Yep, as the NY mag article points out, Rudy has picked up where Manafort left off:

That's not all. A large part of Russia's agenda in Ukraine is to influence that country's internal politics. Ukraine is ground zero of Russia's overseas political operations. Moscow has financed a series of corrupt officials who pursue pro-Russian policies. (Russia then turns around and uses Ukraine's corruption as a reason for other countries to shun it.) Before he managed Trump's 2016 campaign, Paul Manafort was paid by Russian oligarchs to represent the pro-Russian Party of Regions.

The revolution that deposed Manafort's candidate and the recent election of reformist president Zelensky have threatened Russia's internal influence in Ukraine. Giuliani's work there has essentially picked up where Manafort left off. He has tried to vindicate Manafort by digging up evidence that Ukrainians framed him as a criminal through the "black ledger" listing his illegal payments. On his trip to Ukraine, Giuliani huddled with a number of notoriously corrupt pro-Russian officials, including veterans of the Party of Regions. (Philip Bump has a good rundown of the rogues' gallery of Giuliani partners.) He is openly working to promote the cast of characters Russia wants to run Ukraine.

This information needs to be packed down, vetted, and if substantiated, incorporated into Trump's impeachment case. Screw quid pro quo on the Ukraine aid, when we've got Russia funding the scheme for Trump's benefit along with Trump's own words saying "Talk to Rudy" already on the record.

Wow, wouldn't that be something? It would makes sense, too, since we know that Rudy has been consulting with Manafort even though Manafort is in jail. If anyone would know which Russian oligarchs and Putin-backed Ukrainian oligarchs to cozy up to for funding, disinformation and Russian-approved propaganda, it would be Manafort.

Hmm, from the NY mag article:

Rudy has worked as Trump's lawyer for "free," but Parnas paid him half a million dollars for his work. If Parnas himself was being paid by Russian sources, this means the Russians were essentially subsidizing Trump, paying for the work themselves so he didn't have to lay out a dime of his own money.

From the Bloomberg article:

The payment raises provocative new questions about the nature of the work Parnas and his associate Igor Fruman were doing and who they were doing it for. Much about what they did remains unclear.

All this is reminiscent of Manafort, who as Trump's campaign manager also worked for free, but was, in fact, being subsidized by foreign sources.

Trump telling a teen to work on her anger management issues is rich:

President Donald Trump attacked 16-year-old environmental activist Greta Thunberg on Thursday for being named Time magazine's "Person of The Year."

"So ridiculous," Trump said on Twitter. "Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!"

According to Horowitz' account of the discussion, Durham disagreed with the Horowitz finding that there was an adequate basis to open a full investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia's election interference. However, according to Horowitz, Durham conceded that there was an adequate predicate to open a preliminary investigation into the matter.

The early actions the FBI took to probe the Trump-Russia links could have been taken under just a preliminary investigation. However, according to Horowitz' report, the October 2016 move to seek a surveillance warrant against ex-Trump campaign advisor Carter Page was a step the FBI could only take under a full investigation.

"Then, on Monday, Durham says he disagrees with Horowitz's conclusion that the investigation itself was adequately predicated...."

Not adequately predicated for a full investigation, only a preliminary one:

"Well, I was surprised by the statement. I didn't necessarily know it was going to be released on Monday," Horowitz said, adding that he met in November with Durham"who is working with Attorney General William Barr on an investigation into the origins of the Russia probe. "He said he did not necessarily agree with our conclusion about the opening of a full counterintelligence investigation, which is what this was. But there are also investigative means by which the FBI can move forward with an investigation called a preliminary investigation."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) also asked Horowitz whether Barr or Durham presented anything that would alter his report, which found there was no political bias and there was sufficient evidence to begin the probe. "No," he replied.

"the excerpt you produced happened at the very end of the interview and was just a random thing that Williams threw in at the end because he had Barr's attention."

The fact that you call the questions about Ukraine "a random thing" says it all.

"This may be tough for you to swallow but that Horowitz testimony was an unmitigated disaster for the Democratic Party.'

I didn't see it that way at all.

"and I'm going to predict that whatever Durham uncovers is going to be even worse."

Time will tell, but thanks for going on the record about this.

So, Tony'Cut&Paste'Roma - do you believe this to be an honest statement: "I've never seen anyone say that the economy would crash just because Trump was elected."

I remember people saying Trump, The King of Debt, would enact huge tax cuts to benefit the wealthy (check), drive up the national debt in the process (check) and then use the sky-rocketing debt as his excuse to undercut the safety net and entitlement programs (partial check--he has promised to go after Medicare and SS after he is re-elected).

The interview wasn't about the Ukraine investigation.
Democrats and their allies are getting desperate.
#8 | Posted by JeffJ

You are the one who is getting desperate, Jeff, and showing your true GOP-always-and-forever colors in the process:

Williams helps Barr continue to cover up his role in the Ukraine investigation

First, consider the exchange that Williams and Barr have to exonerate the Attorney General in involvement in Rudy Giuliani's Ukraine conspiracy.

Williams: Were you ever asked by the White House to talk to anybody in Ukraine about an investigation of Joe Biden? (18:40)

Barr: No.

Williams: Are you concerned that Ukraine has a missing server from the Hillary Clinton emails?

Barr [searching look]: Fortunately I haven't gotten into the Ukraine thing. I don't know. I'm not even sure about the nature of these allegations.

Williams: What about the allegation that it was the Ukrainians who meddled in the election, not the Russians. Are you satisfied that's not the case?

Barr: I am confident the Russians attempted to interfere in the election. I don't know about the Ukrainians. I haven't even looked into it, frankly.

Williams: What was your involvement in the Department's decision not to investigate the President's phone call to Ukraine?

Barr: We put out a statement that explained the process, which was the Criminal Division made that decision and in the process consulted with the senior most career employees who are the experts on campaign finance laws and that process was supervised by the Deputy but I'm not going to go beyond what we've already said about that process.

Williams: Well, were you satisfied that everything that was done--

Barr: Absolutely.

I wouldn't be surprised if Williams were using a script DOJ gave him, because Williams asks none of the questions that remain unanswered about DOJ's role in the Ukraine investigation, such as why they didn't do the bare minimum of connecting the dots implemented after 9/11, why the didn't refer the complaint to the FEC, why they didn't abide by the whistleblower protection act, why (on demand, apparently) they issued a statement exonerating the President, or who the three Ukrainians that DOJ admitted have been fed into John Durham's investigation are.

Instead, Williams lets Barr ignore his question about his role in reviewing the whistleblower complaint and claim " as the person who knew of the Lev Parnas investigation that also knew of the whistleblower complaint " he has no role in the Ukraine thing. This exchange raises more questions about Barr's involvement, but Williams instead allows him to claim a clean bill of health.

Tom McParland @TMcParlandALM (Litigation reporter, covering SDNY and Second Circuit Court of Appeals for @NYLawJournal)

Prosecutors are asking a Manhattan federal judge to revoke Lev Parnas' bail, alleging that he tried to hide assets from a pre-trial services officer in Florida and calling him an "extreme" flight risk with "seemingly limitless access to foreign funds."

The filing came in response to Parnas' request to modify his bail conditions so that he could leave his house during the day, so long as he avoids "airports, boat docks or train terminals."

Prosecutors said they learned of the misstatements while preparing their response. . . .

"Parnas has proven adept at gaining access to foreign funding: in the last three years, Parnas received in excess of $1.5 million from Ukrainian and Russian sources....he could quickly and easily flee the United States for Ukraine or another foreign country," filing says.

"there are long timers that will remember."

Long timers don't remember but you, who supposedly Joined 2019/04/22, do. Uh-huh. The only "---- LIAR" here is you.

"Surprised there wasn't a Russian connection."

Not Russia, Ukraine:

But her LinkedIn page has an anomaly: A 2016 summer internship Allen landed at a Long Island personal injury firm, a long way from her rural Virginia home.

That personal injury firm is Gucciardo Law, headed by Charles Gucciardo. Last week Giuliani and Gucciardo confirmed to the New York Times that Gucciardo gave $500,000 to the former mayor through Giuliani's firm, Giuliani Partners, in two payments in September and October 2018. According to Gucciardo's lawyer, the payments went to Giuliani on behalf of Fraud Guarantee, a company co-managed by Giuliani's clients Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. Their work with Fraud Guarantee " whose mission statement is to help their customers "reduce and mitigate fraud" " helped earn them a federal indictment last month.

