https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comme ... s/f88f3x7/Everyone needs to watch Dr. Fiona Hill's testimony.[1] Here's a transcript of her opening statement.[2]
Fiona Hill:
Based on questions and statements I have heard some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country. And that perhaps, somehow for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves. The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our own intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified. The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert career foreign service is being undermined.
U.S. support for Ukraine—which continues to face armed Russian aggression—has been politicized. The Russian government’s goal is to weaken our country—to diminish America’s global role and to neutralize a perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests. President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter U.S. foreign policy objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert political and economic dominance. I say this not as an alarmist, but as a realist. I do not think long-term conflict with Russia is either desirable or inevitable. I continue to believe that we need to seek ways of stabilizing our relationship with Moscow - I'm inserting this irrelevant comment here to demonstrate that no one reads what we post here on this board - even as we counter their efforts to harm us. Right now, Russia’s security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. We are running out of time to stop them. In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.
Following GOP counsel's questioning Dr. Hill outlined how a parallel diplomatic line was established by President Trump as he had Ambassador Sondland and Giuliani carry out a domestic political errand, diverging from official U.S. policy in Ukraine. Ranking Member Nunes cut off the questioning as the answers were damaging to Trump.[3]
“What I was angry about was that he wasn’t coordinating with us,” Hill said, referring to the National Security Council. “And what I realized was, listening to his deposition, that he was absolutely right. He wasn’t coordinating with us because we weren’t doing the same thing that he was doing.”
Hill then contrasted the kind of work that she and other NSC officials were doing and the kind of work Sondland was performing.
“He was involved in a domestic political errand,” she said. “And we were being involved in national security foreign policy, and those two things had just diverged.”
She then relayed to Sondland how she believed this divergence in policy goals was “all going to blow up” and then added, “And here we are.”
The second witness at today's impeachment hearing was David Holmes. Mr. Holmes testified the importance of a White House meeting for newly elected Ukrainian President Zelensky and President Trump extorting Ukraine by withholding aid while asking Zelensky to publicly announce an investigation into Biden on CNN. A Quid Pro Quo deal was described.[4]
It is important to understand that a White House visit was critical to President Zelenskyy. President Zelenskyy needed to show U.S. support at the highest levels in order to demonstrate to Russian President Putin that he had U.S. backing, as well as to advance his ambitious anti-corruption reforms at home. President Zelenskyy’s team immediately began pressing to set a date for the visit.
...Within a week or two, it became apparent that the energy sector reforms, commercial deals, and anti-corruption efforts on which we were making progress were not making a dent in terms of persuading the White House to schedule a meeting between the presidents. On June 27, Ambassador Sondland told Ambassador Taylor in a phone conversation (the gist of which Ambassador Taylor shared with me at the time) that President Zelenskyy needed to make clear to President Trump that President Zelenskyy was not standing in the way of “investigations.” I understood that this meant the Burisma/Biden investigations that Mr. Giuliani and his associates had been speaking about in the media since March.
...Upon reading the transcript, I was deeply disappointed to see that the President raised none of what I understood to be our inter-agency agreed-upon foreign policy priorities in Ukraine and instead raised the Biden/Burisma investigation and referred to the theory about Crowdstrike, and its supposed connection to Ukraine and the 2016 election.
...On September 8, Ambassador Taylor told me, “now they’re insisting Zelenskyy commit to the investigation in an interview with CNN,” which I took to refer to the Three Amigos. I was shocked the requirement was so specific and concrete. While we had advised our Ukrainian counterparts to voice a commitment to following the rule of law and generally investigating credible corruption allegations, this was a demand that President Zelenskyy personally commit, on a cable news channel, to a specific investigation of President Trump’s political rival.
On September 11, the hold was finally lifted after significant press coverage and bipartisan congressional expressions of concern about the withholding of security assistance. Although we knew the hold was lifted, we were still concerned that President Zelenskyy had committed, in exchange for the lifting, to give the requested CNN interview. We had several indications that the interview would occur.
Representative Jim Jordan attacked David Holmes testimony. Holmes responded confirming that President Trump pressed for an investigation into Biden.[5]
Holmes defends his testimony.
"Of course the president is pressing for a Biden investigation," Holmes says, noting it was "obvious" what the president was pressing for.
"He was involved in a number of other interactions as you've outlined that brought him to the same conclusion."
Jordan continues to interrupt Holmes' answer, and Schiff is gaveling: "Mr. Jordan you may not like the witnesses answer," but reminds him he cannot interrupt.
1) Washington Post - Fiona Hill tells Devin Nunes to his face that his Ukraine conspiracy theory is ‘harmful’
2) NPR - Opening Statement of Dr. Fiona Hill to the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
3) NPR - STATEMENT OF DAVID A. HOLMES U.S. EMBASSY KYIV, DEPARTMENT OF STATE BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE CONCERNING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY
4) Raw Story - Nunes cuts off GOP lawyer when cross-examination flops as Fiona Hill outlines damning case against Trump
5) Fox News - Trump impeachment hearings day five: live updates
