and he doesn t say a thing about it while he s sitting in the impeachment hearing. there s all this information, where it s coming from and here s this guy and that guy and this. and he s just sitting up there being like oh, yeah i met with all those people. and he actually enters into the congressional record one of john heilemann s articles. it s a remarkable thing. and just another piece of it like you said he could do this potentially out in the open, but he in fact apparently according to lev parnas takes the trip in december 2018 because then he wouldn t have to report the details of it if it were after the new congress were in power because then his chair person would be adam schiff. and there is in fact in the congressional records nunes and his team with derek harvey going to vienna late november to december 3rd, 2018. to europe, but they won t say where he went to, that s why he won t say on fox news were you
against it. we trust him to here s the final question on this because i mean part of what part of the way that this and this is exclusive to russia, and the sort of way disinformation operates more broadly. russia has no monopoly on that. we should be clear. it operates organically right here and in countries around the world. the way that this information operates, it kind of creates a haziness over everything where you can t really tell what s true and what s not true. there s facts and counterfacts and things are speeding by you. i feel we ve ended up in that place visa vi this whole story in many ways. do you feel you have focus, laser sharp vision into what happened in 2016 and what the nature of the connections were between the campaign and that russian disinformation effort, which we now know is established? it s history, right? so it s accumulating all the time. i wouldn t use the words laser sharp focus. i would say we ve amassed mountains of evidence what we saw hap
describe you know, and answer the questions they can answer, raise issues with respect to questions they can answer and have decision makers say, yes, that s privileged or not. no one i just can t imagine the claim that you don t even have to somebody and justify what you can answer and what you can t. so it wasn t surprising. what was surprising that the judge felt she needed 120 pages to say it, which says something about her concern that sort of the bedrock principles are being challenged here. you know, kevin cruz had this to say, chuck. a lot of news today suggests house democrats should reconsider their rush to wrap up the impeachment hearing. they need to issue subpoenas and force testimonies from parnas, jewel johnny, pompeo, bolton and mcgan, at the very least get it all on the record. from your background building cases, investigating facts, what do you think about the tradeoff here between focus and timeliness versus getting all thefds you can? sure, and, you know, c
point, he literally tells zelensky on the phone call to talk to rudy.ll he tells him to talk to two people. he will try he tries to do this with all things, sort of bend reality to his will, but there is no question he s directing people in conversation to get in contact with rudy. no, absolutely. and look as betsey was mentioning earlier about how in the open and how public this was, and it wasn t actually a secret. at best it was an open secret that giuliani was acting on president trump s behalf on thiu stuff is he was telling reporters on the record for h months in a very low kwashs manner in the months leading up to this scandal, long before the impeachment inquiry was even launched.n and when he would talk about it to reporters in various outletsh including at the daily beast, he would repeatedly say how he was keeping president trump abreast on all these progress. so if president trump wants to turn around now and talk about oh, he was doing his own thing,
unquestionably was one of trump s himself senior envoys to kiev while this entire process was playing out. and everybody knew it. the ukrainians knew it, trump knew it, rudy knew it. there was no mystery to this. and remember part of the reason there s such a sort of robust conversation about whether or not to expand the number of witnesses testifying before the impeachment inquiry is that we haven t actually heard from people who were really, really in the weeds with rudy himself on the work he was doing for the president. lev parnas is a person who would potentially be able to provide that testimony. andriy yermak told me on the record he and rudy had a conversation. parnas hasn t yet testified, so there s a lot of information out there that congressional democrats still don t have.