Jump to content

Trump ex-Russia adviser Fiona Hill testifies in impeachment inquiry


webfact

Recommended Posts

Trump ex-Russia adviser Fiona Hill testifies in impeachment inquiry

By Jonathan Landay and Patricia Zengerle

 

2019-10-15T004144Z_1_LYNXMPEF9E00Y_RTROPTP_4_USA-TRUMP-WHISTLEBLOWER.JPG

Fiona Hill, former senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council, departs after testifying in the U.S. House of Representatives impeachment inquiry into U.S. President Trump on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., October 14, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Jasso

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump's former Russia adviser testified for more than nine hours on Monday behind closed doors as the latest witness summoned in the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry against Trump over his request that Ukraine investigate a domestic political rival.

 

Fiona Hill, former senior director for European and Russian Affairs on Trump's National Security Council, made no comments to reporters on arriving or leaving a secure room in the U.S. Capitol where she spoke to the House Intelligence Committee and two other panels.

 

Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin told reporters that Hill "was a remarkably thorough and authoritative witness" who recalled "particular events and particular meetings."

 

Raskin, a member of the House Judiciary and Oversight panels that also are investigating Trump, declined to give details of her testimony.

 

As they have done in the past, Republican lawmakers complained that the hearings were closed to the public and that transcripts were not being released.

 

U.S. President Donald Trump's former Russia adviser testified on Monday behind closed doors as the latest witness summoned in the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry against Trump over his request that Ukraine investigate a domestic political rival. Chris Dignam has more.

 

The pace of the House Democrats' investigation quickened on Monday as they lined up additional witnesses to testify in closed sessions.

 

Michael McKinley has agreed to appear voluntarily for a closed transcribed interview on Wednesday, just days after he announced his resignation as a senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

 

Also, a person familiar with the proceedings confirmed that Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence Laura Cooper would be interviewed by the committees on Friday.

 

Trump has denied wrongdoing in his dealings with Ukraine.

 

The Democrats' inquiry could prompt the House to approve articles of impeachment - formal charges - leading to a trial in the Senate on whether to remove Trump from office. Unlike the Democratic-controlled House, the Senate is led by Trump's fellow Republicans, who have shown little inclination to remove him.

 

Adding to the almost dizzying number of developments, the Wall Street Journal reported that federal investigators for at least the past couple of months have been questioning witnesses as they look into Rudy Giuliani's business dealings in Ukraine. Giuliani has been acting as Trump's personal lawyer.

 

Justice Department officials in Washington referred a request for comment to the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, where a spokesman declined to comment.

 

Giuliani faces a Tuesday deadline to produce documents related to the Ukraine matter subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee. He has not said whether he will comply.

 

The former New York mayor has defended his actions as proper in his role as Trump's lawyer.

 

In yet another development, Trey Gowdy, a former Republican congressman who was announced last Wednesday as joining Trump's outside legal team for the impeachment fight, no longer will be doing so, at least for now, according to Jay Sekulow, a lawyer for Trump. Sekulow praised Gowdy last week as "a great asset" to the legal team.

 

'UNFOUNDED, FALSE CLAIMS'

The Trump administration's removal in May of Marie Yovanovitch as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine may have figured in Hill's testimony.

 

On Friday, Yovanovitch testified that she had been ousted based on "unfounded and false claims" after coming under attack by Giuliani, who had been working to get Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a top contender for the Democratic nomination to face Republican Trump in the November 2020 presidential election.

 

The inquiry focuses on a July 25 phone call in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate unsubstantiated allegations against Biden and Biden's businessman son, Hunter Biden, who had been on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.

 

Democrats have accused Trump of pressuring a vulnerable U.S. ally to dig up dirt on a domestic rival after withholding $391 million in U.S. security aid intended to help combat Russian-backed separatists in the eastern part of Ukraine. Zelenskiy agreed to investigate. Trump eventually allowed the aid.

 

The British-born Hill, who left her White House job shortly before the July 25 call but remained on the payroll into August, had advocated a tough U.S. approach on Moscow even as Trump was more accommodating towards Russian President Vladimir Putin. U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election with a campaign of hacking and propaganda intended to boost Trump's candidacy.

 

On Thursday, committees are scheduled to receive testimony from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union.

 

Sondland, a Trump backer and not a career diplomat, participated in a text message exchange with Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine.

 

Democrats say it reveals concern among aides that Trump's pressure on Ukraine to investigate Biden was improper.

Sondland is expected to be asked why he relayed from Trump to other diplomats that the president said no "quid pro quos" connecting the Biden investigation with the U.S. aid. Quid pro quo is a Latin term meaning a favour for a favour.

 

WHISTLEBLOWER TESTIMONY

As talks continue over whether the whistleblower from within the U.S. intelligence community who prompted the inquiry will testify, Trump weighed in on Twitter, demanding that the person testify and that the individual's identity be revealed.

 

Trump has questioned the patriotism of the whistleblower, who filed a complaint after the Zelenskiy call, saying Trump was improperly using the power of his office to solicit interference in the 2020 election from a foreign country.

 

Negotiations between representatives for the whistleblower and congressional committees were deadlocked over Senate Intelligence Committee requests that the individual provide testimony in person, while the House committees were willing to exchange questions and answers in writing, according to two people familiar with the negotiations.

 

The House panels also are scheduled this week to hear from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and State Department Counsellor Ulrich Brechbuhl, a top aide to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

 

Lawmakers also may debate whether to seek to compel testimony from Giuliani. On Thursday, two Giuliani associates - Ukraine-born Lev Parnas and Belarus-born Igor Fruman - who helped him with his efforts to investigate the Bidens, were charged with scheming to violate U.S. campaign finance laws.

 

(Reporting by Jonathan Landay and Patricia Zengerle; Additional reporting by Karen Freifeld, Mark Hosenball, Makini Brice and Lisa Lambert; Writing by Will Dunham and Richard Cowan; Editing by Grant McCool and Peter Cooney)

 

reuters_logo.jpg

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-10-15
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply
24 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 

 They now concede there was no "quid pro quo" (as we clearly heard from the released transcripts) but are blundering on regardless.

What does a Quid Pro Quo have to do with this matter. The was a Trump smokescreen to deflect from the real issue. The mere fact (and it is a fact. Trump's team released the transcript) that Trump personally asked for a favour to have a foreign body discredit one of Trump's opponents is the issue. And it is a very serious one.

 

That Trump implied he would hold back funding may or may not be a Quid Pro Quo but it is irrelevant to whether or not he has a case to answer. If you don't agree, please do counter with you case of why you feel I am wrong.

 

This thing is only going to grow. People who have put up with Trump are now feeling confident that they can tell the truth about all the concerns they have. You could not blame them for not speaking out earlier. Like everyone, staffers have families to support and mortgages to pay.

 

But now, the truth is starting to come out and the dam wall of fear that Trump has reigned with is starting to crumble. The ramifications of what we are seeing will resonate for years to come. Trump may not get impeached but he is about to feel a world of comfortableness that he will not be able to strong arm himself out of.

 

People around him will fall and Trump will start pushing people over soon enough so they act as pillows to soften his landing as best he can. Trumps's criminal strong arm actions work very well - until they don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also interesting to see how Dr Fiona Hill's legal counsel responded to the White House's push to stop her from testifying. Look here: Interesting read.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/14/politics/letter-hill-attorneys-wh/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

 On a more positive note, I see Biden Jr has stepped down from his position at that Chinese company. Confirming all the rumors about cronyism were true.

It does no such thing.

 

Transpose that to two of Trump's sons and his son-in-law. Why are their positions in the government allowed to continue when they have private business with the very countries they deal with in diplomatic (and I use that term very loosely) channels? How do you see a conflict of interest in Biden's son, but not Trump's sons?

 

Biden was cleared by independent government investigations already. Trump overruled Governments recommendations to give people close to him security clearances. Think about that. How is that justified? Trump overruled the very security body that vets people for clearances.

 

And you are concerned about Biden's son... Wow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Farangwithaplan said:

Also interesting to see how Dr Fiona Hill's legal counsel responded to the White House's push to stop her from testifying. Look here: Interesting read.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/14/politics/letter-hill-attorneys-wh/index.html

In lawyer talk that letter is extremely dismissive of the WH arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

They now concede there was no "quid pro quo"

Which is not important in this impeachment. It's that "repeat a phrase over and over until it obfuscates the reality" thing that Trump does so well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Farangwithaplan said:

What does a Quid Pro Quo have to do with this matter.

Sorry to be a pain, but this was the whole point and reason for this latest impeachment attempt. But I do respect your long-winded climb down and acceptance that the quid pro quo allegations were BS. Discovering there was no quid pro quo has the same effect in this farce, as during a murder trial discovering the murder victim is still alive and well. 

 Brings to mind the last hoax where Mueller had to admit there was no collusion(the whole point of that particular witch hunt) yet somehow there WAS obstruction to obstruct an investigation into the non existant collusion. Try and wrap your heads around that one!!

 All said and done,Trump is sailing into the 2020 election with all sails unfurled and a stiff wind behind him. The conspiracy theorists, saboteurs and coup-mongers are flat out of luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

But I do respect your long-winded climb down and acceptance that the quid pro quo allegations were BS.

I made no such assumption. You could not possibly have come to that conclusion correctly based on my post. I clearly stated that it made no difference whether or not it existed. Either way, Trump has done wrong with the simple suggestion.

 

You either have very poor comprehension or you are using deflection tactics to attempt to make a lie you have just told become a truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, webfact said:

 

Fiona Hill, former senior director for European and Russian Affairs on Trump's National Security Council, made no comments to reporters on arriving or leaving a secure room in the U.S. Capitol where she spoke to the House Intelligence Committee and two other panels.

It is the quite ones who are most dangerous, She was there for nine hours, that a hell of a lot of been spilling...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Beyond all ridiculousness. If the dems wanted to make this any more farcical, well, they couldn't.

 

 They now concede there was no "quid pro quo" (as we clearly heard from the released transcripts) but are blundering on regardless. And now they say we will never know who the whistleblower/politicized spy is or hear his/her direct testimony. This latest witch-hunt has as much chance of success as a blind man in a dark room doing a Rubiks cube.

 

 On a more positive note, I see Biden Jr has stepped down from his position at that Chinese company. Confirming all the rumors about cronyism were true.

They conceded nothing of the sort. The "no quid pro quo" was a direct quotation from Trump. Sorry pal, but the accused claiming "no quid pro quo" then his flunkies writing that down verbatim, then the transcript being used as "evidence" that there was no quid pro quo is quite a stretch even for Trumpers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...