Trump ex-adviser calls Ukraine election interference theory 'fictional narrative'

[transporter]

She basically called Trump supporters ignorati!!

Trump ex-adviser calls Ukraine election interference theory 'fictional narrative'

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s former Russia adviser Fiona Hill urged lawmakers in the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry on Thursday not to promote “politically driven falsehoods” that cast doubt on Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

pretty much describes every post on here...politically drive propagandist bullshit.

“In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests,” she said.

I wonder if comrade GURPS and the rest of the crew can read that quote?

 

[Yooper]

Would the fact Fiona Hill worked for one of George Soros' Open Society organizations call into question (even a little bit) the trustworthiness of the witness?

Would it also be somewhat interesting to know that the period of time she worked for Soros (roughly 2000-2005) has been deleted from her Wikipedia bio*? As in, that common knowledge of this employment might, in fact, allow for the possibility of bias?

Would it be interesting to know that Hill used/uses the same law firm Vindman did/does and that this law firm** has also represented Burisma here in the U.S.? Would this Ukraine connection possibly influence Ms. Hill's take on Ukrainian election interference? (Btw, how is it that an officer of such relative low rank can afford such expensive legal representation?)

Or should we just disregard these indicators as irrelevancies or amazing and surprising coincidences?


*Hill's Wikipedia page:

Fiona Hill (presidential advisor) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

**Boies, Schiller, & Flexner, LLC. This firm is heavily involved with Democrats and Left causes. Read more here:

Boies Schiller Flexner LLP - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

EDIT: Not sure why the following didn't post (headspace & timing, no doubt), but let's re-add it....

My point with this post is that these folks have awfully complicated backgrounds and their preferences/temperament don't always line up nicely as either/or (Repub or Dem). In most cases, it's both/and. Which makes this "slam dunk" post by the OP (and other supposedly slam dunk posts) far too simplistic.

So I used Hill because she turns out to be the perfect example as to the complicated nature of what's going on with this "inquiry" (as well as politics/government, in general). She's a Brit, so can we expect her to have an entirely pro-US viewpoint (whatever that means)? She's a Russia hawk (like Trump), but seems to be a bit too pro-Ukrainian (thus, potentially working against what Trumps wanted/wants). She worked in both the Bush 43 and the Obama administrations. She apparently is aligned with Vindman in being pro-Ukraine yet seems to have concerns about Vindman's professionalism.

So my point with posting the Soros connection (etc.) is that it's easy to cherry-pick facts to try to make a political kill shot, but real life is far more complex, nuanced, etc. Nobody agrees with everybody else in their party on every issue so why do we post as if the expectation is that they do (and conversely, make it a huge deal if they don't)?

I have no idea what to make of Hill, but I do have an idea as to how effective The Majority has been making its case.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[littlelady]

Would the fact Fiona Hill worked for one of George Soros' Open Society organizations call into question (even a little bit) the trustworthiness of witness?

Would it also be somewhat interesting to know that the period of time she worked for Soros (roughly 2000-2005) has been deleted from her Wikipedia bio*? As in, that common knowledge of this employment might, in fact, allow for the possibility of bias?

Would it be interesting to know that Hill used/uses the same law firm Vindman did/does and that this law firm** has also represented Burisma here in the U.S.? Would this Ukraine connection possibly influence Ms. Hill's take on Ukrainian election interference? (Btw, how is it that an officer of such relative low rank can afford such expensive legal representation?)

Or should we just disregard these indicators as irrelevancies or amazing and surprising coincidences?


*Hill's Wikipedia page:

Fiona Hill (presidential advisor) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

**Boies, Schiller, & Flexner, LLC. This firm is heavily involved with Democrats and Left causes. Read more here:

Boies Schiller Flexner LLP - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

--- End of line (MCP)

I hope people pay attention to what you posted, or research on their own. Hub and I hear this shiat everyday, but it is being ignored. God bless the US.