Two key impeachment witnesses testify

Our live coverage of the impeachment inquiry has ended for the day. Read up on the latest news below.

House Democrats say they are undeterred by the White House preventing first-hand witnesses from testifying before the House Intelligence Committee — and now are actively preparing for the next step in their eight-week-old investigation and the likely impeachment of President Donald Trump.

Privately, Democrats are anticipating a busy December that will be filed with proceedings before the House Judiciary Committee, including public hearings and a markup, and a likely vote to impeach Trump on the House floor by Christmas Day, according to multiple Democratic sources, which would make him just the third President in history to be impeached.

What’s next in the inquiry: The House Intelligence Committee, along with two other panels, are writing a report detailing their findings, which is expected to serve as the basis for articles of impeachment that the House Judiciary Committee will consider.

Democrats say they are still debating the size and scope of the articles, which are likely to focus on abuse of power, obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congress and bribery.

But despite speaking with 17 witnesses behind closed doors, including 12 witnesses in just a week of public testimony, Democrats have not obtained crucial documents or spoken with several key officials because the White House and State Department have refused to comply with subpoenas.

That has left top Democrats with a choice: They could fight in court to obtain potential smoking-gun documents and testimony from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former national security adviser John Bolton. Or Democrats could move forward with the evidence they have.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from California, said the GOP won’t lose any votes during impeachment.

“I think we are going to gain Dems,” McCarthy said this afternoon.

McCarthy also rejected today’s testimony from Fiona Hill, a former top White House official, while claiming Ukraine meddled in the 2016 presidential election.

What Hill said about Ukraine: Hill rebutted the “fictional narrative” pushed by President Trump and his GOP allies, including during the impeachment inquiry hearings, that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. She warned the committee the Kremlin is prepared to strike again in 2020 and remains a serious threat to American democracy that the United States must seek to combat.

In the latest episode of “The Daily DC: Impeachment Watch” podcast, CNN National Security Analyst Sam Vinograd gives real-time reaction to today’s impeachment hearing on Capitol Hill.

Vinograd is joined today by CNN Legal Analyst Elie Honig and CNN’s senior reporter Vicky Ward.

The podcast covers:

Listen to the podcast here.

An attorney for acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said Fiona Hill’s testimony was “riddled with speculation and guesses” about any role that he played with Ukraine.

Mulvaney’s lawyer Robert Driscoll said Hill “bases much of her testimony about him on things allegedly heard from unnamed staffers, guards in the West Wing, and ‘many people.’”

Driscoll said that Mulvaney never met Hill and called the impeachment inquiry a “sham.”

Why this matters: Hill first testified behind closed doors that it became clear during a July 10 meeting at the White House that an Oval Office visit for Ukraine’s president was contingent on him opening an investigation into President Trump’s political rivals.

Hill told lawmakers that Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, said there was an agreement with Mulvaney that “they would have a White House meeting or, you know, a Presidential meeting, if the Ukrainians started up these investigations again.”

In her public testimony today, Hill said “it struck me…when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland’s emails, and who was on these emails, and he said these are the people who need to know, that he was absolutely right,” Hill said, referencing emails Sondland had sent to officials that included Mulvaney. “Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand. And we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged.”

The House Intelligence Committee’s last public impeachment inquiry — or at least the last one that has been scheduled — just wrapped. House Democrats are now actively preparing for the next steps.

Remember: Despite speaking with 17 witnesses behind closed doors, including 12 witnesses in just a week of public testimony, Democrats have not obtained crucial documents or spoken with several key officials because the White House and State Department have refused to comply with subpoenas.

That has left top Democrats with a choice: They could fight in court to obtain potential smoking-gun documents and testimony from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former national security adviser John Bolton. Or they could move forward with the evidence they have.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has chosen the latter.

In some of her most direct comments to date, Pelosi said today they wouldn’t delay their impeachment push to fight for those witnesses through court battles.

“They keep taking it to court and no, we’re not going to wait until the courts decide,” she said. “That might be information that’s available to the Senate in terms of how far we go and when we go, but we can’t wait for that because again it’s a technique. It’s obstruction of justice, obstruction of Congress, so we cannot let their further obstruction of Congress be an impediment to our honoring our oath of office.”

Pelosi added: “We cannot be at the mercy of the courts.”

Additional reporting by CNN’s Lauren Fox, Ali Zaslav, Haley Byrd and Jeremy Herb

The House Intelligence Committee just wrapped its fifth day of testimonies in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

Committee members heard testimony from Fiona Hill, the former White House Russia expert, and David Holmes, the counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Ukraine.

Here are some of the key takeaways from today’s hearing:

The last scheduled public hearing has just ended. We are now working through analysis on what just happened.

The House Intelligence Committee just wrapped up its round of members’ questions. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the committee, is now giving his closing statement.

Chairman Adam Schiff will then give his.

Today’s hearing, with testimony from former White House Russia expert Fiona Hill and US diplomat David Holmes, is the last scheduled public hearing in the impeachment inquiry.

Former White House adviser Fiona Hill said she found Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s testimony “not credible” when he claimed that it took him many months to connect the Ukrainian energy company Burisma to former Vice President Joe Biden.

The comment came during a discussion of President Trump’s requests for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Trump mentioned Biden in his call with the Ukrainian president, but Sondland was not on that call. He claimed he only heard about a desire for investigations into Burisma, which had its own corruption issues. Biden’s son was on the board of Burisma. 

Why this matters: Hill’s reaction to Sondland’s testimony is significant. She’s saying his testimony is not credible, and could help Democrats make the case that Sondland was less than truthful, and that the saga was all political – about Biden.

Watch more:

Rep. Mike Conaway pressed US diplomat David Holmes on who he told about the July 26 call he overheard between President Trump and US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland.

In the call, Sondland said Ukraine’s president “loves your ass” to Trump and was ready to cave to demands for an investigation of the Bidens, he testified.

This built on testimony from Holmes’ private deposition, where he said he told some friends about the call. But he insisted that he never told them any of the details of what was discussed. 

About that previous testimony: According to his closed-door deposition, Holmes went on a vacation shortly after the July 26 call between Trump and Sondland at the restaurant. He was with six friends during the trip, he testified, and he mentioned the “extraordinary” call to some of them, but did not go into detail.

“I met with up with a number of friends of mine for a trip, and I do recall telling them that I was just part of this lunch where someone called the President, and it was, like, a really extraordinary thing, it doesn’t happen very often,” Holmes said in the closed-door session. “I didn’t go into any level of detail because they don’t know this stuff.”

Rep. Jim Jordan seized on that, and pressed Holmes with a follow-up question during the closed session: “You told friends you were sitting by an ambassador who was talking on his cell phone with the President of the United States, you told your buddies about that?”

“Yeah,” Holmes replied. 

Watch more:

Fiona Hill and David Holmes both said that a US president asking a foreign government to investigate a political rival would set a “very bad precedent.”

Rep. Joaquin Castro, a Democrat from Texas, asked them “if the Congress allows a President of the United States now or later to ask a foreign government, head of state, to investigate a political rival, what precedent does the that set for American diplomacy, for the safety of Americans overseas, and for the future of our country?”

Hill responded, “It’s a very bad precedent.”

Holmes followed Hill, saying it’s a “very bad precedent, and going forward, if that were ever the case, I would raise objections.”

Watch more:

GOP Rep. Will Hurd entered the impeachment proceedings viewed as a potential defector. He is relatively moderate, comes from a national security background and is retiring at the end of his term.

But during his time to question witnesses today, the former CIA officer made clear he wasn’t voting for impeachment — at least based on the current evidence.

It perhaps wasn’t surprising: Hurd has held the Republican line during his questioning over the course of the hearings.

Today, he indicated the evidence presented so far isn’t a clear enough presentation of wrongdoing. And he said the matter of Hunter Biden and Burisma is worthy of exploration.

Watch more:

Rep. Chris Stewart, as he started his round of questioning, appeared to acknowledge a reality: Republicans aren’t really asking Fiona Hill or David Holmes any questions.

“I actually have no questions for you that haven’t already been asked,” he said before spending five minutes delivering his view of the impeachment inquiry generally (he views it negatively).

In truth, the past several Republicans have barely asked a question of the witnesses, choosing instead to deliver statements and describe their views of the proceedings.

The shift came after Hill undercut several Republican talking points, including during the Republican questioning time.

She defended Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a previous witness, despite testimony from her successor at the National Security Council that she’d raised concerned about him.

Hill explained why Republican claims that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election didn’t match reality and played into Russian claims.

And she downplayed the idea that Ukraine was trying to take down President Trump during the election, saying she heard a lot of countries say hurtful thing about Trump but that it didn’t impact his views of those places.

Republicans did resume asking questions with Rep. Elise Stefanik, who has emerged in the hearings as one of the sharpest questioners.

But her colleagues appeared to acknowledge that going up against Hill was a losing proposition.

That was perhaps most evident for Rep. Brad Wenstrup, who used his time to recall his military service and question Hill’s assertions that some Republicans are trying to downplay Russia’s meddling efforts.

She delivered a lengthy response, praising him for speaking “very eloquently” and saying she was simply worried that Russian election interference was being clouded out by claims of Ukrainian meddling.

The “0 days since Schiff followed House rules” sign that once sat behind committee members during the impeachment inquiry has been swapped today with one that’s titled “Witnesses Schiff has refused to call.”

The sign includes the following names:

The signs from the GOP have been a fixture during the impeachment inquiry hearings this week.

Check out the sign as it is now:

Here was the sign before it was swapped out:

A number of the GOP senators who had lunch with the President today told reporters that impeachment, along with other issues, came up at the meeting.

Sen.Susan Collins said, “It was a very good lunch. We spent a lot of time discussing prescription drug prices and vaping, those were the two major topics,” adding that impeachment came up “very briefly at the beginning.” Collins said the President “seemed to be in a good mood.”

Sen. Mitt Romney, returning from the White House, said repeatedly that when it came to impeachment, President Trump “didn’t say anything about that that he hasn’t already said on TV, many times, there was no insider discussion. Instead, just the same comments he’s made on TV and neither I nor anyone else weighed in on that at all.”

Sen. Rand Paul said “it was very productive. We had quite a good discussion on trying to come up with ways to bring down drug prices. That was probably the main topic, talked some about trade as well.”

Asked if impeachment was raised, Paul said, “very little actually. There was a brief discussion of it but not really much.” A reporter asked if Trump expressed frustration with an inability to defend himself and Paul replied, “No, I didn’t really get any frustration.”

The House Intelligence Committee got another glimpse of Fiona Hill’s life today, when she confirmed a story from her childhood.

Rep. Jackie Speier brought up it up at the hearing and explained that a schoolboy had set Hill’s pigtails on fire when she was child while she was taking a test. She said Hill then snuffed out the fire with her hands and continued finishing her test.

“I was a bit surprised to see that pop up today,” the White House’s former top Russia expert. “It’s one of the stories I occasionally tell because it had some very unfortunate consequences afterward. My mother gave me a bowl haircut. So for the school photograph later in that week I looked like Richard the third…”

Speier interjected to say the story underscores “the fact that you speak truth.”

Watch the moment:

After several GOP members failed to ask her or David Holmes any questions, Fiona Hill jumped in at the conclusion of Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup’s time and asked to address the committee.

“We came as fact witnesses,” Hill said.

On the topic of election interference, she continued, “I don’t believe there should be any interference of any kind in our election.”

Hill added that she thought it was “unfair” of some people to attack Trump in the lead-up to the 2016 election. “And I know that this has put a huge cloud over this presidency and also over our whole democratic system,” Hill said.

The White House’s former Russia expert, Fiona Hill, said the attacks against former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch were “dispiriting” — but added that the former ambassador was an “easy target” because she’s a woman.

“But what was dispiriting was all the accusations that were being fired at Ambassador Yovanovitch, leading her to be tweeted including by members of the President’s family,” she said, referring to tweets from Donald Trump Jr.

Earlier in the hearing, Rep. Mike Turner mentioned the “vile” attacks that have been leveed against Rep. Elise Stefanik, the only GOP woman on the Intelligence committee.

Hill brought up the topic in her remarks:

“And I’m very sorry to hear what’s happened to Congressman (sic) Stefanik, and I think this just illustrates the point and the problem that we’re dealing with here today.”

Watch the moment:

One of the terms regularly uttered during the impeachment inquiry hearings this week has been “Never Trumper.”

Fiona Hill, former top White House Russia adviser, says she has no idea what it means.

Hill was asked by Rep. Terri Sewell, a Democrat from Alabama, on whether she was “a Never Trumper or have you been true to your profession and remain non-partisan?”

“I honestly don’t know what the definition of a Never Trumper is, as I might think many of my colleagues are feeling the same way,” Hill said. “It is a puzzling term to be applied to career or non-partisan officials. And I chose to come in to the administration. I could easily have said no when I was approached.”

Earlier this week: Rep. Jim Himes asked Jennifer Williams and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman during their public testimonies whether they were “Never Trumpers.” Williams’ response was similar to Hills’.

 “I’m not sure I know an official definition of a Never Trumper,” adding she wouldn’t describe herself as such. Vindman said “I would call myself a never partisan.”

This is a term the President himself has used against these witnesses, both on Twitter and while speaking to reporters.

Watch the moment:

Rep. Chip Roy, a member of House oversight committee who took part in the depositions, joined his colleagues in saying Ukraine meddled in 2016 — despite Fiona Hill’s forceful repudiation of that theory.

“I do think there is ample evidence of Ukraine having engagement and involvement with things talking about a 2016 election,” the Texas Republican said.

He also suggested that both Russia and Ukraine might have been involved in election interference.

Roy also contrasted the impeachment investigation with other political issues in the United States: “People who are sitting at home in the summer of Texas, they’re looking at this and saying, ‘When are you going to do the stuff I care about?’ […] We’re up here in a theater for a show.”

Fiona Hill, the White House’s former top Russia expert, said she’s had to block posts on Twitter that are trying to share her personal information.

While questioning Hill, Democratic Rep. Terri Sewell mentioned that Hill didn’t “sign up to have hateful calls and the like” when she started public service.

“I guess unfortunately where we are today in America, that’s coming with the territory,” Hill said. “I mean, We are constantly having to block Twitter posts of my name and address and on the internet. We’ve been doing this over the last couple of days.”

She continued: “This could happen to any single person in this room. Be it members of the press, be it members of Congress and be it the staff.”

Watch more:

Former White House Russia expert Fiona Hill testified that it is “deeply unfair” to question the loyalty of foreign-born Americans in the impeachment inquiry.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff asked Hill to address attacks against Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the Ukraine-born director for European Affairs for the National Security Council who also testified publicly this week. Schiff pointed out that some have suggested Vindman has “dual loyalty” or is really loyal to Ukraine.

Hill noted she was born in the UK and later became an American citizen. She is the third immigrant to testify in the impeachment inquiry.

“This is a country of immigrants, with the exception, perhaps, of very few people still here,” she said. “Everyone immigrated to the United States at some point in their family history. And this is what, for me, really does make America great.”

She continued: “I do not believe that my loyalty is to the United Kingdom. My loyalty is here, to the United States. This is my country and the country that I serve.”

Watch the moment:

Fiona Hill’s extraordinary answer about her relationship with Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the EU, was ultimately a finely distilled description of what these impeachment hearings are all about: President Trump’s pursuit of a “domestic political errand” that came at the expense of American foreign policy.

It was stunning in its clarity, but also that it came during the Republicans’ turn for questioning.

Hill’s steady demeanor and humble acknowledgement that she was wrong in her assessment of Sondland did not blunt the impact of what she saying.

Instead, Hill, who is the former top White House Russia adviser, said matter-of-factly today that Sondland was simply performing a different task, one entirely separate from the policy-centric national security goals she was pursuing.

And she said she predicted it would end badly — as it undoubtedly has.

“He was being involved in a domestic political errand. And we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged,” Hill said.

“I had not put my finger on that at the moment, but I was irritated with him and angry with him that he wasn’t fully coordinating,” she went on. “And I did say to him, ‘Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, I think this is also going to blow up.’ And here we are.”

At the same time, Hill inserted a brush-back of Sondland, saying his earlier testimony that she was shaking in anger was a misinterpretation of female anger. She was blunt that some of her interactions with him were unfortunate, and seemed slightly regretful at her anger. 

But she said his reaction was rooted in gender bias.

There was no shaking as she was delivering this answer.

Former White House top Russia expert Fiona Hill told lawmakers another key impeachment witness, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, was “justifiably alarmed” when he realized there was more to Ukraine’s request for a White House meeting.

She said Vindman realized there was a “highly political aspect of the meeting that we were looking for eventually with President Zelensky.”

In a different televised hearing earlier this week, Vindman, who is a decorated service member, told the committee he believed the President’s request constituted a demand of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

He said he was concerned in particular about an investigation from a foreign power where there was “at best, dubious belief that this would be a completely impartial investigation.”

Watch more:

Republicans just concluded their 45-minute question round.

Now each members gets 5 minutes to question the witnesses. There are 22 members.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said, “I think we’ve had enough. I think it’s time to shut it down,” referring to the impeachment inquiry while speaking at his weekly House press conference today.

McCarthy continued on to attack House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff as well as the House Intelligence Committee, saying it’s now the “impeachment committee.”

“Democrats might not be focused on facts, but Republicans will continue to double down on the truth and expose those for what it is: a political hit job on the President,” McCarthy said.

Fiona Hill, the White House’s former Russia expert, said she and US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland had several “testy” exchanges, and she described being angry with him because he “wasn’t coordinating with us.”

She said that after she read his deposition, she realized “he wasn’t coordinating with us because we weren’t doing the same thing that he was doing.”

“He was being involved in a domestic political errand. We were involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged.”

Hill continued:

“I had not put my finger on that at the moment, but I was irritated with him and angry that he wasn’t fully coordinating. And I did say to him, ‘Ambassador Sondland — Gordon — I think this is all going to blow up.’ And here we are.”

Watch:

Fiona Hill, the White House’s former top Russia expert, said javelin anti-tank weapons were not given to Ukraine under the Obama administration because of “concerns this would provoke the Russians.”

Steve Castor, the Republicans’ lawyer, said that under the Obama administration, there was an agreement to provide the javelins — but they were never delivered.

Hill said she was aware of that decision.

“I was, and I think it was very much made on a political basis about concerns this would provoke the Russians, depending on how this was presented,” she said. “And we were very mindful of that also when there were discussions internally about the lethal, defensive weapons inside the administration.”

This isn’t the first time javelins have come up today. In his opening statement, Rep. Devin Nunes said Trump’s aid the the Ukraine has been “much more robust” than Obama’s because of the weapons.

“Aid to Ukraine under President Trump has been much more robust than it was under President Obama, thanks to the provision of Javelin anti-tank weapons,” he said.

Watch more:

Fiona Hill said she was troubled by the way President Trump removed former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch from her post.

“I was concerned about the way her reputation had been maligned repeatedly on television, Hill said.

She added that she thought the campaign against Yovanovitch was “completely unnecessary.”

“I wondered what the message was being sent,” she said.

More context: Multiple witnesses this week — including Hill — have testified that before Yovanovitch was fired, the President’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and his associates ran a “smear campaign” against her by spreading false information about Yovanovitch in the media.

Watch:

Things look slightly different in the room for the second half of today’s hearing.

Daniel Noble, a senior counsel on the House Intelligence Committee, has replaced Daniel Goldman as the staff attorney next to House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff for the home stretch of the committee’s impeachment hearing with Fiona Hill and David Holmes.

Goldman, who has had quite a busy week as the main Democratic questioner, is likely done for the day at the hearing, so long as the committee doesn’t conduct another round of staff questions. 

The committee’s Republicans also have rolled out one last sign for the final scheduled public hearing — another procedural complaint.

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham just issued a statement on today’s hearing, saying the “witnesses rely heavily on their own presumptions, assumptions and opinions.”

She also said Democrats are “clearly being motivated by a sick hatred for President Trump.” 

Read the full statement below:

“As has been the case throughout the Democrats’ impeachment sham, today’s witnesses rely heavily on their own presumptions, assumptions and opinions. These two witnesses, just like the rest, have no personal or direct knowledge regarding why U.S. aid was temporarily withheld. The Democrats’ are clearly being motivated by a sick hatred for President Trump and their rabid desire to overturn the 2016 election. The American people deserve better.”

Republicans now get 45 minutes to question the two witnesses.

Former national security adviser John Bolton was spotted walking down Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue during the first part of today’s impeachment inquiry as Fiona Hill, the White House’s former top Russia expert, testified.

Bolton, Hill’s former boss, is among those who’ve refused to cooperate with impeachment investigators’ request to testify.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that while “The action is all over in the House. We’ll be ready if it comes over here.”

He was referring to a potential impeachment trial in the Senate following the investigation in the House.  

He did not answer whether or not he’d been watching the hearings or if he had spoken to President Trump.

Republican Rep. Scott Perry, who took part in the closed impeachment proceedings as part of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, insisted today that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 US election.

This directly contradicts the testimony of former White House Russia expert Fiona Hill, who said today that claims Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election are a “fictional narrative” propagated by Russian security forces.

Perry insisted that Ukraine “interfered” and questioned why the country is even considered a key strategic ally.  

“Okay, suddenly they’re a key strategic ally. I never heard that before the last eight weeks, never heard that Ukraine was a key strategic ally, and I’m not disputing that they are a key ally and a strategic ally, but it’s just interesting how you phrase that in this context like they can’t survive without a White House meeting,” he said.

Several Democrats made clear they believe they have more than enough evidence to move ahead with impeachment.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said today that Democrats would not fight in court to get acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — key administration figures implicated in public testimony so far — to testify. But some members of Congress think that the investigation has already gathered enough evidence without those witnesses.

Both Reps. Peter Welch and Jackie Speier said the case is overwhelming even without those firsthand witnesses and documents.

“I think we have been hampered in our ability because the White House, the State Department, the Department of Defense have all withheld documents from us, but even with our hands tied behind our backs, we’ve been able to present the American people a compelling argument for moving forward with a review of whether or not we should have articles of impeachment bought to the floor of the House,” Speier said.

She continued: “The President helped us out immeasurably by releasing the summary of his telephone call” with Ukraine.

She said that the conversation “establishes the elements of bribery, where someone in office requests from someone else something of value, the investigation, and then withholds the White House meeting and the military aid. ”

Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, said he feels the President commenting that he wasn’t focused on the “big things” in Ukraine to Ambassador Gordon Sondland is a key point so far this morning.

“You hear the President saying, ‘I told Ambassador Sondland on September 9 no quid pro quo no quid pro quo,’ but as early as July 10 the President’s team has knowledge that employees at the White House are worried that a quid pro quo is underway with Ukrainians as they’re visiting the White House,” he said.

Asked by CNN if today is the last day of public impeachment hearings, Swalwell said he would leave it up to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff “as far as whether more witnesses come in.”

Rep. Joaquin Castro, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN during the break in the hearing that today’s testimony so far has been “very rough” for President Trump.

“Just like yesterday, the testimony has been very rough for the President. I think both witnesses have come across as earnest, as public servants who are trying to tell the truth, who are concerned about the corruption that they witnessed So I look forward to the rest of the testimony,” Castro said.

Fiona Hill, the White House’s former top Russia expert, said former national security adviser John Bolton stiffened in his chair when Ambassador Gordon Sondland explained that a White House meeting would happen if Ukraine committed to the investigations.

Sondland brought up the investigation during a July 10 meeting at the White House, she said. Kurt Volker, the former special envoy to Ukraine, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, along with Ukrainian officials, were also at the meeting.

The Ukrainians, she said, brought up their desire to have an Oval Office meeting toward the end. Bolton tried to change the topic because he’s not in charge of scheduling the meeting.

“He does not, as a matter of course, like to discuss the details of these meetings. He likes to leave them to the appropriate staff for this. So this is already going to be an uncomfortable issue. As Ambassador Bolton was trying to move that part of the discussion away, I think he was going to try to deflect it on another wrap-up topic, Ambassador Sondland leaned in basically to say, well, well we have an agreement that there will be a meeting if specific investigations are put underway. And that’s when I saw Ambassador Bolton stiffen. I was sitting behind him in the chair,” she said.

Hill then demonstrated for lawmakers that she saw him sit back slightly in his chair.

“And for me that was an unmistakable body language and it caught my attention,” she said.

Bolton, she said, looked up to at the clock, then at his watch and “basically said ‘It’s been really great to see you. I’m afraid I’ve got another meeting.’”

During the meeting, Hill said Sondland never mentioned who his agreement on the White House meeting was with.

She later learned that he “had an agreement with chief of staff Mulvaney that, in return for investigations, this meeting would get scheduled.” The investigations, she said, were into Burisma.

Watch:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says “Republicans are in denial about the facts.”

“The sad tragedy of all of this is the behavior of the President and the defense of that behavior by the Republicans.” 

Pelosi also did not shut the door to the possibility that the House could interview additional witnesses.

Pelosi added as she has said before, however, that “that will be a judgement made by the committees of jurisdiction.”

Fiona Hill and David Holmes testified today that they very easily realized that Trump’s allies were talking about an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden when they mentioned “Burisma,” a Ukrainian energy company.

Some context: Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, had a high-paid position on the board of Burisma. He took the job while his father was the point person for the Obama administration’s policy toward Ukraine, raising concerns about a conflict of interest.

Remember: Despite that potential ethical lapse by Hunter Biden, there’s no evidence of criminality or corruption by the Bidens in Ukraine. Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani have been spreading conspiracies about the Bidens all year.

Today, Democratic staff lawyer Daniel Goldman asked Hill, “Was it apparent to you that when President Trump, Rudy Giuliani or anyone else was pushing for an investigation into Burisma, that the reason why they wanted that investigation related to what President Trump said here, the Bidens?”

Holmes also said “yes,” he understood that Burisma was code for the Bidens. 

Other players in the scandal have testified that they didn’t make the connection until many months later. This includes former US special envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker and US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Both Volker and Sondland were handpicked by Trump to deal with Ukraine issues – not career foreign service officers.

Volker said that he if made the connection, he would have raised objections, but he thought the references to Burisma were part of a legitimate Ukrainian probe into the Ukrainian company. Sondland said he made the connection later in the summer, and didn’t see any of Giuliani’s many television interviews and social media posts about the Bidens. 

Volker and Sondland are essentially saying they took Trump and Giuliani at face value – that they were deeply concerned about a random Ukrainian company – and didn’t take any steps to figure out what they were talking about.

Another key witness, former National Security Council aide Tim Morrison, testified this week that when Hill first told him about Giuliani’s interest in a “Burisma” probe, he googled the company and figured out the Biden connection.

Watch more:

The White House’s former top Russia expert, Fiona Hill, said her boss, former national security adviser John Bolton, instructed her to tell lawyers that she was not part of the “drug deal” Gordon Sondland and Mick Mulvaney were “cooking up.”

Here’s how she put it:

“The specific instruction was that I had to go to the lawyers, to John Eisenberg, our senior counsel for the National Security Council to basically say — ‘You tell Eisenberg, Ambassador Bolton told me that I am not part of this, whatever drug deal that Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.’”

“What did you take that to mean?” the Democrats’ lawyer asked her.

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

Watch the moment:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Schiff and the committee have dealt with the inquiry appropriately and seriously.

She also slammed Trump for attacking the whistleblower, saying that whistleblower protections are “fundamental to people speaking truth to power in our country.”

“Wherever you may stand on what the President did, an attack on the whistleblower is an attack on the integrity of our system,” she said.

When they return, Republicans will get their 45-minute round to question the witnesses.

Fiona Hill explained what she believed former Trump National Security adviser John Bolton meant when he told her that the President’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani was a “hand grenade that was going to blow everybody up.”

Here’s what she said:

She added: “In fact, I think that’s where we are today. ”

More on this: Multiple witnesses this week have brought up how Giuliani was pushing a conspiracy theory concerning former Vice President Joe Biden and how the President’s personal attorney and his associates ran a “smear campaign” against former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch.

Watch:

David Holmes — the US Diplomat who was at lunch with US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland when the ambassador called President Trump — said he was able to hear Trump because the President was talking so loud.

He said Sondland “sort of winced” because Trump’s voice was so loud.

“When the President came on, he sort of winced and held the phone away from his ear like this,” he said gesturing. 

Holmes added: “And he did that for the first couple of exchanges. I don’t know if he then turned the volume down, if he got used to it, if the President moderated his volume, I don’t know. But that’s how I was able to hear.”

Holmes also said he, Sondland and two other staffers they were dining with were seated on a terrance, and the doors to the inside the restaurant were “wide open.”

Watch:

David Holmes, counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Ukraine, told lawmakers that although the US hold on security aid for Ukraine was lifted, they felt the pressure to comply with President Trump’s demands for investigations.

“There were still things they wanted that they weren’t getting, including a meeting with the President in the Oval Office. Whether the hold – security assistance hold continued or not, Ukrainians understood that was something that the President wanted, and they still wanted important things from the President,” he said.

Holmes said the Ukrainians probably still feel pressure.

The State Department aide went on to explain why US support for Ukraine is critical. He said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is trying to arrange a summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in an effort to advance the peace process.

“He needs our support. He needs President Putin to understand that America supports Zelensky at the highest levels,” Holmes said.

Watch more:

In their opening statements, both Fiona Hill and David Holmes sought to emphasize what is at stake with the Ukraine scandal and how much it could serve to embolden Russia.

Here’s what Holmes said:

“As we sit here, Ukrainians are fighting a hot war on Ukrainian territory against Russian aggression. This week alone, since I have been here in Washington, two Ukrainian soldiers were killed and two injured by Russia-led forces in eastern Ukraine despite a declared ceasefire. I learned overnight that seven more were injured yesterday.”

Hill stated that “the unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016” – hitting back at false claims about Ukrainian interference – and warned that Russia is preparing to again meddle in the 2020 election.

Here’s what Hill said:

“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.”

House lawyers Daniel Goldman and Steve Castor will be asking the witnesses questions today on behalf of lawmakers.

Goldman is working on behalf of the Democrats while Castor will be leading the questions for Republicans lawmakers.

What we know about them: Goldman, the panel’s senior adviser for the Democrats, and Castor, the House Oversight committee’s general counsel for the Republicans, have been key figures in the inquiry, guiding witnesses through their timelines, urging them to describe in detail what they learned when and following up with short, pointed questions.

President Trump’s latest talking point — “I want nothing” — comes from Trump’s Sept. 9 phone call with Gordon Sondland, when Sondland asked him what he wanted from Ukraine in exchange for lifting the freeze on US military assistance.

Trump, per Sondland, said he didn’t want anything. No quid pro quo!

And it’s because of that testimony that Republicans say Sondland exonerated Trump.

Except the timing here is extremely important. Trump made those comments just as Congress was being made aware of the whistleblower report.

Look at it this way:

Fiona Hill, who is delivering her opening statement in a thick northern English accent, is the third immigrant to the US to testify in the impeachment inquiry.

Marie Yovanovitch, the ousted US ambassador to Ukraine, was born in Canada to parents who fled the Soviet Union and then the Nazis.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the NSC, was born in the then-Soviet Union. His parents brought him the US with his twin brother when they were young.

All three entered government service — Yovanovitch in the foreign service, Vindman in the Army, and Hill in various foreign policy roles.

Another witness, Gordon Sondland, is a first-generation American. He recalled during his testimony Wednesday how his parents fled Europe during the Holocaust.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff noted the immigrant stories the committee has heard as the questioning began today.

Of the dozen impeachment witnesses who have appeared in public so far, more than half have been foreign service officers.

There’s a reason Democrats appear to value their testimony: They are poised communicators and experts in the official policies of the United States that appear to have been undermined by outside actors.

But perhaps, most importantly, they are copious note-takers by trade. David Holmes said in his opening statement he was “often called upon to take notes” in meetings with visiting officials or with the ambassador. He cited multiple episodes when he was assigned as an official note-taker in meetings.

Other foreign service officers who have appeared — including Bill Taylor, George Kent, Marie Yovanovitch, Kurt Volker and David Hale — are far more senior than Holmes or Jennifer Williams, the Mike Pence adviser who appeared earlier this week.

But because they spent their careers in the foreign service, they also have note-taking in their professional blood.

This is useful because it lends credibility to their recollections in ways others have struggled. Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, openly acknowledged yesterday that he was not a big note-taker. The effect on his testimony was noticeable: he was undercut by Republicans as relying on conjecture and recollection rather than actual documentation.

Another person not known to appreciate note-taking: President Trump. He’s questioned why people are taking notes in meetings, including his onetime White House counsel Don McGahn, who used his notes to aid the Mueller investigation.

And he has insisted on having no note-taker in certain meetings, including with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Fiona Hill, the White House’s former top Russia expert, will give a warning about Russia and its continued efforts to interfere in the US elections, according to her prepared remarks.

“Right now, Russia’s security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election,” she testified.

She will urge lawmakers to “not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests” during the course of their impeachment inquiry.

“I respect the work that this Congress does in carrying out its constitutional responsibilities, including in this inquiry, and I am here to help you to the best of my ability,” she testified. “If the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than worthy of your attention. But we must not let domestic politics stop us from defending ourselves against the foreign powers who truly wish us harm.”

Watch:

Former White House Russia expert Fiona Hill will tell the House Intelligence Committee that the idea that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 US presidential election is a “fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services.”

Here’s what she will say, according to a copy of her prepared remarks:

“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,” she will say.

Hill will continue:

Watch:

US diplomat David Holmes said that after he read claims that the impeachment inquiry lacked fist-hand knowledge, he realized he “had first-hand knowledge regarding certain events on July 26.”

Remember: A lack of first-hand information has been a key talking point for President Trump and other Republicans. But various witnesses who have testified in the impeachment inquiry have had firsthand knowledge of various components of the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine.

“I also read reports noting the lack of ‘first-hand’ evidence in the investigation and suggesting that the only evidence being elicited at the hearings was ‘hearsay,’” Holmes testified.

He continued:

“I came to realize I had first-hand knowledge regarding certain events on July 26 that had not otherwise been reported, and that those events potentially bore on the question of whether the President did, in fact, have knowledge that those senior officials were using the levers of our diplomatic power to induce the new Ukrainian President to announce the opening of a criminal investigation against President Trump’s political opponent.”

Watch more:

State Department aide David Holmes described his shock to learn that there was a “demand” for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation into his political rival during a televised interview.

Holmes said the top diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, had been notified of the issue. He said Taylor told him, “Now they’re insisting Zelenskyy commit to the investigation in an interview with CNN.”

The “they,” he said, are Ambassador Gordon Sondland; Kurt Volker, the onetime US special envoy to Ukraine; and Rick Perry, the Energy secretary.

Holmes continued: “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 Zelensky personally commit, on a cable news channel, to a specific investigation of President Trump’s political rival.”

Watch:

David Holmes was kept out of a meeting between Sondland and Zelensky aide, even though Holmes was supposed to take notes during the meeting. The meeting took place with no note-taker.

That meeting, which happened in Kiev with Zelensky aide Andrey Yermak, occurred one day after Trump’s phone call with Zelensky. 

Here’s how Holmes described it:

“As I was leaving the meeting with President Zelenskyy, I was told to join the meeting with Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Yermak as note-taker. I had not expected to join that meeting and was a flight of stairs behind Ambassador Sondland as he headed to meet with Mr. Yermak. When I reached Mr. Yermak’s office, Ambassador Sondland had already gone in to the meeting. I explained to Mr. Yermak’s assistant that I was supposed to join the meeting as the Embassy’s representative and strongly urged her to let me in, but she told me that Ambassador Sondland and Mr. Yermak had insisted that the meeting be one-on-one, with no note-taker.”

It’s difficult to know exactly what happened at the meeting because there were no notes and no independent witnesses. Sondland said in his testimony yesterday, about the meeting: “While I do not recall the specifics of our conversation, I believe the issue of investigations was probably a part of the agenda.” 

The saga is reminiscent of Trump’s controversial meeting with Putin at the G20 in 2017. He spoke for nearly an hour without a US interpreter or note-taker. There were also reports that official notes of Trump-Putin meetings have been confiscated from US interpreters and notetakers.

Watch Holmes explain:

David Holmes — the diplomat who overheard US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland’s conversation with President Trump — described the July lunch where the call took place.

Holmes said he, Sondland and two other staffers went to a restaurant in Kiev, and sat on the outdoor terrance.

“I sat directly across from Ambassador Sondland and the two staffers sat off to our sides,” he said, adding that at first, the lunch was mostly social.

Eventually, Sondland “said he was going to call President Trump to give an update.” He said that on the phone, Sondland introduced himself several times, and it seems like he was going through several layers to be connected to President Trump.

“I then noticed Ambassador Sondland’s demeanor change and I understood that he had been connected to President Trump,” he said.

While Ambassador Sondland’s phone was not on speaker phone, I could hear the President’s voice through the ear piece of the phone. The President’s voice was loud and recognizable, and Ambassador Sondland held the phone away from his ear for a period of time, presumably because of the loud volume,” he added.

Sondland eventually told Trump that Ukraine’s leader “quote, ‘loves your ass,’” he testified.

“I then heard the President Trump ask, ‘So he’s going to do the investigation?’ Ambassador Sondland replied that he’s going to do it, adding President Zelensky will do anything you ask him to do.”

Watch:

David Holmes testified today that he overheard Ambassador Gordon Sondland and President Trump discuss American rapper A$AP Rocky on the infamous July 26 phone call.

The rapper was convicted of assault in Sweden in August after spending weeks in jail.

Holmes testified that, “Ambassador Sondland told the President that the rapper was ‘kind of f—-d there,’ and ‘should have pled guilty.’ He recommended that the President ‘wait until after the sentencing or it will make it worse,’ adding that the President should ‘let him get sentenced, play the racism card, give him a ticker-tape when he comes home.’”

Holmes also said that he heard Sondland tell the President that Sweden “’should have released him on your word,” but that “you can tell the Kardashians you tried.”

Holmes testified that he could only hear Ambassador Sondland’s side during that part of the conversation.

Watch the moment:

President Trump is watching this morning’s hearing in between calls and meetings, as he has all week, a White House official told CNN.

It is notable today as Fiona Hill appears ready to take aim at Trump’s Ukraine conspiracy theory.

Comedian Jay Leno attended a dinner held in honor of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on June 4, David Holmes told lawmakers today.

He said Gordon Sondland, the US Ambassador to the European Union, hosted the dinner, which was also attended by President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and senior adviser to the secretary of state Ulrich Brechbuhl.

Holmes explained a possible reason for the dinner.

“When President Zelenskyy’s team did not receive a confirmed date for a White House visit, they made alternative plans for President Zelenskyy’s first overseas trip to be to Brussels instead, in part to attend an American Independence Day event that Ambassador Sondland hosted on June 4,” he said.

Throughout the impeachment inquiry, we’ve heard a lot about the “three amigos” conducting some type of diplomacy in Ukraine.

The gang was composed of…

Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the European Union Kurt Volker, onetime US special envoy to Ukraine Rick Perry, US Energy secretary

According to Sondland, who testified yesterday, the trio was seeking to carry out President Trump’s wishes in convincing Ukraine to open investigations that would benefit Trump politically.

They communicated over email and sometimes in WhatsApp messages. All three attended Ukrainian President Zelensky’s inauguration in May, and later all three attended meetings at the White House with a Ukrainian delegation in July.

If this week’s testimony is any indication, however, not all is well inside the amigos.

“I’ve never used that term and frankly cringe when I hear it,” Volker told the committee.

Sondland seemed more chipper — “I’m a proud member of the three amigos,” he said — but as the group’s efforts come under scrutiny, it’s a safe bet the amigos are riding no longer.

State Department staffer David Holmes testified about the US delegation that attended the May inauguration of new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He said the White House kept away A-listers.

“The White House then whittled down an initial proposed list for the official Presidential Delegation to the inauguration from over a dozen individuals to just five,” Holmes said.

Vice President Mike Pence was supposed to attend, but Trump nixed that plan as the inauguration approached. The whistleblower complaint said Trump might have done this to further pressure Zelensky for the investigations.

Remember: Trump told Zelensky in their first congratulatory phone call, in April, that he would consider personally attending and if not, he’ll send someone “very, very high level.”

Trump told Zelensky, “I’ll look into that, and well – give us the date and, at a very minimum, we’ll have a great representative. Or more than one from the United States will be with you on that great day. So, we will have somebody, at a minimum, at a very, very high level, and they will be with you. Really, an incredible day for an incredible achievement.”

Ultimately, the US delegation that attended was led by Energy Secretary Rick Perry and included then-US Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker, US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland, National Security Council aide Alex Vindman and some diplomats from the US embassy.

Neither Trump nor Pence attended the event in Kiev.

Watch more:

David Holmes said he became aware in the spring that President Trump’s personal lawyer “was taking a direct role in Ukrainian diplomacy.”

Holmes said Ivan Bakanov, who was Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky’s childhood friend and campaign chair, told him “someone named Giuliani who said he was an adviser to the Vice President” had contacted him.

Holmes said Giuliani’s activities were brought up during a meeting about Zelensky’s inauguration:

Over the following months, it became apparent that Mr. Giuliani was having a direct influence on the foreign policy agenda that the Three Amigos were executing on the ground in Ukraine. In fact, at one point during a preliminary meeting of the inauguration Delegation, someone wondered aloud about why Mr. Giuliani was so active in the media with respect to Ukraine. My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland stated, “Dammit Rudy. Every time Rudy gets involved he goes and f—s everything up.”

Watch the moment:

A former senior administration official explained the significance of former White House Russia expert Fiona Hill’s testimony ahead of her remarks this morning.

The official went on: “Unlike all the rest of the witnesses, she’s actually a senior policy maker. She has had many interactions with the president. She saw firsthand the contravention of normal channels. She heard the president clinging to conspiracy theories and pushing personal political agendas. She’s incredibly smart and has no fear!”

Additionally, former undersecretary of defense and former ambassador Eric Edelman also weighed in on Hill’s character this morning, saying, “She is incredibly knowledgeable, clear thinking, and brooks no nonsense. She may be the only person I know who talks as fast as Jim Jordan.”

David Holmes, the diplomat who overheard the US ambassador to Ukraine’s July phone call with President Trump, said he once asked Ambassador Gordon Sondland if Trump cared about Ukraine.

Sondland responded that Trump only cares about “‘big stuff’ that benefits the President, like the ‘Biden investigation.’”

Here’s what Holmes will say according to his opening statement:

“In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the President did not “give a s–t about Ukraine.”
Ambassador Sondland agreed that the President did not “give a s–t about Ukraine.” I asked why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated that the President only cares about “big stuff.”
I noted that there was “big stuff” going on in Ukraine, like a war with Russia, and Ambassador Sondland replied that he meant “big stuff” that benefits the President, like the “Biden investigation” that Mr. Giuliani was pushing. The conversation then moved on to other topics.”

David Holmes, the counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Ukraine, is reading his opening statement to lawmakers right now.

His statement is 12 pages long. It details a July 26 cellphone conversation in which he heard President Trump ask Gordon Sondland, the US ambassador to the European Union, about the status of “investigations.”

You can read his entire opening remarks here.

President Trump seemingly tweeted about David Holmes’ testimony.

Without naming Holmes, Trump claimed that though his hearing is “great,” “Never have I been watching a person making a call, which was not on speakerphone, and been able to hear or understand a conversation. I’ve even tried, but to no avail. Try it live!”

Some context: Holmes previously testified, behind closed doors, that while at a restaurant with US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland, he overheard a phone call between Sondland and the President.

Former White House Russia expert Fiona Hill and David Holmes, the counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Ukraine, were just sworn in.

They are now giving their opening statements.

Watch the moment:

Today’s public hearing — the fifth — is likely to be the last for a while.

Americans will begin their Thanksgiving holidays and lawmakers aren’t expected to convene these type of public sessions until at least December.

For that reason, the Democrats and Republicans appear intent on using their opening statements to sustain whatever momentum they think they have heading into the quieter period.

Chairman Adam Schiff used his to recap essentially the entire impeachment saga, from the ouster of the US ambassador to the irregular diplomatic channel to President Trump’s phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart.

Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the committee, similarly ticked through all his grievances with the proceedings and every area that could possible exonerate the President.

The question is whether the attention paid to the hearings this week — fueled by rare broadcast television coverage and daily headlines — can last.

The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes claimed Democrats’ impeachment argument centers on the idea that Trump “almost” committed a crime — but he stopped because he got caught.

“As numerous witnesses have testified, temporary holds on foreign aid occur fairly frequently for many different reasons. So how do we have an impeachable offense here when there’s no actual misdeed and no one even claiming to be a victim?” he asked.

Nunes continued:

Nunes said he urges Americans “to continue to consider the credibility of the Democrats on this committee.”

Watch more:

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff gave a preview of what lawmakers will be looking at in the coming days following this week’s hearings.

They will be examining whether President Trump abused his power or if he sought to bribe “a vulnerable ally,” he said.

“In the coming days, Congress will determine what response is appropriate. If the President abused his power and invited foreign interference in our elections, if he sought to condition, coerce, extort, or bribe a vulnerable ally into conducting investigations to aid his reelection campaign and did so by withholding official acts — a White House meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military aid — it will be up to us to decide, whether those acts are compatible with the office of the Presidency,” Schiff said in the conclusion of his opening remarks.

Watch:

Fiona Hill’s opening statement is a fiery brush-back against some Republican talking points about the 2016 election.

But another line is a more subtle jab at some of Hill’s former colleagues who have refused to do what she is doing: appearing before the impeachment committees and detailing her experience. 

This could apply to many people — but the most notable is John Bolton, the onetime national security adviser and Hill’s former boss.

Remember: Bolton has not cooperated with Congressional requests to appear, and has gone to court in the hopes a judge will decide whether he can cooperate or must comply with the White House edict he not comply.

Former White House adviser Fiona Hill will forcefully reject Trump-backed conspiracies that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election, throwing cold water on a theory promoted by President Trump and Republicans in Congress.

Hill joins a growing list of at least eight witnesses in the impeachment inquiry who testified that Ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 election, or said that they aren’t aware of any evidence to prove that conspiracy theory.

“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,” she will say, according to her opening statement. “This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.” 

She will continue: “I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a US adversary, and that Ukraine — not Russia — attacked us in 2016.”

More on this: Many Republicans on the committee, led by GOP Rep. Devin Nunes, have embraced the debunked theory that Ukraine meddled in 2016 and colluded with the Democrats to defeat Trump. Nunes has mentioned some version of this theory at every hearing — in his opening statements, while questioning witnesses, and in his closing remarks.

The director Director of National Intelligence, FBI, Department of Justice, CIA, and National Security Agency concluded that it was Russia who interfered in the 2016 election. That was confirmed again by inquiries from two Congressional committees, including the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee in 2018. 

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation also confirmed these conclusions. His 448-page report pinned the blame on the Russian government and never accused Ukraine of any interference. Many of Trump’s handpicked appointees to lead US intelligence agencies, including the CIA and FBI, also say it was Russia who meddled in 2016. 

Today’s House Intelligence Committee hearing just started.

Fiona Hill, the White House’s former Russia expert, and David Holmes, counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Ukraine, will testify.

“I want nothing” seems to be Trump’s new mantra — but the defense doesn’t entirely stand up. Witnesses have testified that there were, in fact, conditions on official actions.

He said it repeatedly in a gaggle with reporters yesterday. He tweeted the phrase as well, and re-tweeted Republican lawmakers who used the quote. And Republicans on the House Intel Committee are displaying a large sign with the quote ahead of the evening hearing with State Department official David Hale and Pentagon official Laura Cooper. 

Where this phrase comes from: It’s from Trump’s Sept. 9 phone call with Gordon Sondland, when Sondland asked him what he wanted from Ukraine in exchange for lifting the freeze on US military assistance. But that call happened after the White House had already been made aware of the whistleblower complaint at the center of the impeachment inquiry.

Despite the rhetoric, Trump’s “I want nothing” mantra doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Sondland himself testified that there were conditions on official actions, like a White House invitation for Ukraine’s new leader Volodymyr Zelensky. The conditions were that Zelensky publicly announce investigations into the Bidens and into conspiracies about the 2016 election. 

Other witnesses – like former White House aide Alexander Vindman and US diplomat Bill Taylor — testified that they understood that those public announcements needed to happen before the White House would release the military aid.

Also, the “I want nothing” defense falls flat when compared with comments last month from White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaeny, who brazenly admitted that the military aid was withheld until Ukraine helped with the investigation into 2016. 

It could be a strong talking point – it’s a simple phrase that Trump can inject into the conversation. But it’s not accurate. 

David Holmes, counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Ukraine, just arrived at the US Capitol ahead of today’s impeachment inquiry hearing.

He’s expected to testify at 9 a.m. ET alongside Fiona Hill, the White House’s former top Russia expert.

Holmes previously testified behind closed doors that he overheard a key conversation between Gordon Sondland and President Trump.

President Trump has been having weekly lunches with small groups of GOP senators as the impeachment inquiry has been underway. 

There will be another lunch today in the Cabinet Room, according to a source familiar. 

Utah Sen. Mitt Romney is confirmed to attend today’s lunch, according to an aide. