• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fiona Hill Testifies ‘Fictions’ on Ukraine Pushed by Trump Help Russia

Hill was not well vetted. She is a Russian trained and educated operative in my opinion, regardless of which party appointed her. Literally educated in the USSR and the JFK college on government.

:lamo

That seems to be the pattern with anyone who doesn't toe the Trump narrative...
 
[h=1]Fiona Hill Testifies ‘Fictions’ on Ukraine Pushed by Trump Help Russia[/h]
WASHINGTON — The White House’s former top Europe and Russia expert sharply denounced what she called a “fictional narrative” embraced by President Trump and his Republican allies that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 elections, testifying that the claim at the center of the impeachment inquiry was a fabrication by Moscow that had harmed the United States.
...
Dr. Hill’s account of how Mr. Trump’s team carried out what she called a “domestic political errand” that diverged from his own administration’s foreign policy amounted to sharp — albeit indirect — criticism of the president she served, and it brought home the grave national security consequences of the effort.

“These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes,” said Dr. Hill, the British-born daughter of a coal miner who became a United States citizen and co-wrote a length book analyzing the psyche of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.



History will judge Republicans poorly, as they foster a propaganda narrative created by Putin's intelligence services.

We must ask ourselves why does Trump parrot Putin's propaganda? If he isn't a puppet of Russia, he does a very good imitation of someone who is. As Nancy Pelosi said, 'with Trump, all roads lead to Russia.'

I must have missed the evidence she presented during her testimony......
 
That clearly makes her a Russian agent. Just like I'm a Russian agent because I've hung out in NYCs Little Odessa.
Or that Barack Obama "palled around" with Bill Ayers because they happened to both be members of the same community board.
 
The educated can be very ignorant.

Yeah, I agree. Trump went to college and he's still knows nothing.

And narcissistic.

Sure. Trump went to college and he's still a narcissistic jerk.

And pompous.

Here's the thing I realized this week.

These experts Trump mocks and bullies...they are important. They are smarter than Trump. What does Trump know? He doesn't know anything. Their advice should be heeded. They have a right to hold their heads high. Trump is a two-bit chump compared to them. He's small and insignificant compared to them.
 
Re: Fiona Hill Testifies ‘Fictions’ on Ukraine Pushed by Trump Help Russia

I don't know what her "spots" were then or are now. What I'm pointing out is being a member of roughly two dozens orgs, one of them funded by Open Society does NOT establish that she was then or is now a "Soros" ally.

My wife for example has been a "member" of orgs funded by wealthy donors. I'm quite positive she never met them, and certainly isn't an "ally" of them by virtue of being a member of an organization associated with or funded by the donor or donors. She was invited to join to, mainly, give talks in her area of expertise and to attend meetings with talks by others. Her presentations were her own, entirely.

Hill wasn't there to give a talk. She was on the board of advisers.
 
Re: Fiona Hill Testifies ‘Fictions’ on Ukraine Pushed by Trump Help Russia

Who did that? Thanks.

Vindman, for one. And he admitted it.
 
Name their lies, just some of them. Thanks.

Hill's testimony about the Ukrainian influence into the 2016 election was negative and it was not factual.
 
Under questioning from the top Republican counsel on the House Intelligence Committee, Fiona Hill said she confronted Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union about his failure to coordinate with other members of the administration and later realized he was “being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security, foreign policy.”

Trump's people, like Giuliani and Sondland, were doing "domestic political errands," like digging up dirt on Trump's political opponents in contravention of America's laws, while the professionals were busy trying to keep the nation and Ukraine safe.

Which team would you rather be on?
 
The uneducated ban be all those things as well, and too stupid to know their own limitations. Would you prefer that the uneducated, ignorant, run the military for example?

Right now, they are. trump is the CiC.
 
Hill's testimony about the Ukrainian influence into the 2016 election was negative and it was not factual.

Her testimony was "negative" only from a pro-Trump perspective. From an objective perspective, it was simply her professional assessment as a subject matter expert. What part was "not factual?"
 
Re: Fiona Hill Testifies ‘Fictions’ on Ukraine Pushed by Trump Help Russia

She's full of **** like most of the liberal hacks on here.
They just can't stand that a boorish man like Trump beat out the so called sophisticated politicians that make up democrat party.

What we can't stand is that so many voters in America voted for Trump. But that's the fault of Trump voters and apologists and promoters. Not ours.
 
This thread's posts by 45's supporters proves P.T. Barnum correct.
 
That clearly makes her a Russian agent. Just like I'm a Russian agent because I've hung out in NYCs Little Odessa.

I KNEW IT! Your name gave you away ElChupacabra...or should I say....COMRADE!! :mrgreen:
 
Her testimony was "negative" only from a pro-Trump perspective. From an objective perspective, it was simply her professional assessment as a subject matter expert. What part was "not factual?"

Her tactic of conflating the DNC server issue with the Dem/Ukrainian election interference issue...and then calling all of it a fiction...is not factual.
 
I must have missed the evidence she presented during her testimony......
It's the conclusion of OUR intelligence services.
The narrative that it was the Ukraine and not Russia was Russian propaganda. Naturally, you and Trump believe the Russians.
 
Under questioning from the top Republican counsel on the House Intelligence Committee, Fiona Hill said she confronted Gordon D. Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union about his failure to coordinate with other members of the administration and later realized he was “being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security, foreign policy.”

Trump's people, like Giuliani and Sondland, were doing "domestic political errands," like digging up dirt on Trump's political opponents in contravention of America's laws, while the professionals were busy trying to keep the nation and Ukraine safe.

Which team would you rather be on?

She didn't characterize that "domestic political errand" as "digging up dirt on Trump's political opponents (blah, blah, blah)". Why do you?

In any case, her characterization is wrong. Giuliani, Sondland and the others were doing work that involved the President's foreign policy...namely our interactions with Ukraine. But she's correct in realizing that her office had no part to play in that work.
 
That is because you are a team player who could see no wrong with your guys!

She is also closely tied to the Brookings Institute which is bought and paid for by foreign powers & money.

Trump should have flushed the woman on day 1.

:lamo
 
To those in the military bashing Fiona Hill, Vindman, and Yovanovich. Dont expect anyone to thank you for your service. You should have just stayed home.
 
She didn't characterize that "domestic political errand" as "digging up dirt on Trump's political opponents (blah, blah, blah)". Why do you?

In any case, her characterization is wrong. Giuliani, Sondland and the others were doing work that involved the President's foreign policy...namely our interactions with Ukraine. But she's correct in realizing that her office had no part to play in that work.

She made herself perfectly clear. Your attempts to parse what she said notwithstanding.
 
She didn't characterize that "domestic political errand" as "digging up dirt on Trump's political opponents (blah, blah, blah)". Why do you?

In any case, her characterization is wrong. Giuliani, Sondland and the others were doing work that involved the President's foreign policy...namely our interactions with Ukraine. But she's correct in realizing that her office had no part to play in that work.

Shame on you and those who think like you.
 
She didn't characterize that "domestic political errand" as "digging up dirt on Trump's political opponents (blah, blah, blah)". Why do you?

In any case, her characterization is wrong. Giuliani, Sondland and the others were doing work that involved the President's foreign policy...namely our interactions with Ukraine. But she's correct in realizing that her office had no part to play in that work.
It's outlandish that you claim that Giuliani, who has no official position, and the rest of the president's men, were conducting "foreign policy" when no American interests were achieved. Everyone testified that cutting off aid served no American goal. The real question is, how much corruption, how much collusion with foreign powers and betrayal of the national interest will your Republican party stand for? Your party has devolved into a party of corruption and self-dealing.
 
Why did you quote me, ignore it, then bring up a straw man. If you want to quote something from her testimony that she "disagreed" with something, you can do so but I watched or listened to most of it and that's not the substance of her testimony. She said, for example that of course POTUS can establish foreign policy and it's their job to carry it out. The problem with Rudy's efforts was that they diverged from the foreign policy directives of the "United States" as provided to HER in the official channel and the official channel didn't have a clue what the freewheelers were doing at times because they were cut out of it.

So it wasn't about "disagreeing" with anything but that foreign policy involves multiple channels, diplomacy and the military for example, and it's good to have them working toward the SAME goal, and a goal they're informed about. Rudy and others were just out there doing their thing and the rest were left scrambling to find out what exactly because it was conflicting with the announced policy of the Pentagon, State department and others were pursuing.

The president is the official channel. Not the DOJ or the DOD. That there seems to have been a bit of chaos in Ukranian policy is regrettable, and maybe Giulluani was indeed a hand grenade.
But at the end of the day, Dr. Hill is free to believe that Ukranian efforts in 2016 were not that big of a deal.
But Trump is allowed to disagree.
And impeaching a president over a policy dispute sets a bad precedent.
 
Back
Top Bottom