HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » ancianita » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: New England, The South, Midwest
Home country: USA
Current location: Chicago
Member since: Sat Mar 5, 2011, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 22,687

About Me

Human. Being.

Journal Archives

Here's what Fiona Hill previously said about Putin

[Fiona Hill] warned House Intelligence Committee members that a narrative adopted by some supporters of Trump—that it was Ukraine, rather than Russia, that interfered in the 2016 US presidential election—is a fiction put forward by Russian security services.

“In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests,” Hill said. “These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes.”

Here is what Fiona Hill wrote for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists about Putin in 2016—well over a year before she joined Trump’s National Security Council.

In the opening paragraph of her article, "Putin: The one-man show the West doesn’t understand," Hill wrote: “A misreading of this man—now one of the most consequential international political figures and challengers to the US-led world order since the end of the Cold War—could have catastrophic consequences…

Where do his ideas and conceptions come from? How does Putin look at the outside world? Why did he annex Crimea in 2014 and intervene in Syria in 2015? What does he know about the West? What does he think about the United States? These are all critical questions.”

from this article by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

from Fiona's original white paper on Putin, written in 2016,a year before Hill joined Trump’s National Security Council.


Photo chosen to show Hill's constant need for bodyguards and security, arguably because she is on someone's "bad woman" list.

MSNBC Misses Sondland's "Burisma, No Biden" Yesterday As Potential Perjury

Despite his repeat of "Burisma, no Biden" yesterday, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland DID know about the Biden "investigations."

Today's David Holmes opening statement, in writing, explicitly quotes GS as telling him exactly that on July 26, 2019, the day AFTER Trump made "The Ask" to Ukraine President Zelensky, to investigate the Bidens' involvement in Burisma, along with info on the debunked server alleged to be used by the Democrats.

Per Holmes:

" ... In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the President did not 'give a s--t about Ukraine.' " Ambassador Sondland agreed that the President did not 'give a s--t about Ukraine.' I asked why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated that the President only cares about the 'big stuff.' I noted that there was 'big stuff' going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia, and Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant 'big stuff' that benefits the President, like the 'Biden investigation' that Mr. Giuliani was pushing...."

Did Gordon Sondland perjure himself yet again? Note Holmes' quotes.

I say YES.


Adam Schiff's Closing Statement Day 4 Impeachment Hearings

One of many of Schiff's finest hours -- the democratic and constitutional reasoning behind why this impeachment is proceeding.

May Americans understand what's at stake for their nation.

Ambassador McFaul Calls Sondland's Claims Of No Direct Knowledge of Burisma/Biden Insulting

Neal Katyal On Sondland, Obstruction and the Need For Resignations

Rep. Adam Schiff's Closing Statement -- Impeachment Hearings, Day 3

Nunes: "circus."

Schiff: "Their objection is he got caught!"

Schiff to Vindman: You Did Your Duty -- Closing Statements Day 3 Impeachment Hearings

Rep. Sean Maloney Brings The Closer's Case Home -- Country Over Party!

We are one brilliant party! Americans can't miss how country-over-party we are!

Jim Himes (CN) NAILS the GOP's Traitor Politics.

First, Himes demolishes the use of "never Trumper," as he raises the president's witness namecalling/intimidation/tampering toward Jennifer Williams and Lt Col Vindman.

Most important, Jim Himes attacks the GOP's attacks on Vindman as "designs to question your loyalty."

Connecticut's Jim Himes:

It's the kind of thing you say when you defend the indefensible. It's the kind of thing you say when it's not enough to attack the media ... or the Democrats. It's what you stoop to when the indefensibility of your case requires that you attack a man who is wearing a Springfield rifle upon a field of blue above a purple heart ... "

Thom Hartmann's History of SCOTUS' Contribution to Corporatism's Eventual Betrayal of Democracy

Thom Hartmann's book (written in 2010, no less!) is Unequal Protection -- How Corporations Became 'People' -- and How You Can Fight Back, is the clearest, most understandable history I've ever read on the subject. It should be required reading for all vote-eligible Americans taught in every American History class in the country.

That Cenk Uygur appreciates Hartmann's history speaks well of him. And frankly, I've never thought well of Uygur.

With SCOTUS being part of the 2.5 branches that have been bought by domestic and international personal fictionhoods (who can donate in our presidential elections through dark money law), our half of the First Branch that now fights to keep a nation of laws, not of men, is the only thing that stands between us and the fascism that corporatists and their current WH tool will establish.

Hartmann: "The Founders would have impeached this guy, Trump, within seconds..."

Hartmann is correct: SCOTUS will be key in allowing an "emergency" and take us directly into corporate fascism.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »