Fiona Hill

Rate this topic
Post anything NOT related to football here.
Rammer
Veteran
Posts: 2135
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:17 pm

Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:09 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Dick84 wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:04 pm
Rammer wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:03 pm
ElAcky wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:02 pm


Sounds like text book Fox/ fake news... not a snippet anywhere else

Not a snippet but definitely not debunked. Just ignored by the liberal media. It's inconvenient for them and doesn't fit the propaganda. I googled and saw multiple links. News is all politicized now. You have to know that. You always gotta go to both sides and weigh the evidence.

Btw, Brett Baier is actually a life time Democrat. He always seems pretty even handed to me.
Because political landscapes are static.

Lol

I love how this would be some kind of smoking gun... because it wouldn’t be.
So funny reading your reply. I never said it was a smoking gun. It is just proof of Ms. Hill's bias against Trump. She was against any military aid at all and now says Trump killed lives by withholding vital military aid for a short time. This is after the conflict already settled into a stalemate.



Rammer
Veteran
Posts: 2135
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:17 pm

Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:19 am

ElAcky wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:33 pm
Rammer wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:03 pm
ElAcky wrote:
Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:02 pm


Sounds like text book Fox/ fake news... not a snippet anywhere else

Not a snippet but definitely not debunked. Just ignored by the liberal media. It's inconvenient for them and doesn't fit the propaganda. I googled and saw multiple links. News is all politicized now. You have to know that. You always gotta go to both sides and weigh the evidence.

Btw, Brett Baier is actually a life time Democrat. He always seems pretty even handed to me.
Unlike you i look across the news inc international.. and nothing nada..... FAKE NEWS.. and you took it like a pro
Yes, I got a laugh out of our reply, also. This Hill woman authored the op-ed piece. There is no disputing or denying this. You just choose not to believe it. So, anything that the liberal media chooses to ignore or censor - just didn't happen? Wow, which one of us is blind? ....We seriously are living in Orwellian times. It's all about putting out spin and propaganda now. The liberal media is becoming as dangerous to independent free press as the Soviet Union was. So sad.



User avatar
Dick84
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10114
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:39 am

Rammer wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:09 am
Dick84 wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:04 pm
Rammer wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:03 pm



Not a snippet but definitely not debunked. Just ignored by the liberal media. It's inconvenient for them and doesn't fit the propaganda. I googled and saw multiple links. News is all politicized now. You have to know that. You always gotta go to both sides and weigh the evidence.

Btw, Brett Baier is actually a life time Democrat. He always seems pretty even handed to me.
Because political landscapes are static.

Lol

I love how this would be some kind of smoking gun... because it wouldn’t be.
So funny reading your reply. I never said it was a smoking gun. It is just proof of Ms. Hill's bias against Trump. She was against any military aid at all and now says Trump killed lives by withholding vital military aid for a short time. This is after the conflict already settled into a stalemate.
No, it doesn’t.
Blanket statements like this about situations that change over years are beyond stretches.
Not everyone is against Trump. Some are just loyal to the constitution.


Okay, okay, okay.... I'll stop being a dick.
3-24-16

Rammer
Veteran
Posts: 2135
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:17 pm

Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:48 am

Dick84 wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:39 am
Rammer wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:09 am
Dick84 wrote:
Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:04 pm


Because political landscapes are static.

Lol

I love how this would be some kind of smoking gun... because it wouldn’t be.
So funny reading your reply. I never said it was a smoking gun. It is just proof of Ms. Hill's bias against Trump. She was against any military aid at all and now says Trump killed lives by withholding vital military aid for a short time. This is after the conflict already settled into a stalemate.
No, it doesn’t.
Blanket statements like this about situations that change over years are beyond stretches.
Not everyone is against Trump. Some are just loyal to the constitution.
Yeah ok. The situation was more crucial when Ukraine was being invaded and Crimea annexed. But Obama was President and she came out against any military aide...... Years later, after the situation somewhat stabilized into a stalemate (and Trrump is President) - she testifies how dangerous it was to have a slight delay in military aid.... No she's clearly not against Trump, why would I even think that?
Last edited by Rammer on Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
Dick84
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10114
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:16 am

Rammer wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:48 am
Dick84 wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:39 am
Rammer wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:09 am


So funny reading your reply. I never said it was a smoking gun. It is just proof of Ms. Hill's bias against Trump. She was against any military aid at all and now says Trump killed lives by withholding vital military aid for a short time. This is after the conflict already settled into a stalemate.
No, it doesn’t.
Blanket statements like this about situations that change over years are beyond stretches.
Not everyone is against Trump. Some are just loyal to the constitution.
Yeah ok. The situation was more crucial when Ukraine was being invaded and Crimea annexed. But Obama was President and she came out against any military aide...... Years later, after the situation somewhat stabilized into a stalemate (and Trrump is President) - she testifies how dangerous it was to have a slight delay in military aid.... No she's clearly not against Trump, why would I even think that?
And the leadership question in Ukraine was different.

And.. here's the thing... we're not talking about her opinion, we're talking about policy. The Congress passed the aid.. it was set for delivery and delayed for a personal issue for President Trump. Her role about *documenting* what happened is the only thing that's relevant. Her testimony about what happened, not what she thinks, is what sunk Trump.


Okay, okay, okay.... I'll stop being a dick.
3-24-16

Rammer
Veteran
Posts: 2135
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:17 pm

Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:20 am

Dick84 wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:16 am
Rammer wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:48 am
Dick84 wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:39 am


No, it doesn’t.
Blanket statements like this about situations that change over years are beyond stretches.
Not everyone is against Trump. Some are just loyal to the constitution.
Yeah ok. The situation was more crucial when Ukraine was being invaded and Crimea annexed. But Obama was President and she came out against any military aide...... Years later, after the situation somewhat stabilized into a stalemate (and Trrump is President) - she testifies how dangerous it was to have a slight delay in military aid.... No she's clearly not against Trump, why would I even think that?
And the leadership question in Ukraine was different.

And.. here's the thing... we're not talking about her opinion, we're talking about policy. The Congress passed the aid.. it was set for delivery and delayed for a personal issue for President Trump. Her role about *documenting* what happened is the only thing that's relevant. Her testimony about what happened, not what she thinks, is what sunk Trump.
Well here's the thing. She made it all about her own opinion. She stated that holding back on the aide for even a short time was "harming" Ukraine. It was very detrimental to our foreign policy, etc. These are her opinions and it turns out they aren't even really her real opinions. When asked about facts, of course, she had nothing. Like everyone else.,No first hand info on anything.



User avatar
Dick84
Hall of Famer
Posts: 10114
Joined: Tue May 12, 2015 6:13 pm

Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:28 am

Rammer wrote:
Dick84 wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:16 am
Rammer wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:48 am


Yeah ok. The situation was more crucial when Ukraine was being invaded and Crimea annexed. But Obama was President and she came out against any military aide...... Years later, after the situation somewhat stabilized into a stalemate (and Trrump is President) - she testifies how dangerous it was to have a slight delay in military aid.... No she's clearly not against Trump, why would I even think that?
And the leadership question in Ukraine was different.

And.. here's the thing... we're not talking about her opinion, we're talking about policy. The Congress passed the aid.. it was set for delivery and delayed for a personal issue for President Trump. Her role about *documenting* what happened is the only thing that's relevant. Her testimony about what happened, not what she thinks, is what sunk Trump.
Well here's the thing. She made it all about her own opinion. She stated that holding back on the aide for even a short time was "harming" Ukraine. It was very detrimental to our foreign policy, etc. These are her opinions and it turns out they aren't even really her real opinions. When asked about facts, of course, she had nothing. Like everyone else.,No first hand info on anything.
She had plenty of in the ground information. An FBI muivaney already made it clear, on the podium, what was going on.
And.. again... foreign policy situations change. Or did you miss the part about it being a new president?


Okay, okay, okay.... I'll stop being a dick.
3-24-16

Rammer
Veteran
Posts: 2135
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:17 pm

Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:45 am

Dick84 wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:28 am
Rammer wrote:
Dick84 wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:16 am


And the leadership question in Ukraine was different.

And.. here's the thing... we're not talking about her opinion, we're talking about policy. The Congress passed the aid.. it was set for delivery and delayed for a personal issue for President Trump. Her role about *documenting* what happened is the only thing that's relevant. Her testimony about what happened, not what she thinks, is what sunk Trump.
Well here's the thing. She made it all about her own opinion. She stated that holding back on the aide for even a short time was "harming" Ukraine. It was very detrimental to our foreign policy, etc. These are her opinions and it turns out they aren't even really her real opinions. When asked about facts, of course, she had nothing. Like everyone else.,No first hand info on anything.
She had plenty of in the ground information. An FBI muivaney already made it clear, on the podium, what was going on.
And.. again... foreign policy situations change. Or did you miss the part about it being a new president?
Sorry, nothing changed on the ground in Ukraine that made it go from not needing aide to needing it immediately. Conflict started, they lost territory, their military regained most territory, Russian pseudo troops came in and retook it and they also took Crimea. Then a prolonged stalemate. So why in the prolonged stalemate did she suddenly believe it was crucial to get this aide to them immediately? ....Cut me a break... Yes Ukraine has a new President. The perfect time to ensure that he would take steps to battle the corruption there. I am sure Fiona doesn't care if we throw money at them and they waste it or steal it. I do though. So, I have absolutely zero problem with Trump asking the new President about investigating corruption.



ElAcky
Veteran
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:49 pm

Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:15 am

Rammer wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:45 am
Dick84 wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:28 am
Rammer wrote:

Well here's the thing. She made it all about her own opinion. She stated that holding back on the aide for even a short time was "harming" Ukraine. It was very detrimental to our foreign policy, etc. These are her opinions and it turns out they aren't even really her real opinions. When asked about facts, of course, she had nothing. Like everyone else.,No first hand info on anything.
She had plenty of in the ground information. An FBI muivaney already made it clear, on the podium, what was going on.
And.. again... foreign policy situations change. Or did you miss the part about it being a new president?
Sorry, nothing changed on the ground in Ukraine that made it go from not needing aide to needing it immediately. Conflict started, they lost territory, their military regained most territory, Russian pseudo troops came in and retook it and they also took Crimea. Then a prolonged stalemate. So why in the prolonged stalemate did she suddenly believe it was crucial to get this aide to them immediately? ....Cut me a break... Yes Ukraine has a new President. The perfect time to ensure that he would take steps to battle the corruption there. I am sure Fiona doesn't care if we throw money at them and they waste it or steal it. I do though. So, I have absolutely zero problem with Trump asking the new President about investigating corruption.
Are you saying it was ok for Trump to hold back the aid so that he could force Ukraine to reopen a case on Hunter Biden ?



Rammer
Veteran
Posts: 2135
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:17 pm

Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:02 am

ElAcky wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:15 am
Rammer wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:45 am
Dick84 wrote:
Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:28 am


She had plenty of in the ground information. An FBI muivaney already made it clear, on the podium, what was going on.
And.. again... foreign policy situations change. Or did you miss the part about it being a new president?
Sorry, nothing changed on the ground in Ukraine that made it go from not needing aide to needing it immediately. Conflict started, they lost territory, their military regained most territory, Russian pseudo troops came in and retook it and they also took Crimea. Then a prolonged stalemate. So why in the prolonged stalemate did she suddenly believe it was crucial to get this aide to them immediately? ....Cut me a break... Yes Ukraine has a new President. The perfect time to ensure that he would take steps to battle the corruption there. I am sure Fiona doesn't care if we throw money at them and they waste it or steal it. I do though. So, I have absolutely zero problem with Trump asking the new President about investigating corruption.
Are you saying it was ok for Trump to hold back the aid so that he could force Ukraine to reopen a case on Hunter Biden ?
Generally speaking, It is okay for a President to hold back aide to get something in return, like agreeing to investigate corruption. In this case I dunno. It's a shade of gray. It was mentioned and then that was it. Perhaps if he followed through on this, had diplomats demanding that Biden be charged before the 2020 election, etc. Apparantly, neither the Ukraine Pres nor the diplomats ever spoke about it again to each other. Second, if it was followed through on, was it specifically for the 2020 election? or investigating the 2016 election? Was it done only for political benefit or not? Nobody has shown me that Ukraine felt pressured, nobody has shown me Trump's true motivation. So, not impeachable. Not even close to big enough.---- Honestly, the Hunter Biden thing looks very slimy and corrupt to me. I think if it was Don Trump Jr. you have would wanted Obama to investigate it.

In any event, this is way over the top. It is abuse of power by Congress. This is what they accuse Trump of. They are worse. Sure, they have the constitutional power to impeach but that doesn't mean you spend the whole term looking for a reason to try to undo the election. They tried to impeach him for something else already. It's so blatantly political. By the standards they are setting every President will be impeached. Come on, Obama had Hillary lie about Bengazi to help with his reelection. Why was this okay to you? Should we have impeached Obama over this?



ElAcky
Veteran
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:49 pm

Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:06 pm

Rammer wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:02 am
ElAcky wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:15 am
Rammer wrote:
Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:45 am


Sorry, nothing changed on the ground in Ukraine that made it go from not needing aide to needing it immediately. Conflict started, they lost territory, their military regained most territory, Russian pseudo troops came in and retook it and they also took Crimea. Then a prolonged stalemate. So why in the prolonged stalemate did she suddenly believe it was crucial to get this aide to them immediately? ....Cut me a break... Yes Ukraine has a new President. The perfect time to ensure that he would take steps to battle the corruption there. I am sure Fiona doesn't care if we throw money at them and they waste it or steal it. I do though. So, I have absolutely zero problem with Trump asking the new President about investigating corruption.
Are you saying it was ok for Trump to hold back the aid so that he could force Ukraine to reopen a case on Hunter Biden ?
Generally speaking, It is okay for a President to hold back aide to get something in return, like agreeing to investigate corruption. In this case I dunno. It's a shade of gray. It was mentioned and then that was it. Perhaps if he followed through on this, had diplomats demanding that Biden be charged before the 2020 election, etc. Apparantly, neither the Ukraine Pres nor the diplomats ever spoke about it again to each other. Second, if it was followed through on, was it specifically for the 2020 election? or investigating the 2016 election? Was it done only for political benefit or not? Nobody has shown me that Ukraine felt pressured, nobody has shown me Trump's true motivation. So, not impeachable. Not even close to big enough.---- Honestly, the Hunter Biden thing looks very slimy and corrupt to me. I think if it was Don Trump Jr. you have would wanted Obama to investigate it.

In any event, this is way over the top. It is abuse of power by Congress. This is what they accuse Trump of. They are worse. Sure, they have the constitutional power to impeach but that doesn't mean you spend the whole term looking for a reason to try to undo the election. They tried to impeach him for something else already. It's so blatantly political. By the standards they are setting every President will be impeached. Come on, Obama had Hillary lie about Bengazi to help with his reelection. Why was this okay to you? Should we have impeached Obama over this?
Problem is one has been debunked and the other is clearly a fact.. Trump clearly tried to force Ukraine into a position to further his own interests against a US national...

... I say f*** him if he wants to turn foreigners against him own... what arse hole does that



Ants
Pro-bowler
Posts: 3488
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:57 am

Sat Dec 07, 2019 3:21 pm

ElAcky wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:06 pm

Problem is one has been debunked and the other is clearly a fact.. Trump clearly tried to force Ukraine into a position to further his own interests against a US national...

... I say f*** him if he wants to turn foreigners against him own... what arse hole does that
I still don't understand what "own interests" Trump was trying to protect.
He was not going to release $$$ until obvious (to most of us normal people) corruption has been investigated. What, because it's Biden he's somehow untouchable???
Grow up. :oops:


The LA Rams - Making the NFL Great Again! 8-)

User avatar
Rampager66
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5939
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:46 pm

Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:36 pm

ElAcky wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:06 pm
Rammer wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:02 am
ElAcky wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:15 am


Are you saying it was ok for Trump to hold back the aid so that he could force Ukraine to reopen a case on Hunter Biden ?
Generally speaking, It is okay for a President to hold back aide to get something in return, like agreeing to investigate corruption. In this case I dunno. It's a shade of gray. It was mentioned and then that was it. Perhaps if he followed through on this, had diplomats demanding that Biden be charged before the 2020 election, etc. Apparantly, neither the Ukraine Pres nor the diplomats ever spoke about it again to each other. Second, if it was followed through on, was it specifically for the 2020 election? or investigating the 2016 election? Was it done only for political benefit or not? Nobody has shown me that Ukraine felt pressured, nobody has shown me Trump's true motivation. So, not impeachable. Not even close to big enough.---- Honestly, the Hunter Biden thing looks very slimy and corrupt to me. I think if it was Don Trump Jr. you have would wanted Obama to investigate it.

In any event, this is way over the top. It is abuse of power by Congress. This is what they accuse Trump of. They are worse. Sure, they have the constitutional power to impeach but that doesn't mean you spend the whole term looking for a reason to try to undo the election. They tried to impeach him for something else already. It's so blatantly political. By the standards they are setting every President will be impeached. Come on, Obama had Hillary lie about Bengazi to help with his reelection. Why was this okay to you? Should we have impeached Obama over this?
Problem is one has been debunked and the other is clearly a fact.. Trump clearly tried to force Ukraine into a position to further his own interests against a US national...

... I say f*** him if he wants to turn foreigners against him own... what arse hole does that
One has been debunked by CNN fact Checkers and the other proven fact from Affirmative Action Scientists... because you said so … doesn't fly here Professor.



ElAcky
Veteran
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:49 pm

Sun Dec 08, 2019 1:12 am

Rampager66 wrote:
Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:36 pm
ElAcky wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 1:06 pm
Rammer wrote:
Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:02 am


Generally speaking, It is okay for a President to hold back aide to get something in return, like agreeing to investigate corruption. In this case I dunno. It's a shade of gray. It was mentioned and then that was it. Perhaps if he followed through on this, had diplomats demanding that Biden be charged before the 2020 election, etc. Apparantly, neither the Ukraine Pres nor the diplomats ever spoke about it again to each other. Second, if it was followed through on, was it specifically for the 2020 election? or investigating the 2016 election? Was it done only for political benefit or not? Nobody has shown me that Ukraine felt pressured, nobody has shown me Trump's true motivation. So, not impeachable. Not even close to big enough.---- Honestly, the Hunter Biden thing looks very slimy and corrupt to me. I think if it was Don Trump Jr. you have would wanted Obama to investigate it.

In any event, this is way over the top. It is abuse of power by Congress. This is what they accuse Trump of. They are worse. Sure, they have the constitutional power to impeach but that doesn't mean you spend the whole term looking for a reason to try to undo the election. They tried to impeach him for something else already. It's so blatantly political. By the standards they are setting every President will be impeached. Come on, Obama had Hillary lie about Bengazi to help with his reelection. Why was this okay to you? Should we have impeached Obama over this?
Problem is one has been debunked and the other is clearly a fact.. Trump clearly tried to force Ukraine into a position to further his own interests against a US national...

... I say f*** him if he wants to turn foreigners against him own... what arse hole does that
One has been debunked by CNN fact Checkers and the other proven fact from Affirmative Action Scientists... because you said so … doesn't fly here Professor.
I said nothing.. was just point out the fact that anyone who bothers can look up easily



User avatar
Rampager66
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5939
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:46 pm

Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:37 am

ElAcky wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 1:12 am

I said nothing.. was just point out the fact that anyone who bothers can look up easily
",,,as long as they can cram their head up the same ass Elacky did"

There... finished it for you.



ElAcky
Veteran
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:49 pm

Sun Dec 08, 2019 11:04 am

Rampager66 wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:37 am
ElAcky wrote:
Sun Dec 08, 2019 1:12 am

I said nothing.. was just point out the fact that anyone who bothers can look up easily
",,,as long as they can cram their head up the same ass Elacky did"

There... finished it for you.
Not sure where to go with that... too childish!!



Post Reply
Rate this topic