Top aide decries Ukraine ‘fictions’
Testimony points to ‘politically driven’ narratives pushed by Trump that help Russia
WASHINGTON — A former top White House adviser on Thursday sharply denounced a “fictional narrative” embraced by President Donald Trump and his Republican allies that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 elections, testifying that the claim was a fabrication by Moscow that had harmed the United States.
Speaking on the final day of the week’s impeachment hearings, the adviser, Fiona Hill, tied a pressure campaign on Ukraine by Trump and some of his top aides to a dangerous effort by Russia to sow political divisions in the United States and undercut U.S. diplomacy. She warned Republicans that a theory that Kiev, Ukraine, undertook a concerted campaign to interfere in the 2016 campaign — a claim the president pushed repeatedly for Ukraine to investigate — was a “politically driven falsehood” that had played into Russia’s hands.
“In the course of this investigation,” Hill testified before the House Intelligence Committee, “I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.”
The account by Hill of how some of Trump’s team carried out what she called a “domestic political errand” that diverged from his own administration’s foreign policy amounted to a sharp — albeit indirect — rebuke to the president. She also brought home the grave national security consequences of the effort, noting that “right now,” Russia was seeking to interfere in the 2020 election. “We are running out of time to stop them,” she said.
“These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes,” said Hill, the British-born daughter of a coal miner who became a U.S. citizen and the White House’s top Europe and Russia expert.
Russians, she said, “deploy millions of dollars to weaponize our own political opposition research and false narratives. When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces as they seek to divide us against each another, degrade our institutions and destroy the faith of the American people in our democracy.”
Both Hill and David Holmes, a top aide in the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, detailed what they understood to be a concerted campaign by the president and his allies to condition a White House meeting for Ukraine’s president, and later vital military assistance, on his announcement of investigations into the 2016 election claim and former Vice President Joe Biden.
“Investigations for a meeting” is how Hill described her understanding of the deal laid out by the president’s inner circle, including Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer; Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the European Union; and Mick Mulvaney, acting White House chief of staff.
At the White House, Republican senators loyal to Trump huddled with senior presidential aides and the White House’s top lawyer to begin charting out an eventual Senate trial.
And Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, signaled his intent to use his panel to mount an aggressive defense of Trump that picks up on the president’s efforts to scrutinize Biden. In a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Graham asked for documents and communications with the former vice president, his son Hunter Biden, other officials from the Obama administration and former President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine.
Republicans on the Intelligence Committee bristled at Hill’s accusation, and after several tangled rounds of questioning used their allotted time to push back on her suggestion that because they have pressed the claim that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, they were refusing to accept Russia’s role.
“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,” said Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., the panel’s top Republican.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, went further, turning Hill’s words around to accuse Democrats of advancing Russia’s interests by fixating on Trump’s relationship to the country and pressing forward on the divisive process of impeachment.
“They are doing exactly what Dr. Hill talked about,” Jordan said, quoting from her opening statement: “The impact of a 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart.”
In 2017, U.S. intelligence officials released a report concluding that Putin ordered a state-sponsored campaign to try to influence the 2016 presidential election. No evidence has emerged that there was a similar effort by Ukraine.
Despite Republican claims to the contrary, Democrats notched additional new information that could help bolster their case.
Under questioning from the top Republican counsel, Hill said she confronted Sondland in July about his failure to coordinate with other members of the administration on his actions regarding Ukraine. She said she understood only later that Sondland was part of a group of high-ranking officials — along with Mulvaney and Pompeo — who were “being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security, foreign policy — and those two things had just diverged.”
Holmes said it was his “clear understanding” by the end of August that Trump had frozen $391 million in vital security aid to pressure Ukraine to commit to announcing an investigation into Biden and his family.
“By this point,” Holmes said, “my clear impression was that the security assistance hold was likely intended by the president either as an expression of dissatisfaction with the Ukrainians, who had not yet agreed to the Burisma/Biden investigation, or as an effort to increase the pressure on them to do so.”
Burisma is a Ukrainian energy company that employed Hunter Biden on its board.
Holmes also offered a detailed account of the phone call he overheard between Trump and Sondland in Kiev in late July. The call took place a day after Trump directly asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for the investigations.
Holmes said he could overhear the president ask Sondland if Zelenskiy would conduct the inquiries he sought. Sondland assured him “he’s going to do it” and that the Ukrainian leader would do “anything you ask him to.” Afterward, Holmes testified that the ambassador told him Trump did not care for Ukraine but only for the “big things” like the investigations.
A day after Sondland laid out an extensive campaign to secure the political investigations, both witnesses said they had zero doubt about what Trump and Giuliani were after. Hill and Holmes both testified that references to investigating Burisma by Giuliani and other government officials were, in Hill’s words, “code for the Bidens.”
“It is not credible to me at all that he was oblivious,” Hill said of Sondland insisting he did not realize that Burisma meant Biden.
Sondland and Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine, both said under oath this week that for many months they believed talk of Burisma was merely a reference to Trump’s interest in eliminating rampant corruption in Ukraine.
Hill also offered the most precise account to date of an awkward White House meeting with Ukrainian officials July 10 that ended abruptly after Sondland told the visiting officials that they would need to commit to investigations Trump sought before getting a meeting with the president.
John Bolton, then the national security adviser, stiffened visibly and sat back in his chair when Sondland made the comment, apparently so disturbed by it that he quickly cut off the meeting, she said. After the meeting ended, Sondland explained precisely what he was up to, Hill testified, referencing a deal with Mulvaney.
“He had an agreement with chief of staff Mulvaney that in return for investigations, this meeting would get scheduled,” she said.