Impeachment

House Republicans Are Spreading 'Fictional Narrative' on Ukrainian Election Interference, Says Former Top White House Adviser

Russia is seeking to "delegitimize our entire presidency," Fiona Hill testified.

|

Fiona Hill, a former top White House expert on Russia, told congressional investigators today that allegations of Ukrainian election interference are not based in fact. By continuing to promote this theory, she argued, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee are emboldening Russian aggression.

"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," Hill told the House Intelligence Committee. "This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves."

Hill, who served under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama as well as Donald Trump, said that Russia has a vested interest in sowing discord within the U.S. and in placing scrutiny on Ukraine.

"As Republicans and Democrats have agreed for decades, Ukraine is a valued partner of the United States, and it plays an important role in our national security," Hill testified. "And as I told this Committee last month, I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine—not Russia—attacked us in 2016."

Trump is currently the subject of an impeachment inquiry, which is based partly on accusations that he temporarily withheld $400 million in security assistance from Ukraine in order to push its president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, to publicly announce an investigation into the theory that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election to help Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. 

President Vladimir Putin's objective, Hill declared, is to "delegitimize our entire presidency" by shrouding the U.S. democratic process and the rightly elected candidates in doubt and to "pit one side of our electorate against each other."

David Holmes, a career diplomat, testified Thursday that the claims of Ukrainian election interference are part of a three-pronged approach by Russia: to "deflect from the allegations of Russian interference," to "drive a wedge between the United States and Ukraine," and to "degrade and erode support for Ukraine."

Republicans have cited a Politico article from 2017 to support their claims of Ukrainian election interference, arguing that Trump did not push for the probe for partisan gain but because he wanted to curb corruption. 

The piece, penned by Kenneth Vogel and Dan Stern, elaborated on Ukrainian efforts to spread unflattering documents about Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign chairman. It also noted a Ukrainian official's op-ed that criticized Trump's position on Russia's annexation of Crimea.

Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, argued in her testimony last Friday that those were "isolated incidents" that do not compare with Russia's methodical efforts. The same Politico piece makes an identical concession, saying that there is "little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine."

"There's an effort to take a tweet here, and an op-ed there, and a newspaper story here, and somehow equate it with the systemic intervention that our intelligence agencies found that Russia perpetrated in 2016 through an extensive social media campaign and a hacking and dumping operation," said Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.). "The House Republican report is an outlier," he said, as it contradicts the findings of the Senate's bipartisan Intelligence Committee, the FBI, and the House Intelligence Committee.

"There were certainly individuals in many other countries who had harsh words for both of the candidates," Hill replied. But what the Russians wanted to do, she said, was different, characterized by an attempt "to create just the kind of chaos that we have seen in our politics." Allegations of Ukrainian interference, according to Hill, are just another means to that end, providing "more fodder than they can use against us in 2020."

NEXT: The Anybody-but-Warren Primary

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fiona Hill is just a hill of crap…

    1. Still missing from Binion’s coverage:

      Interfax-Ukraine News Agency: MPs demand Zelensky, Trump investigate suspicion of U.S.-Ukraine corruption involving $7.4 bln

      Quote:
      Ukrainian members of parliament have demanded the presidents of Ukraine and the United States, Volodymyr Zelensky and Donald Trump, investigate suspicions of the legalization of $7.4 billion by the “family” of ex-President Viktor Yanukovych through the American investment fund Franklin Templeton Investments, which they said has ties to the U.S. Democratic Party.

      Derkach also announced the amount of money transferred to representatives of the Burisma Group, including Hunter Biden. According to documents, in general, in favor of Hunter Biden, Alexander Kwasniewski, Alan Apter and Devon Archer, Burisma paid about $16.5 million.

      According to Derkach, ex-Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin repeatedly appealed to the NABU Director Artem Sytnyk in the framework of criminal proceedings for Burisma, but constantly received formal responses. The activities of Shokin, according to the MP, irritated then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during his fifth visit to Kyiv in two years. The visit on December 7-8, 2015, was devoted to solving the issue of Shokin’s resignation for the affairs of Zlochevsky and Burisma, he said.

      “The subject of pressure was the $1 billion credit guarantee that the United States should have provided to Ukraine: Biden himself acknowledged the pressure in his speech to the U.S. Foreign Relations Council in January 2018,” Derkach said.

    2. Anyone who contradicts the narrative that Trump is Hand Picked by God is full of crap.

      1. And should be censored.

      2. Brandybuck
        November.21.2019 at 1:40 pm
        “Anyone who contradicts the narrative that Trump is Hand Picked by God is full of crap.”

        It would be helpful if TDS victims like you came up with something which might hint at being evidence or some claim that wouldn;t embarrass a first-grade kid.
        Grow up, or fuck off.

    3. Anyone else notice Pod is now staying out of Billy Binion threads…

  2. “”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,” Hill told the House Intelligence Committee. “This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.””

    Yes, impossible that Russia AND Ukraine were involved. Sure, Solomon has documentation of it and this chick has, I guess, her experience. This mandarin is an imbecile who saw nothing wrong with Biden and his son being on the board of Burisma.

    1. NPR was all in on this idiotic false dichotomy this morning.

      1. Not surprising–they’re as close as we have to a direct line to what the DNC is promoting.

    2. The other question is how would she be in a position to know what Ukraine did or did not do in the 2016 election? Why would they have told her?

      Further, what does it mean to be a “Ukraine expert”? The fact that she is supposed to know a lot about the country doesn’t means he knows the specifics of this. Unless she is some kind of intelligence asset and has access to the inner workings of the Ukrainian government, what possible basis could there be for her to make this claim?

      1. If this farce has made one thing very clear, it’s that Ukraine is more important to US national security than anything else in the world – including the US.
        These mandarins clearly think that Americans are nothing more than livestock who exist solely to fund the lifestyles of they and their Ukrainian friends.

        1. It is brazen how these people seem to not give a shit about the US and brag about all of the great things they have done for Ukraine. Through this entire farce, I have yet to hear one witness explain what they have done for this country or do anything but talk about how wonderful Ukraine is how they have spent their careers serving it’s interests.

          They seem to have no idea that could be a problem. Vindeman volunteered that he had been offered the job of Ukrainian defense minister three times. He bragged about it. The thought that the American public might have a problem with one of its military officers so ingratiating himself to a foreign country they offered him a cabinet position never entered his mind.

          These people are unbelievable.

          1. Sheryl Atkisson has also noted that. The only thing they seem to have proved is that they are AMAZING advocates…for Ukraine.

          2. John (and damikesc)…I agree. The arrogance of the administrative state has been on display; 100%, no debate. I cannot believe what I am seeing, quite honestly. To me, it is why we need to starve the beast.

            1. To me it’s why we need to inflict four more years of Trump on them. I suspect after re-election he’ll be taking the gloves off and purging a shitload of people out of government and politics.

              1. UCrawford….For the sake of The Republic, I hope this happens: a massive culling of the administrative state. Just do not replace people who leave for a 3-4 year period. Shrink the size of the bureaucracy.

              2. “Today I opened a major Apple Manufacturing plant in Texas that will bring high paying jobs back to America,”

                D. Trump

                At a manufacturing plant in Texas this week which has been in operation since 2013.

                He opened it today. Only he can fix America.

      2. Yeesh john. sometimes you come up with the dumbest shit to rationalize your adherence to Trumps dingleberries.

        1. Yeah, like actually knowing something about operations occurring in the Ukraine. So dumb!!!

        2. No. I made obvious points that you don’t like but can’t respond to.

          Why would this woman be privy to the workings of the Ukrainian government such that she can credibly dismiss this as “isolated incidents”? Are you so dumb that you think she has magical powers? What is your response?

          Either say something intelligent or stop wasting space.

      3. “Unless she is some kind of intelligence asset and has access to the inner workings of the Ukrainian government, what possible basis could there be for her to make this claim?”

        You can be sure that she has access to the inner workings of the Ukrainian government. She has access to US eavesdropping and material from human sources.

        1. You can be sure that she has access to the inner workings of the Ukrainian government. She has access to US eavesdropping and material from human sources.

          No you can’t be sure of that. At best she would have access to the intel reports generated from that. She would have no need to have access to the actual collection. And even if she does, she can’t claim to have complete information sufficient to make the statement she does.

          1. Oddly enough, neither she nor the lisr up there with her knew anything about Biden’s frequent contacts in Ukraine

        2. “She has access to US eavesdropping and material from human sources.”

