Lev Parnas is the latest in the long line of those who would save the United States from Donald Trump.
First, it was Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney.
Then it was Robert Mueller, Adam Schiff, and now, Lev Parnas.
What do all of these people have in common besides hatred of the 45th president?
They have all the credibility of gas station sushi.
It is sad that the Democrats have to depend on the word of a serial liar and someone with multiple federal charges, all involving lies and deceptions.
But let’s face it, the Democrats are desperate because they have nothing.
Neither article of impeachment is an impeachable offense because neither is a crime.
In 1999, Democrats argued that committing an actual felony, perjury, did not rise to the level of impeachment, and now suddenly, you don’t have to commit a crime at all to be impeached.
Here are Gowdy’s takedowns of Parnas based on his lack of credibility:
I would encourage your viewers to listen to the entire interview, not just the snippets. Remember, Parnas was upset because he expected Giuliani and Trump to come to his defense. This is a guy charged with falsifying records, making a false statement, conspiracy to defraud the FEC. He’s upset – by the way, John Dowd is not Trump’s former lawyer; that’s not how I would characterize him. He is Parnas’ hand-picked lawyer. That’s who hired John Dowd and Kevin Downing. It was Lev Parnas. So, if he’s upset that he hired these two, he’s got nobody to blame but himself. He wanted Giuliani and Trump to come to his defense in these three charges that he’s facing. That’s why he’s upset. You only get that from watching the entire interview, not from reading the stories, and not from listening to that snippet.
You know, Bill, what I didn’t hear was the follow-up. “Okay, with total certitude, you say President Trump knew what you were doing. Convince us of that. Give us the evidence.” Remember, he also said that Bill Barr was in the loop and then when cited for evidence, he said, “Well, he’s friends with diGenova and Toensing, and his name was mentioned in [the] transcript.” If that’s the only evidence you have that Bill Barr is part of a conspiracy to defraud the United States and get a foreign government to investigate a political opponent, if the only evidence you have is who he’s friends with and his name was mentioned in the transcript, that ain’t much evidence … so, I need to hear the follow-up questions.
…the way lawyers interview people, when you cross-examine them, Parnas gave three different answers to the same question about Mike Pence. His first answer is, “I’m absolutely certain Pence knew about it,” and then about three seconds later he said, “Well, he had to have, right?” and then the last answer was, “Well, it was possible.” Those three answers don’t do you well in the courtroom. They do great if you’re writing headlines; they do not do well in the courtroom.
