It may be acceptable in court processes for a witness to step forward after much of the processes have been underway, if there is a markedly significant set of information that could drastically change or alter the outcome of the case.
So, it begs the question, and it does not take much more than the simplest of understanding to realize this, why did someone, who publicly stated he was acting with full knowledge and congruency with the behests of Trump and former New York Mayor Giuliani, wait until a critical moment in the proceedings, as in right around the time the case moves to Senate trial, to garner the limelight of the press, and admit to courses of action which he followed through on, and use that to attempt to add weight on the outcome of the trial to essentially side with entities that seem inclined to vote for conviction?
Lev Parnas. He and Giuliani have a bond of some sort.
Remembering some of the stories about Giuliani, are acute moments during the tragedy of September the 11th, 2001, such as an account of him being physically picked up and carried by an individual, as a group was making their way through a tunnel or passageway; whereat initially hailed as having done heroic activities in the reaction of the disaster, however, since then, have been emerging criticisms of his activities during and perhaps preceding. Reference
The Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11, et al.
-Content above published at about 11am EST January 17, 2020-
Update 6:40pm EST January 17th, 2010: Article here may elucidate the figures involved in the Parnas sketch; it has indications that Parnas may have taken a turn for a direction leading to a change to discontent with him held by Giuliani,
https://apnews.com/708b81d4c77038eb0b751c30f72ff315
Posted by HCN.
