Giuliani Associate Raises Executive Privilege In His Criminal Case

Lev Parnas, a Soviet-born business associate of Rudy Giuliani, has told a court that he may raise executive privilege in the criminal case against him. His counsel, Ed MacMahon, said that his client was told to invoke executive privilege in a letter that was submitted on Parnas’ behalf by John Dowd to a congressional committee conducting the impeachment inquiry. Dowd previously represented the President. Parnas is shown here (left) with his associate Igor Fruman (who also worked with Giuliani and was arrested with Parnas at the airport).

It is hard to see a credible claim of executive privilege that could be raised in Parnas’ defense. There may be evidence sought from the government that could be withheld, but again a court would be highly skeptical. Parnas is a private citizen who worked with another private citizen, Rudy Giuliani. It is difficult to image a plausible executive privilege claim, let alone a claim that would overcome the countervailing needs of prosecuting a criminal case.

Moreover, the evidence referenced by the government was already obtained through standard search warrants, subpoenas, and property searches. The prosecutors said that they were not informed of such a potential claim and that they had already used a conventional “filter team” for any privileged material.

Not surprisingly, Judge Paul Oetken asked if Parnas has worked for the president. MacMahon said that he did not but “he worked for Mr. Giuliani.” MacMahon, who I know well and respect, is a seasoned criminal defense attorney. (I actually took over the Al-Timimi terrorism case from him after the trial. MacMahon acknowledged “I can’t invoke [executive privilege], only the President of the United States and the government can.”

34 thoughts on “Giuliani Associate Raises Executive Privilege In His Criminal Case”

  1. I remember when Schiff did a 180 on public testimony back in 2017–2018 and started oversight committees behind closed doors. Turley jumped on that to pronounce that Schiff was a hypocrite. I pointed out that Schiff went behind closed doors after the US intelligence agencies joined Great Britain, Germany, Spain, Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Australia, and France in determining that Trump was in bed with Putin. I pointed out that Russia had cyber attacked our 2016 election to install Trump and Schiff’s call for secrecy was well supported. Turley laughed at the Russian attack and marginalized it as nothing.

    I used to think Turley was just a careerist getting his mug on FOX at every opportunity to stoke the right wing crazies. Now I see him as a bad American, a bad lawyer, and a bad human being.

    Turley stated, with no undue embarrassment, that he saw more actionable connections between Clinton and Russia than with Trump. An obvious lie which was put paid by the Mueller Report, Trump’s Turkey policy, and Trump’s own words on the international Stage with Putin where Trump sided w/ the brutal, murderous criminal thug dictator against the US intelligence agencies. Trump was groveling before the dictator.

    Now we have Moscow Mitch tabling all election security measures proposed for law. Russia is being given the green light to help Trump….again. Trump is still committing election fraud supplicating Ukraine and China to help Trump win by attacking his putative opponent. It’s obvious. If he would have been punished the first time around with Russia, we might not have to deal with his Ukraine, Chinese treachery.

    But here is what Turley will cover: The Barr investigation of the Mueller probe. We’ll be spending the next year debating why Steele digging up dirt on Trump is different than Giuliani digging up dirt on Biden. The facts make that a non-issue but Turley will beat the drum bc he is fundamentally dishonest.

    1. Darrin Rychlak – we have Obama going to Canada to support Trudeau so he can be re-elected. Is that election interference? And Guiliani has been kind enough to explain on multiple TV channels how the documents “fell” into his hands.

      1. So, as an expert on Canadian law, you’re telling the forum that President Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s actions are illegal under Canadian law? Thanks counselor. As an aside, I would inform the forum that prior to his two terms as the greatest President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces since Harry Truman, President Barack HUSSEIN Obama undoubtedly had “access” to the white women.

        this is to Barrister/Solicitor paulie-georgie

        1. Marky Mark Mark – I asked a question about both Canadian and American law. This is the same Barack Hussein Obama who killed two American citizens by drone, helped arm the Mexican cartels under Fast and Furious, and spied on an incoming President, President and tried to overthrow him.

          BTW, I am in a bi-racial marriage, I do not care who bi-racial Barry bonks.

          1. Paul, is it possible for you to research the talking points before parroting? AL Awiki (sp?) was an enemy combatant with the blood of other Americans on his cold dead hands.

  2. THOSE SOVIET-BORN MEN OF MYSTERY..

    AND THEIR IMPROBABLE TIES TO RUDOLPH GIULIANI

    The story of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman unfolds like a globe-trotting mystery over more than a year.

    When the two associates of President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, were arrested at an airport this month for campaign finance violations, it wasn’t immediately clear how — or even if — those activities were related to the impeachment inquiry into Trump.

    But even before their arrest by the FBI, the two Soviet-born men were among the people whom Congress wanted to interview.

    That’s because over the past couple of years, the businessmen crossed paths repeatedly with people and events at the center of the impeachment inquiry, both in the U.S. and in Ukraine.

    Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. But the case of Parnas and Fruman blurs that line. How two unknown businessmen became embroiled with Giuliani and in the removal of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine illustrates the complicated and shadowy web of connections and deal-making at the heart of the impeachment inquiry.

    Parnas and Fruman were not well-known players in business or political circles in Ukraine or the United States. Financial documents show that Parnas was dogged by financial debts and court judgments against him. In one instance, he owed a couple in South Florida $500,000 for a film that never got made.

    People who know the men say Fruman, who was born in Belarus when it was part of the Soviet Union, doesn’t speak great English. Parnas was also born overseas — in Ukraine during the Soviet era — though both men are U.S. citizens.

    John Dowd, who was formerly a personal attorney for Trump, is representing Parnas and Fruman. He declined to speak with NPR for this story.

    Edited from: “How A Complicated Web Connects 2 Soviet-Born Businessmen With The Impeachment Inquiry”

    NPR, 10/23/19

    1. Regarding Above:

      Everything about these two reeks of mystery and intrigue. They were funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars without any clear source of wealth. What’s more, they were meeting with Giuliani on a regular basis and staying at Trump hotels. The topper is their current lawyer, John Dowd, is a former lawyer to Donald Trump!

      https://www.npr.org/2019/10/23/771849041/how-a-complicated-web-connects-2-soviet-born-businessmen-with-the-impeachment-in

      1. sounds like a great gig. lucky bastids. two years at most i say. just enough time to get back in shape. where do i apply?

  3. These guys have pardon papers already on trump’s desk. Rudy G and his merry band of incompetents have pardon papers in trump’s Chinese made suit pockets.

    1. Really? How do you know that? Are you a fish-head on Trump’s uneaten lunch-plate with your beady eyes peering across his desk?

        1. that is accurate. another fact that seems to emerge from the information available, is that they were Jewish. (such as emigration to US during the Jackson Vanik act era)

          This might be a “so what” for some people reading this. But perhaps in the Ukraine it is not a so what. People may not know that the post-Maidan Ukraine governments have been populated by extreme nationalists who are accused of being antisemites. See the “Azov battalion”

          I do not know but I hypothesize, that there are Jewish people associated with Ukraine, who do not actually like the pro-American regime, because it continues to be affiliated with extreme nationalist elements who are also somewhat antiJewish. And they might prefer a Russian leaning government, if these trends are not reversed.

          If that hypothesis is valid, then perhaps there would be some interest among American Jewish interests, in moderating the intensely anti-Russian orientation of US foreign policy in the Ukraine in recent years.

          And if that is so, indeed, it might actually open an avenue for Americans to continue to have friends on the ground in Urkaine, even if the current anti-Russian tendencies are tempered.

