Judge rejects Lev Parnas' argument that he was prosecuted to be stopped from turning on Trump

A federal judge in New York rejected 列夫·帕纳斯’ 驳回动议 fraud and campaign finances charges, finding an argument that he was prosecuted to block him from cooperating against former President Donald Trump isnot just speculative, but implausible.

Parnas, a former associate of Rudy Giuliani, argued that he was 被捕并被指控 in late 2019 to stop him from cooperating with the House impeachment investigation into Trump’s activities in Ukraine.
Parnas and Igor Fruman worked with Guiliani on his efforts to dig up dirt on then-Trump rival Joe Biden and push for Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden and his son Hunter.
    But the theorizing of Twitters users, and Parnas’s own speculation, do not constitute evidence of an improperly motivated prosecution,” Judge Paul Oetken wrote, noting that Parnas initially did not cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. “To accept Parnas’s conspiracy theory, the Government would have to have known that, one day in the future, Parnas would change his mind and decide to cooperate with the Congressional demand.
      The judge noted that the government didn’t object to Parnastelevision appearances and media interviews. The judge also denied Parnasrequest to seek records from the government to pursue the theory.
        Parnas, Fruman and Andrey Kukushkin are set to go to trial in October on three different alleged schemes. All three men have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
        Each of the defendants filed motions to separate their trials from the others.
          The judge granted only one of those requests and agreed to sever the charges against Parnas for allegedly defrauding investors in a company called Fraud Guarantee, where Parnas is the only defendant.
          The three men will all go to trial together on alleged schemes they used straw donors and foreign donors to make campaign donations to US elections.
          Neither the proffered evidence nor the nature of the alleged schemes, which are relatively straightforward, supports a conclusion that a joint trial would be substantially prejudicial,” the judge wrote.
            The judge denied the defendantsrequest for a court hearing to discuss any materials obtained in the government search warrants executed on Giuliani and lawyer Victoria Toensing’s electronic devices 在四月份.
            The judge said any relevant material or communications involving the defendants arelikely to have already been produced from Parnas’s and Fruman’s own devices.

            评论被关闭.