but also has information that s interesting to congress, one avenue they could look at is trying to get a specific type of immunity from congress where parnas would make a deal with capitol hill that he wouldn t face criminal liability for the particular matters that he discussed before the house intelligence committee. now, it s unclear to me whether such a deal will be cut, whether the house intelligence committee would think it was important enough to them to bring in parnas to make that kind of agreement. but those agreements have been made in the past, and it s clear that parnas at the very least had significant visibility, and to many of the topics that are at the heart of the impeachment inquiry. so barbara, put your prosecutor hat on now. if such a deal needed to be made they could make it if it was important to have pardon s there. is there some danger, given what you ve heard in the last week, given the testimony of some remarkably incredible people,
around march of this year it looks apparent this was a connection to ensure that rudy giuliani s smear campaign against a sitting u.s. ambassador made it to mike pompeo s desk. this is just the first set of disclosures american over sight s litigation is going to expose. so a major message i want people to understand is that while the administration has refused to turn these documents over to congress, the stone wall is cracking and we re going to get regular documents. these are documents that the congressional investigation has been asking the state department to produce? they ve asked mike pompeo to do this. the state department has refused to hand over this information. you then sued under a freedom of information application. that s correct. if you look at these documents you can understand why mike pompeo wouldn t want congress to have them and why congress has
and ensure the freedom of information act is not thwarted by this white house s efforts to obstruct. frankly american oversight but the american public writ large owes them for the work they do on this and many other issues. that is kind of tincredible. i believe we need to complete illustrate what we re talking about here. documents members of congress, congressional committees asked the state department for that were not turned over, you made freedom of information applications for and you have received now the first traurnch of these documents that indicate secretary of state pompeo and rudy giuliani as it related to president s assistant. at least one of the documents come tans th contains that. you have got information that until now the state department and embassy tiff have been stone
educated people, smart people who continue to believe this bunk that fiona hill told congress, and she is as senior and learned as you get on this, it s not true. it is a fiction. it is perpetrated by russia to have people believe that somehow ukraine, which is in a war with russia, in dispute with russia was the one involved in hacking the election or interfering in the u.s. election. what more, michael, can you say to people who continue to believe this or perpetrate this? there are several different stranlds to this conspiracy theory. the most i hesitate to use the word legitimate, but the most kind of credible one the then ukrainian ambassador to the united states wrote an op-ed castigating donald trump for comments he made which are rather bizarre and also contradictory. number one donald trump, then candidate trump said most crimeans want to be part of russia just legitimizizing and
fiona hill and the like and we know that millions and millions of americans were glued to that testimony this week, is there some risk at getting parnas involved in this? it may be what he has to say is true and what the reporting is true, but a couple of problems with it. one is if congress or the southern district of new york were interested in this information, his lawyer wouldn t need to be tweeting about this and having public discussions about it. it seems they re having some public pressure to get them to bite on this information, and it seems they re reluctant to bite either because they believe it not to be credible or it may be they just don t want to go down this road not at this moment. maybe focus on devin nunes at this moment is distraction. the testimony has been very focused. we ve heard two weeks of very compelling witness testimony, and to now go down another