaign to remove Ms. Yovanovitch is among the central elements of the Democratic case that Mr. Trump abused his power in an effort to pressure Ukraine’s government into announcing investigations into purported meddling in the 2016 election and into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his diplomacy in Ukraine.

Mr. Parnas had previously recounted how he and another associate of Mr. Giuliani’s, Igor Fruman, had met with Mr. Trump during a dinner for a small group of donors in a private suite at the Trump International Hotel in Washington in late April 2018. At that dinner, Mr. Parnas relayed a rumor that Ms. Yovanovitch, then the American ambassador in Kyiv, was bad-mouthing the president — an unsubstantiated claim that Ms. Yovanovitch has denied.

Republicans have sought to challenge Mr. Parnas’s credibility by noting that he is under indictment. But the recording seemed to buttress his claims that he had discussions with Mr. Trump about ousting Ms. Yovanovitch, who Mr. Parnas and Mr. Giuliani later came to believe was blocking their efforts to press the Ukrainians to commit to the investigations.

Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman had obtained direct access to the president by donating to Republican committees, and the recording suggests he spoke in front of them in a remarkably unfiltered and undiplomatic way, given their relative obscurity.

The April 2018 meeting came months before Mr. Giuliani began working with Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman to win support in Ukraine for investigations that could have helped Mr. Trump’s re-election prospects. Mr. Giuliani came to believe that Ms. Yovanovitch was blocking his efforts to advance the investigations. By early last year, Mr. Parnas had become a key intermediary between Mr. Giuliani and Ukrainian officials, including Yuriy Lutsenko, the country’s chief prosecutor at the time, who was also seeking Ms. Yovanovitch’s ouster.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly said he does not know Mr. Parnas or Mr. Fruman, who are facing federal campaign finance charges brought by prosecutors in Manhattan. They have pleaded not guilty. Mr. Giuliani is under investigation by the same prosecutors, who are examining his efforts to remove Ms. Yovanovitch.

Mr. Parnas has broken with Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump. He has provided reams of records and data to House impeachment investigators and signaled his willingness to cooperate with the prosecutors in Manhattan. Mr. Fruman’s legal team is working closely with lawyers for Mr. Giuliani — “they talk two, three times a week” — according to Mr. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor.

The recording was captured on Mr. Fruman’s phone, according to people familiar with the matter.

A lawyer for Mr. Fruman declined to comment.

Mr. Parnas and his legal team did not provide the recording to ABC News, Mr. Bondy said.

After ABC News’s report, Mr. Bondy said Mr. Parnas “undertook a renewed search of his iCloud accounts and found a copy of the recording.”

The recording “appears to corroborate” Mr. Parnas’s recollection of the April 2018 gathering at which Mr. Trump issued the order, Mr. Bondy said.

In an interview with the MSNBC host Rachel Maddow last week, Mr. Parnas said that Mr. Trump had tried to recall Ms. Yovanovitch “at least four, five times.” Mr. Parnas said he had personally spoken “once or twice” to the president “about firing her,” including at the dinner, which he said was also attended by Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr.

“I don’t know how the issue is — the conversation came up, but I do remember me telling the president the ambassador was bad-mouthing him and saying he was going to get impeached, something to that effect,” Mr. Parnas recalled. “And at that time, he turned around” to an aide “and said, ‘fire her.’ And we all — there was a silence in the room.”

Mr. Parnas added that Mr. Trump raised the subject again: “I don’t know how many times at that dinner, once or twice or three times. But he fired her several times.”

Ms. Yovanovitch came into Mr. Parnas’s sights at least partly because he had come to believe that she was opposed to his business efforts in Ukraine, where he and Mr. Fruman had hoped to break into the natural gas market, according to associates of the two men, both of whom are Soviet-born American citizens.

Prosecutors have accused Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman of donating money and pledging to raise additional funds in 2018 — some violating legal limits — for a congressman who was then enlisted in the campaign to oust Ms. Yovanovitch.

While the congressman is not named in court filings, campaign finance records identify him as former Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas, who lost his re-election bid in 2018.

Less than two weeks after his dinner with Mr. Trump, Mr. Parnas met with Mr. Sessions to discuss his gas venture in Ukraine, and the meeting eventually turned to Ms. Yovanovitch. After the meeting, Mr. Sessions wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying that Ms. Yovanovitch should be fired for privately expressing “disdain” for the current administration.

Mr. Sessions has said that he wrote the letter independently of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman, but when Ms. Yovanovitch was not removed, Mr. Sessions provided Mr. Parnas with a copy of the letter, signing his name across the back of the envelope. “Mr. President” appeared across the front.

Photographs appearing to show the signed envelope — and Mr. Parnas presenting it to Mr. Trump — were included in a batch of records provided earlier this month by Mr. Parnas to the House Intelligence Committee.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Lev Parnas Says He Has Recording of Trump Calling for Ambassador’s Firing

Westlake Legal Group 24dc-recording-facebookJumbo Lev Parnas Says He Has Recording of Trump Calling for Ambassador’s Firing Yovanovitch, Marie L United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Parnas, Lev impeachment House Committee on Intelligence Giuliani, Rudolph W Fruman, Igor ABC News

WASHINGTON — A former associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, said on Friday that he had turned over to congressional Democrats a recording from 2018 of the president ordering the removal of Marie L. Yovanovitch as the United States ambassador to Ukraine.

The associate, Lev Parnas, who worked with Mr. Giuliani to oust the ambassador and to pressure the Ukrainian government to pursue investigations to help Mr. Trump, located the recording on Friday after its existence was first reported by ABC News, said Joseph A. Bondy, Mr. Parnas’s lawyer.

Mr. Bondy said it was “of high materiality to the impeachment inquiry” of Mr. Trump, which House Democrats are presenting in the Senate. He said he provided the recording to the House Intelligence Committee, whose chairman, Representative Adam B. Schiff, is leading the House impeachment managers in their presentation of the case.

The recording emerged as Democrats continued to press the Senate to call more witnesses and seek additional evidence for the trial.

While the recording does not appear to provide any substantive new information about the effort to oust Ms. Yovanovitch, the possibility of it being played in public could provide a powerful political moment for Democrats by hammering home Mr. Trump’s personal involvement. It also illustrates that there could be more revelations from untapped evidence, even as Democrats are wrapping up their case in the Senate.

That was precisely the argument they made on Friday as they sought to overcome Republican resistance to seeking new information and extending the trial.

Patrick Boland, a spokesman for the Intelligence Committee, declined to comment.

In the recording, ABC News reported, Mr. Parnas can be heard saying that “the biggest problem there, I think where we need to start is we gotta get rid of” Ms. Yovanovitch.

“She’s basically walking around telling everybody, ‘Wait, he’s gonna get impeached, just wait,’” Mr. Parnas says on the recording, according to ABC News.

“Get rid of her!” a voice that sounds like Mr. Trump’s responds, according to ABC News. “Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. O.K.? Do it.”

Mr. Trump’s comments were directed at one of his aides who was in the room at the time, Mr. Parnas has previously said.

Ms. Yovanovitch remained in her job for another year after Mr. Trump’s remarks until she was recalled on the White House’s orders, according to testimony in the impeachment inquiry. It is not clear whether the president changed his mind, forgot about his order or was talked out of dismissing her.

Asked about the recording by Fox News, Mr. Trump said he was “not a big fan” of Ms. Yovanovitch. “I want ambassadors that are chosen by me,” he said. “I have a right to hire and fire ambassadors, and that’s a very important thing.”

The campaign to remove Ms. Yovanovitch is among the central elements of the Democratic case that Mr. Trump abused his power in an effort to pressure Ukraine’s government into announcing investigations into purported meddling in the 2016 election and into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his diplomacy in Ukraine.

Mr. Parnas had previously recounted how he and another associate of Mr. Giuliani’s, Igor Fruman, had met with Mr. Trump during a dinner for a small group of donors in a private suite at the Trump International Hotel in Washington in late April 2018. At that dinner, Mr. Parnas relayed a rumor that Ms. Yovanovitch, then the American ambassador in Kyiv, was bad-mouthing the president — an unsubstantiated claim that Ms. Yovanovitch has denied.

Republicans have sought to challenge Mr. Parnas’s credibility by noting that he is under indictment. But the recording seemed to buttress Mr. Parnas’s claims that he had discussions with Mr. Trump about ousting Ms. Yovanovitch, who Mr. Parnas and Mr. Giuliani later came to believe was blocking their efforts to press the Ukrainians to commit to the investigations.

Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman had obtained direct access to the president by donating to Republican committees, and the recording suggests he spoke in front of them in a remarkably unfiltered and undiplomatic way, given their relative obscurity.

The April 2018 meeting came months before Mr. Giuliani began working with Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman to win support in Ukraine for investigations that could have helped Mr. Trump’s re-election prospects. Mr. Giuliani came to believe that Ms. Yovanovitch was blocking his efforts to advance the investigations. By early last year, Mr. Parnas had become a key intermediary between Mr. Giuliani and Ukranians officials, including Yuriy Lutsenko, the country’s chief prosecutor at the time, who was also seeking Ms. Yovanovitch’s ouster.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly said he does not know Mr. Parnas or Mr. Fruman, who are facing federal campaign finance charges brought by prosecutors in Manhattan. They have pleaded not guilty. Mr. Giuliani is under investigation by the same prosecutors, who are examining his efforts to remove Ms. Yovanovitch.

Mr. Parnas has broken with Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump. He has provided reams of records and data to House impeachment investigators and signaled his willingness to cooperate with the prosecutors in Manhattan. Mr. Fruman’s legal team is working closely with lawyers for Mr. Giuliani — “they talk two, three times a week” — according to Mr. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor.

The recording was captured on Mr. Fruman’s phone, according to people familiar with the matter.

A lawyer for Mr. Fruman declined to comment.

Mr. Parnas and his legal team did not provide the recording to ABC News, Mr. Bondy said.

After ABC News’s report, Mr. Bondy said Mr. Parnas “undertook a renewed search of his iCloud accounts and found a copy of the recording.”

The recording “appears to corroborate” Mr. Parnas’s recollection of the April 2018 gathering at which Mr. Trump issued the order, Mr. Bondy said.

In an interview with the MSNBC host Rachel Maddow last week, Mr. Parnas said that Mr. Trump had tried to recall Ms. Yovanovitch “at least four, five times.” Mr. Parnas said he had personally spoken “once or twice” to the president “about firing her,” including at the dinner, which he said was also attended by Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr.

“I don’t know how the issue is — the conversation came up, but I do remember me telling the president the ambassador was bad-mouthing him and saying he was going to get impeached, something to that effect,” Mr. Parnas recalled. “And at that time, he turned around” to an aide “and said, ‘fire her.’ And we all — there was a silence in the room.”

Mr. Parnas added that Mr. Trump raised the subject again later in the dinner: “I don’t know how many times at that dinner, once or twice or three times. But he fired her several times.”

Ms. Yovanovitch came into Mr. Parnas’s sights at least partly because he had come to believe that she was opposed to his business efforts in Ukraine, where he and Mr. Fruman had hoped to break into the natural gas market, according to associates of the two men, both of whom are Soviet-born American citizens.

Prosecutors have accused Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman of donating money and pledging to raise additional funds in 2018 — some violating legal limits — for a congressman who was then enlisted in the campaign to oust Ms. Yovanovitch.

While the congressman is not named in court filings, campaign finance records identify him as former Representative Pete Sessions, Republican of Texas, who lost his re-election bid in 2018.

Less than two weeks after his dinner with Mr. Trump, Mr. Parnas met with Mr. Sessions to discuss his gas venture in Ukraine, and the meeting eventually turned to Ms. Yovanovitch. After the meeting, Mr. Sessions wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying that Ms. Yovanovitch should be fired for privately expressing “disdain” for the current administration.

Mr. Sessions has said that he wrote the letter independently of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman, but when Ms. Yovanovitch was not removed, Mr. Sessions provided Mr. Parnas with a copy of the letter, signing his name across the back of the envelope. “Mr. President” appeared across the front.

Photographs appearing to show the signed envelope — and Mr. Parnas presenting it to Mr. Trump — were included in a batch of records provided earlier this month by Mr. Parnas to the House Intelligence Committee.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Lev Parnas Says He Has Tape of Trump Calling for Ambassador’s Firing

Westlake Legal Group 24dc-recording-facebookJumbo Lev Parnas Says He Has Tape of Trump Calling for Ambassador’s Firing Yovanovitch, Marie L United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Senate Parnas, Lev impeachment House of Representatives House Committee on Intelligence Giuliani, Rudolph W Democratic Party

WASHINGTON — A former associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani, President Trump’s personal lawyer, said on Friday that he had turned over to congressional Democrats a recording from 2018 of the president ordering the dismissal of Marie L. Yovanovitch, the United States ambassador to Ukraine at the time.

