This message was self-deleted by its author

[Laura PourMeADrink]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Laura PourMeADrink) on Thu Dec 19, 2019, 05:35 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[SWBTATTReg]

1. Can't declare executive priviledge here, I suspect. Crazy. Especially at a bail hearing. NT

[OAITW r.2.0]

2. Hope this leads to another article of impeachment.

Can't wait for the WH/GOP response to this one....

[asiliveandbreathe]

3. Wait, WHAT?? EP for Parnas..seriously..the orange one already said he doesn't

know the guy....

[MontanaMama]

4. Okay. So the dude that the MF says he doesn't know

is claiming executive privilege? WTAF? Paging Rudy to the white courtesy phone...

[iscooterliberally]

5. Does 'executive privilege' work on speeding tickets?

Just asking for a friend.

[ramblin_dave]

6. Isn't this from two months ago?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/giuliani-henchmen-lev-parnas-and-igor-fruman-plead-not-guilty-in-campaign-finance-case

[jberryhill]

17. Yeah, it was a tangential discussion during the arraignment

No one asserted any such privilege.

The OP is simply not true.

https://apnews.com/4326d1ba6a8f4b70abf560cbe30eaa04


Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebekah Donaleski told a judge Wednesday that a dozen search warrants had produced a “voluminous” amount of evidence, including emails and other electronic communications. A lawyer for Parnas, Ed MacMahon, responded by suggesting that some of the communications could be protected by attorney-client and even executive privilege since his client was doing work for Giuliani while Giuliani was representing the president.

MacMahon didn’t claim to know whether the president planned to evoke the privilege, only that the possibility should be a concern as the government reviews the evidence. Donaleski told the judge that government was “attuned to those concerns.”

[Leghorn21]

19. Sure looks like it, dave - thanks for catching - he just had his second bail hearing on uhhh

Monday or Tuesday, there was certainly no mention of this

Meanwhile, fyi, his lawyer has resumed “teasing” about his client testifying...I dunno if this will ever happen, but people like moi would LOVE IT

Hey @HouseDemocrats, @HouseGOP, @SenateDems, &
@SenateGOP, call Lev Parnas to testify at a fair trial
regarding his policy efforts, and twice conveying the
#quidproquo in Ukraine, on behalf of @POTUS and @RudyGiuliani.
#LetLevSpeak

Link to tweet

Also, new NYT article links Igor tightly with Roody (and not Lev)
No surprise, of course:

Kenneth P. Vogel
ALSO: IGOR FRUMAN has entered a joint defense agreement with RUDY GIULIANI, suggesting that Fruman has split with LEV PARNAS & appears to be siding with team TRUMP.

It also suggests that @RudyGiuliani believes the SDNY investigation into him is serious

standing by for more info, as usual!!

[triron]

7. Are there transcripts? Wonder why Maddow didn't report this?

[jberryhill]

24. Maddow didn't report "this" because it isn't true

The actual story, on which the false information in the OP is based, was widely reported months ago at Parnas' arraignment hearing.

[Gothmog]

8. Only trump can assert executive privilege

This idiot has no ability to assert this privilege

[Thomas Hurt]

9. Trump doesn't assert executive privilege, he asserts divine right of kings.

[jberryhill]

13. The OP relies on the "Everything posted on Twitter is true" fallacy

And everyone just accepts this piece of misinformation as fact.

[The Wielding Truth]

20. YES. So glad you made this point.

[DonaldsRump]

10. He can't assert the privilege. HOWEVER

This appears to tie him directly to Trump, who CAN assert executive privilege.

As mentioned in another post, I would love to hear the White House's comment on this. Am waiting for the media to pick this up.

[Aquaria]

11. Oh, FFS. That's now how it works.

Can't wait for a judge to laugh in his face at that assertion.

[jberryhill]

12. Well, yeah, if you are going to believe everything posted to Twitter, sure

But that's not what actually happened at that arraignment, back in October (btw).

Parnas did not 'declare', claim or otherwise assert executive privilege.

