• 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!

John Kelly says Vindman was right to report Trump's call with Zelensky

dixon01767 said:
You didnt answer the question you chose to quote and respond to. What propaganda and disinformation? I suspect that was intentional, seeking to avoid the question.
Click to expand...

I did answer the question... the question of Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election, which the President wanted investigated. It was purely a product of Russian intelligence propaganda and disinformation. Fiona Hill highlighted this fact in her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 21, 2019:

“…Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that perhaps, somehow for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.

The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies confirmed in bipartisan and congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified.”
 
Hawkeye10 said:
What a whacked out world we live in when a guy upon claiming that he is not guilty is accused of having a temper tantrum for the audacity....., but I guess it is not all that different than spinning a denial of charges into an act of defaming the accuser, as we have seen in the Cosby case and elsewhere.

This idea of redefining words at will has got to go.

We have to get back to decency.
Click to expand...
Yes, denial is now the first evidence of guilt. This is the leftist influence on what was once a decent society.
 
Cordelier said:
I did answer the question... the question of Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election, which the President wanted investigated. It was purely a product of Russian intelligence propaganda and disinformation. Fiona Hill highlighted this fact in her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 21, 2019:

“…Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that perhaps, somehow for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.

The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies confirmed in bipartisan and congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified.”
Click to expand...
What makes you think you're still not under the influence of Russian propaganda?

Fiona Hill is just one person and does not have access to all the information available to the NSC or other government agencies. Trump is in a better position to know.
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
Yes, denial is now the first evidence of guilt. This is the leftist influence on what was once a decent society.
Click to expand...

Do you notice how when women accuse men of doing something wrong erotically now men are now to keep quiet, that standing up for themselves is "ReVictimizing Women"...the whole "Believe Women!" gag?


"UTOPIA, WE ARE COMING!"
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
What makes you think you're still not under the influence of Russian propaganda?

Fiona Hill is just one person and does not have access to all the information available to the NSC or other government agencies. Trump is in a better position to know.
Click to expand...

Fiona Hill was the NSC Senior Director for Europe and Russia for over two years - she only left her position about a week before the July 25 phone call. I'd say she was in a pretty good position to know.

However, as you say, maybe the President knew something on the matter that she didn't. It's hard to imagine, but it's possible. So if that's the case, then why not refer it to the DOJ?

Hell, I said from the get-go that this whole impeachment thing could be over in a flash if the AG just went out before the microphones and certified that the President presented valid evidence to him pointing to wrong-doing on the part of the Bidens or anyone in the Ukraine. He wouldn't even have to present it immediately. Just that he was in possession of the evidence and taking ownership of the investigation.
 
Cordelier said:
Fiona Hill was the NSC Senior Director for Europe and Russia for over two years - she only left her position about a week before the July 25 phone call. I'd say she was in a pretty good position to know.

However, as you say, maybe the President knew something on the matter that she didn't. It's hard to imagine, but it's possible. So if that's the case, then why not refer it to the DOJ?

Hell, I said from the get-go that this whole impeachment thing could be over in a flash if the AG just went out before the microphones and certified that the President presented valid evidence to him pointing to wrong-doing on the part of the Bidens or anyone in the Ukraine. He wouldn't even have to present it immediately. Just that he was in possession of the evidence and taking ownership of the investigation.
Click to expand...
Yes, she was in a good position to know a great deal, but not as much as the President, who has many advisors and who must make all the decisions. Fiona Hill stated: "The Russians’ interests are frankly to delegitimize our entire presidency.… The goal of the Russians [in 2016] was really to put whoever became the president — by trying to tip their hands on one side of the scale — under a cloud." And that has obviously worked, judging by the number of people affected by TDS.

No evidence was required to start the impeachment hearings and nothing could have stopped them. Much was made of Trump targeting a 'political opponent', namely Joe Biden, however Biden was not a 'political opponent' and never will be.
 
Cordelier said:
I did answer the question... the question of Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election, which the President wanted investigated. It was purely a product of Russian intelligence propaganda and disinformation. Fiona Hill highlighted this fact in her testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 21, 2019:

“…Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country and that perhaps, somehow for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that is being perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.

The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies confirmed in bipartisan and congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified.”
Click to expand...

That came from Fiona Hill. We were looking for the propaganda and disinformation from Russia. Its a rhetorical question at this point. Asked, not expecting an answer but instead asked to demonstrate you have no answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom