>>> WELCOME BACK. WE’RE FOLLOWING BREAKING NEWS.
ONE OF RUDY GIULIANI’S
UKRAINIAN/AMERICAN ASSOCIATES
UKRAINIAN/AMERICAN ASSOCIATES CHARGED WITH CAMPAIGN FINANCE
VIOLATIONS IS NOW PREPARED TO
COOPERATE WITH IMPEACHMENT
INVESTIGATORS.
INVESTIGATORS. THE ATTORNEY FOR LEV PARNAS SAYS
HIS CLIENT IS READY TO COMPLY
WITH REQUESTS FOR RECORDS AND
TESTIMONY.
TESTIMONY. PARNAS AND IGOR FRUMAN ARE
ACCUSED OF HELPING GIULIANI DIG
UP DIRT ON JOE BIDEN.
WITH ME NOW IS A FORMER U.S.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
NOW AN MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST.
SO ON FIRST GLANCE, WHAT DO YOU
MAKE OF PARNAS BEING WILLING TO
COOPERATE?
COOPERATE? >> WELL, IT’S INTERESTING.
IT’S INTRIGUING.
IT’S INTRIGUING. I THINK WE HAVE TO SEE WHAT
COOPERATE MEANS.
COOPERATE MEANS. I MEAN, THERE’S -- THERE’S SOME
OTHER SORT OF BACKGROUND TO THIS
THAT I THINK IS RELEVANT.
ONE IS APPARENTLY PARNAS AT SOME
POINT DROPPED HIS LAWYER JOHN
DOWD, WHO HAS A CONNECTION TO
MANAFORT AND THE PRESIDENT.
AND HE NOW HAS A LAWYER, JOSEPH
BONDY, WHO, YOU KNOW, HAS DONE
CRIMINAL CASES IN THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR A LONG
TIME.
TIME. I HAD CASES WITH HIM.
OR AGAINST HIM.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT’S POSSIBLE.
THOUGH, I DON’T WANT TO GET
PEOPLE’S HOPES UP THAT PARNAS IS
MORE FULLY COOPERATING.
MAYBE IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF NEW YORK.
AND THAT THIS IS SORT OF AN
EFFORT TO SHOW THAT HE’S BEING
COOPERATIVE.
COOPERATIVE. THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT WOULDN’T
MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT THAT HE
COOPERATE WITH CONGRESS.
BUT IT WOULD SORT OF BE EXPECTED
THAT HE WOULDN’T JUST DEFY A
SUBPOENA, A LAWFUL SUBPOENA,
WHICH THIS IS IF HE WANTED TO
COOPERATE IN THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT ALSO.
DISTRICT ALSO. SO I THINK WE HAVE TO SEE WHAT
IT MEANS.
IT MEANS. BUT IT CERTAINLY IS REASON, YOU
KNOW, IT MAKES YOUR EYES GO LIKE
THIS.
THIS. AND -- AND I WANT TO SEE WHAT IT
MEANS.
MEANS. >> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE
STATEMENT FROM BONDY.
PARNAS’S ATTORNEY.
PARNAS’S ATTORNEY. IT’S VERY CAREFULLY WORDED.
WE WILL HONOR AND NOT AVOID THE
COMMITTEE’S REQUEST TO THE
EXTENT THEY ARE LEGALLY PROPER
WHILE SCRUPULOUSLY PROTECTING
MR. PARNAS’S PRIVILEGES,
INCLUDING THAT OF THE FIFTH
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT. WHAT DOES LEGALLY PROPER MEAN?
IS IT LEGALLY PROPER TO YOU AND
ME?
ME? OR LEGALLY PROPER TO THE
PRESIDENT?
PRESIDENT? >> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. EXACTLY.
EXACTLY. WELL, THAT’S WHY I’M SAYING
LET’S KEEP OUR EXPECTATIONS
REASONABLE FOR NOW AND SEE WHAT
COOPERATE MEANS BECAUSE HE COULD
TAKE THE SAME POSITION THAT MANY
OF THE PRESIDENT’S CLOSE, YOU
KNOW, ADVISORS AND PEOPLE HAVE
TAKEN.
TAKEN. SAYING, OH NO, THIS IS NOT A
LAWFUL SUBPOENA AS THE PRESIDENT
SAYS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE
IMPEACHMENT IS ALL A HOAX
ARGUMENT.
ARGUMENT. I -- I’M NOT SURE THAT THAT’S
WHAT’S GOING ON HERE, THOUGH,
BECAUSE WHY WOULD HE HAVE
CHANGED COURSE?
CHANGED COURSE? AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, THE FACT
THAT HE MENTIONS OBVIOUSLY
PARNAS DOES HAVE A REAL FIFTH
AMENDMENT RIGHT.
AMENDMENT RIGHT. THAT IS A REAL THING.
HE IS AN INDICTED DEFENDANT.
HE’S GOT TO BE CAREFUL.
BUT IT DOES MAKE ME THINK THAT
MAYBE THERE IS SOME REAL
OVERLAP, AS WE’VE SORT OF
SUSPECTED BUT WILL HAVE TO SEE,
BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
CASE WHICH WE HAVEN’T YET SEEN
IT IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT.
RIGHT NOW, THAT’S JUST ABOUT
CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND THE
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.
IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. IF THERE IS SOME INTERPLAY AND
THAT IS NOW -- YOU KNOW, FOR
BONDY TO BE SAYING, OKAY, THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT MIGHT BE
IMPLICATED HERE, WELL, IS HE
IMPLICATED BECAUSE THERE IS MORE
OVERLAP THAN WE CAN SEE RIGHT
NOW BETWEEN IMPEACHMENT AND THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK?
>> REALLY QUICKLY ON DOCUMENTS,
THERE’S ALWAYS BEEN THIS
QUESTION OF WHO IS PAYING RUDY
GIULIANI.
GIULIANI. ARE THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT
POTENTIALLY HE MIGHT HAVE IN HIS
POSSESSION?
POSSESSION? >> ABSOLUTELY.
>> ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, ONE OF THE BIG QUESTIONS
HERE IS, YOU KNOW, HOW DID --
HOW AND WHY -- DID RUDY GIULIANI
GET $500,000 FROM, YOU KNOW,
FRAUD GUARANTEE OR WHATEVER IT’S
CALLED?
CALLED? YOU KNOW, WHY WERE THEY PAYING
HIM?
HIM? WHO WAS REPRESENTING WHO?
AND WHERE DID THE MONEY COME
FROM?
FROM? RIGHT?
RIGHT? PARNAS IS THIS GUY WHO
APPARENTLY COULDN’T PAY HIS OWN
DEBTS BUT HE COULD PAY $500,000
TO GIULIANI?
TO GIULIANI? THAT IS THE MILLION-DOLLAR
QUESTION.
QUESTION. >> VERY INTRIGUING.
MEME, COME BACK AND TELL US WHAT