Another impeachment show trial "witness" caught lying

A

artichoke

Verified User
Fiona Hill falsely insisted that Republicans denied Russia's election meddling (what they denied is the left's ludicrous conspiracy theories about COLLUSION), and also falsely insisted that well-documented, proven Ukraine meddling was some kind of debunked conspiracy theory, despite all these court records and DEMOCRAT sources documenting how it all happened. The two things all these cherry-picked, coached, hilariously self-described "non-partisan" witnesses seem to have in common is that they didn't actually witness anything and that they straight up lied under oath.

Desperation, much? :laugh:

View attachment 12770
 
Last edited:
Now it is getting really confusing, Trump tells us Russia meddling in the last election was a hoax, and Trumpkins have been telling us if Russia did get involved it didn't mean anything, "show us how many votes were changed," and now all that is changed to a new argument?

And as you were shown last time, and Dr Hill even explained today, the Ukraine, Crowd Strike, what ever it is conspiracy was and is bogus, even the articles you keep posting show it, give it up
 
archives said:
Now it is getting really confusing, Trump tells us Russia meddling in the last election was a hoax
Click to expand...

Not complicated at all, this is beyond established at this point.

archives said:
and Trumpkins have been telling us if Russia did get involved it didn't mean anything, "show us how many votes were changed,"
Click to expand...

Wrong. This is just you being an imbecile who can't follow basic conversation. Try to follow along here, I'll use extra big crayons...

1) Fact that no one is denying: Russia tried to meddle (to promote Bernie Sanders AND Trump).

2) Debunked conspiracy theory: Anyone other than Democrats colluded with Russia.

3) Counterpoint to hysterical Democrat lunacy that a handful of FB posts changed the election outcome: It made no impact.

Comprehend the difference between these three things yet? :palm:

archives said:
And now all that is changed to a new argument?
Click to expand...

Nope. No part of that has changed. Try to keep up, Neanderthal.

View attachment 12772

archives said:
And as you were shown last time, and Dr Hill even explained today, the Ukraine, Crowd Strike, what ever it is conspiracy was and is bogus, even the articles you keep posting show it, give it up
Click to expand...

Um...no. They don't. That's desperate and idiotic on its face. :bs:

View attachment 12773

What part of this shows that Democrats did NOT collude with Ukraine to influence Election 2016?

1) CBS: "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."

2) Politico: "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."

3) Buzzfeed: Ukrainian Officials Meddled in 2016 Election by Leaking Secret Manafort Ledger, Court Says
 
Adolf_Twitler said:
FAIL!
You lie!
Click to expand...

stupid_meter.gif
 
archives said:
Now it is getting really confusing, Trump tells us Russia meddling in the last election was a hoax,
Click to expand...

When did he say that? Got a link to this bullshit?

archives said:
and Trumpkins have been telling us if Russia did get involved it didn't mean anything, "show us how many votes were changed," and now all that is changed to a new argument?
Click to expand...

What votes were changed with this Russian meddling? Can you show us the number of votes that were changed?

archives said:
And as you were shown last time, and Dr Hill even explained today, the Ukraine, Crowd Strike, what ever it is conspiracy was and is bogus, even the articles you keep posting show it, give it up
Click to expand...

Yet we have Ukrainian officials and emails indicating that they were involved. So if Fiona says it is so, that makes it so? Where's your evidence? Where's hers?

Ukrainian authorities’ evidence includes:

Sworn statements from two Ukrainian officials admitting that their agency tried to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Contacts between Democratic figures in Washington and Ukrainian officials that involved passing along dirt on Donald Trump.

Financial records showing a Ukrainian natural gas company routed more than $3 million to American accounts tied to Hunter Biden, younger son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, who managed U.S.-Ukraine relations for the Obama administration. Biden’s son served on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma Holdings

Records that Vice President Biden pressured Ukrainian officials in March 2016 to fire the prosecutor who oversaw an investigation of Burisma Holdings and who planned to interview Hunter Biden about the financial transfers.

Correspondence showing members of the State Department and U.S. Embassy in Kiev interfered or applied pressure in criminal cases on Ukrainian soil.

Disbursements of as much as $7 billion in Ukrainian funds that prosecutors believe may have been misappropriated or taken out of the country, including to the United States.​

Ukrainian officials told Solomon they are hesitant to hand the evidence to FBI agents working in Ukraine because they believe the bureau has a close relationship with the NABU and the U.S. Embassy. “It is no secret in Ukrainian political circles that the NABU was created with American help and tried to exert influence during the U.S. presidential election,” Kulyk said.
https://www.worldtribune.com/report...democrat-party-interference-in-2016-election/
 
Arminius said:
So the Democrat sources in the OP are all lying? And the court ruling confirming it...was in on the conspiracy as well? :rofl2:



Says the guy who just contradicted DEMOCRAT SOURCES and court rulings to lie...while misspelling basic words...speaking of discrediting yourself. :laugh:
Click to expand...

 
archives said:
Now it is getting really confusing, Trump tells us Russia meddling in the last election was a hoax, and Trumpkins have been telling us if Russia did get involved it didn't mean anything, "show us how many votes were changed," and now all that is changed to a new argument?

And as you were shown last time, and Dr Hill even explained today, the Ukraine, Crowd Strike, what ever it is conspiracy was and is bogus, even the articles you keep posting show it, give it up
Click to expand...
I can't see the OP. Please tell me he didn't cite Solomon?
 
Arminius said:
Fiona Hill falsely insisted that Republicans denied Russia's election meddling (what they denied is the left's ludicrous conspiracy theories about COLLUSION), and also falsely insisted that well-documented, proven Ukraine meddling was some kind of debunked conspiracy theory, despite all these court records and DEMOCRAT sources documenting how it all happened. The two things all these cherry-picked, coached, hilariously self-described "non-partisan" witnesses seem to have in common is that they didn't actually witness anything and that they straight up lied under oath.

Desperation, much? :laugh:

View attachment 12770
Click to expand...

How do you know that every repub believed the Russians meddled, just because that was the official position of the govt.? It's not cut and dried.

An example of false belief: the official position of the govt. is that 9/11 was an al-Qaeda operation yet some U.S. pols still thought it was an inside job.
 
christiefan915 said:
How do you know that every repub believed the Russians meddled, just because that was the official position of the govt.? It's not cut and dried.

An example of false belief: the official position of the govt. is that 9/11 was an al-Qaeda operation yet some U.S. pols still thought it was an inside job.
Click to expand...

The *mainstream* republican position is that Russia meddled but the ‘Russian effect’ was either insignificant or unquantifiable.

You may note that’s consistent with Mullet’s conclusion.

And there’s more than ample evidence that the Ukrainians meddled FOR Hillary and AGAINST Trump that’s hardly a ‘conspiracy theory’. Maybe not to the same extent as the Russians [whatever the hell that ‘extent’ was] but foreign meddling is foreign meddling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top