During a preliminary hearing, the US attorney had mentioned that there was a large volume of electronic evidence on which the government intended to rely. Parnas' lawyer, not having even seen any of the material, suggested that there would need to be some processing of that evidence because Parnas was working for Giuliani, and Giuliani was working for Trump.

It was a brief tangential discussion, but there has been no assertion of privilege of any kind by anyone in the Parnas case thus far.

The person whose Tweet you are posting is either misinformed or a liar.

https://apnews.com/4326d1ba6a8f4b70abf560cbe30eaa04

Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebekah Donaleski told a judge Wednesday that a dozen search warrants had produced a “voluminous” amount of evidence, including emails and other electronic communications. A lawyer for Parnas, Ed MacMahon, responded by suggesting that some of the communications could be protected by attorney-client and even executive privilege since his client was doing work for Giuliani while Giuliani was representing the president.

MacMahon didn’t claim to know whether the president planned to evoke the privilege, only that the possibility should be a concern as the government reviews the evidence. Donaleski told the judge that government was “attuned to those concerns.”

[Hekate]

14. I hope the judge laughed so hard she spit coffee out her nose

That guy really really really should not be out on bail, or have an ankle monitor, or be under house arrest. He should be behind bars, awaiting trial. "Flight risk" doesn't even begin to describe it.

[jberryhill]

18. It's not true

Someone posts something on Twitter.

Someone else believes it and posts it on DU.

Everyone falls for it...

From the arraignment, not bail, hearing back in October:

https://apnews.com/4326d1ba6a8f4b70abf560cbe30eaa04


Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebekah Donaleski told a judge Wednesday that a dozen search warrants had produced a “voluminous” amount of evidence, including emails and other electronic communications. A lawyer for Parnas, Ed MacMahon, responded by suggesting that some of the communications could be protected by attorney-client and even executive privilege since his client was doing work for Giuliani while Giuliani was representing the president.

MacMahon didn’t claim to know whether the president planned to evoke the privilege, only that the possibility should be a concern as the government reviews the evidence. Donaleski told the judge that government was “attuned to those concerns.”

It's just bullshit.

No one has claimed privilege of any kind in the evidence in the Parnas case.

[Hekate]

21. Gotcha

[backtoblue]

27. Thank you nt

[kentuck]

15. Well....isn't that special!

Old Lev knows a lot more than peope may have thought, it now appears?

[duforsure]

16. His claim will fail badly

And just make it worse .Others have claimed this too and we're laughed at.

[dewsgirl]

22. Trump-Giuliani-Parnas-Putin

[jberryhill]

23. Trump-Giuliani-Parnas-Firtash-(Gazprom/Yanukovych)-Putin

Slightly longer chain.

[dewsgirl]

26. Yes Firtash.

[TruckFump]

25. OMFG...LMAO!

LOL, he's MF45's employee!!!!!!!!!!

That should sit well with Pelosi!!!!

[bucolic_frolic]

28. I expect courts and judges to hear more than a little of this

MAGAts will think it's codified into law by precedent or is an extension of faith based consciousness. Trump religious exemption.

[Enoki33]

29. If what many suspect of Parnas - that he is a bagman for Russia - is

correct, then he knows way too much for his good health. He seems to be a self important loose cannon, and that could scare the Kremlin into silencing him beyond the million dollars transferred to his wife.

[tclambert]

30. Well, hell, the next time I get pulled over for a traffic stop, I'm claiming executive privilege.

"Do you know how fast you were going, sir?"

"Executive privilege!"

"License, registration, and proof of insurance, please."

"Executive privilege!"

Skip ahead a little: "So what are you in prison for?"

"Executive privilege!"

[B Stieg]

31. This Parnas stooge may turn out to be the "smocking gun"

[George II]

32. trump said he doesn't know the guy, so where's the executive privilege.

[ET Awful]

33. Hey Lev - just because you're an executive in your own company, that does NOT mean you can claim

executive privilege. That's not how it works .

[yaesu]

34. every criminal in the country will be claiming executive privilege when they go to court nt