Fiona Hill tells impeachment inquiry about a 'fictional narrative' on Ukrainian interference

[SummerMadness]

Fiona Hill tells impeachment inquiry about a 'fictional narrative' on Ukrainian interference

Fiona Hill, the former White House adviser on Russia, opened her testimony before the impeachment inquiry Thursday with withering criticism of Republican attempts to sow doubt that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

"This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services," Hill said in her opening statement.

The statement amounted to a rebuke of President Trump; Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee; and others who have advanced claims that it was Ukraine — and not Russia — that waged information warfare against the United States in 2016.

 

[Kentonio]

Hill: 'He had an agreement with chief of staff Mulvaney that in return for investigations that this meeting would be scheduled'
Hill is now describing a key scene, 10 July meetings at the White House in which Sondland told Ukrainians he had a deal with acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney for a White House meeting for Zelenskiy if the Ukrainians announced investigations of Burisma/Bidens.

Yesterday Sondland said he did mention investigations in these meetings but he couldn’t recall naming Mulvaney or specifically saying “Burisma” or “Biden.”

In contrast, Hill has no doubt about what she heard.

“I listened very carefully to ambassador Sondland’s testimony,” she said.

“The meeting had initially been scheduled for about 45 minutes to an hour. It was definitely in the wrap-up stage at this point... Danylyuk was talking...we’d also wanted to [talk] energy sector reform... and then we knew that the Ukrainians would have on their agenda inevitably a question about a meeting...

“Amb Bolton was trying to parry this back.. it’s not Amb Bolton’s role to start pulling out the schedule...and he does not as a matter of course like to discuss the details... then Amb Sondland leaned in, basically to say ‘Well, we have an agreement that there will be a meeting if specific investigations are put under way.”

Then Hill saw Bolton stiffen, look at his wristwatch, “and basically said ‘Well, it’s really great to see you, I’m afraid I’ve got another meeting’.”

Sondland had not specifically said Burisma or Mulvaney yet, Hill said – “It was unclear who arranged the agreement” – but then the group went to a downstairs room for a debrief.

“Later [Sondland] said that he had an agreement with chief of staff Mulvaney that in return for investigations that this meeting would be scheduled.”

Investigations of what nature?, Goldman asks.

“He said investigations in Burisma.”

Then Bolton told Hill to go to NSC lawyer John Eisenberg, she says.

“Specific instruction was I had to go to the lawyers... [he said] ‘You tell Eisenberg that I am not part of whatever drug deal that Mulvaney and Sondland were cooking up’.”

Did you know what he meant by ‘drug deal’?

“I took it to mean investigations for a meeting.”

Did you go speak to the lawyers?

“I certainly did.”

Did you relay this?

“I relayed it precisely.”

Powerful moment.

Oh oh..

 

[durangodawood]

Good. Someone needed to lecture the country on this, and especially the counterpart facts about the reality of Russian interference.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why believe Fiona Hill?
Is she omniscient?

 

[Kentonio]

Why believe Fiona Hill?
Is she omniscient?

She's a very brilliant woman and a specialist on the subject who isn't a career State diplomat but actually chose to go and work for Trump's administration. Why wouldn't you believe her sworn testimony?

 

[durangodawood]

Why believe Fiona Hill?
Is she omniscient?

She has a very high level of expertise and a record of non-partisan service and loyalty to the USA.

 

[wing2000]

"This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services,"

Putin must be laughing his but off everytime Nunes and Jordan regurgitate his propaganda.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Why believe Fiona Hill?
Is she omniscient?

She’s giving a sworn testimony. Something President Trump is refusing to do. Right out the gate, she is more credible than the president and his close staff.

 

[A_Thinker]

Why believe Fiona Hill?
Is she omniscient?

She is a foreign relations expert, unlike Trump, Sondland, Giuliani, Nunes, Jordan, ... or even Schiff ...

 

[wing2000]

Why believe Fiona Hill?
Is she omniscient?

Hill was the White House’s top expert on Russia. Her official title was senior director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council, which is in the White House. She was Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s supervisor, and she was succeeded in her position by Tim Morrison. Both Morrison and Vindman testified Tuesday. She is also a former senior U.S. intelligence official and Russia scholar, and an author of a respected biography of Russian President Vladimir Putin. She is a British-born naturalized citizen.


....but of course in Trump's realm, none of that matters.

 

[grasping the after wind]

She's a very brilliant woman and a specialist on the subject who isn't a career State diplomat but actually chose to go and work for Trump's administration. Why wouldn't you believe her sworn testimony?

I tend to be skeptical of everyone in Washington especially those in the intelligence community as lying convincingly is a part of the job description but I do not either disbelieve anyone based upon my skepticism. . It is not that I disbelieve her. It is that I do not simply take on faith anything that anyone says just because they are an expert in the field. She has not in the above quote from her done anything but assert something. She has given no evidence to show why her assertion is correct. I neither believe nor disbelieve her I take her assertion as the opinion of an expert and give it some weight due to that. If she were to show me how she came to her conclusion as well as telling me what her conclusion is I would give it more weight.

 

[wing2000]

I tend to be skeptical of everyone in Washington especially those in the intelligence community as lying convincingly is a part of the job description but I do not either disbelieve anyone based upon my skepticism. .

....the ones who lie are the decision makers who dismiss or ignore information provided by the IC that does not meet their policy objectives.

 

[grasping the after wind]

She’s giving a sworn testimony. Something President Trump is refusing to do. Right out the gate, she is more credible than the president and his close staff.

Asking why one should believe a person is not the same as accusing that person of lying. I don't think that Fiona Hill is lying. I just want to know why I should believe she is correct about this. I never assume that anyone is correct just because she believes she is . Not even if she is an expert in the field. As I said earlier, I give her opinion weight because she is an expert. To fully take what she says as absolute fact will take more convincing. Giving some actual evidence, that she may well have but has not given in the quote provided above, would be sufficient.

 

[grasping the after wind]

....the ones who lie are the decision makers who dismiss or ignore information provided by the IC that does not meet their policy objectives.

Lying is part of international diplomacy and spying. Those are areas in which the intelligence community needs to be adept. That is not a criticism of the character of those involved. It is only a comment on the needs of the job.

That's right - real knowledge is divine inspiration, aka gut feeling, not experience and actual expertise.

Asking for factual evidence is considered asking for divine inspiration but taking the word of an authority figure on faith alone is somehow the way to find truth? Wanting to be shown evidence is gut feeling? Believing an expert on faith alone in their experience and expertise and not having any doubt they could ever be wrong is the way to go ? What if two experts with equal experience disagree with each other on something? Or is that not possible?

 

[DaisyDay]

Asking for factual evidence is considered asking for divine inspiration but taking the word of an authority figure on faith alone is somehow the way to find truth? Wanting to be shown evidence is gut feeling? Believing an expert on faith alone in their experience and expertise and not having any doubt they could ever be wrong is the way to go ? What if two experts with equal experience disagree with each other on something? Or is that not possible?

You're right, asking for factual evidence is not the same as asking for divine inspiration. However discounting expert opinion simply because it is expert opinion is not much better. Do you really think that the hearings were the place for a foot-noted dissertation into Russian propaganda and conspiracy theories? She was there because of her knowledge and expertise. The Republicans had the chance to dispute and question her testimony while she was on the stand.

 

[SummerMadness]

It's odd that the experts are treated like raving lunatics, yet the people attempting to promote false conspiracy theories into this inquiry are treated as unimpeachable (no pun intended). One of the clearest examples the conspiracy theorists are ignorant is they will complain about second-hand knowledge, then attempt to ask witnesses to confirm second-hand knowledge they throw out there.

 

[wing2000]

Lying is part of international diplomacy and spying. Those are areas in which the intelligence community needs to be adept. That is not a criticism of the character of those involved. It is only a comment on the needs of the job.

You could make that statement for those involved in undercover operations...but the vast majority of other intelligence jobs do not require one to be adept at lying or for that matter, diplomacy. As the Sr NSC advisor to the President, she would be expect to be truthful and factual. If the President (and some members of the Intel Committee) choose to ignore her advice, that is on them.

 

[SimplyMe]

Asking why one should believe a person is not the same as accusing that person of lying. I don't think that Fiona Hill is lying. I just want to know why I should believe she is correct about this. I never assume that anyone is correct just because she believes she is . Not even if she is an expert in the field. As I said earlier, I give her opinion weight because she is an expert. To fully take what she says as absolute fact will take more convincing. Giving some actual evidence, that she may well have but has not given in the quote provided above, would be sufficient.

I suppose because what she is stating was first stated by the FBI and our Intelligence Services, then confirmed by the Mueller Report, and most recently more confirmation was given by the Senate Intelligence Committee. From what we know publicly, there is a lot of evidence to back up what she has stated -- and she has more information (such as the redacted portions in the Senate Intelligence Committee report) than is available to us.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Oh my goodness. Jim Jordan is like the republican Axl Rose. Every time he opens his mouth its like a baby crying.

At least Jordan doesn't show up 4 hours late to a gig.

 

[SummerMadness]

Fiona Hill tells Devin Nunes to his face that his Ukraine conspiracy theory is 'harmful'

“The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today,” Hill’s statement reads. “Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert career Foreign Service is being undermined.”

But Hill's statement goes further than that.

“I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine — not Russia — attacked us in 2016,” the statement says. “These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes.”