I am very alarmed about what Dr. Hill said regarding criticisms of candidate Trump in 2016.

[triron]

This is not at all what I expected to hear from her (these comments were a response to jim Hines
questioning that just happened).

Thanks for many of your comments (collectively). Makes me feel a little better.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

1. Had to go out. What did she say in a nutshell

If you don't mind that is

[triron]

4. This is my interpretation, so keep that in mind.

She thought it ill advised that persons of political influence in many countries (including Ukraine)
made disparaging remarks about candidate Trump in 2016 because they thought Clinton
was going to win. I think Trump well deserved a lot of those criticisms myself (probably even
worse than what they said).

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. So repukes will call her a trump hater

[triron]

15. No on the contrary.

[mucifer]

2. Please explain

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. See #4

[standingtall]

3. Something to the effect of

the Ukrainians backed the wrong horse in 2016. They said some hurtful things towards Trump blah blah blah. Kinda got under my skin, but that proves to me she is not a non-partisan as others have claimed. She is a republican hack which makes her testimony even more damaging to Trump.

[triron]

8. You got the same vibes I did. She definitely appears to be biased toward Trump is a way

I find very disturbing.

[LuvLoogie]

9. Republican hack?

[mobeau69]

11. Disagree

I didn't like hearing that either but she explained why that happens and that it was bottom up as apposed to top down (like you know what). She is an honest woman and it just underlined her credibility.

Sorry, linked to wrong person.

[triron]

17. Perhaps.

[standingtall]

21. A foriegn government expressing a preference is not the same as intefering in an election

and and to throw cold water on the freedom of speech of another country is against our own values. She was throwing Trump and republicans a nugget to exploit. So yes I think she is a hack.

[triron]

22. Exactly.

[uponit7771]

30. +1

[rzemanfl]

18. "Republican hack? n/t

[Jeroen]

5. Why? She illustrated that many officials

from a variety of countries had similar critical things to say about Trump. Trump however, never the less, singled out Ukraine for retaliation.

In other words, it wasn’t the negative comments about Trump by Ukrainian officials that triggered his reaction, it was something else, obviously, the Biden investigation

[herding cats]

14. This was my take as well. nt

[kickitup]

16. Exactly.

[Vinca]

10. I didn't think it was horrible. It is what it is. I think her point was that many, many

people from many, many countries - including our allies - said negative things about Trump and, in the end, it seems only Ukraine is being penalized.

[triron]

19. Hope your interpretation is more correct than mine (seriously).

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. That was also the interpretation of The Guardian

Under questioning from Democrat Jim Himes, Hill is explaining why the points of “evidence” brandished by Nunes that Ukraine was tampering in the 2016 campaign against Trump are .. not evidence of that.

Hill said a lot of foreign leaders talked trash about Trump before the election, but that did not make Trump turn against those countries the way he reportedly loathes and resents Ukraine, she says. So why did he turn so decisively against Ukraine?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/nov/21/trump-news-today-live-impeachment-hearings-fiona-hill-david-holmes-latest-updates?page=with:block-5dd6e02b8f083aa6d5788a56#block-5dd6e02b8f083aa6d5788a56

[NurseJackie]

12. It makes her more credible.

[Sugarcoated]

13. She then pointed out many foreign political people

of many countries said many negative things about crooked Don in the run up to the election yet it was Ukraine that was
targeted to be fucked with.

[Blaukraut]

20. And she is doing it again n/t

[triron]

23. What do you refer to? Not watching now.

[Blaukraut]

25. Praising Wenstrup for his mini speech n/t

[triron]

27. Who is Wenstrup? Can you elaborate on the contents?

[Blaukraut]

29. Wenstrup (R) Ohio bemoaning the "Democrats' coup" (impeachment) and meanness

More or less calling them sore losers and stop trying to unseat dear leader. Of course he had to mention his service again. Dr. Hill praised his service and his eloquence, and agreed that the partisanship needs to stop etc etc

[triron]

31. So is she does not buy the evidence against Trump??

Trump should get away with this??!!

[Blaukraut]

33. Not at all. She actually tries hard NOT to opine on the case and stick to her facts.

Her overall demeanor and emphasis on appearing non partisan is giving Republicans unnecessary soundbite material they can use in their favor, though.

[moondust]

24. I sensed a subtle point

in that exchange that, despite those similar criticisms of Trump made in other countries, unlike Ukraine they were not roped into any goofy conspiracy theories.

[polichick]

26. She disarms them and then makes her point.

[Sogo]

28. I think she made the point in context of these remarks

that that's why it's wise for those in diplomatic circles to remain non-partisan - because they don't know who they are going to be dealing with until after the election....and such remarks can then come back on them.

[triron]

32. Good point. But seems a little suspect OTOH.

[yonder]

35. I was slightly surprised, but attributed it to her

dedication to the norms of diplomatic and political processes.

[Talitha]

36. Whether anyone liked or disliked what she said,

it proves that she TRULY is non-partisan.

She calls out injustice where she sees it and frankly, I applaude her for it.
It'd be wonderful if all elected officials adopted her mindset, wouldn't it?

[triron]

37. I am coming round to that viewpoint now. Yet her comments did make me uncomfortable initially.

I loathe Trump.