The associate, Lev Parnas, who worked with Mr. Giuliani on the effort to oust the ambassador and to pressure the Ukrainian government to pursue investigations to help Mr. Trump, located the recording on Friday after its existence was first reported by ABC News, said Mr. Parnas’s lawyer, Joseph A. Bondy.

Mr. Bondy said it “is of high materiality to the impeachment inquiry” of Mr. Trump, which House Democrats are presenting in the Senate. He said the tape had been provided to the House Intelligence Committee, whose chairman, Representative Adam B. Schiff, is leading the House impeachment managers in their presentation of the case against Mr. Trump to the Senate.

The recording emerged as Democrats are pressing the Senate to call more witnesses and seek additional evidence for the trial, saying there is more to be learned about the pressure campaign against Ukraine.

Democrats argued on Friday that the recording bolsters their argument that there may be relevant evidence that has yet to be considered.

ABC reported that Mr. Trump could be heard on the tape saying, “Get rid of her.” According to ABC, the president went on to say: “Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. O.K.? Do it.”

Mr. Parnas had previously recounted how he and another associate of Mr. Giuliani, Igor Fruman, had met with Mr. Trump at the Trump International Hotel in Washington in April 2018. At that meeting, Mr. Parnas relayed a rumor that Ms. Yovanovitch, then the American ambassador in Kyiv, was bad-mouthing the president — an unsubstantiated claim that Ms. Yovanovitch has denied, according to two people with knowledge of the dinner.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Struggle Between N.S.A. and Congress Over Ukraine Records Breaks Into Open

Westlake Legal Group 19dc-intel1-facebookJumbo Struggle Between N.S.A. and Congress Over Ukraine Records Breaks Into Open United States Politics and Government Ukraine Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Schiff, Adam B National Security Agency Nakasone, Paul M House Committee on Intelligence Espionage and Intelligence Services central intelligence agency

A long-simmering conflict between the National Security Agency and the House Intelligence Committee broke into the open on Sunday when the committee’s chairman, Representative Adam B. Schiff, accused the agency of withholding critical intelligence from his panel, including some that might be useful in the impeachment trial of President Trump.

Since last fall, the committee has been quietly seeking documents and intercepts that the National Security Agency gathered in Ukraine. But Mr. Schiff, a California Democrat and former prosecutor who is one of the managers of the impeachment trial, took the fight public, saying that “the intelligence community is beginning to withhold documents from Congress on the issue of Ukraine.”

“The N.S.A. in particular is withholding what are potentially relevant documents to our oversight responsibilities on Ukraine, but also withholding documents potentially relevant that the senators might want to see during the trial,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.” “That is deeply concerning. And there are signs that the C.I.A. may be on the same tragic course.”

Administration officials disputed Mr. Schiff’s accusations, saying the intelligence agencies were nonpartisan and were providing information to their congressional overseers. But a statement they issued avoided mentioning specifics.

“The intelligence community is committed to providing Congress with the information and intelligence it needs to carry out its critical oversight role,” Amanda J. Schoch, the assistant director of national intelligence for strategic communications, said in the statement. It “is working in good faith” with the committee, she continued, to respond “to requests on a broad range of topics and will continue to do so.”

A committee official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Mr. Schiff was angered because the National Security Agency was reneging on an earlier agreement on what documents would be produced. But administration officials said the document production was simply going slowly, and had not been blocked.

Disputes between intelligence agencies and oversight committees are not unusual. The agencies are frequently reluctant to share direct intercepts of conversations or to allow their individual officers or analysts to provide information directly to the committees. Instead, they prefer to turn over analytical reports that have been reviewed by agency leadership. The committees often press for more raw forms of intelligence.

Mr. Schiff and the agency had appeared to reach an accord several months ago about what kind of intelligence about Ukraine it was prepared to share with the committee. Since then, the committee had kept its struggle to obtain American intelligence on Ukraine largely behind closed doors under the secrecy rules that guide its oversight of what, by some measures, is the largest and most powerful of the nation’s 17 intelligence agencies.

Mr. Schiff did not specify what documents were in dispute. But even before Ukraine became a central battleground with its ground war and cyberwar with Russia, the agency had made Ukraine “one of the central points of focus in superpower competition,” a senior intelligence official said several months ago.

By law, the agency could not intercept Mr. Trump’s conversations with President Volodymyr Zelensky, or his predecessor Petro O. Poroshenko. And it would require special court approval to intercept conversations involving Americans communicating with Ukraine, including the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and his key aides.

But the National Security Agency would be free to record Ukrainian officials, including Mr. Zelensky, talking among themselves about those conversations, and those intercepts could reveal how much they knew, and when, about Mr. Trump’s demand to withhold aid from Ukraine in its fight against Russian incursions, and the conditions it would have to meet to get it turned back on.

For intelligence officials who have often found themselves on the receiving end of Mr. Trump’s wrath, charged with disloyalty or told by Mr. Trump they had to “go back to school” because he did not like their assessments of North Korea and Iran, there is nothing more politically delicate than what they collected in Ukraine.

The director of the National Security Agency, Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, was appointed to his post two years ago by Mr. Trump after a long and storied military career at the forefront of American cyberoperations. Until now, he has largely stayed out of the line of fire — and has never been mentioned on the president’s Twitter feed — while he has built an aggressive cyberability, much of it directed at President Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia.

Mr. Trump did not interfere as Mr. Nakasone, during the 2018 midterm elections, ordered a shutdown of the Internet Research Agency, the Russian troll factory that conducted much of the social media campaign that aided Mr. Trump in the last presidential election. Nor did the president get in the way of the implanting of software in the Russian electric power grid.

But the dispute with the committee over Ukraine, and the impeachment proceedings, places General Nakasone, 56, directly in the cross-hairs of the White House.

No matter what his agency’s intelligence assessments or raw intercepts may or may not reveal about how Ukrainian officials reacted to Mr. Trump’s demands for an investigation into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., or into a discredited theory that Ukraine was responsible for a cyberattack on the Democratic National Committee, the president could consider any cooperation with Mr. Schiff highly suspect.

The degree of sensitivity was evident this week in reports, first broadcast on CNN, that all of the nation’s intelligence chiefs were trying to avoid public testimony about the annual “Worldwide Threat Assessment.” Last year the director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, angered Mr. Trump by contradicting his public statements on Iran, North Korea and the Islamic State. He and other intelligence chiefs were summoned to the White House the next day for a public dressing-down.

