Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: On Unpopular Presidents
“A U.S. president who is elected amid controversy and recrimination, reviled by a large segment of the electorate, and mired in domestic crises will be hard-pressed to forge a coherent foreign policy and challenge Russia.” — Fiona Hill
“Wow,” you may be thinking. Does this lady have President Brandon nailed, or what? Not so fast. Fiona Hill is talking about President Donald Trump. (Of course she is.)
I remembered her name at the very moment (about 24 hours ago) that it popped out at me in reports about the most recent Durham indictment WRT the Trump/Russia “collusion” affair.
She’s the woman who showed up to testify before Congress, both privately and publicly — almost exactly two years ago — in support of the story being peddled by LTC (O-ho Say Can You See?) Alexander Vindman. In his attempt to drive a stake through the heart of the Trump Presidency, Vindman appeared before Congress and testified to his disquiet about the Ukrainian phone call:
Fiona has an impeccable British accent. (Almost everyone named “Fiona” has, in my experience, an impeccable British accent.) That alone makes her incredibly credible in the eyes of many on this side of the pond. Or so I am told.
Newsflash: I have an impeccable British accent too (when I decide to bring it on). So that particular characteristic impresses me not at all. (I’m available for hire if you think such a thing might be useful to you someday; just give me a call anytime at 1-800-StiffUpperLip.)
Somewhere along the way, I recall Fiona was asked about reports that she’d questioned Vindman’s judgment and, in her “thoughtful, thorough, irrefutable” way, she offered “a full defense of [Vindman] who may have helped expose the plot.”
In the context of the most recent Durham indictment, which brings forward the perjurious behavior of Igor Danchenko, a Russian national who lied about the sourcing and content of the “Steele Dossier,” (the source and content of which seems to be veering–thoughtfully, thoroughly and irrefutably– ever closer to the functionaries of, and strategy embraced by, the Hilary Clinton campaign), it would appear that the revelation that Fiona Hill introduced Danchenko to Christopher Steele might cause one to wonder about Hill’s own judgment and–certainly–her motives. I guess we’ll see where that goes, as the Durham investigation proceeds on its glacially slow, but still occasionally interesting, way.
As for LTC Vindman? I said he was a jerk then.
And I say he’s a jerk now.
Published in General
Hill introduced Danchenko to Steele, and somehow Danchenko came to meet “PR Executive-1,” namely Charles Dolan, a longtime associate of the Clintons.
So we have the New York Times and the Washington Post winning a joint Pulitzer Prize for reporting a Clinton press release as news.
I hope Durham is setting up a situation where the FBI has to choose whether to incriminate itself or the Clinton organisation. (Needless to say no amount of truth or justice is enough to topple two such corrupt edifices simultaneously in today’s America.)
Remember Kevin Clinesmith? Pled guilty to making false statements on FISA warrants, got “sentenced” to a wrist-slap, and disappeared off the face of the earth. That looked like the end to it.
Was it? The problem with criminal organizations is that there are a lot of people out there who know too much, and Jeffrey Epsteining every loose end gets harder and harder.
There’s an interesting article here, in which Eli Lake argues that the Clinton campaign led the FBI around by the nose in its efforts to discredit Trump, and that although the FBI could have, and in some cases did, see through the ruse, it continued on its own to investigate a matter made up almost entirely from whole cloth. It’s behind the paywall, but is covered on Powerline here.
Hmm.
Second link.
I might be wrong, but the statue of limitations clock on a conspiracy doesn’t start ticking until someone gets charged.
Even better.
Annndd…here’s her interview in the Telegraph, in which she speaks of the recent Republican electoral victories as evidence that the US is “ready to embrace Donald Trump again,” a steady march which “Dr. Hill” suggests will lead to the “death” of American democracy.
As with most of her ilk, there’s a heroic lack of self-awareness here, as she casually throws out statements that would, were they uttered by those on the right of the political spectrum, be called out as divisive incitements f0r violence and revolution.
Well, there’s an adult, rational response. So she’s a nutball, as well.
Indeed.
Apparently, she’s written a book. Don’t they all?
LOL.