I’ve watched the Rachel Maddow interview with Lev Parnas. I’m not impressed. I’ll get to that in a moment, but I want to do the substance before I get into format/process.
The information that Parnas presented was a mixture of accurate information, misinformation, and agitprop. For instance, we already know, from previous reporting that has been verified by subsequent reporting, that Giuliani had a strange fixation on the Ukrainian black ledger that implicated Manafort. So it isn’t surprising when Parnas presented that in one of his answers. Nor was it surprising when he made it very clear that it was never about corruption, it was just about Vice President Biden, his son Hunter, and getting dirt on them for political purposes in the 2020 election. This too has been reported on extensively and verified in subsequent reporting. As was the information about the quid pro quo given to Ukrainian President Zelensky And the information about trying to get a deal cut for Dmitro Firtash in exchange for his help. And I have no doubt, despite his attempt to get ahead of things on Fox News tonight, that Congressman Nunes is up to his eyeballs in this meshugas.
But there was also misinformation and agitprop. Let’s start with AG Barr. We know from reporting that Toensing and DiGenova met with AG Barr to try to get the charges dropped against Firtash. But we also know that Barr rebuffed them. However, we also know from the Memorandum of the Conversation for the second phone call in July 2019 between the President and Ukrainian President Zelensky that the President told President Zelensky that he would have AG Barr follow up. This prompted the Department of Justice spokesperson to issue a statement that AG Barr had no idea what this was about and was not involved. That said, we know from the Intelligence Community whistleblower’s complaint that the whistleblower asserted that AG Barr was involved. Whether this was in reference to the President’s statement that he’d have the Attorney General follow up in the July 2019 phone call or based on some other information the whistleblower has is unclear. So some of this is accurate and confirmable, some of it may be accurate, but is not currently confirmed, and some I’m not sure could ever be confirmed.
As for the answers regarding erstwhile Republican congressional candidate Rob Hyde, I find it hard to believe that Parnas was more concerned about him when he was drunk at the bar at a Trump property than when he was texting Parnas that he had a US ambassador under surveillance and wanted to know if money was available to move on her. I’m also not buying Hyde’s answers in his interview with Sinclair’s Eric Bolling this evening. He’s in a lot of trouble, has a history of making terroristic threats, and has something of a drinking problem.
The releases of the information that Parnas has turned over to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are all interesting. And like tonight’s interview some of that information is accurate and true, some is disinformation, and some is agitprop. The proof will be in the vetting of that documentary information, just as it will be in the vetting of the information Parnas provided this evening. It is important to remember that Parnas is alleged to be a low level member or associate of post-Soviet and Russian organized crime. He is only as credible as his statements and documentary evidence can be verified.
And that’s where I get to the format/process problem. I’ve conducted semi-structured interviews as part of my work for the US Army and I’ve trained Soldiers on how to do them to collect information and intelligence. I’ve mentioned before that over a four to five month period I interviewed around 50 sheikhs, imams, and other local elites and notables using a semi-structured format across central Iraq (Baghdad Province and parts of Anbar, Wassit, and Diyala Provinces). I’m a huge fan of putting the subject of the interview at ease and letting them tell you their story – the true parts, the false parts, and the parts that fall in between. But there is a difference between doing that, and being prepared to ask sound follow up questions rooted within the context of the answers and information you’re being provided, and credulously just eating it up while looking focused and concerned. And this means asking questions like: “how do you know?” and “can you provide verification for that?” or “do you have documents about that?” or “who else should we talk to in order to verify that?”. I’m not qualified to judge whether Maddow’s interviewing process made for compelling television, but from an information gathering standpoint it was a failure. Maddow was far too credulous and failed to ask the necessary follow on questions. I will make an important caveat: she may have been prevented from doing so by agreement with Parnas’s attorney about the format of the interview. But, if that was the case, then it should have been disclosed. I’ve seen Maddow do far more adversarial and far better interviews with friendly guests. This was not one of her best outings.
Open thread!
ruemara
My first bigfoot! I ceded the floor to you, good sir.
dimmsdale
Agreed; there’s too much about Parnas’ testimony that I would *like* to be true, to let myself get swallowed up by it. So, I’ll wait till he’s under oath to draw any conclusions, or until corroboration is provided in other ways.
I can’t help being concerned about Marie Yovanovich, though. What’s your assessment of the threat she either is, or may have been, under, and the level of protection she may be receiving right now? Also, how seriously (if at all) do you take the possibility that any of the key players here might be subject to accidentally falling out an open window?
Thanks. Been waiting for you to sign on ever since the Parnas interview
PS, far as I’m concerned, you’ll never get bigfooted on this site where national security is involved.
Adam L Silverman
@ruemara: Wasn’t necessary, but thanks. Especially as AL had already bigfooted me.
When I started this post I checked to see if anyone was drafting a post, no one was, so I started typing. Hit publish and then I’m bigfooted. Story of my life.
Another Scott
I haven’t seen the interview, nor read your links. But thanks for this.
What’s struck me is that the MSM has really, really slowly reported on this story if they’ve mentioned it at all. They are seeming to be very careful about it.
I’m also not surprised by the “revelations”. I don’t think Schiff and the rest of the people investigating it are either. If Steele was able to find out so much, seemingly so easily, well before the election, it seems to me that the House and its investigators were able to uncover a lot more. Maybe more than they could prove. But much, much more than has been reported.
I can’t help but remember Schiff’s closing remarks:
We can’t get distracted by the circus. Eyes on the prize.
Cheers,
Scott.
hells littlest angel
Surely you know that this was a TV interview, not a debriefing.
Adam L Silverman
@dimmsdale: If I don’t do posts on this stuff right away/soon after it happens everyone freaks out and I get emails. When I do I get stomped on by AL.
I’m pretty sure that Ambassador Yovanovitch is safe in the greater DC area. And I’m definitely sure the Diplomatic Security folks are going to be even more focused on keeping her that way as a result of these texts no matter what Hyde’s and Parnas’s actual intent in sending them.
Adam L Silverman
@hells littlest angel: Debriefing is a whole different format.
hells littlest angel
@Adam L Silverman: My point is that in a TV interview, you’re not gathering information. You already have an idea what the answers to your questions are, or else you wouldn’t be doing the interview in the first place.
Adam L Silverman
@hells littlest angel: This isn’t a book release interview. I watched Nicole Wallace go right at her former work partner Steve Schmidt over the Schultz schtupidity last year. She let him tell his story and then cut him to pieces in the follow ups. You don’t let someone like Parnas use you to launder information. That’s not journalism and it’s not reporting. It’s overly credulous and naive. And since that’s her gimmick, everyone watching was poorly served.
West of the Rockies
So are sleazebag attornies Toensing and her Goomba husband in any trouble now? I did not see the interview.
hells littlest angel
@Adam L Silverman: Sounds like the best we can do is agree to disagree.
Adam L Silverman
@West of the Rockies: They should’ve been in trouble since at least October. Whether they are or not is up to someone at the Southern District of New York and DC District.
dww44
Adam, you gotta admit you’ve long been one of RM’s biggest critics. Not that your comments don’t have merit, but I watched a lot of the interview tonight, and I thought she did pretty good and I didn’t expect her to grill him, given the circumstances.
I’m also not so sure that your comparison of her interviewing with that of Nicole Wallace’s of Steve Schmidt are an apples to apples comparison. The two interviewee’s came from totally different places and countries, for that matter.
FWIW, I found Lev entirely believable. and am looking forward to more tomorrow evening.
Anne Laurie
I pulled my post back as soon as I saw yours! (Remember, I can’t see when you’re composing, since you don’t do it on the FYWP dashboard.)
Mostly I wanted to give commentors a fresh thread, since Betty’s had gone over 200 comments already.
oldgold
Unlike Mick Jagger, time was not on Maddow’s side.
As I have asserted many times here, time and timing always need to be reckoned with in the pursuit of truth.
Adam L Silverman
@Anne Laurie: On my computer your post is still there.
Adam L Silverman
@dww44: Parnas has been living in the US since he was a child.
Jay
Adam L Silverman
@Jay: Not surprising given what happened to DNI Coats.
dww44
@Adam L Silverman: Maybe so, but he and Steve Schmidt are two entirely different kettle of fishes.
Jay
Lynn Dee
Maddow pressed Parnas on several issues and she didn’t strike me as particularly credulous. I think it’s a given the interview was a mix of truth and lies, and corroboration is clearly called for to determine which is which.
Jay
@Adam L Silverman:
Theoretically, it’s a public presentation to let Americans, all Americans with out the appropriate Security Clearances, know what the “threats” and “dangers”, now and upcoming are.
So it’s going to be cancelled because President Manbaby does not want to hear anything bad about his BFF’s like Mohammed Bone Saw and his lovers, like Lil’ Kim.
Adam L Silverman
@Jay: I’m not endorsing it. If you want to be Director of …, then you do the job and if the President gets pissed you resign or make him fire you. But I’m funny that way.
smike
@Lynn Dee: I agree with this. At the least, this gives us all a glimpse into the world these people live in. In that respect, RM did good. To be incredulous would be advised (e.g. Parnas throwing the landscaper under the bush/tRump throwing Parnas under the bus.)
Anne Laurie
@Adam L Silverman: On my computer, FWIW, top post is Cole’s (posted 20min after yours), followed by this one. Mine has been rescheduled for 2am… unless I push it back again, since there’s another front-pager got a draft up.
Glitch in the FYWP system?
Adam L Silverman
@Anne Laurie: Cole’s is now showing above this one. All I know is the site was funky before the rebuild and now the site is funky in a different way after the rebuild.
Gin & Tonic
@dimmsdale: Marie Yovanovitch was inconvenient to some when she was US Ambassador in Kyiv and Yuriy Lutsenko was Prosecutor General. Since there is now an entire new government in Kyiv and Marie Yovanovitch is in DC (and there is no US Ambassador in Kyiv, but that’s another issue,) there is no reason for her to be threatened.
Gin & Tonic
@Adam L Silverman: Funky is good.
Anne Laurie
@Adam L Silverman: Upon this, we can all agree.
(Sorry, WaterGirl — I know you guys are doing wonders with the material you’ve been given!)
hitchhiker
Nothing Parnas said in that interview contradicted the narrative that was created under oath by all those House witnesses, and it put some context around the timing of certain events. He lobbied the court to let him give his files and devices to investigators; maybe this was part of a disinformation campaign aimed at Rudy and others? Or the public? Or the liberal press?
The interview didn’t showcase Maddow pressing for verification, but does that mean she didn’t? Or that she was credulous to the point that she didn’t make sure there was documentation to back up the bits she chose to air?
The thing was broken into pieces, with commentary stitching them together. She made editorial choices, in other words. It could be that her goal was to get the man & his version of events & his credible demeanor in front of the public so that the calls for impeachment witnesses would grow and strengthen — more than to catch him fudging or express skepticism.
PJ
@Gin & Tonic: I see your P-Funk and raise it one Lee Dorsey/Allen Toussaint: https://youtu.be/1e8t908XhVI
Fair Economist
I’m all for what Maddow did, because this is a political TV show host’s job in our current political environment – discrediting Trump in any and all ways possible, and filling the memespace with negatives about Trump. Actually figuring out what happened is the House managers job, and I’m sure they’re doing a great job.
Ruckus
@Adam L Silverman:
The site is different for sure but I think some/a lot of the quirks depend on the computer, browser, internet service the viewer is using and the site load at any particular time, people still discuss issues and I have to say that everything was working well for me – and I say it that way because I’m sure it will change because I said something…… And being a front pager is an entirely different can of worms. I say this because I have a FYWP site myself and a blogger site and WP is for sure has more issues, of course nothing like this because I have little traffic.
Any way there are currently so many possible points of issue with any particular site, especially of any size, just because of the variety of hardware, OS, browsers, internet providers…….
WaterGirl
@Anne Laurie: @Adam L Silverman:
It seems likely that the differences in what you see in terms of order of posts in the dashboard is a reflection of people refreshing the Posts page in the dashboard at different times.
Behavior in the WordPress dashboard is core WordPress and has nothing to do with the site programming.
Anya
I like Maddow a lot but I agree with Adam. She didn’t challenge him or ask him any evidence for what he was saying. She asked, he answered, she moved on. Not to say that the interview was not useful. There were plenty of shocking things that came out and even though some of it were known, it has a difference impact when you hear it directly from one of the co-conspirators.
Anya
@hitchhiker: I hope they release the full transcripts. That might make a huge difference.
spc123
@dimmsdale: Hyde is so mentally imbalanced, it’s hard to separate fiction from reality here. Yes, he was in communication with Parnas, in Palm Beach, and in a lot of VIP photos, but I’m sure a lot of that access was related to his willingness to open his wallet. He was never in Kiev and I doubt he had direct access to anyone in State so I wouldn’t get caught up too much in his wild claims unless they can be supported elsewhere. It would seem highly foolish (even for these idiots) to even consider physically threatening the Ambassador – they simply needed her out of the way and firing is a far, far less risky course (even with her still able to testify).
Anya
@hells littlest angel: There were few areas where she could’ve pushed for further clarification. When Parnas says about Barr: “he had to have known,” she should’ve probed for more detail, instead she just let it go. There are other instances where a clarification was needed but as you said, Rachel already knew the answers and she just wanted him to say it. This might be good for people who already know the impeachment stuff inside out and who can connect the dots but not for everyone.
WaterGirl
@spc123:
And if there’s one thing we know about Trump and his criminal enterprise, it’s that…
they are not foolish?
HinTN
@hells littlest angel:
That was my problem with the interview, she put the words in his mouth and let him simply confirm her assertion. She should have made him answer extensively.
bg
There’s going to be a second part of the interview tonight. RM said something at the end about investigating & reporting before she will air additional information
zhena gogolia
@spc123:
Long dead thread, but — if the threat to the ambassador was so insignificant, why did somebody tell her to get on a plane and get out of Kyiv immediately?
mardam422
I know RM didn’t ask the best follow-ups. It would have been nice to hear Parnas answer how he knows, or if he has the receipts. BUT, if he does, all that information is already in the hands of the people who matter. Assuming they make use of it, and don’t wimp out like they have with Trump’s tax returns.
Aurona
Perhaps we should wait until the Maddow/Parnas Interview, Part 2 of 2 is shown this evening.
Constance Reader
@Aurona: Thank you for this. Perhaps Part 2 will be digging through his documentary evidence to show where there is corroboration for his claims. Although “Barr had to have known everything” is already corroborated by Trump telling Zelensky to call him and Giuliani.
feebog
I’m just going to flat out disagree with you Adam. Just a few points of rebuttal; First, last night was only part one, we don’t know what is going to be asked, or followed up on in part two. Second, the interview was quite obviously edited for time, we don’t know what made the final cut and what didn’t. Third, this is not the type of interview where being “adversarial” is advantageous. Her aim was not to get him to admit his guilt, rather to expose the depth of the conspiracy. Fourth, as you observed and conceded in your post, we don’t know what parameters were negotiated and agreed to in order to get the interview. The interview did exactly what it was designed to do; further expose the criminality of Trump and his minions.
smintheus
Maddow would surely have interviewed Parnas in advance to determine which questions to ask him on air in order to elicit “newsworthy” quotes. Therefore the lack of obvious follow up questions regarding documentation/testimony confirming his allegations was a deliberate choice. My suspicion was that Maddow knew that such questions would have made Parnas’ allegations seem mushier (or hollow), though it could also be that Parnas didn’t want to delve into evidence/testimony because he is trying to work amicably with investigators who don’t want public revelations getting ahead of them.
Soprano2
What I hate more than anything is when an interviewer gives the subject an easy way out by putting words in their mouth, saying something like “When you said “X”, did you mean “Y”, or did you mean “Z”? rather than asking “What exactly did you mean when you said “X”? and then shutting up and letting the person answer the question! I listened to the interview this morning, and I noticed that Rachel did that a couple of times. Most interviewers do it, in fact.