Intelligence officials say they fear a public hearing this year could be worse: General Nakasone and the director of the C.I.A., Gina Haspel, would undoubtedly be asked for their assessment of whether the cutoff of aid to Ukraine would have benefited Mr. Putin and advantaged Russia as it seeks to undermine the Ukrainian government. (They would most likely also be asked about evidence that North Korea has sped forward with its nuclear and missile programs in the 19 months since Mr. Trump first met Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, in Singapore.)

Mr. Schiff confirmed on Sunday that intelligence agencies had sought to avoid a public hearing, preferring instead to simply offer their written assessment of global threats. “The intelligence community is reluctant to have an open hearing,” he said, “something that we had done every year prior to the Trump administration, because they’re worried about angering the president.”

“We are counting on the intelligence community not only to speak truth to power, but to resist pressure from the administration to withhold information from Congress,” Mr. Schiff continued, “because the administration fears that they incriminate them.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Democrats Release More Material From Lev Parnas on Ukraine Campaign

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_167089047_f0abdf0e-4064-4ed8-9f65-e6ca61106cf4-articleLarge Democrats Release More Material From Lev Parnas on Ukraine Campaign Zlochevsky, Mykola Yovanovitch, Marie L United States Politics and Government United States International Relations Ukraine Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Presidential Election of 2020 Parnas, Lev House Committee on Intelligence Giuliani, Rudolph W Burisma Holdings Ltd Biden, Joseph R Jr Biden, Hunter

Lev Parnas last year in New York. House Democrats have been releasing the contents of Mr. Parnas’s devices over the past week.Credit…Seth Wenig/Associated Press

WASHINGTON — House Democrats released another round of information on Friday that raised questions about elements of the impeachment inquiry, including allegations about the surveillance of the United States ambassador in Ukraine and efforts by an aide to a top congressional Republican to pursue investigations sought by President Trump.

The information came from the electronic devices of Lev Parnas, the businessman who worked with the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani to pursue the pressure campaign on Ukraine at the center of the impeachment trial.

Mr. Parnas, who is facing federal campaign finance charges in Manhattan, has publicly turned on Mr. Trump and his allies. He petitioned the court to allow him to release the information to Congress, and has offered to testify in the impeachment trial and to cooperate with prosecutors in New York investigating Mr. Giuliani. And he undertook a media tour of sorts this week in which he claimed that the president “knew exactly everything that was going on that Rudy Giuliani was doing in Ukraine.”

House Democrats have been releasing the contents of Mr. Parnas’s devices over the past week in an effort to bolster their demand that witnesses be permitted to testify in the Senate trial.

The documents released by House Democrats included WhatsApp messages between Mr. Parnas and Derek Harvey, an aide to Representative Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee and a leading defender of Mr. Trump.

Mr. Nunes has suggested that Mr. Trump and his allies were justified in pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his family and Ukrainians who released information about Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman, Paul Manafort.

The WhatsApp messages show Mr. Harvey working with Mr. Parnas to arrange interviews with Ukrainian officials who claimed wrongdoing by the Bidens and by Ukrainians in 2016.

The messages also suggest that Mr. Harvey, a retired Army colonel who previously served on the National Security Council under Mr. Trump, met at the Trump International Hotel in Washington with Mr. Parnas, Mr. Giuliani and John Solomon, a conservative journalist who worked closely with Mr. Parnas on articles that injected the Ukrainian officials’ claims into the conservative media, reinforcing the pressure campaign.

The message exchange between Mr. Parnas and Mr. Harvey appears to include the passport of Mykola Zlochevsky, the oligarch owner of Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company that paid Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, as a board member.

Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Parnas pressured Ukrainian officials to commit to investigating the arrangement, and some Senate Republicans are threatening to call Hunter Biden to testify in the Senate impeachment trial if Democrats press for their own witnesses.

A spokesman for Mr. Nunes did not respond to a request for comment.

Friday’s release also included correspondence of an obscure Republican candidate for Congress in Connecticut who had suggested to Mr. Parnas that Marie L. Yovanovitch had been under surveillance while serving as the United States ambassador in Kyiv at a time when she had come under heavy criticism from Mr. Trump’s allies.

The newly released correspondence included WhatsApp messages between the congressional candidate, Robert F. Hyde, and an unidentified account with an avatar of a man and a number that began with Belgium’s country code, but was partly redacted in the release. Someone using the account sent Mr. Hyde an official government portrait of Ms. Yovanovitch, and indicated, “My contacts are checking,” adding, “I will give you the address next week.”

Mr. Hyde responded, “Awesome.”

The person using the account appeared to be familiar with Mr. Hyde, congratulating him “on your new business development” while sending updates suggesting knowledge of Ms. Yovanovitch’s whereabouts in Kyiv, Ukraine’s capital.

Mr. Hyde appears to have forwarded some of the contents of the messages to Mr. Parnas, and when the messages between the two men were released this week, they prompted concern from Ms. Yovanovitch, who was removed from her post last spring on Mr. Trump’s orders, and from others.

On Thursday, Ukrainian police announced a criminal investigation into possible illegal surveillance, and F.B.I. agents visited Mr. Hyde’s home and business, according to a law enforcement official.

Mr. Hyde, who has a history of erratic behavior, initially claimed that the messages were a prank, saying on Twitter on Tuesday that he was “playing with” Mr. Parnas.

On Friday, though, Mr. Hyde posted a profanity-laced video and several messages on social media in which he identified Anthony de Caluwé as the source of the information about Ms. Yovanovitch. Calling him “some intel guy,” Mr. Hyde speculated that Mr. de Caluwé may have been manipulating him in an effort “to set Trump up.”

An Anthony de Caluwé with a Belgian phone number that matched the portion of the number visible in Friday’s release did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Mr. Hyde.

Mr. Hyde encouraged Democratic impeachment investigators to look into Mr. de Caluwé and said, “I’m sure if I disappeared or died or they gag order me, they’re going to use me as a smoking gun.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Who Is Barry Berke? Judiciary Committee’s Lawyer Will Present Impeachment Case

Westlake Legal Group 09dc-berke1-facebookJumbo Who Is Barry Berke? Judiciary Committee’s Lawyer Will Present Impeachment Case United States Politics and Government Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry impeachment House Committee on the Judiciary House Committee on Intelligence Berke, Barry H

WASHINGTON — When Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee present their opening arguments for impeaching President Trump on Monday, they will turn not to a seasoned prosecutor but to one of the nation’s leading defense lawyers to set the stage.

Barry H. Berke, a New York-based white-collar defense lawyer, has served as the special oversight counsel to the committee since February, working to build the investigative framework that now appears destined to end in the impeachment of Mr. Trump. On Monday, he will take a rare turn at the witness table to present for 30 minutes the facts before the committee and how they square with the law.

Mr. Berke will not be the only House lawyer publicly presenting on Monday. Daniel S. Goldman of the Intelligence Committee will orally present his panel’s two-month inquiry concluding that Mr. Trump abused his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. Stephen R. Castor will represent Republicans on both the judiciary and intelligence panels.

But Mr. Berke will be the first witness to speak, setting the tone for the proceeding and a week that could end with the Judiciary Committee voting to recommend impeachment articles.

Along with Norman L. Eisen, a former top Obama White House ethics lawyer, Mr. Berke has consulted with the committee since Democrats retook the majority this year to organize and carry out a sprawling investigation into possible abuse of power and obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump. He has helped draft subpoenas for testimony and records, questions for key hearings and, most recently, articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump.

Before they joined the committee, Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen wrote a series of reports on obstruction of justice, collusion and Mr. Trump for the Brookings Institution.

In September, during his only other appearance before television cameras, Mr. Berke’s cross-examination of Corey Lewandowski elicited an admission from Mr. Lewandowski that he had been dishonest in a television interview about his role in a scheme by Mr. Trump to curtail the Mueller investigation.

“I have no obligation not to be dishonest to the media because they are as dishonest as anybody else,” Mr. Lewandowski said.

Republicans have bitterly complained about Mr. Berke and Mr. Eisen, arguing that the hiring of outside legal consultants constitutes the “privatization of impeachment.”

A graduate of Duke and Harvard Law School, Mr. Berke worked for four years in the federal defender’s office of the Southern District of New York. He joined Kramer Levin in New York in the 1990s and built a practice around complicated financial and tax crimes and a reputation as one of the leading cross-examiners in the country. He is on leave from the firm, taking the train to Washington each week.

In 2011, Mr. Berke’s defense of a former Deutsche Bank broker accused of marketing fraudulent tax shelters set the New York legal world atwitter with the novel use of a simple prop: his red hankie. When he cross-examined the government’s star witness, a tax lawyer involved in the scheme, Mr. Berke asked him to take part in some role play. When the handkerchief was in his pocket, the witness was to treat Mr. Berke like a potential client and give him the pitch the witness had given real-life clients about why the shelters worked.

After four days of questioning, Mr. Berke successfully undermined the prosecution’s case and his client was acquitted; four co-defendants not represented by Mr. Berke were convicted.

Paul H. Schoeman, who worked with him on the case, said the flare of creativity was quintessential Mr. Berke.

“In New York legal circles, Barry’s performance in that trial was a real event,” Mr. Schoeman said. “He is really creative and inventive in his thinking, and he combines that with incredible preparation and hard work. It’s not just a good idea; it’s well executed.”

Mr. Berke has also been active in New York Democratic circles, and he is no stranger to high-profile political cases. In recent years, he represented Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York in a federal investigation into his campaign fund-raising, which concluded in 2017 without charges being filed.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Officials Dispute Some Giuliani Call Logs in Bid to Weaken Democrats’ Case

Trump administration officials, seeking to weaken Democrats’ case for impeachment, disputed on Thursday some of the details in the House Intelligence Committee’s report about calls between President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and White House aides.

As part of its portrait of Mr. Trump’s campaign of pressure on Ukraine, the committee’s report released this week listed several calls between Mr. Giuliani and White House phone numbers, including one “associated with” the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, cited in the report simply as “O.M.B. number.”

Such calls suggested contact between Mr. Giuliani and key officials at significant moments during Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. The budget office was involved in the administration’s freeze on $391 million in security aid for Ukraine, a key lever in the president’s pressure campaign.

But the phone number is a generic White House switchboard number beginning with “395,” people familiar with the phone records said. While government directories list it as associated with the budget office, they also show the number as associated with offices in other parts of the White House, including the upper floors of the West Wing and the National Security Council.

A review of budget office call logs showed that no one spoke with Mr. Giuliani around the times of the calls in April and August, an O.M.B. official said. Mr. Giuliani did not speak with Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff and director of the budget office, whose name has come up in testimony about the aid freeze, a White House official said.

Still, administration officials have not contested the broader assertion that the impeachment report made with the call records: that Mr. Giuliani was in close contact with the White House as he carried out a shadow Ukraine policy pressing its new president to announce investigations that could benefit Mr. Trump politically.

Westlake Legal Group read-the-document-1575399772992-articleLarge Trump Officials Dispute Some Giuliani Call Logs in Bid to Weaken Democrats’ Case United States Politics and Government Ukraine Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Office of Management and Budget (US) impeachment House Committee on Intelligence Giuliani, Rudolph W

Read the House Democrats’ Report on the Impeachment Inquiry

Democrats on three House committees on Tuesday released a report documenting the impeachment case against President Trump.

Asked about the call labeling in the impeachment report, a senior Intelligence Committee official said the phone numbers appeared to be associated with the budget office based on public government directories.

The committee was still investigating the call records, including those identified in the report as connected to the budget office, said the official, who like others was not authorized to speak publicly.

The committee issued subpoenas to the White House and Mr. Giuliani asking for records that the official said would “clarify” who at the White House spoke with him. But both the White House and Mr. Giuliani defied those demands.

Mr. Giuliani has given different answers publicly about whether he spoke with anyone at the budget office.

On Tuesday, he told The New York Times that he had nothing to do with the administration’s decision to withhold aid from Ukraine, which is fighting a war against Russian-backed forces in its east, and that his conversations with officials at the budget office related to other issues.

“I never discussed military assistance,” he said. “I am expert on so many things it could have been some very esoteric subject.”

But on Wednesday, he texted CNN that he did not “remember calling O.M.B. and not about military aid never knew anything about it.”

Mr. Giuliani did not respond to a message seeking comment on Thursday.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Giuliani, Facing Scrutiny, Travels to Europe to Interview Ukrainians

Westlake Legal Group 04dc-rudy1-facebookJumbo Giuliani, Facing Scrutiny, Travels to Europe to Interview Ukrainians Zelensky, Volodymyr United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Shokin, Viktor Russian Interference in 2016 US Elections and Ties to Trump Associates Presidential Election of 2020 Presidential Election of 2016 One America Lutsenko, Yuri V Klitschko, Vitali KIEV, Ukraine House of Representatives House Committee on Intelligence Giuliani, Rudolph W BUDAPEST, Hungary Biden, Joseph R Jr Artemenko, Andrii V

WASHINGTON — Even as Democrats intensified their scrutiny this week of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s role in the pressure campaign against the Ukrainian government that is at the heart of the impeachment inquiry, Mr. Giuliani has been in Europe continuing his efforts to shift the focus to purported wrongdoing by President Trump’s political rivals.

Mr. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, met in Budapest on Tuesday with a former Ukrainian prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, who has become a key figure in the impeachment inquiry. He then traveled to Kyiv on Wednesday seeking to meet with other former Ukrainian prosecutors whose claims have been embraced by Republicans, including Viktor Shokin and Kostiantyn H. Kulyk, according to people familiar with the effort.

The former prosecutors, who have faced allegations of corruption, all played some role in promoting claims about former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a former United States ambassador to Ukraine and Ukrainians who disseminated damaging information about Mr. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, in 2016.

Those claims — some baseless and others with key disputed elements — have been the foundations of the effort by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani to pressure the Ukrainian government to commit itself to investigations that would benefit Mr. Trump heading into his re-election campaign. That effort in turn has led to the impeachment proceedings in the House against the president.

Mr. Giuliani is using the trip, which has not been previously reported, to help prepare more episodes of a documentary series for a conservative television outlet promoting his pro-Trump, anti-impeachment narrative. His latest moves to advance the theories propounded by the prosecutors amount to an audacious effort to give the president’s supporters new material to undercut the House impeachment proceedings and an eventual Senate trial.

It was Mr. Giuliani’s earlier interactions with some of the same Ukrainian characters that set the stage for the impeachment inquiry in the first place, and also led to an investigation by federal prosecutors into whether Mr. Giuliani violated federal lobbying laws.

Mr. Giuliani’s trip has generated concern in some quarters of the State Department, coming amid scrutiny of his work with American diplomats earlier this year on the pressure campaign. His trip to Budapest and Kyiv suggests that he is unbowed by the intense scrutiny that has enveloped him and his associates, including revelations from the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday of frequent calls from Mr. Giuliani to the White House and other figures in the pressure campaign at key moments this year.

The European trip was organized around the filming of a multipart television series featuring Mr. Giuliani that is being produced and aired by a conservative cable channel, One America News, or OAN.

The series, the first two installments of which have already aired, is being promoted as a Republican alternative to the impeachment hearings, including Ukrainian “witnesses” whom House Democrats running the inquiry declined to call. Some of the Ukrainians interviewed by Mr. Giuliani were sworn in on camera to “testify under oath” in a manner that the network claims “debunks the impeachment hoax.”

Mr. Giuliani was joined in Budapest by an OAN crew, including the reporter hosting the series, Chanel Rion, who conducted an interview in the Hungarian capital with Mr. Lutsenko, according to someone familiar with the interview.

Earlier this year, Mr. Lutsenko played a formative role in what became Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign, meeting with Mr. Giuliani in New York, where he made claims about a gas company that paid Mr. Biden’s son as a board member and the dissemination of a secret ledger listing slush payments from a Russia-aligned Ukrainian political party earmarked to Mr. Manafort and others. When The New York Times revealed the payments earmarked to Mr. Manafort in August 2016, it forced him to resign under pressure from the Trump campaign.

Mr. Lutsenko, whom Mr. Giuliani considered representing as a client, is facing allegations in Ukraine of abuse of power during his years as a prosecutor and was characterized by some American officials in the impeachment inquiry as untrustworthy. But his office moved to pursue investigations sought by Mr. Trump, and he was praised by the president as a “very good prosecutor” during a July 25 phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.

Mr. Lutsenko discussed some of the subjects into which Mr. Trump sought investigations during his interview on Tuesday with Ms. Rion, said the person familiar with the interview.

Also joining Mr. Giuliani and the OAN crew in Budapest were two former Ukrainian officials who have been supportive of Mr. Trump, Andrii Telizhenko and Andrii V. Artemenko.

The pair, along with a third former Ukrainian official, Mykhaylo Okhendovsky, recorded interviews at OAN’s studios in Washington late last month with Ms. Rion and Mr. Giuliani for an episode of the series that aired on Tuesday night.

The three Ukrainians questioned the Democrats’ case for impeachment during the episode. And they asserted that Mr. Trump had ample reason to ask Mr. Zelensky during their July 25 phone call to investigate the Bidens and whether Ukrainians acted improperly to damage Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign.

The July 25 call helped trigger a whistle-blower complaint about the pressure wielded by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani against Mr. Zelensky, and the whistle-blower complaint incited the impeachment inquiry into whether Mr. Trump abused his power for political gain.

In the OAN episode broadcast on Tuesday, Mr. Telizhenko reiterated his claims that, while working in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in 2016, he was instructed to help a Democratic operative gather incriminating information about Mr. Manafort. The Ukrainian Embassy has denied his account.

Mr. Artemenko, a former member of Parliament, and Mr. Okhendovsky, the former chairman of Ukraine’s Central Election Commission, both called into question the authenticity of the ledger listing payments to Mr. Manafort.

Ms. Rion falsely claimed on air that the Democratic operative connected to the Ukrainian Embassy, who has become a frequent target of House Republicans, provided the ledger to The Times. She declared that her interviews with Mr. Telizhenko, Mr. Artemenko and Mr. Okhendovsky “pulls the rug out from under” Democrats’ “central premise that Trump was wrong to ask about Joe Biden and the Democrat party’s starring role in Ukrainian corruption.”

Ms. Rion, Mr. Telizhenko, Mr. Artemenko and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Giuliani rejected any notion that it was audacious or risky for him to continue pursuing the Ukrainian mission, given the scrutiny of him by impeachment investigators and federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, or S.D.N.Y.

“If S.D.N.Y. leaks and Democrats’ threats stopped me, then I should find a new profession,” he wrote in a text message on Wednesday.

Asked about his interview with Mr. Lutsenko and efforts to interview other Ukrainian prosecutors, he responded that “like a good lawyer, I am gathering evidence to defend my client against the false charges being leveled against him” by the news media and Democrats.

He accused Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which conducted impeachment hearings last month, of preventing testimony that could help Mr. Trump. “I am hoping that the evidence concealed by Schiff will be available to the public as they evaluate his outrageous, unconstitutional behavior.”

He did not respond to a question about whether he briefed Mr. Trump on his trip or his involvement in the OAN series, but he has said that he keeps Mr. Trump apprised of his efforts related to Ukraine.

In a news release Tuesday, OAN indicated that the third installment of its series with Mr. Giuliani was “currently in the works with OAN investigative staff outside the United States conducting key interviews at undisclosed safe houses.” It said the network would release additional details “upon return of OAN staff to U.S. soil.”

