The "wretched hive of scum and villainy" that is the GOP (thank you, David Corn, for the Star Wars reference) claimed to have never ever met Lev Parnas.
Now that their lies have been exposed to the world via an endless trove of photographs and texts showing otherwise, they will try to say Parnas is completely un-credible. After all, he's a cRiMiNaL! He's indicted on campaign finances violation charges, right? How can we believe a word he says?
We could spend hours on the levels of projection in that reflexive argument we'll inevitably hear, but before we need to hear it, Joyce Vance gave us the ammunition we need to refute it last night when talking to Brian Williams, just an hour after the eye-popping interview with Rachel Maddow aired.
WILLIAMS: He used a double negative in fact when describing Mr. Hyde. He said, "I've never seen him when he he wasn't drunk." And that was notable. Additionally, to say, "Who am I? Why would these people meet with me?" That's the opposite of a claim of grandiosity that you sometimes get with big-level witnesses.
VANCE: There are these little moments with witnesses that help juries decide whether or not to believe them. And it's an informal moment like that where he sort of puts out his hands and says, "Why else would they meet with me?" And that's very credible.
Later on in the video above, Vance explains some of the technological, legal procedural reasons we can assume Lev Parnas' evidence is trustworthy, and our knowing about it is not the result of a leak.
WILLIAMS: And I heard it put tonight that it's further of benefit to Mr. Parnas that he has not had these devices in his possession for weeks, if not months. There's been no ability on his part to go back and correct or delete things.
VANCE: That's right. At least that's technically correct. There's no reason to believe those devices would not have been secured to prevent, say, some alteration using the cloud. That would have been detected. They were probably turned off and images were taken immediately. And it's those images that were taken at the time that they were seized that would be used to generate evidence. So this works in Parnas' favor. The fact he's turning information over while he's still under indictment. And that could conceivably be used against him. Certainly his statements tonight. These are factors that tend to build credibility for him.
Note that Joyce Vance said that there was a rush to include this evidence in the impeachment articles, so that "the Senate can consider if it chooses to look at the evidence."
Because in this Mos Eisley of a government, how can we feel secure in any assumption that a GOP-led Senate WOULD look at the evidence that their president betrayed our nation?