that some people -- good people, included the one here -- do not have an understanding of what a person like Fiona Hill's job is. I've seen another OP that documents the person's lack of understanding. I had hoped we might engage in a discussion that might help shed light on that. Indeed, that understanding is required to fully appreciate not only Hill's testimony, but that of some of last week's witnesses. Clearly, I was attempting to explain it in relatively simply terms that explain her thinking, in the context of her job responsibilities, rather than my opinion, from the comfort of my home.
I'm not going to go so far as to say I love it (grin), but I always find such nonsense amusing. Of course, I say that as someone who has had the time and resources that have allowed me to study the work of people in positions such as Fiona Hill. I realize that what fascinates me isn't everyone's cup of tea.
I'll end by saying that I agree 100% with what you said about Russia. This in no way means they weren't laughing at their good luck when Donald Jr took the infamous meeting, or when his weak, shallow father was elected. Nor does it mean that as an individual, Putin does not bitterly resent Hillary Clinton. But you know that! And having people like you to discuss serious issues overshadows the insults I tend to have thrown my way from time to time.
= new reply since forum marked as read