          If she was speaking about information gained from such sources she would have to be doing so with expressed authorization.

          I doubt she has that sort of access, and I doubly doubt anyone in a position of authority would allow her to indicate that she has access to such sources.

          So, no. You are making shit up.

          1. Well, bullshitting is about the only skill trueman has.

      4. Why pay for Cirque du Soleil when you get to see a different type of theatre and circus with this impeachment inquiry?

        I see glimpses of it on TV and want to vomit it’s so naked in its cynicism.

        1. I’m sure you would’ve enjoyed the British lady going off on The Elders of Zion and how George Soros is caught up in unfair conspiracy theories, meanwhile… Russia!

    3. I wonder why the president does not share your view. After all, he “believes Putin” that Russia had nothing to do with 2016. Curious.

      1. I wonder why you are a complete moron who can’t seem to make a coherent response to anything. You have no point here. The point is that one being involved doesn’t preclude the other. Saying “but Trump says Russia wasn’t involved” is a completely stupid response. You can’t even lie properly.

      2. Widdle baby gonna cwy?

      3. Can you or someone else tell me what quantifiable influence Russia had on the 2016 election in terms of total number of votes. I keep hearing assertions but no hard numbers to go with.

        1. bUt HoW mAnY vOtEs

          No amount of foreign hacking of our politicians or are elections is permissible. I can’t believe you guys stand by Trump after he publicly asked Russians for help getting elected on TV.

          1. “No amount of foreign hacking of our politicians or are elections is permissible”

            So you want to go to war over some Facebook ads.

            No seriously, you just said that.

            1. I didn’t say that, but you did try to put those words in mouth.

              1. I FUCKING QUOTED YOU

                LOLOLOL

                1. I mean, can you fucking believe this clown, I QUOTE him and just like Jeff always does, he claimed I was putting words in his mouth

                  BY QUOTING HIM

                  Ahahahahahahah what the actual fuck?

              2. Stolen Valor has no opinion of value. You are not a green beret; stop representing yourself as one!

          2. “bUt HoW mAnY vOtEs”

            So you claim it happened but have no evidence? Why is that not surprising?

          3. Are you saying you can’t be specific? I simply want hard numbers or an argument that isn’t an appeal to authority. Can you do that?

          4. “No amount of foreign hacking of our politicians or are elections is permissible”

            And what are we going to do?

            Also, what about OUR involvement in OTHER elections? Didn’t we overthrow the Ukrainian President?

          5. “I can’t believe you guys stand by Trump after he publicly asked Russians for help getting elected on TV.”

            Not true. He facetiously asked the Russians to provide the contents of Hillary’s private email server if they had then, which would have done nothing to help him get elected, because the media nearly unanimously assured me that the only things Hillary didn’t turn over were personal emails involving yoga and wedding plans.

          6. That’s right, you’re the idiot who thinks Trump making the statement that maybe the Russians have HiLIARy’s 30,000 subpoenaed e-mail is him “asking for help”.
            What a maroon!

  3. If the claim is that Trump is too friendly to the Russians, why wouldn’t the Ukrainian government not want Trump elected?

    Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, argued in her testimony last Friday that those were “isolated incidents” that do not compare with Russia’s methodical efforts.

    So she admits they were interfering with the election. What is “isolated incidents” even mean in this context? All she is saying here is that “the Russians were doing it more”. Well maybe. But, the fact that even she admits that it happened, makes Trump’s request that the Ukraine look into it perfectly valid. She admits it happened. Why would we not want to know for sure its extent?

    1. Because that is what Putin wants.

      How ALL of these diplomats are so well-versed in what Putin wants, admittedly, is a mystery.

      1. It’s way worse than them. My neighbor seriously thinks that Trump is Putin’s puppet, and does everything Putin wants. This person made so much money he retired at 40, and yet these thoughts flow through his brain daily.

        He thinks Maddow is gospel. Red pilling will take considerable effort.

        1. Proof that rich isn’t the same thing as smart.

  4. “Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, argued in her testimony last Friday that those were “isolated incidents” that do not compare with Russia’s methodical efforts. The same Politico piece makes an identical concession, saying that there is “little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine.””

    Russia’s “methodical efforts” were about 100,000 spent on FB ads and having Democrats obsess over “collusion” for THREE FUCKING YEARS NOW.

    Fire every single person in the State Dept. Burn the whole thing down, salt the earth below it, and then try again.

    1. “Trust us. We’re professionals.”

    2. You guys keep ignoring the hacking and coordination with WikiLeaks, and it turns out from the stone trial, WikiLeaks and Trump campaign. These are facts established in court now.

      1. Wikileaks didn’t get the DNC emails from the Russians. And the DNC emails had nothing to do with Trump and didn’t benefit Trump. The DNC emails were all about Bernie Sanders and Hillary.

        It was a hoax. Not even the faithful believe in it anymore.

        1. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html

          17 intel agencies and some of our allies’ intel agencies all disagree with your take, John.

          1. “New York Times Forced To Retract Longstanding ’17 Intel Agencies’ Lie About Russian Hacking”

            https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-30/new-york-times-forced-retract-longstanding-17-intel-agencies-lie-about-russian-hacki

            You got caught lying about “all intelligence agencies” then back pedaled into an already retracted lie.

            LOLOLO why are you even discussing this when you still think retracted shit is factual loloolll

          2. The same intel agencies that told us that Iraq possessed WMDs and was actively pursuing more?

            Those intel agencies?

          3. How many intel agencies said Saddam had WMD, out of curiosity?

            The number was awfully high.

          4. Holy shit. Jeff is using that debunked lie still?

      2. Still no evidence of any ties between Trump and Wikileaks. Wikileaks has said they got the emails from non-Russian sources.

        Do better next time.

        1. It’s all he has.

        2. You didn’t follow the Stone trial? Trump perjured himself, it seems. Multiple accounts from campaign insiders confirms they knew about WikiLeaks releases before the public.

          https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/12/roger-stone-trial-donald-trump-wikileaks-070368

          1. Lol a politico opinion piece is proof lololol

            1. You are free to look up the results of the case elsewhere.

              1. I did. They didn’t share the idiots opinion that you subscribe to.

                1. Care to cite?

                  1. I charge 100 bucks an hour for tutoring.

              2. “You are free to look up the results of the case elsewhere.”

                You are free to support your claim. Or STFU.

          2. Assange says Wikileaks is gonna release some shit.
            Stone says Wikileaks is gonna release some shit… but he doesn’t know what or when.
            Real solid stuff there

            1. THAT’S DIRECT PROOF OF A DIRECT LINK!

              Fuck.

              Oddly enough, neither Assange or Stone or anyone else apart from some Russians that will never see the inside of an American courtroom have been indicted for anything even remotely approaching election interference or the hacking of any DNC e-mails.

              Isn’t that weird? It’s almost like they can’t prove dick. Almost, right DOL?

              1. No, it’s direct proof that people can hear and read.

                God damn how are you this stupid?

                1. Didn’t catch the sarcasm?

                  Poe’s Law running strong.

                  1. Lol no, I didn’t catch it lol my bad

            2. Trump denied that much. Perjury.

              1. I don’t think you understand that perjury is.

                1. Clearly.

                  1. Obama said you can keep your doctor. Perjury.

                2. Oh I do. I think you are the one who is mistaken, much like when you attempted to correct my use of “solipsism”. Classic stuff here, guys. Keep it coming.

                  https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/revealing-testimony-at-roger-stone-trial-indicates-trump-may-have-lied-to-mueller-committed-perjury/

                  1. How about when I corrected your lie about 17 intelligence agencies?

                    1. The director of NSC speaks for all 17. 4 independent conclusions that were accepted by all 17 agencies. Typical hair splitting.

                      Typical pedantics to distract from the point. Everyone who has investigated has come to the same conclusion. Trump has come to his own conclusion, which is identical to the Russian narrative.

                    2. “The director of NSC speaks for all 17”

                      Go with that.

                      Say “17” when you mean one guy, it’s totally not an attempt to hide the truth.

                      And ignore “retracted”

                  2. “I don’t recall” is not perjury.

                    Classic DOL, fucking clueless as usual, while citing to sources that undermine your own argument.

                    1. You are quite happy with the do not recall slime out? And do not recalls are not get out of jail free cards. There is quite a lot of precedent on that matter.

                    2. It went from “definitely perjury” to “I’m unhappy”

                    3. //And do not recalls are not get out of jail free cards. There is quite a lot of precedent on that matter.//

                      So, in order to convict Trump of perjury, you would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he remembered, but testified that he didn’t.

                      Good luck, Mr. Pincushion.

                    4. You are quite happy with the do not recall

                      I hope you didn’t strain yourself moving that goalpost all the way downfield like that.

                  3. And, for the record, it is still abundantly clear that you don’t know what “solipsism” means.

                    1. So when jesse argues that everyone else is a bot, that is not solipsism? I’ll have to go back and correct my philosophy professors.

                      solipsism
                      [ˈsäləpˌsizəm]

                      NOUN
                      the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

                    2. Proves my point, yet again.

                    3. I argue you’re a sock idiot jeff, not a bot. I base this on you outing yourself multiple times when you forgot to switch accounts.

                    4. And solipsism has nothing to do with that charge dumbfuck.

                  4. The two sentences cited begin with the words “I don’t recall”

                    1. Not remembering is the same as deliberately lying about facts material to the outcome of a legal proceeding, apparently.

                    2. THERE IS PRECEDENT!!! PRECEDENT I SAY!!!

          3. Isn’t this the same Politico that published an article back in January 2017 about Ukrainian officials trying to make nice with Trump after fucking around with the election?

            1. Keep reaching into that memory hole and you’re going to lose some fingers, buddy.

          4. The trial didnt rule that Stone had contacts at Wikileaks dumbfuck. He was charged for lying. About his contacts who said they had contacts. No court ruled he had contacts w Wikileaks.

            Holy hell you’re retarded.

  5. All of which is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Trump sent the Ukrainians the anti tank missiles that Obama wouldn’t.

    1. That’s the insane part.

      Trump didn’t give a shit about Ukraine (unsure how that is the job of the American President, but there ya go) but he actually sent them stuff to combat Russia while Obama sent blankets and food.

      1. Even if you believe that, saying it is the worst thing you can do. If public doesn’t think the election was compromised, then people still have faith in the system and Putin is thwarted. But if you go around claiming it was, then people lose faith in the system and you have done Putin’s job for him.

        These people really are dumb.

        1. No, they don’t want Americans to view elections as legitimate.
          Makes it easier for their fraud.
          Putin is the boogeyman, and forever war with Russia must be maintained at any cost

        2. and you have done Putin’s job for him

          The great irony of how the media/dems are playing this.

          1. Holy shit – this whole thing has turned into a panicked defense by Hill, Holmes, and the Ds that Ukrainians totally didn’t do anything involving the 2016 election

    2. And Putin bombed his own people to cement support for an autocracy. Sometimes you gotta break a few eggs, or your own soldiers to keep up appearances. It’s funny you guys can extrapolate that Michelle Obama is a man and who really killed Seth Rich, but you can’t see what is very plain.

      1. No, we can definitely see that you are cwying widdle baby.

      2. So even when Trump helps Ukraine that is to just put people off his trail.

        Do yourself a favor and google “confirmation bias” and then give it a long hard thought.

        1. We already know that Trump benefitted from Russian interference. We already know that all intel agencies, foreign intel services, law enforcement, and several private investigations have confirmed that Russia did the hacks. The only person in government who seems to disagree is Trump, based off of no evidence supporting his case. He did get up in Helsinki and show his belly to Putin in the most embarrassing display by a US president, quite possibly ever.

          Sending lethal aid post facto does change the previous facts.

          1. That is exactly what a Russian bot would say. You are just trying to throw everyone off your trail.

          2. “We already know that all intel agencies”

            ALL OF THEM. EVERY SINGLE ONE. FUCK MY TOTAL LACK OF PROOF, I’LL JUST GET MORE STRIDENTLY INSISTENT BECAUSE IT’S HOW I HIDE THAT I’M FULL OF SHIT!!!

            1. Yes, that is very Jeff-like behavior.

            2. I dunno, do we have more than 17? Because that’s how many agree that Russia did it.

              https://www.npr.org/2017/01/05/508355408/intelligence-chiefs-stand-more-resolutely-behind-finding-of-russia-election-hack

              Trump must have some secret killer evidence to disagree with 17 whole agencies whose purpose it is to know this stuff.

              1. You said “all intelligence agencies” and then got caught lying and tried to turn it our into 17, which is also a lie, because you were lying and I caught you.

              2. “New York Times Forced To Retract Longstanding ’17 Intel Agencies’ Lie About Russian Hacking”

                https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-30/new-york-times-forced-retract-longstanding-17-intel-agencies-lie-about-russian-hacki

                You got caught lying about “all intelligence agencies” then back pedaled into an already retracted lie.

                LOLOLO why are you even discussing this when you still think retracted shit is factual loloolll

          3. //We already know that all intel agencies, foreign intel services, law enforcement, and several private investigations have confirmed that Russia did the hacks.//

            Well, if they can’t prove it in a courtroom, and they can’t, their conclusions don’t mean shit.

            Have you seen any of this evidence for yourself?

            Didn’t think so.

            1. I haven’t seen evidence myself of OJ’s guilt, but because I am a logical person, I can deduce that he almost certainly killed 2 people.

              1. Which has exactly fuck all to do with anything.

                Reach harder.

              2. Except the OJ trial was a widely televised event. And it was, to be clear, a trial – with evidence, and a jury.

                Did you really just compare the OJ trial to a classified intelligence assessment?

                Fuck. I can’t even deal with that level of stupid. Do you really exist as person? If so, what the fuck do you do for living? I’m seriously asking.

                1. Just make fun of him shilling a retracted lie about 17 Intel Agencies like I plan to.

                  1. He must be a masochist. He enjoys the punishment. I am relatively new on this comment board but DOL really seems to be the human pincushion of Reason. Getting wrecked every damn day, letting everyone take a stab at him for something obviously stupid, and then coming back for more. Every. Day.

                    1. My cited arguments are never wrecked. They are argued about, but not countered. You will notice no one else cites their arguments around here.

                      The best they can do, much like you, is attempt to take pedantic details and try to focus on those instead of the major arguments. Because the facts are not on the side of the Trump cult.

                    2. Oh no, I wrecked the fuck out of your “all intelligence agencies” lie, point blank.

                    3. //The best they can do, much like you, is attempt to take pedantic details and try to focus on those instead of the major arguments. //

                      Pedantic details like the actual elements of statutory crimes, evidentiary burdens, the weight of hearsay, the necessity of objective evidence, the law of parsimony, and the nagging insistence that words have concrete meanings and should be used accordingly.

                      Without an understanding of these details, your “major” arguments are major bullshit.

                      As Biden said, “We choose truth, not facts.”

                      Long live DOL.

                    4. You call the retraction of your citation a pedantic critique. Holy fuck jeff. Just stop saying stupid shit.

          4. We already know that all intel agencies, foreign intel services, law enforcement, and several private investigations have confirmed that Russia did the hacks.

            Too bad they weren’t any better at their jobs. They could’ve brought it to the Obama Administration, The DNC, or the Clinton campaign’s attention and stopped it. Then we wouldn’t have this problem.

            And before you tell us that they did notify the Administration, the DNC, and/or the campaign, you should realize that it would suggest that the Administration, DNC, and/or the campaign was inept… and we won’t stand for any of that nonsense around here!

          5. Almost nothing you know is actually factual retard Jeff. Everything you state is known is full of holes. There weren’t 17 intel agencies, there was Brennan and a small hand selected group from cia and fbi. The hacks only source of information is from crowdstrike as the DNC refused to hand over servers. Crowdstrike was and is notorious for giving the results their clients want. Russia spent as much money on BLM and other groups as they did trump groups. Their main goal was to undermine the election outcome which democrats have allowed to happen for 3 years now.

            You’re a fucking dumbass baby jeffrey.

      3. “…It’s funny you guys can extrapolate that Michelle Obama is a man and who really killed Seth Rich, but you can’t see what is very plain…”

        Why do lefty fucking ignoramuses embarrass themselves with obvious lies and bother to post them here?
        Do they enjoy being embarrassed? Or are they simply that fucking stupid?

        1. Lefties are the retards who unfriend people on facebook over politics so they don’t have to defend their ignorance. They want spirit fingers that agree with them outright. Fuck tempered and educated argumentation.

      4. Stolen Valor has no opinion that matters. No one likes a thief. Get an original name.

  6. President Vladimir Putin’s objective, Hill declared, is to “delegitimize our entire presidency” by shrouding the U.S. democratic process and the rightly elected candidates in doubt and to “pit one side of our electorate against each other.”

    DEFLECTION SHIELDS TO MAXIMUM POWER!

    1. Expect to hear more calls for ‘unity’ now that the Ukrainians are asking for us to participate in their corruption investigations.

      Which, by treaty – yes an ACTUAL treaty – we are bound to do.

      1. And the demand is ==>

        MPs demand Zelensky, Trump investigate suspicion of U.S.-Ukraine corruption involving $7.4 bln
        https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/625831.html

    2. “DEFLECTION SHIELDS TO MAXIMUM POWER!”

      Wow, you and Jeff go full incel on the same day.

  7. Look, I am not a brave man but somebody has to face the elephant in the room and ask the obvious question that needs to be asked – was Fiona Hill always a Fiona and not maybe a Frederick at some point? I mean, I know British men have a reputation for frequently being indistinguishable from British women, but is the reverse true as well?

    1. I was thinking maybe Fanny Hill … until I saw her pic.

    2. The guys in Monte Python made more convincing women than this broad.

      1. It’s not just the drab haircut, the square face and the strong chin, I swear there’s a five o’clock shadow in that photo. But then, I’m also familiar with the jokes about “a British ten”. (Number of beers you’d need, years since they’ve seen a dentist, the necessity of converting that to Fahrenheit to get the American equivalent, etc.)

        1. She looks like Kristin Scott Thomas’ transgendered brother.

    3. “It is the beards.”

    4. Is it easier to make fun of Fiona Hill than to refute her testimony. You are wondering how can anyone believe her as she is a women.

      1. She is most definitely not a “women”.

  8. “President Vladimir Putin’s objective, Hill declared, is to “delegitimize our entire presidency” by shrouding the U.S. democratic process and the rightly elected candidates in doubt and to “pit one side of our electorate against each other.””

    Gotta give Trump credit, The Democrats and the Administrative State are finally admitting what everyone else has known since shortly after the October revolution.

    1. Nothing solves the problem of pitting the electorate against one another like trying to impeach and remove from office a lawfully elected President on entirely partisan and dubious grounds.

      Everything these people say is a lie. She says she is concerned about dividing the electorate because she actually wants the electorate divided.

      1. Democrats will always agree to disagree, so long as you do things their way.

      2. Everyone is lying but Trump. That is literally what your version requires. Seems dubious.

        1. ONE person so far spoke to Trump about what he wanted from Ukraine.

          “Nothing” was the answer.

          This whole clownshow has been blasted.

          1. That’s simply not true. Sondland blew the bag wide open. Taylor did too. It’s obvious to anyone who is rational that the point of Trump directing everyone to talk to his private personal attorney, Rudy, was to avoid anyone else hearing from him what he wanted. And like the good boy cult member you are, you swallow it down.

            I suggest you get some news coverage outside of wherever it is you get your information from.

            1. Sondland said Trump said he wanted nothing from Zelinsky other than to do the right thing.

              I’m not sure you’re capable of thought.

              1. On what date on the 2019 calendar did he say that? It matter a lot when judging the credibility of the statement.

                1. Give it up, “mike”
                  Your masters look like idiots

                2. “On what date on the 2019 calendar did he say that?”

                  Sondland said he said it. Under oath. Two days ago. Now if you wish to discount ALL of his testimony, that is fine with me.One of the questioners asked why, in his 45 minute long opening statement, he left that sentence out.

                  He said to save time.

                  Because 46 minutes is dramatically longer than 45.

            2. Baby jeffrey still thinks opinions are actual evidence despite the only documented evidence in regards to a trump conversation was no pid pro quo.

              1. You do understand that the bar for evidence in the impeachment hearings is not the same as it would be in a Senate or criminal trial? You do understand if this matter gets to a Senate trial witnesses who are currently refusing to testify will be comprehend to testify?

                1. Like Ciaramella.
                  Biden. Both of them.
                  Schiff.
                  Etc.

            3. Did you miss the fact he told people to y’all to the Attorney General too?

          2. Trump gave that “nothing” answer on the day the Congressional investigation started, over a week after the story became public.

          3. One person who talked to Trump directly who has not refused to testify in the hearings.

            1. It’s called “the evidence the Dems have presented”.
              Sorry if they failed to provide anything better.

        2. Speaking for myself I don’t think she is lying, I think her self interest and tribal affiliations have led to her to truly believe the bullshit she is spewing.

          It’s far too self serving to be anything else.

          1. Yes, deluded /= lying, she may genuinely believe she is a superhero.

          2. But Trump isn’t self serving?

            1. He’s not the witness whose credibility is being analyzed.

              God damn man get a fucking hobby other than hating Trump.

        3. Everyone is lying but Trump. That is literally what your version requires.

          Precepts. They’re all lying, self-serving shitbags. It’s not clear that lying, self-serving shitbag isn’t the duly-elected President’s job description, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Lying, self-serving unelected shitbag is kinda reprehensible intrinsically, especially given that there are so many of them.

    2. “Let us give Putin exactly what he wants!”

  9. puts the lotion in the basket.

  10. So the great fear is that Russia wants to call the legitimacy of our elections into question and did something to effect that and the way to combat that is to call the legitimacy of our elections into question due to unspecified Russian interference?

    Which side is Fiona Hill on, exactly?

    1. Is there anything more status quo than a “both sides” argument?

      1. The Russians have gotten incredible value out of a few 100k of ad buys with the incredible amount of angst they have generated among Democrats.

        1. There was over a billion dollars spent on the 2016 general election. But somehow the Russians flipped the result with 100K in ad buys and a few trolls at a server farm posting on Facebook.

          This is what these morons actually believe.

          1. There is no way to assess the Russian’s influence on the 2016. The results are in and Donald Trump won. That does not mean we should not acknowledge the Russian’s interference and work to prevent interference in future election. The first step is to acknowledge what happened. Something President Trump is reluctant to do. The one person I can point to who seem to believe the Russian did flip the election is Donald Trump and he can not accept even the mention of Russian interference.

            1. //There is no way to assess the Russian’s influence on the 2016.//

              I don’t understand why Russian “interference” is a concern if there is no way to measure it. And, if there is no way to measure it, is it really “interference”?

              This doesn’t really make sense.

              1. Think of the children.

                1. That is, unless the Russians are telling you to think of the children, in which case, fuck the children.

            2. There is no way to assess the Russian’s influence on the 2016.

              Tell that to your Dem buddies.

              1. To this day, I have yet to hear a sensible explanation of the Russian “election interference” theory.

                The way I see it, it boils down to clamping down on the dissemination of any information provided that information originates from sources that are sufficiently “foreign” and “evil,” which really just boils down to mass censorship in the pursuit of electoral purity. Americans must consume political propaganda that is solely internal and national, otherwise, our elections are illegitimate.

                Seriously? I really don’t understand it at all.

      2. Absolutely. The most status quo thing is a conservative blaming everything on liberals or vice versa.

  11. It wasn’t just Politico. The New York times reported on it as well.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/world/europe/ukraine-paul-manafort.html

    There is clearly a thread here. Certainly, it is not insane to press for an investigation. If there’s nothing there, then there’s nothing there. But, how Hill, or Holmes, or anyone else can so comfortably declare that it is a fictional narrative, is beyond comprehension.

    How do they know? They don’t. They simply believe it. Well, truth be told, the President is free to disagree with their assessment.

    What is the impeachable conduct? That Trump didn’t agree with the assessments of his subordinates?

    Good luck with that.

    1. How quickly they forget:

      Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
      Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.

      Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

      A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

      From Politico.

      1. Uh huh. So they made public statements and made the same connections that Robert Mueller and others found? I. Am. Outraged.

        Did they funnel $30mm through the NRA to various “conservative” campaigns? Did they hack a presidential candidate and both major parties, then selectively release embarrassing emails from the party they wanted to lose? Did they coordinate their efforts through Roger Stone and Wikileaks with a major campaign? No?

        So why does this Ukraine conspiracy grab your attention, but you are so dismissive of Russia? Seems like you have a partisan lens coloring your thinking.

        1. If you were in favor of the Mueller investigation, you should be in favor of investigation Ukraine’s meddling.

          Right?

          1. You can see from the post you replied to what his answer is.

          2. Except no one even has anywhere to start, because as you do the fucking reading it becomes immediately evident there is no lead to follow. There is no there there. But go ahead, supposedly Barr is on the case.

            1. depends on what your definition of “is” is

            2. You sound panicked.

                1. Projection. Why would I be panicked? I have no dog in this fight. I have an opinion, but no side. Abject partisans for Trump do have a clear reason for bias and now panic.

                  1. Then why do you post talking points in a manner clearly revealing panic?
                    Were you recently hit on the head by a football helmet?

                    1. He’s somehow even more panicked now.

                  2. The only thing more despicable than mindless partisans are mindless partisans that display their mindless partisanship for the world to see only to argue that they are not mindless partisans when called out on it.

                    Every single one of your “assessments” and “arguments” cut against Trump and are rooted in factual errors and deliberate misrepresentations about the testimony of witnesses.

                    You clearly have a dog in the fight.

                    1. The only thing more despicable than mindless partisans are mindless partisans that display their mindless partisanship for the world to see only to argue that they are not mindless partisans when called out on it.

                      Don Lemon did this exact shit tonight.

                      DOL’s gotten so desperate he’s recycling NPR talking points from three years ago.

            3. //Except no one even has anywhere to start, because as you do the fucking reading it becomes immediately evident there is no lead to follow.//

              That settles it then.

              Fucking retard.

              1. Go ahead, show some of that evidence.

                1. Literally the entire article you are commenting on.

                  Jesus fuck.

            4. Since you’re a lying shitbag, I’m gonna guess there actually is something there.

            5. “Except no one even has anywhere to start, because as you do the fucking reading it becomes immediately evident there is no lead to follow.”

              How is it different than the Mueller probe?

        2. We don’t know what they did. That is why Trump was right to ask the current government to find out.

          Once again, whatever you believe Russia did has no bearing whatsoever on what the Ukraine did.

          Do you just not know what a logical fallacy is?

          1. I didn’t deny or attempt to refute Ray’s statements or quotations. I am comparing the republican responses to the accusations of outside interference. I’ll restate it for clarity: there is much, much more evidence of much greater and illegal Russian interference than Ukraine’s. Yet Republicans, especially Trump dismiss Russia interference, but are very concerned with perceived interference with very little evidence of illegality from Ukraine. Well, they are concerned with it now that Ukraine is front and center in Trump’s impending impeachment.

            1. Bro, theres a link that proves you’re lying RIGHT THERE.

        3. You’re asking a lot of questions that could be answered by an investigation. If only one of our representatives would reach out for more info

        4. lol you just got steamrolled. I didn’t know you were such a Trumpista

        5. Did they funnel $30mm through the NRA to various “conservative” campaigns?

          You are absolutely shamelessly making up crap now.

          1. Unfamiliar with Maria Butina and Torshin and the NRA?

            https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/us/maria-butina-russian-agent-charges.html

            There’s a start, but it goes much deeper.

            1. Oh man, did he just go with Butina?

              You really need a better newsfeed.

            2. Lol. This is one of the lies peddled by Glenn Simpson. This is fucking hilarious. The fbi literally says they have no proof of money being funneled through the NRA. even the snopes account of it states that.

              1. He’s getting so desperate that he’s reduced himself to recycling old, long-debunked Brock narratives.

        6. “Did they funnel $30mm through the NRA to various “conservative” campaigns? Did they hack a presidential candidate and both major parties, then selectively release embarrassing emails from the party they wanted to lose? Did they coordinate their efforts through Roger Stone and Wikileaks with a major campaign? No?”

          Russia didn’t do that either. They spent about $100K on FB ads.

          1. I like how
            (a) NRA spending $30M of its money on support for Trump against blatantly anti-gun Democrats, and
            (b) Butina and Torshin, Russian pro-gun rights people seeking meetings with NRA (meetings that led no where),
            is segued into false charges that the Russian government supplied the $30M that the NRA spendt.

            That belongs with the “Nixon faked the moon landings and the Soviet space agency either bought the hoax or participated in it” BS. Or the six “Killian Documents” supplied by Bill Burkett to Mary Mapes in Microsoft Word formatting in Truetype digital font are authentic, and all the Killian documents in the Texas Air National Guard archives typed on Marion Carr Knox’s Olympia typewriter with signatures that match Col Killian’s handwriting are the fakes.

            Psst. NASA and the Russian Federation space agency are colluding on the International Space Station even as we sit here.

  12. Paul Krugman again shows why he deserved a Nobel prize:

    Paul Krugman’s takeaway from impeachment hearings: ‘The Deep State contains some really impressive, principled people’

    1. The deep state does not exist, but they are doing a great job.

    2. Krugman fancies himself part of their class.

    3. Now, now people. Maybe Paul was being sarcastic and really meant ‘The Deep State contains some really mediocre, unprincipled derriere berets.’

  13. Reporting on this has been around for a couple of days. I wonder how Reason missed it.

    Reporting on this has been around for a couple of days. I wonder how Reason missed it.

    Ukraine widens probe against Burisma founder to embezzlement of state funds

    Ukraine MPs demand Zelensky, Trump investigate suspicion of U.S.-Ukraine corruption involving $7.4 bln

    1. From the wayback machine

      Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
      Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.

  14. And here is Fiona Hill opining, in no uncertain terms, that American interests are best served by *avoiding supplying Ukraine with arms and aid* because it could cause an unnecessary confrontation with Russia.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/giving-weapons-to-ukraine-could-goad-putin-into-a-regional-war/2015/02/05/ec2e9680-abf5-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html

    Of course, that was when Obama was president and the 80’s called for their foreign policy back and the Russian “reset” was the official party line. But, now that Trump is President, and the narrative that he is an agent of Russia needs a push, suddenly Ukraine is an indispensable ally, needs aids without any questions, and confronting Russia is super necessary.

    So. Very. Credible.

      1. Burisma embezzling Ukrainian state funds just as the United States prepares to release hundreds of millions of dollars in aid …. is what? None of our concern? Beyond the scope of acceptable conduct to investigate?

        Obviously.

        Guess they should impeach the motherfucker, just like that fat horse said. Ironically, that fat horse is herself under investigation for campaign finance violations.

        https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/house-ethics-committee-investigations/index.html

        Let’s see just how much the Democrats are interested in transparency and election integrity.

    1. If Reason keeps at it the word credible is going to go the way of the word apology.

    2. Because suddenly libertarians care what some self interested aparatchik thinks…

  15. So, … Adam Schiff is an agent of Russia

    1. He may be an agent, but he sure ain’t no asset.

    2. American politicians have more common interests with Russian politicians than they do with American constituents. Divide and conquer!

  16. The central reason to defend Trump is the blatant hypocrisy of the Dem party. If the Dems had any principles, they would start by demolishing Biden’s campaign for creating an appearance of impropriety. Until they hold themselves accountable, everyone involved can act on the understanding that partisanship is more important than ethical standing.

    Otherwise, yeah, it’s pretty fucking obvious that Trump trod a well-traveled path of graft like his predecessors. The irony will be his ouster for doing less than Obama’s IRS-targeting and intelligence-targeting adversaries.

    The sweeter irony was that Trump was busy draining the swamp by chewing up and spitting out lackies in his own party — anyone willing to work with him — much as he’s done his whole career with suppliers for property and real estate development. Any politician running on an anti-corruption platform simply means centralization of corruption.

    1. “Otherwise, yeah, it’s pretty fucking obvious that Trump trod a well-traveled path of graft like his predecessors.”

      Give us at least one credible example.

      1. Why? It’s “obvious.”

        Impeach the motherfucker.

        1. OK, this is where a little realism is in order.

          A New York real estate developer got access to the power of the Presidency. Most of us probably believe that some level of graft has always occurred in the White House, so thinking Trump indulged isn’t the fever dream some make it out to be.

          But Ijustworkheres point stands. I’ve said from the beginning you can’t have Trump until you clean up your own party. Otherwise, fuck off.

    2. The Dem hypocrisy goes back to Bill Clinton, when they defended his perjury to defeat a sexual harassment lawsuit.

      At least in Clinton’s case there is a victim- Paula Jones, who was suing him for sexual harassment. She was entitled to a truthful answer.

      By extremely sharp contrast, there was no victim in Trump requesting the Ukraine to reopen a criminal investigation.

      1. The victim was Biden, because now people are asking serious questions about him being involved, during his tenure as Vice President, in a corrupt scheme to enrich his drug addicted, deadbeat son. And we all know Biden is nice guy and above reproach.

        So, really, what the fuck, Trump?

        1. For an addicted deadbeat, Hunter Biden sure gets a lot of ass.

          1. Well, shit, when $80,000 is dumped into your bank account every month for doing diddly squat, you can probably afford all the ass that’s up for sale. Too bad he never figured out how to use a condom.

  17. Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee are emboldening Russian aggression.

    Ahaaaaaaaa…

  18. Of course- they’re deflecting. They are just trying to get people to ignore Trump is a criminal and unfit for office.

    1. Couldn’t fool you, though!

      ::slow clap::

    2. “…They are just trying to get people to ignore Trump is a criminal and unfit for office.”

      It takes a pretty strong dose of stupid to believe that repeating a lie you made up will somehow convince others that there’s anything but bullshit there.
      You’ve got a bad case of it.

    3. The same party that defended committing perjury to defeat a sexual harassment lawsuit now thinks Trump is unfit because he committed a victimless crime?

      They set the precedent; we make them live by it.

  19. …and these are the things we talk about, to avoid mentioning what this government does to its people every day.

    But, yeah: Russia… and Ukraine.

  20. Fiona Hill looks like Voldemort in drag.

    eek.

    1. Decent take.

    2. At the very least like she can unhinge her lower jaw in order to consume her meals whole.

  21. “As Republicans and Democrats have agreed for decades, Ukraine is a valued partner of the United States, and it plays an important role in our national security,”

    Decades? Decades implies more than one, which must imply more than twenty years. Ukraine only declared itself independent of the Soviet Union 18.5 years ago and it ratified that on December 1, 1991. However, the Orange Revolution didn’t occur until 2004-2005. Republicans and Democrats don’t agree on much, and they sure didn’t agree on this twenty years ago.

    Finally, Ukraine plays no role in our national security, except, maybe, destabilizing it. What strategic interests do we have? Pissing off Russia? What would we do if they fomented a coup in Mexico and then tried to arm our new enemy to the South, or to Canada?

    It’s all part of this need of the Military-Industrial-Espionage Community to ensure that we have an enemy. Now that Islam is failing as an existential threat, we need Russia to be the Boogeyman, “How can we be in, if there is no outside?”

    1. “Now that Islam is failing as an existential threat”

      Don’t be so eager to parrot what you see on TV. Islam was never an existential threat.

      1. Vienna disagrees.

      2. I wasn’t seriously conceding the notion that it ever was. It wasn’t.

        It was, however, the boogeyman of the day, and now, people are just pissed off that they still have to take off their shoes to take a plane.

  22. Yep, another career bureaucrat speaking with the royal “we.” We agreed upon this? No, we didn’t. Ukraine is not some bastion of transparency and good faith dealings. Did we already forget 2014 where the US tried its hand once again at regime change and we ended up with a Russia-friendly Ukrainian President? Have we forgotten how many Russians still live in Ukraine from the FSU?

    Sick and tired of people talking out their ass about this.

    1. I like your sentiment, but we didn’t end up with a Russia friendly president in Ukraine. We instigated a coup that brought a Nazi sympathizer (Poroshenko, the guy that Biden braced) to the presidency of the Ukraine. We overthrew the Russia friendly president (Yanukovych). The new guy, in an upset, best out the Nazi sympathizer. Now they have a Jewish TV comic. The Nazi’s must be losing it!

  23. BTW, you’ll notice it’s “Dr.” Hill.
    When you’re shoveling bullshit, do it with some credentials so the J-schoolers will be impressed.
    Who was the scumbag economist who made up the ‘you can keep your doctor bullshit’? I’m sure there was a PhD trotted about during his delivery of bullshit.

      1. You are a moron who thinks credentials are the same as educated. There are few things that show someone’s ignorance than a willingness to think a PHD in something besides a hard science is impressive or entitles someone to moral authority.

        1. There are few things that show someone’s ignorance than a willingness to think a PHD in something besides a hard science is impressive or entitles someone to moral authority.

          There are plenty of high-minded historical PhDs in hard sciences that lamented at length that their PhDs specifically do *not* entitle them to any sort of moral authority. The idea that a PhD entitles you to some sort of broadly heightened intellectual role is a rather recent one.

          1. “There are plenty of high-minded historical PhDs in hard sciences that lamented at length that their PhDs specifically do *not* entitle them to any sort of moral authority. The idea that a PhD entitles you to some sort of broadly heightened intellectual role is a rather recent one.”

            Targeting for the nukes which ended WWII was an issue fraught with all sorts of baggage (very few then understood them to be the most humanitarian alternative yet proposed).
            Oppy was on many committees and targeting was one of them, but he simply admitted in memo form that as mathematicians, physicists, and so forth, none of his staff had any expertise to offer. (“The Making of the Atomic Bomb”, Rhodes is the best source, and Oppy later tried to brag about his hair shirt)

        2. “a PHD in something besides a hard science is impressive or entitles someone to moral authority.”

          You think study of hard science confers moral authority? Stick with what you know, John.

          1. “You think study of hard science confers moral authority? Stick with what you know, John.”

            Pretty sure John thinks it means there is a degree of intelligence involved, and your missing the point is to be expected.
            I’d suggest you also stick with what you know, but so far, no subject addressed here has hinted at what that might be.

      2. No one cares about your sex life.

        1. You can still say insulting things about it if it makes you feel better.

          1. mtrueman
            November.21.2019 at 10:00 pm
            “You can still say insulting things about it if it makes you feel better.”

            No one can possibly insult you or your supposed intelligence as well as your own posts do.
            Were you born this fucking insufferable, or did it take you years of practice?
            Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

      3. My post addressed credentials, so, as normal, you tossed some bullshit out and hoped someone would mistake it for something of value.

        1. “you tossed some bullshit out and hoped someone would mistake it for something of value.”

          It’s a quote from Donald Trump, and it’s a lovely Christian sentiment. When did you turn on Trump? You’ve been such a reliable supporter till now.

          1. It’s a quote from Donald Trump

            Jesus, you can’t even get the actual quote correct.

          2. “It’s a quote from Donald Trump, and it’s a lovely Christian sentiment. When did you turn on Trump? You’ve been such a reliable supporter till now.”

            So it’s something you’ve taken out of context, and which addressed nothing in my post, and now hope to wrap it in more irrelevant bullshit in the hopes it MAKES YOU LOOK BETTER?!
            Holyfuk, in the words of a famous news caster.

          3. “It’s a quote from Donald Trump”

            BTW, so is:
            “I’ll have the Cabernet, please”.
            And if he ever ran into you, it’s odds on that one of his quotes might well have been:
            “Did you hear that fucking ignoramus?”

  24. No doubt Tulsi Gabbard was involved, somehow.

    1. No comparison between the photo of Madame Voldemort above and
      Tulsi Gabbard’s official photo at Wikipedia.

      Sorry I got totally distracted.

  25. Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, argued in her testimony last Friday that those were “isolated incidents” that do not compare with Russia’s methodical efforts.

    You might not want during this impeachment to suggest that effectiveness matters.

  26. “A Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign.

    That operative’s name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party. As Vogel reported, she knew about Paul Manafort’s extensive connections to the pro-Russian regime of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, and decided to dig deeper into possible connections between Moscow and the Trump campaign. As part of that effort, she discussed Manafort with the high-ranking officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, D.C.

    Manafort was Yanukovych’s political adviser until he was deposed after the American-backed Euromaiden protests of 2014, and Chalupa suspected that he would eventually be brought aboard the Trump campaign. When her prediction proved correct and Manafort was named campaign chairman, she was suddenly much in demand within the DNC.

    Chalupa continued her research into Manafort and his ties to Russia, an issue that would dog Manafort until he resigned a few months later. And part of that research involved working with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington and officials in Kiev. Ukraine was worried about a Trump administration cozying up to Moscow, as Russia invaded and seized territory from Ukraine shortly after Yankukovych’s ouster.”

    —-CBS News July 13, 2017

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ukraine-try-to-interfere-in-the-2016-election/

    If a former Clinton White House aide, who was working for the Democratic National Committee, was seeking dirt from the Ukrainians to use against Trump, then the problem isn’t that Ukraine was trying to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

    The problem is that the Democratic National Committee was seeking the assistance of a foreign government to dig dirt up on the Trump campaign.

    Incidentally, this accusation is far less shocking than the established fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation cited the Steele dossier to justify putting a wiretap on the Trump campaign–and withheld the provenance of the information in the FISA application from the judge, especially the part about how their source being funded by the Clinton campaign.

    The legitimacy of the U.S. presidency isn’t in question. The legitimacy of the opposition, the FBI, the DNC, and the Clinton campaign remains riddled with giant questions. Some of those have been answered–and no one has been held responsible. You want to restore faith in the means by which we choose our presidents, start holding Comey and others responsible for the things we know they did.

    I repeat: Comey used opposition research in an application for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on a presidential campaign–and he’s made that clear by his own admission. He’s never been held accountable! If the DNC was sending operatives to the Ukrainians to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign, then exposing that fact won’t hurt the legitimacy of our elections. Exposing the truth and holding the guilty parties responsible can only enhance the legitimacy of our presidential elections.

    1. Yes Ken. all of this has been known for a while. But, reason is unbothered by it because Orange Man Bad.
      It is pathetic.

      1. It’s even more basic than that!

        Why would Trump winning despite the DNC seeking dirt on the Trump campaign cast doubt on the legitimacy of Trump’s victory?

        If Hillary had won, it would cast doubt on her victory, but there’s no legitimacy problem for Trump attributable to winning despite the foul play orchestrated by the DNC against him.

        If you didn’t know any of the information I mentioned above, why wouldn’t you denounce that claim about legitimacy as hogwash.

        We can’t investigate the gas station down the street being victimized by an armed robbery–because if we did, people might think the owner of the gas station associates with criminals!

        No.

        He was the victim of a crime. Only in the twisted imagination of a TDS psycho does the DNC using the Ukrainians to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign bring the legitimacy of Trump’s presidency into question.

        1. theoretically, it could cast doubt on Trump if you think he’s so cunning and diabolical that he managed to cheat even better then the DNC but without leaving a trace. Of course, to believe this you’d have to be deranged.

        2. You’re touching on the fact that Democrats often accuse Trump of exactly what the Democrats are doing.

          They accused him of colluding with Russia, when Obama privately told the Russian president he’d have more flexibility after the election (and didn’t know the microphone picked up his words).
          They accused him of asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent, as if Obama didn’t have the government do exactly that (plus illegally leaked the existence of the investigation to cheat in the election) based on fake info. Meanwhile we have Joe Biden bragging about getting the prosecutor fired investigating the firm paying his son millions, and Biden says the allegations are fake and have been debunked (what investigation showed that?).

          The way I see it, Democrats will treat people who disagree with them, just like they treat Trump, when they get power.

    2. Trump is evil and the people that attempted to prevent his election, the same people attempting today to oust him by way of impeachment, are simply behold to “higher loyalties.” These grander, preeminent loyalties eclipse the boundaries established by the Constitution, and supersede the recognized authority of the duly elected President.

      1. This is basically what I was referring to above:

        “Comey now has confirmed . . . that the FBI used an unverified dossier, paid for by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party as political opposition research, to justify spying on the duly nominated GOP candidate for president just weeks before Election Day.”

        https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/420408-comeys-confession-dossier-not-verified-before-or-after-fisa-warrant

        That sums it up.

        1. “Yeah, but it’s John Solomon, and we all know his kooky conspiracy theories have been debunked. He peddles fabrications.”

          “Oh? Why do you say that?”

          “Because, he’s John Solomon, duh!”

          https://californiaglobe.com/media/california-rep-jackie-speier-berates-the-hill-reporter-john-solomon-for-getting-the-truth-about-ukraine/

          1. Your link, just shows a Democrat politician has excluded “The Hill” and John Solomon any access to her, because of what they reported. It’s a standard practice among politicians, to exclude journalists that don’t always write favorable articles about them.

            As for your assertions that Solomon is peddling “kooky conspiracy theories” have been “debunked”, you didn’t provide anything to back it up. The way it looks to me, is Solomon is the one reporting the truth, and the liberal MSM is retaining their access to Democrat politicians, by peddling their conspiracy theories like Trump colluded with Russia to cheat in the election. Your lack of any specific example of alleged Solomon conspiracy theories and the debunking of them, just shows that debunking and kookiness is all in your head. Cognitive dissonance prevents you from looking for examples.

    3. The information itself is ultimately what matters. The source of the information is perhaps material to whether the information is credible but the source isn’t dispositive of that question. What does the information suggest? Does the information suggest there may be probable cause to support a belief that a crime may have been committed? That’s what y’all don’t understand. It doesn’t matter if Clinton herself was delivering information on Trump to the FBI. The FBI is supposed to consider the information. The FBI gets information from all types of sources. Murderers, mobsters etc. Ukraine had information that implicated Manafort in crimes. Thankfully that information was provided to the FBI. Whoever did that should be commended.

      1. //The information itself is ultimately what matters.//

        Except in the case of the Bidens and Burisma, who should be insulated from any investigative processes, despite all the red flags. Even suggesting an investigation should be commenced is improper and impeachable conduct.

        Right?

        1. If you have evidence Biden committed a crime then by all means submit it to the FBI. If they find that evidence credible they may open an investigation but they would not make an announcement stating they were investigating Biden. In contrast Trump was asking a foreign govt to conduct an investigation on his behalf and he used his public office and our tax dollars to purchase that investigation. Trump didn’t have actual evidence or he could have given to the FBI and allowed them to investigate it but Trump didn’t have evidence. Trump wanted Ukraine to initiate the criminal investigation so that Barr could then be notified that a foreign govt was investigating American citizens. Trump also wanted a press conference so that he could use it in his campaign to bludgeon his opponents.

          1. //Trump didn’t have actual evidence ….//

            Biden admitting it on tape is not evidence? State Department officials raising the issue of the conflict of interest with the prior administration is not evidence? How do you know what evidence Trump did or did not have?

            You don’t.

            You are simply assuming and treating your assumptions as facts.

            GTFO.

            1. Biden admitting what exactly?

              1. Don’t deflect. You have no inside knowledge into the evidence that Trump did or did not have to warrant the launching of an investigation. Stop pretending that your assumptions are facts. They are not. You are drawing asinine distinctions to justify your pre-existing opinions and trying to pawn it off as some sort of reasoned analysis.

                You are only deluding yourself.

          2. “In contrast Trump was asking a foreign govt to conduct an investigation on his behalf”

            What do you think of Obama, asking the CIA, NSA, FBI, and DoJ to get foreign governments to help investigate Trump just before an election, and then illegally leaking the existence of that investigation to cheat in the election? By the way, it was a Democrat operative who leaked the request from Trump that the Ukranians help investigate US election interference that occurred in Ukraine in 2016, so if any US laws were broken, we can get the information. But it was also a Democrat who leaked the existence of the Biden investigation; thus, trying to effect the election to help Biden (but I think it hurts Biden). If nothing happened, then why are Democrats complaining? They rejected Trump’s complaints about the Russian hoax investigation, so their complaints about being investigated should be rejected. Or we have a two tier injustice system.

            Trump is investigating Biden, on behalf of the US (including me) for essentially using his government position to illegally financially reward his family. Claiming that Trump is doing it on “his behalf”, is only true to the extent that Trump doing his job as President to enforce the laws of the land, benefits Trump. And that is true as he’s also a US citizen that doesn’t want government employees using their position to fatten their wallets. Why, you could say Obama gave Iran a great deal, to help Democrats and Hillary win elections – is that a problem? It’s disingenuous to suggest Trump is doing it to win an election, but I’ll ignore that from Democrats who claim that Obama asking foreign governments to cooperate with Mueller in his investigation of Trump, acted illegally because they are at least consistent about how laws are applied.

            As for me personally, it looks like Biden broke the law, and Trump obviously didn’t thanks to Mueller’s investigation finding nothing on Trump.

      2. Pod
        November.21.2019 at 3:15 pm
        “The information itself is ultimately what matters….”

        Well, the information requires someone intelligent enough to make sense of it.
        It ain’t you; fuck off.

        1. Apparently the FBI thinks your evidence is trash or Trump wouldn’t have needed to bribe Zelensky to get his investigation.

          1. Pod
            November.21.2019 at 3:38 pm
            “Apparently the FBI thinks your evidence is trash or Trump wouldn’t have needed to bribe Zelensky to get his investigation….”

            See directly above.
            Fuck off, ignoramus.

          2. I don’t think you want to go down the road of threatening to withhold money = bribery.

            1. Never take away the shovel when an idiot is digging a deeper hole for himself…

  27. Damn.
    Holmes lying his ass off, and he’s falling apart

    1. Dumbass really should’ve realized that when his testimony in based on overhearing the opposite end of someone else’s phonecall, he’d better be prepared for some pointed questions.
      He recollected it word for word a week or two ago (6 weeks after he supposedly overheard the call), but now has to check his deposition when asked parts of what was said? Perfect recall 6 weeks after the fact, but not so much after 8 weeks?
      He heard Trump talk about Ukraine super clearly – but didn’t hear Trump talk about A$AP Rocky?
      Hmm
      At least Schiff is there to try to save him

      1. If he asked anybody to repeat a question, I’d ask why he can’t make out a question here but seemingly was able to make out the other end of a phone conversation in a restaurant perfectly.

        The impeachment hearings are: Damning opening statement that is then systematically obliterated during the hearing. The press, though, focuses on the opening statement above all else.

        1. An opening statement always sounds good, until you start asking questions. It simply provides a narrative outline and makes it much easier to systematically pick apart.

          Why say more than you have to? That is why Republicans are having a field day.

          1. I just really want to know what the Ukrainians fighting a “hot” war against Russia is so damn vital to US national security…

            1. War creates instability. Instability creates opportunity for corruption. Corruption creates opportunities to cash in. The truth is, everyone in Congress is pining for the job Hunter Biden had. And you can be certain more than a few have their own skeletons to hide, which would be difficult to locate in the rubble.

              1. “…The truth is, everyone in Congress is pining for the job Hunter Biden had…”

                Most congress-critter share his qualifications, too!

  28. I keep hearing this “the president has the right to remove an ambassador for any reason or no reason”. That’s not a true statement. For instance Trump could not accept a bribe and then remove an ambassador in consideration of the bribe. So yes a President has the authority to remove an ambassador but if he removes the ambassador as part of a criminal scheme to get her out the way then it’s a corrupt official act.

    1. “I keep hearing this “the president has the right to remove an ambassador for any reason or no reason”. That’s not a true statement. For instance Trump could not accept a bribe and then remove an ambassador in consideration of the bribe. So yes a President has the authority to remove an ambassador but if he removes the ambassador as part of a criminal scheme to get her out the way then it’s a corrupt official act.”

      The President can fire an ambassador for the reason of “cause I wanted to”. Point out the law that claims what you say it does.

      1. Trump firing/hiring an ambassador “cause I wanted to” is perfectly consistent with the power granted to a president under our constitution. Firing an ambassador “because it advances an objective of a larger criminal scheme” would be illegal.

        1. Firing an ambassador “because it advances an objective of a larger criminal scheme” would be illegal.

          Good thing he isn’t attached to the previous administration’s criminal scheme, then.

            1. Exactly.

        2. Firing someone who serves at your pleasure is not illegal, no matter what happens after said firing.

    2. //For instance Trump could not accept a bribe and then remove an ambassador in consideration of the bribe.//

      The prohibited conduct, however, is the acceptance of the bribe, not the firing of the ambassador. That is where you are making the mistake.

  29. The republicans (as a whole, unlike Trump) did not deny Russia tried to interfere with the election, and I don’t believe they actively support any “narrative” that it was Ukraine, NOT RUSSIA, who is guilty of meddling.

    The GOP is pointing the Ukrainian cooperation with the DNC for the sake of context and perspective. If one is illegal, then so is the other. Politico reported that the Ukrainians feared Trump and Manafort had ties to Russia and aided a DNC operative (Chalupa) who was researching that very angle. They didn’t give her any direct documents but “guided” her to the right info. The embassy also allegedly tried to help reporters who were researching Trump and Manafort.

    The democrats are accusing Trump of “asking for dirt” on a political opponent, and yet they received opposition research from a paid operative who received assistance from a government that (at the time) was hostile to Trump. And no one at the time was under any official investigation. This was essentially digging for dirt that would prove damaging to Trump.

    If you can’t prove the extortion angle, then all you have left is Trump informally asking the UKR PM whether he could look into an public scandal that struck him as suspicious. No one has shown that it’s illegal for the president to encourage the other side to do things or inquire about something. Zelensky noted Trump’s concern and did not commit to anything. There was NO negotiation in that transcript, legal or otherwise.

    The election interference angle is the democrats playing connect the dots. A guilty verdict on Burisma and or Hunter may damage Biden’s election chances, but so what? If Burisma was being investigated and found guilty for gender pay discrimination and Hunter was among the beneficiary, the effect would be the same.

    1. “…The election interference angle is the democrats playing connect the dots…”

      You are being too kind. They are trying to invent dots to be inserted where there are none, based on hearsay and opinion.
      They are, nothing less, trying to impeach Trump for being Trump, since they cannot accept that hag LOST!
      Three years of hoping, inventing and tossing stuff on the wall, and NONE of it has stuck.
      Anyone with intelligence would be embarrassed.

      1. You’re delusional. Trump was implicated in campaign finance conspiracy. He was identified in the indictment. That’s probably never happened before in American history. A president named in an indictment. But you’re apparently too stupid for that to register. In addition Trump’s own attorney testified under oath that Trump had directed him to commit crimes including the campaign fraud, bank fraud and tax fraud. The only thing standing in between Trump and a criminal indictment is the DOJ position that presidents may not be prosecuted for crimes they commit.

        1. Hmm. Perhaps you should share your careful and reasoned analysis with the Democrats. I have it on good authority that they are desperately looking for impeachment fodder and are not quite satisfied with how stupid they have made themselves look just yet.

          This should do the trick.

        2. “…Trump was implicated in campaign finance conspiracy…”

          This is pod’s latest attempt at bullshit.
          Ya know, Roundup has been ‘linked’ to cancer, too.

        3. You left out the part about the strawberries.

        4. Sorry, even your old boy Mueller disagrees with you. Get help.

    2. No, the effect would be to damage Democrats. Hence, it must be invalid or unworthy of attention.

  30. Pinoy Lambingan Pinoy Lambingan free source of Pinoy Tv Shows Of Pinoy Channel. If you are searching for a platform that will give you free Pinoy Tv Shows then definitely we are an ideal place to see.

    1. Finally, I can get Pinoy Tv!! Thank God!!

  31. What about the rest of her testimony? Reason is a nevertrumper cesspool about one notch above CNN,

  32. And for her next act, Fiona Hill is going to gaslight the entire nation!

  33. Stopped reading after the sub header ‘Russia is seeking to delegitimize our entire presidency’. Well wasn’t that the whole point of their exercise? They’re surely getting lots of assistance from some useful idiots over here.

  34. I fully expect that countries (Russia, Ukraine, China,… even Monaco), corporations (Google, Facebook, all media outlets), and individuals (from Soros to the Koch brothers and everyone in-between) will try to influence or interfere with elections small and large. Get over it. Expose them and move on.

  35. Straw man argument. I don’t know of any Republicans who deny that Russia tried to interfere with the 2016 election. This type of “I know what you’re thinking and it’s wrong” type of discussion is nonsense. Although from what little I saw of one Rachel Maddow show I think that’s pretty much all she does.

  36. “And as I told this Committee last month, I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine—not Russia—attacked us in 2016“

    Because you’re dedicated to the bullshit Hillary ego-salve narrative that it was everybody except the woman caught blatantly rigging the election who rigged the election.

    The point remains and shall always remain: The Democrats are too fucking corrupt, inept, stupid, unpopular and fucking evil to win elections they rig, and no amount of trying to rewrite history with this revolving door of claims (“Russia magically hacked un-networked voting ballots! Russia “colluded”! Russia “obstructed”! Russia made some memes!”) is going to change 2016.

  37. Hill, who served under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama as well as Donald Trump, said that Russia has a vested interest in sowing discord within the U.S. and in placing scrutiny on Ukraine.

    Yes, and people like Fiona Hill, Clinton, Obama, Schiff, and Pelosi are aiding and assisting the Russians in that effort. Instead of standing up to this nonsense, Democrats are behaving like a party of Russian assets.

  38. BTW, leaving the bar and grill after lunch, I caught a TV featuring the ‘hearings’; Schiff was yammering on about ‘something Fox News something’.
    So this entire who-hah is a result of Fox News calling him a dimwit or some such?
    WIH does a TV network have to do with an impeachment?

  39. John Solomon responds to Vindman.

    Note: He includes links to every single thing he states to back up his claim.

    https://johnsolomonreports.com/responding-to-lt-col-vindman-about-my-ukraine-columns-with-the-facts/

  40. In other words, “for God’s sake, don’t investigate Crowdstrike!”.

Please to post comments