In Budapest, Mr. Giuliani had dinner on Tuesday night at the residence of the United States ambassador to Hungary, David B. Cornstein, a longtime friend and associate of both Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani.

A businessman who made a fortune operating jewelry counters inside department stores and worked in Mr. Giuliani’s New York mayoral administration, Mr. Cornstein has courted Viktor Orban, Hungary’s authoritarian prime minister, who in turn has provided fodder for Mr. Trump’s critical view of Ukraine.

A spokesman for the American Embassy in Budapest issued a statement describing the Tuesday night get-together as “a private dinner” hosted by the ambassador “with his longtime friend,” Mr. Giuliani, and Mr. Giuliani’s assistant. “No one else was present at the dinner.”

A reporter who showed up outside the ambassador’s residence during the dinner was turned away by a security guard.

Some State Department officials said they were tracking Mr. Giuliani’s continued efforts to engage the Ukrainians with concern. One department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a politically sensitive topic, called it “shocking” that, in the face of scrutiny of his prior efforts related to Ukraine, Mr. Giuliani was traveling internationally in continued pursuit of information from Ukrainians.

One of the former prosecutors with whom Mr. Giuliani is seeking to meet in Kyiv is Mr. Shokin, who claims his ouster was forced by Mr. Biden to prevent investigations into the gas company paying Mr. Biden’s son Hunter Biden. Allies of the oligarch who owns the gas company say they welcomed Mr. Shokin’s firing, but not because he was actively investigating the company or the oligarch. Rather, they say, he was using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes.

Another prosecutor with whom Mr. Giuliani was seeking to meet, Mr. Kulyk, had compiled a seven-page dossier in English accusing Hunter Biden of corruption, and had taken steps to pursue an investigation into Burisma Holdings, the gas company on whose board Hunter Biden served. Mr. Kulyk was fired recently by Mr. Zelensky’s new top prosecutor as part of an anti-corruption initiative.

OAN’s crew hopes to interview the former prosecutors as well, Ms. Rion suggested during the first episode of the series, which aired late last month.

Kenneth P. Vogel reported from Washington, and Benjamin Novak from Budapest.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A Mysterious ‘-1’ and Other Call Records Show How Giuliani Pressured Ukraine

WASHINGTON — In the two days before President Trump forced out the American ambassador to Ukraine in April, his personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was on the phone with the White House more than a dozen times.

Phone records cited in the impeachment report released Tuesday by the House Intelligence Committee illustrate the sprawling reach of Mr. Giuliani’s campaign first to remove the ambassador, Marie L. Yovanovitch, then to force Ukraine’s new government to announce criminal investigations for Mr. Trump’s political gain.

That effort accelerated through the spring and summer into a full-court press to force Ukraine’s new president to accede to Mr. Trump’s wishes or risk losing $391 million in military assistance desperately needed to hold off Russian-led forces waging a separatist war in eastern Ukraine.

From March 26 to Aug. 8, as he developed an irregular foreign policy channel that eventually sidelined both National Security Council and State Department aides, Mr. Giuliani — who is not a government employee — was in touch with top-ranking officials, the newly revealed call records suggested.

He reached out to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; the national security adviser at the time, John R. Bolton; Representative Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee itself; midlevel White House officials; the Fox News host Sean Hannity; a conservative columnist; an associate who has been charged in a scheme related to Ms. Yovanovitch’s ouster; and the owner of a mysterious number, “-1.”

Investigators are trying to determine whether the unidentified phone number belongs to Mr. Trump, said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, who leads the House Intelligence Committee. If so, the phone calls with Mr. Giuliani could be further evidence of the president’s direct involvement in the Ukraine affair.

Westlake Legal Group read-the-document-1575399772992-articleLarge A Mysterious ‘-1’ and Other Call Records Show How Giuliani Pressured Ukraine Yovanovitch, Marie L United States Politics and Government United States International Relations Ukraine Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Pompeo, Mike Patel, Kashyap Parnas, Lev Nunes, Devin G National Security Council impeachment House Committee on Intelligence Giuliani, Rudolph W

Read the House Democrats’ Report on the Impeachment Inquiry

Democrats on three House committees on Tuesday released a report documenting the impeachment case against President Trump.

The report gave no indication of what conversations took place or how investigators obtained the telephone records, which were apparently produced in response to a subpoena to AT&T. Nonetheless, the timing and volume of the calls buttressed testimony by witnesses who portrayed Mr. Giuliani at the center of a shadow foreign policy that dismayed and baffled many in the administration.

The call records showed “considerable coordination among the parties, including the White House” to falsely portray Ms. Yovanovitch as disloyal to the president and to manipulate administration policy for his personal benefit, Mr. Schiff told reporters.

The report detailed a game of phone tag between the -1 phone number and Mr. Giuliani on Aug. 8. That same week, Mr. Giuliani was vigorously pressing State Department officials to persuade President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into the Biden family and whether Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election.

Mr. Giuliani missed calls from -1 on Aug. 8 to two of his cellphones. Mr. Giuliani then called the White House switchboard and the White House Situation Room, before connecting with -1.

Circumstantial evidence shows that some of the -1 calls involved Mr. Trump, Mr. Schiff said, adding that his committee was working “to find out definitively.”

House investigators suspect that the number may belong to Mr. Trump in part because of phone records used as evidence in the criminal case against Roger J. Stone Jr., a longtime friend and former campaign adviser who was convicted last month of seven felonies, including lying to Congress. Mr. Stone, who talked directly to Mr. Trump, received a call from a number listed only as -1, the records from his trial show.

Mr. Schiff declined to say how the committee obtained the phone records.

Mr. Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine are under intense scrutiny by federal prosecutors as well as congressional investigators. Prosecutors in New York are looking into whether he violated foreign lobbying laws in trying to oust the American ambassador and also scrutinizing any financial dealings he might have pursued with Ukrainian officials. Two of his associates — including one whose records were also in the House report, Lev Parnas — have been indicted on charges of violating campaign finance laws and other infractions.

State Department phone records cited in the House report show Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Pompeo spoke on March 26 and 28. In an interview in late November, Mr. Giuliani said he spoke to Mr. Pompeo to give him the results of his Ukraine research, including the role he believes that Ukrainians played trying to disrupt Mr. Trump’s 2016 election campaign.

At the time, Mr. Pompeo was under pressure from both Mr. Giuliani and the White House to remove Ms. Yovanovitch from her post. A month later, she was recalled to Washington, even though multiple high-ranking State Department officials testified that she had done nothing wrong.

The records of Mr. Giuliani’s calls also suggest that Mr. Nunes may have played a deeper role than was previously known in Mr. Giuliani’s efforts to manipulate the administration’s policy toward Ukraine.

On April 10, Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Nunes traded short calls before Mr. Giuliani reached Mr. Nunes and the two spoke for about three minutes.

While the subject of their conversation is not known, they were most likely speaking about Ukraine, the report suggested. In the days beforehand, Mr. Giuliani said on Fox News that Ukraine had improperly interfered in the 2016 election and posted on Twitter citing criticism of Ms. Yovanovitch and accusing Ukrainian officials of interfering in American politics.

During the impeachment hearings, Mr. Nunes led the defense of Mr. Trump, repeatedly raising questions about Ukraine’s role in the 2016 election and urging an investigation into Hunter Biden, the younger son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, who was hired onto the board of a Ukrainian gas company.

At a news conference on Tuesday, Mr. Schiff raised questions about Mr. Nunes’s role. “It is, I think, deeply concerning that at a time when the president of the United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence that there were members of Congress complicit in that activity,” Mr. Schiff said.

Mr. Nunes ignored questions about the call records in the Capitol, and his spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. But Republican leaders backed him on Tuesday. “Devin Nunes has a right to talk to anybody,” Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the top Republican in the House, told reporters.

Mr. Giuliani also spoke with current and former members of Mr. Nunes’s staff, including Kashyap Patel, who left Mr. Nunes’s office in February and joined the National Security Council staff to work on issues involving the United Nations and other international organizations. The two men had a 25-minute call on May 10, according to the records, despite the fact that Mr. Bolton, then the national security adviser, had said that no one in his office should be talking to Mr. Giuliani, according to congressional testimony.

Mr. Patel had no formal responsibility for Ukraine policy, and Fiona Hill, then a senior aide to Mr. Bolton, had raised questions about whether he was straying from his official portfolio. She asked Charles Kupperman, then Mr. Bolton’s top deputy, in late May whether Mr. Patel had assumed a role in Ukraine matters but received no answer, according to the impeachment report.

After The New York Times published an article in October about Ms. Hill’s testimony, Mr. Patel filed a defamation lawsuit against the news organization. In that lawsuit, Mr. Patel denied he “played a role in shadow foreign policy” aimed at pushing Ukraine to pursue investigations sought by Mr. Trump.

A National Security Council spokesman declined to comment when asked about Mr. Giuliani’s phone call with Mr. Patel.

Nicholas Fandos and Kenneth P. Vogel contributed reporting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Impeachment Report Says Trump Solicited Foreign Election Interference

WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Tuesday released a 300-page impeachment report asserting that President Trump abused his power by trying to enlist Ukraine to help him in the 2020 presidential election. The report said that Mr. Trump “placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States,” seeking to undermine American democracy and endangering national security.

The document, drawn up by the House Intelligence Committee that has led the inquiry into Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, left it to another panel to decide whether to recommend his impeachment and removal. But it laid out in searing fashion what are all but certain to be the grounds on which the Democratic-led House moves to impeach the president.

The lengthy document outlined more than two months of public and private testimony from diplomats and other administration officials who described a campaign by the president and his allies to pressure Ukraine for investigations of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats, while withholding nearly $400 million in military assistance and a White House meeting for Ukraine’s president.

“The impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, uncovered a monthslong effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election,” said the report, released ahead of a vote Tuesday evening by the Intelligence Committee to formally approve it. It asserts that Mr. Trump’s “scheme subverted U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine and undermined our national security in favor of two politically motivated investigations that would help his presidential re-election campaign.”

Westlake Legal Group read-the-document-1575399772992-articleLarge Impeachment Report Says Trump Solicited Foreign Election Interference washington dc Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Schiff, Adam B House Committee on the Judiciary House Committee on Intelligence

Read the House Democrats’ Report on the Impeachment Inquiry

Democrats on three House committees on Tuesday released a report documenting the impeachment case against President Trump.

The report also lays out what it calls an “unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry” by Mr. Trump, in light of his move to prevent the release of documents from agencies including the State Department, the Department of Defense and the White House budget office and instructing potential witnesses not to cooperate.

“The damage to our system of checks and balances, and to the balance of power within our three branches of government, will be long-lasting and potentially irrevocable if the president’s ability to stonewall Congress goes unchecked,” the report concluded. “Any future president will feel empowered to resist an investigation into their own wrongdoing, malfeasance, or corruption, and the result will be a nation at far greater risk of all three.”

The report is a watershed moment for the months-old inquiry. Its delivery sets in motion the next phase in the impeachment of Mr. Trump, accelerating a constitutional clash that has happened only three times in the nation’s history. Both parties are poised for a fierce, partisan debate in the House Judiciary Committee over whether the president should be removed from office.

The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin its debate on Wednesday with a public hearing that features four constitutional scholars discussing the historical standards for impeachment and their assessment about whether Mr. Trump’s actions constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors” that warrant his removal from office.

Lawyers for the Intelligence Committee are expected to formally present the report to the Judiciary panel and answer questions from its members in the coming days, though no hearing has been scheduled. Mr. Trump’s Republican allies on Capitol Hill released their own report on Monday, condemning the Democratic impeachment effort as illegitimate, and asserting that the president was not seeking personal political advantage when he pressed Ukraine’s leaders to investigate his rivals, but was instead urging the country to address corruption.

In London for a NATO meeting, Mr. Trump accused Democrats of trying to overturn the results of the 2016 elections, saying the impeachment inquiry “turned out to be a hoax.”

“It’s done for purely political gain,” Mr. Trump continued. “They’re going to see whether or not they can do something in 2020, because otherwise they’re going to lose.”

The Intelligence Committee is also expected to vote to transmit all the raw evidence it collected to the Judiciary Committee. Though Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the chairman of the Intelligence panels, has indicated that investigative work could continue, the report largely brings an end his committee’s inquiry, which began after Speaker Nancy Pelosi formally opened the impeachment inquiry in late September.

The Judiciary Committee will also consider potential evidence presented by other investigative committees — and renew an earlier debate among Democrats over whether Mr. Trump should be impeached for his attempts to thwart attempts by Robert S. Mueller III, the former special counsel, to investigate Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and any connections to the Trump campaign.

If a majority of the House voted to approve articles of impeachment, which would be drafted by the Judiciary Committee, the president would be impeached. The proceedings would move to the Senate for a trial. Two-thirds of senators would have to vote to convict Mr. Trump to end his presidency.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com