From:

Excellence is in the eye of the beholder I guess:

American Democracy Needs Better Reporters than Pete Williams

Bill Barr made big news yesterday saying intemperate things in what has charitably been called an "interview" with NBC's Pete Williams. Those comments have distracted from other details of the so-called interview, which deserve further attention for the way that Williams was utterly useless in guiding the interview towards any of the questions that needed to be answered. Given Barr's assault on the rule of law, garbage interviews like this undermine the Constitution. . . .I wouldn't be surprised if Williams were using a script DOJ gave him, because Williams asks none of the questions that remain unanswered about DOJ's role in the Ukraine investigation[.]

From SDNY court filing:

Parnas failed to disclose, in describing his income to the Government and Pretrial Services, the fact that in September 2019, he received $1 million from a bank account in Russia into Account-1. While the majority of that money appears to have been used on personal expenses and to purchase a home, as discussed below, some portion of that money existed in Account-1 at the time Parnas submitted his financial affidavit.

Pelosi had it right: "All roads lead to Putin."

"Durham works for Barr."

Barr got the job by declaring the Russia investigation was a sham, even though at that point he was not AG and had no idea what evidence the FBI, DOJ or CIA had collected. So, no, Dems don't trust Barr. If Durham sells his soul to Barr the way Barr sold his soul to Trump, there is no reason Democrats should and could trust him.

Republican Complaints about Phone Records Back Democratic Impeachment Case

Way back in 2001, Victoria Toensing wrote an article justifying the subpoena of phone records of her future client, John Solomon, to find out who leaked details to him that Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli had been picked up on a wiretap of a mob figure. In it, she justified serving limited subpoenas, approved by Robert Mueller, on a third party carrier to find out who had committed a crime. She emphasized there was nothing political about the subpoena of Solomon's phone records. . . . Eighteen years later, Toensing is outraged that her own phone records were collected by the constitutionally appropriate authority in the investigation of multiple crimes. . . . One particularly delectable version of such complaints comes from Byron York.

"based on his comments and his accompanying Durham everywhere he goes, Durham isn't running the investigation, Barr is."

I rest my case:

Natasha Bertrand @NatashaBertrand

Williams: "Would you like to see [Durham] have a report or make some sort of public presentation?"

Barr: "I'm going to largely leave that to him, but I'm also discussing that with him as he gets further along."
9:53 AM - 10 Dec 2019

FYI: The less daylight there is between Barr and Durham, the less Democrats will trust any report Durham comes up with.

"He is a traitor. Anyone defending him is also a traitor."

Today in DC, at the President's invitation, Lavrov spouts Russian propaganda:

Aaron Rupar @atrupar

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov: "We have highlighted once again that all speculation about our alleged interference in domestic processes in the US are baseless. There are no facts that would support that ...no one has given us this proof because it simply does not exist"

Pompeo kinda-sorta pushes back on Lavrov: "We think we've shared plenty of facts to show what happened in the 2016 election with our Russian counterparts. We don't think there's any mistake about what really transpired there."

"#304 Mueller should have recused himself, and based on his testimony he didn't actually run it anyway, Weissmann did."

Barr should have recused himself, and based on his comments and his accompanying Durham everywhere he goes, Durham isn't running the investigation, Barr is.

"Ding, ding, ding we have a winner! That's right let's already say the investigation is tainted because of who is running it. Evidence be damned, Barr is a Trump crowny. Well done Speak, what took you so long?"

Well, it's not like Trump didn't trash the Mueller investigation because of who was running it. Oh, right.

"For months I've been predicting the IG report would be a dud. It actually turned out to be more damning than I thought it would be."

Really? That was never the impression I got.

I'm sure Sean Hannity was on both Rudy and Lev's call lists, but Schiff didn't release those records and there probably isn't a bigger critic of all Democrats than Sean.

Welp, Durham has a lot to prove to vindicate Barr's current talking points:

"Horowitz could not question him because Comey did not re-new his classified status (how convienient) but Durham can question him under oath."

Did we ever find out if Trump stripped security clearances from all those he was threatening to do so:

ump revokes security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan " a leading critic of the president

"As far as we know, this is the first time that a president of the United States has individually taken action against somebody's security clearance," said Mark Zaid, an attorney who represents government employees in security-clearance disputes.

Last month, the White House said that along with Brennan and Comey, the president was scrutinizing former CIA director Michael V. Hayden, former national security adviser Susan E. Rice, former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. and former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.

On Wednesday, Sanders expanded that list to include former acting attorney general Sally Q. Yates, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, former FBI agent Peter Strzok and Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, who was recently demoted.