The materials are expected to include documents taken from Parnas’s Florida home, along with a complete readout of his iPhone. Bondy has said there is relevant information contained in the materials, though he has not disclosed specifically what that might be.
“Review of these materials is essential to the Committee’s ability to corroborate the strength of Mr. Parnas’s potential [impeachment] testimony,” Bondy wrote to the court last week.
Prosecutors did not object to the items being given to Congress.
Parnas and his co-defendant, Igor Fruman, were business associates of Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, and were recruited by the former New York mayor to help him investigate Trump political rival Joe Biden. The former vice president is a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
Dealings by and on behalf of Trump involving Ukraine are the basis for his impeachment. The House approved two articles last month — alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — but Democratic leaders have not yet transmitted them to the Senate, where Trump is expected to face trial.
Parnas and Fruman were arrested in October and charged with violating campaign finance law. Prosecutors allege they filtered foreign money through a bogus energy company they purported to operate and made donations to American politicians on behalf of foreign interests. Both men have pleaded not guilty.
Giuliani has said he sought Parnas’s help investigating Biden. He is not named in the indictment charging Parnas and Fruman, but people familiar with the matter have said he is under investigation by federal prosecutors in New York.
On Friday, prosecutors said they oppose a bid from Parnas’s lawyers asking the judge to require the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office to find out if U.S. intelligence agencies surveilled Parnas, Fruman or their co-defendants David Correia and Andrey Kukushkin.
“The Government has complied with its discovery and disclosure obligations, and [the defense] motion fails to set forth any legal basis to require anything more,” wrote prosecutors Rebekah Donaleski, Nicolas Roos and Douglas Zolkind.
In a letter to Oetken, the judge, they called the defense strategy “a fishing expedition” and said they did not intend to use any information that may have been obtained via surveillance.
Oetken has not yet ruled on the issue.