Former Trump adviser says Ukraine meddling theory is 'fictional narrative'

[webfact]

Former Trump adviser says Ukraine meddling theory is 'fictional narrative'

By Patricia Zengerle and Karen Freifeld

 

Fiona Hill, former senior director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council, takes her seat before she and David Holmes, political counselor at the U.S Embassy in Kiev, testify to a House Intelligence Committee hearing as part of the impeachment inquiry into U.S. President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., November 21, 2019. REUTERS/Loren Elliott

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's former Russia adviser Fiona Hill urged lawmakers in the House of Representatives impeachment inquiry on Thursday not to promote "politically driven falsehoods" that cast doubt on Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

 

Hill spoke on the final day of scheduled public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee probing whether Trump asked Ukraine to investigate a political rival in return for a White House meeting or the release of U.S. security aid.

 

If the committee calls no further witnesses, Hill's request may set the stage for the Democratic-led House's wider consideration of whether to draft formal charges known as articles of impeachment against the Republican president.

 

In her testimony, Hill said some members of the panel appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against the United States during the 2016 presidential race, and that perhaps Ukraine did.

 

President Donald Trump's former Russia adviser Fiona Hill said on Thursday that after hearing the comments on TV by Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, that "it was clear Burisma was code for the Bidens."

 

"This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves," said Hill, who until July served as the director for European and Russian affairs at the White House National Security Council.

 

"In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests," she said during the hearing, which ended after more than five hours of testimony.

 

The notion that Ukraine interfered in 2016 was one of two issues that the U.S. president urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate in a July 25 phone call that is at the heart of the impeachment effort.

 

Trump also pressed Ukraine on the call to investigate Joe Biden, a leading contender for the Democratic nomination to face Trump in the 2020 presidential election, and his son Hunter, who had served on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

 

The inquiry is also examining whether Trump's temporary freeze of $391 million in security aid to Ukraine, approved by Congress to fight Russia-backed separatists in the eastern part of the country, was meant to pressure Zelenskiy to conduct the probes.

 

Democrats say Trump's dealings with Ukraine amount to an abuse of power to pressure a vulnerable U.S. ally to dig up dirt on a domestic political rival.

 

Trump has denied wrongdoing, publicly criticized witnesses and described the impeachment proceedings as a "witch hunt." His fellow Republicans call the proceedings a "sham."

 

'HAND GRENADE' GIULIANI

David Holmes, a staffer from the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, testified on Thursday that his work started to become overshadowed in March by Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who was pushing Ukraine to carry out the two probes.

 

Holmes also testified about a July 26 phone call in which he said he overheard Trump ask Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union, about the status of the investigations. He said he heard Trump's voice on the call at a Kiev restaurant.

 

"So, he's gonna do the investigation?" Trump asked Sondland, referring to Zelenskiy, Holmes said.

 

"He's gonna do it," replied Sondland, he said.

 

In her testimony, Hill recalled a conversation she had with Trump's former National Security Adviser John Bolton about Giuliani's activities.

 

She said she had already expressed regrets to Bolton about Giuliani’s "smear campaign" against Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who Trump withdrew prematurely from Kiev in May.

 

Bolton, she said, looked pained and "basically indicated with body language that there was nothing much that we could do about it. And then, in the course of our discussion said Rudy Giuliani was a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up."

 

Asked to elaborate on what she thought Bolton meant, Hill replied that what Giuliani was say was "pretty explosive" and that the former New York mayor "was clearly pushing forward issues and ideas that would, you know, probably come back to haunt us and in fact I think that that's where we are today."

 

U.S. intelligence agencies and former Special Counsel Robert Mueller have determined that Russia interfered in 2016 with a campaign of hacking and propaganda intended to sow discord in the United States, boost Trump's candidacy and harm his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton.

 

Mueller's team brought criminal charges against 12 Russian intelligence officers in the hacking effort, accusing them of covertly monitoring employee computers and planting malicious code, as well as stealing emails and other documents.

 

Hill warned lawmakers that Russia is gearing up to repeat its election interference activities in 2020.

 

"We are running out of time to stop them," she said.

 

Like several career government officials who have testified, Hill said she prides herself as a nonpartisan foreign policy expert who has served Republican and Democratic presidents.

 

The committee's top Republican, Devin Nunes, nonetheless took issue with her comments, saying a report by Intelligence Committee Republicans "analyzed the 2016 Russia meddling campaign."

 

"Needless to say, it's entirely possible for two separate nations to engage in election meddling at the same time and Republicans believe we should take meddling seriously by all foreign countries, regardless of which campaign is the target," Nunes said.

 

With no more witnesses scheduled, the hearing could mark the end of the investigation phase of the impeachment proceedings.

 

Once the committees running the inquiry agree the probe is complete, evidence then goes to the House Judiciary Committee to consider whether to draft formal charges, known as articles of impeachment - against Trump. Democratic lawmakers say that is unlikely before the Nov. 28 U.S. Thanksgiving Day holiday.

 

If the full House then voted to impeach Trump, the charges will go to the Republican-controlled Senate for a trial on whether to remove him from office. Few Republican senators have broken with the president, however.

 

The Senate will have to decide whether to actually hold a trial or whether to quickly dismiss any charges against Trump.

 

Over the past few weeks, some Republican senators have voiced doubts that a motion to dismiss could be approved in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 seats and where a handful could insist formal charges against Trump be aired in a trial.

 

Furthermore, some Senate aides have said that some in the White House feel that a full trial that ends in an acquittal of Trump would be a better outcome than the charges being dismissed without the case first being presented to senators.

 

Graham, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a close Trump ally, said his preference was for a quick trial if the House approves articles of impeachment.

 

"The best thing for the country is to get it done quickly but it has to be done in a way that is acceptable to the body (the Senate)," Graham said.

 

Graphic: The impeachment inquiry, https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-TRUMP-WHISTLEBLOWER/0100B2EZ1MK/index.html

 

(Additional reporting by Jonathan Landay, David Morgan, Susan Cornwell, Richard Cowan and Doina Chiacu; Writing by Sonya Hepinstall; Editing by Will Dunham and Alistair Bell)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-11-22

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Samui Bodoh]

That's about it for the scheduled House hearings, I think. And, it is good to hear some common sense out of the last scheduled witness; i find it shocking that some Republican House members, perhaps willingly, do not see the threat from Russia.

 

It is 'Moment of Truth' time for the Republican Party; are they going to try to regain their principles, morals, ethics and gonads or are they going to allow themselves to be stained, tainted, diminished and slimed by Trump and his associates?

 

Although the testimony is/has been quite conclusive (in my view), it goes deeper than that now. 

 

The Republican party is in danger of being the party that degrades and abuses serving, decorated military officers.

 

The Republican party is in danger of being the party that courts foreign governments and individuals to interfere and 'fix' American elections, selling out centuries of progress and principle for petty power.

 

The Republican party is in danger of being the party that follows an immigration policy that is willing to lock up children in order to try to keep out brown and black people.

 

The Republican party is in danger of being the party that, as part of its platform, endorses the idea of taking away medical care and insurance from millions of poor families who need it.

 

The Republican party is in danger of being the party that harms and loses alliances which the US spent blood, treasure and decades building in return for the approval of 'Strongmen', 'Tin Pot' dictators, un-Democratic cheaters and various unsavoury characters who can approve the next "Trump Tower".

 

The Republican party is in danger of being the party that has lost all its morals, kindness, principles, goodness, decency and ethics.

 

The Republican party is in danger of being the party that only spews grievance and bile; it is in mortal peril.

 

And for what? For Trump? Really? 

 

I am certain there are people out there who feel that I am being unfair, or biased, or mean to Trump and supporters; for what it is worth I get that some people genuinely do like him, genuinely think that the US political system desperately needs an overhaul, genuinely like some of the things he stands for or does (even if they dislike the rest). And, some could never vote for the Democrats, and I really get that; I am not a fan of then either. 

 

However, the cost of Trump is just too high.

 

How do you know that? A simple test. Trump has been campaigning and/or in office for three plus years. Can you name a person (other than perhaps Niki Haley, and even she might not meet the test anymore) who has left the Trump orbit with an enhanced reputation? Seriously, can you name one? Two? Five? Again; one person who has a better reputation for serving with Trump? What does that tell you?

 

The simple truth is that all his associates have been stained, diminished, tainted, debased, slimed, or simply made 'less'. I could list the names, but we all know them. Trump uses people/things for his own gain, and when they are used up, they are discarded. Now, he is using up the goodness of the Republican Party and the USA, and when that is gone he will just move on to ruin something else.

 

I have said it before and (sadly) need to say it again;

 

Donald Trump is an ever-expanding cloud of toxic waste that defiles everything it touches.

 

Toss that thing out before it is too late.

 

 

[Tug]

Samui well said I wish I was half as articulate as you and some others the republicans don’t have a leg to stand on they must man up put someone on the ticket that is responsible they will take a hit but in the long run they and America will benefit 

[samran]

Dr Hills testimony was nothing short of brilliant and devastating. 
 

The GOP Russian apologists on the panel didn’t know how to deal with an intelligent woman, choosing drone on rather than even try question here and defend the indefensible in the form of this dumpster fire of a president. 

 

I wonder what these guys really think when the look at themselves in the mirror during their more quite moments.

No doubt we’ll find out soon what the attacks lines from here and our resident TV boosters are simply waiting for their lines from 8chan and the Kremlin. 

 

 

 

[Kelsall]

*Yawn* Yet another nothing burger.

 

No quid pro quo.

[TheFishman1]

All roads lead to Russia I wonder what they have on Trump

[J Town]

37 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

*Yawn* Yet another nothing burger.

 

No quid pro quo.

I can understand if, in your opinion, it was nothing. However, when you repeat the lie of "no quid pro quo" in light of the mountain of evidence to the contrary, this says everything about your inability to even try to be objective. Your credibility is now *zero*

[Scott]

Post with an oversized emoticon reported and removed.  

 

[Emdog]

I did appreciate her clearly stating that Russian intention was to create discord in US politics regardless of who won.

Like betting on heads AND tails in a coin flip

[J Town]

3 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

And for what? For Trump? Really? 

I honestly think it's all about the extreme right wing judges. As of 17 September 2019, Trump has appointed 150 lifetime federal judges. This is going to throw the states back into the dark ages. Roe v Wade is already under attack and similar crazy laws are coming down the pike. Corporations are LOVING it!

[Nyezhov]

17 minutes ago, J Town said:

I honestly think it's all about the extreme right wing judges. As of 17 September 2019, Trump has appointed 150 lifetime federal judges. This is going to throw the states back into the dark ages. Roe v Wade is already under attack and similar crazy laws are coming down the pike. Corporations are LOVING it!

Are you from the states and a lawyer then? Otherwise I see just random sloganeering (except for the part about Roe v Wade, although only activists use the word attack)

[Silurian]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

Furthermore, some Senate aides have said that some in the White House feel that a full trial that ends in an acquittal of Trump would be a better outcome than the charges being dismissed without the case first being presented to senators.

 

So there it is..."full trial that ends in an acquittal".

 

That will be the final outcome in the Senate. It doesn't matter how many witnesses or how much evidence continues to pile up against Donald, he will be acquitted in the Republican controlled Senate. Senator Lindsey Graham has stated outright that he isn't watching or even paying any attention to the House impeachment investigation.

 

There is absolutely no evidence that will convince the Senate Republicans to oust Donald. They have already made up their minds even before the Senate trial. Mitch knows this and will just play along. Party over country is the Republican mantra. It has been their mantra for years now and continues to drive their actions.

 

The writing is on the wall. Impeachment by the House, acquitted in the Senate and setup for re-election as the victim. The stage has been set. The actors are in place. The outcome been foretold.

[J Town]

32 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Are you from the states and a lawyer then? Otherwise I see just random sloganeering (except for the part about Roe v Wade, although only activists use the word attack)

I'm a U.S. citizen and know how to read. As such, I can recognize a Trump apologist a mile away.

[Nyezhov]

5 minutes ago, J Town said:

I'm a U.S. citizen and know how to read. As such, I can recognize a Trump apologist a mile away.

Oh OK, that really responds to my question LOL. Im convinced. Hey since Im a "Trump apologist", why havent you put me on ignore yet?

[Becker]

2 hours ago, Kelsall said:

*Yawn* Yet another nothing burger.

 

No quid pro quo.

Funny how your "nothing burgers" all seem to be very meaty:

 

Link: Gordon Sondland defies Trump, saying there was a quid pro quo

 

 

[Becker]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Are you from the states and a lawyer then? Otherwise I see just random sloganeering .....

Does one have to be a US citizen and a lawyer to have opinions on these matters? Because otherwise I just see a silly diversion.

[Thingamabob]

This whole thing is a waste of time and money. Come on Dems, stop this nonsense and come up with some candidates/policies we can vote for.

[samran]

3 hours ago, Kelsall said:

 

 

No quid pro quo.

You must have missed the memo. Not even the GOP are using that line anymore. 
 

Carry on. 

[samran]

24 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

This whole thing is a waste of time and money. Come on Dems, stop this nonsense and come up with some candidates/policies we can vote for.

What, investigating potential breaches of the constitution? You know it’s more than just the second amendment.

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Are you from the states and a lawyer then? Otherwise I see just random sloganeering (except for the part about Roe v Wade, although only activists use the word attack)

Because Trump hasn't appointed mostly - if not all - extreme right wing justices. That none of them have met with the Federalist Society's disapproval tells us all we need to know about them.

Meet the powerful group behind Trump’s judicial nominations

 

The Trump administration has been filling judicial vacancies in rapid succession, with the majority of nominees having one thing in common: ties to the Federalist Society.

Groups on the left have accused the White House of outsourcing the nomination process to the Washington, D.C.-based group as it seeks to stack the courts with conservative judges.

Of the 13 judicial nominees confirmed since President Trump took office, 10 are either current or former Federalist Society members or regular speakers at its events.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/360598-meet-the-powerful-group-behind-trumps-judicial-nominations

[rabas]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Because Trump hasn't appointed mostly - if not all - extreme right wing justices. That none of them have met with the Federalist Society's disapproval tells us all we need to know about them.

Meet the powerful group behind Trump’s judicial nominations

 

The Trump administration has been filling judicial vacancies in rapid succession, with the majority of nominees having one thing in common: ties to the Federalist Society.

Groups on the left have accused the White House of outsourcing the nomination process to the Washington, D.C.-based group as it seeks to stack the courts with conservative judges.

Of the 13 judicial nominees confirmed since President Trump took office, 10 are either current or former Federalist Society members or regular speakers at its events.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/360598-meet-the-powerful-group-behind-trumps-judicial-nominations

 

Founded by a bunch of students from Yale, Harvard, and U Chicago, primary purpose is to defend the law and the constitution. Even oppose some Trump policies. Pretty scary stuff. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society

 

[Kelsall]

4 hours ago, Silurian said:

 

So there it is..."full trial that ends in an acquittal".

 

That will be the final outcome in the Senate. It doesn't matter how many witnesses or how much evidence continues to pile up against Donald, he will be acquitted in the Republican controlled Senate. Senator Lindsey Graham has stated outright that he isn't watching or even paying any attention to the House impeachment investigation.

 

There is absolutely no evidence that will convince the Senate Republicans to oust Donald. They have already made up their minds even before the Senate trial. Mitch knows this and will just play along. Party over country is the Republican mantra. It has been their mantra for years now and continues to drive their actions.

 

The writing is on the wall. Impeachment by the House, acquitted in the Senate and setup for re-election as the victim. The stage has been set. The actors are in place. The outcome been foretold.

The thinking is it will be an acquittal what the Dems have presented so far is all they have.  And...it IS all they have...basically nothing.

[Saint Nick]

1 minute ago, Kelsall said:

The thinking is it will be an acquittal what the Dems have presented so far is all they have.  And...it IS all they have...basically nothing.

This is an opinion, you may well have!

It is very exclusive to Trump- fans, though!

[Nyezhov]

1 minute ago, Saint Nick said:

This is an opinion, you may well have!

It is very exclusive to Trump- fans, though!

Well its apparently  the rapidly growing majority of Independent voters who think that too.

[Sujo]

16 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

The thinking is it will be an acquittal what the Dems have presented so far is all they have.  And...it IS all they have...basically nothing.

Wait a week. trump will have done something stupid and illegal yet again.

 

Hill was a great witness. Forthright and stuck to the facts. Repubs had no recourse except to distract to things irrelevant.

[Berkshire]

[Bluespunk]

9 hours ago, webfact said:

"This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves," said Hill, who until July served as the director for European and Russian affairs at the White House National Security Council.

So, it's a lie then...quelle surprise

[puck2]

6 hours ago, J Town said:

I honestly think it's all about the extreme right wing judges. As of 17 September 2019, Trump has appointed 150 lifetime federal judges. This is going to throw the states back into the dark ages. Roe v Wade is already under attack and similar crazy laws are coming down the pike. Cor porations are LOVING it!

This is only one example - among a big bundle - that the constitution and the political system of the USA contains more holes holes than a Swiss cheese. Just under Trump it is shown day by day.

 

I had already written this in other threads. To remember only a few:

• the POTUS has a power like a dictator. Being on the top of Executive he/she shouldn't be allowed to circumvent the Parliament, the Legislative.
• the judiciary should be the 3rd independent power in a democratic state, but not manipulated (by LOTUS Trump) - as shown by the nomination of Kavanough. The US Supreme Court independent -
• the POTUS is not elected by the majority of the voters of the USA, but by a poorly system.
• .......................

 

[Saint Nick]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

Well its apparently  the rapidly growing majority of Independent voters who think that too.

...and you have a source for this BS, I assume?!

[Nyezhov]

30 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

...and you have a source for this BS, I assume?!

Well here ya go, so who is BSing now?

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471542-poll-finds-sharp-swing-in-opposition-to-impeachment-among-independents