          These are all speculations of course, but I am trying to “work the angles” to illuminate possible alternatives to the usual Cold war mentality that seems to have crept back into the narrative where Russian spheres of interest are concerned.

          at the very least, there are layers of complexity in these things which may not be revealed in the mass media oversimplifications of them.

          I also have yet to see the Pro-Democrat, pro-interventionist, anti-Russian mass media account fairly for the presence of the likes of the Azov battalion in same circles as the pro-American Maidan putsch regimes currently in power in Ukraine. This is a remarkable thing to me, since, i heard that many reporters and news editors in America are jewish. I am not but if such a thing is true– to whatever extent– i find their silence about these antisemitic elements in contemporary Ukraine, most interesting.

          1. People may not know that the post-Maidan Ukraine governments have been populated by extreme nationalists who are accused of being antisemites. See the “Azov battalion”

            They’re not, but that’s the line in the Unz comboxes.

            1. well, an FBI agent swore in an indictment that azov battalion is a paramilitary unit inside the Ukrainian national guard known for its association with neo-nazi ideology”

              from matter pending before US Dist Court Central Dist California dated Oct 20, 2018 before Mag. Kim.

              They’re part of quilt of nationalist outfits descibed in the link below. Now that web page is apparently run by an outfit headed up by a “security expert” named John Pike. I don’t know him but this is what he had to say. Ron Unz is not the author. It’s an interesting roundup of characters. Who knows if they’re just a bunch of hooligans or something more. I don’t claim to know but I just ask. If you know better you can say so in detail.

              https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/right-sector.htm

              I don’t take orders from Ron Unz, I never met him and never talked to him. I look at his web page maybe once a month, but you’ve said his name here a lot of times. Why don’t you elaborate precisely why you think he’s a crank? I mean you called him a crank here once, right? Say what you got to say

    1. Ivan, your comment above leads me to ask again: “Are you Russian?”

      If you’re not Russian, or Slavic, and have no ties whatsoever to the former Eastern Bloc, why would you care if Professor Turley notes these men were Soviet-born?

      These men were channeling significant amounts of money which was quite possibly coming from Russian oligarchs. They also had one-way tickets ‘out’ of the U.S. at the time of their arrest. Therefore to call Professor Turley ‘biased’ for noting they are Soviet-born is essentially attacking facts.

      1. you’re probing a needless insult against Ivan. Maybe Ivan has a point which he hasn’t fully expressed. Or, are you just calling Ivan a “russian asset” like some Hillary fanboy?

        1. Kurtz, on any given day your comments are laced with such twisted cynicism that I picture you as some pasty-faced, bloated lawyer drinking at a corner pub in Chicago. We know the type. With each drink your arguments become increasingly jaded until those around you tune-out.

          1. Thanks, i appreciate that. Sounds like the good old days to me.
            I’ve overweight but I don’t drink hardly much anymore. I did have a scotch a couple weeks ago.

            here’s where I used to get a pitcher in law school

            https://pippinstavern.com/

              1. I figured you would know it.. I also used to go to Streeter’s sometimes, after class. Not before. LOL
                These are all near “The Watertower” one of the few buildings to survive the fire over a century ago.

                I preferred these kinds of dives over discos, but the girls would haul me into those instead, occasionally.

            1. Our daughter lived on State a few blocks from there for about 5 years. Used to love visiting her there. I also liked that State Street is US Highway 41, which runs south all the way to Florida and 8 miles from where she grew up. Not sure she cared, but I always reminded her when we visited, and she at least pretended to.

              1. Anon, State used to be downscale south of Chicago Avenue. And everything west of State was blighted (south of Chicago Avenue). But now the Near North Side is all reasonably nice south of Chicago and west of State. It’s an amazing transformation from where it was in the 1970’s.

                1. Loop, River North, Streeterville, Gold Coast were in my walking zone. Walking west down Chicago ave from Michigan ave, I would not go past Franklin or Orleans. This appeared to be the “dividing line” at the time, past which my kind was not welcome. That was before Cabrini Green got leveled.

                  I used to get on the 151 bus to Lincoln Park to visit girls at DePaul. Lincoln Park had already transformed itself at the time. Bucktown and Oldtown were beginning the process of what the communist newspaper the “Daily Worker” was calling “Gentrification” … Pilsen already had the Hispanics outnumbering the Slavics at the time but it was not quite so Hispanicized as it is now.

                  I also used to take brown line up to a dojo on the west edge of Lakeview, which was fine at the time, not as nice as it is now. Turns out that gym relocated down to Gold coast since then.

                  I also had a lot of friends in Bridgeport. I didn’t know the other neighborhoods as well back then.
                  Today, it’s quite different. To be honest, it was grittier, but I liked it better under Daley Jr. than Rahm. For some reason going into the city annoys me these days, and I used to like it more when I was younger. It really feels like a different place now. A nicer look for sure, but the feel is very different, and the soul of the place has changed.

                  Here’s a revealing overview of some of the demographic changes.

                  https://marketurbanismreport.com/blog/chicagos-population-loss-story-is-one-of-black-population-loss

              2. once i set out on my bike to see if I could ride all the way to Indiana down the lakeshore trail. along the beach. This was before the internet, all I had was a paper map, and I hadn’t driven south of McCormick place before and didn’t really know how it would turn out. I thought it would be neat to see if I could push all the way to where the steel plants started.

                Well the Lakeshore trail expires around 71 when the trial ends then you’re on 41 or streets alongside it . I was actually kind of sweating it south of the McCormick place but pushed all the way down past Rainbow beach. I was on the streets around 81st avenue and my brain said “TURN BACK NOW WHILE YOU STILL LIVE” and I chickened out and headed back north.

                The difference between then and now in Hammond and thence eastward, is mostly Casinos. They weren’t there back then. Now there’s enough to squander any bank roll at the tables.

                The prosecutions of “the Outfit” in the 80s really broke the organization but I think the legalization of casino gambling in the area is why they never bounced back. There’s another big social change on the ground since then. There was a big federal prosecution of illegal gambling in Lake county Indiana, around 1990, 91, then it was shortly after that when the gaming licensing got underway, and the first boats opened in Porter county in 1996.

                An old guy says to me recently, “that’s what really put us out of business!”

                1. Because I like taking the old main roads to see the old “downtowns” and other signs of organic urbanization, I have driven up US 41 from Gary after coming from the east along the lake – relatives near S Bend .US 41 was known as Dixie Hiway in the Midwest before the interstates (it parallels I-75 from Tennesee) down to the W coast of Florida, which is the Midwest Florida. The E Coast is the Atlantic states, NE Florida with it’s own Dixie Hiway, US 1, and that division is surprisingly pure and still functioning. If you vacation or move to Florida from the Midwest you are probably going to Sarasota or St Pete, and if from the great NE, Miami or W Palm Beach.

                  1. PS In a car in daylight US 41 from Gary wasn’t scary, though Gary is Detroit-like abandoned. Some pretty sites along the lake and obscure -to me – old neighborhoods with grand Victorian Empire buildings of modest scale. The built environment seemed -after Gary’s empty lots – mostly solid and reminds one of the past wealth of the area, in comparison to much of the south, which was poor for 100 years and before, Besides for the court houses, and usually a few grand houses, both the farms and commercial districts there are scanty in comparison.

            2. Relatedly, in my previous life I was a bartender for 14 years. I met far more alcoholics (albeit high-functioning) in law school than behind the bar. It’s hilarious to see a guy out at last call who can’t put three sensible words together and then see him recount in detail the critical holdings in Wickard v. Fillmore at 8 am, likely with the help of black coffee and breath mints.

              in response to kurtzie’s post

              1. Marky Mark Mark – I think you might have been sampling too much of the product while you were behind the bar. You should look up the term “wet brain”.

Leave a Reply