Posted on 11/21/2019 1:35:10 PM PST by MassMinuteman
Former National Security Council official and Russia expert Fiona Hill on Thursday testified that she heard Russian President Vladimir Putin at a 2011 conference describe American fracking as a "great threat" to Russia, a position he has emphasized ever since.
The recollection came out at a point in the impeachment hearing when Rep. Mike Conaway of Texas was asking Hill about Putin's propaganda efforts in the United States, at the center of which is the television channel RT, which pushes anti-fracking messaging. Hill agreed that Russia saw the growth of U.S. fracking as a threat given that it undermines Russia's efforts to dominate the energy sector.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
“Ef Putin.”
Ta ta two timez!
Glad you saw that my CSPAN cut out and said I needed to subscribe to it crazy.Thought it was deliberate lost audio when it was over and our side was going to speak.
And I think we have more frackable gas than WV and Pa combined. Too bad the Dems in NYC metro area run the state. I would say the Up and West staters should split. But then I could only imagine what would happen to Westchester, L.I. with NYC running things without opposition.
I don’t believe her. I don’t believe she kept her mouth SHUT long enough to HEAR anything
you should have heard her defense of Soros. she trotted out some old propaganda book. I dont even remember the name of it. Said you can still find it in Russia
Well it also proves the hypocrisy of the Dem attacks on Trump for being pro-Russian.
It was Obama that was blocking fracking on federal lands.
It was Obama who also made people jump through hoops on environmental regulations in order to frack, which is very safe.
It was Russia that wanted Obama to do this. There was evidence that the Russians and Middle-east energy interests were funding the anti-fracking movement here and in Europe, because they knew its proliferation would destroy their monopoly. Obama heartily played along with our enemies. Yet - Trump was the exact opposite, because he is pro-American. (So if Trump was in Putin’s pocket why did he take such an antagonizing position against them.)
Obama would have Americans pay much more for energy costs, thus impoverishing them, in order to benefit Russia - and its hegemony over eastern and then western Europe. Trump was the exact opposite. He sought to sell LNG to those nations.
In the hypocrisy of the DNC-Media one will never see this explanation, because it runs counter to their narrative.
The green left are also useful idiots. Obama was all for Brazil drilling off shore, but not America. He would hurt our own country but help theirs.
One other note - Obama did not lift a finger to help the Ukraine militarily, and Joe Biden had the audacity to lie and say that Trump was withholding military aid for his own personal gain. What a con artist!
When I first heard people pushing the Russian collusion narrative, including some in my own family, I always responded,
“Russia’s economy is based energy exports and weapons sales. Why the hell would Putin help the candidate who wants to make America energy independent and strengthen our military? That makes no sense at all.”
No one I’ve spoken to could answer that question. Yet it didn’t seem to phase anyone that this made no sense. I couldn’t believe it blew up into a three year investigation. These people are delusional.
The media always misspells it. It is “fracing”, not fracking. Short for fracturing. They want it to have a sort of Frankenstein look. Pretty much just sand, water, detergent, and horsepower.
So if fracking (and larger American oil output in general) are a threat to Russia (and it is, to their economy, as it keeps a lid on the price of the oil and gas that Russia desperately needs to export), then ...
... why on Earth would Putin have wanted Trump to win in 2016?
After all, Trump said that he was going to unleash the oil companies, whereas Clinton was going to keep following Obama’s lead in shackling our energy producers (all the better to enrich her Mideast-based Clinton Foundation “donors”). Besides, Trump also promised a big arms build-up, Clinton said nothing about it. These are a replay of the twin pillars of the Reagan action that buried the Soviet Union (which Puting thinks is the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century). Finally, Trump also couldn’t be blackmailed over the Uranium One fiasco, and Clinton could.
Can ANYONE with a shred of logic explain why Putin would have wanted Trump to win, if it would have been devastating for Russia vs. a Clinton Presidency? Every time I mention this to a Russia, Russia, Russia conspiracy theorist, I’m greeted with either crickets, or with “well, that doesn’t matter, Putin just wanted Trump because reasons.” IOW, these people are just nuts. Putin is a patriot, and a ruthless and analytical man, and he would never have wanted Trump to win.
See my post #30. I honestly didn’t read yours...but we’re clearly channeling each other. :>)
Fiona looks like one of the British exclamation Wallace and Grommit characters...flatline mouth.
I thought she had all the makings of a trannie.
Trouble with her and others overhearing things, allegedly-—
Putin may have said “I’m just fed up this whole f—ing policy” and Hill thought he said the whole fracking policy.
We have suspected for years that the anti-fracking mantra came from Russia and the Middle East.
Boy (I use that term at the risk of being called a racist) you got that right . This should be an issue in states where the Pervocratz stopped it or used when they hammer away at Trump, Also check on who is their campaign contributors are and charged it’s a group with a Russian connection.
The biggest problem with fracking is it needs quite high an oil price to break even. When the price is right they are pumping like crazy flooding the market and it drives the price down knocking frackers out of business. That’s somehow funny situation.
Frankly I’m amazed more people didn’t ask those same questions we did. It’s so simple.
In a similar vein, you have lefties claiming Trump’s motivation for various nefarious (yet imaginary) schemes is to enrich himself. I hear that on tv all the time. These people are not critical thinkers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.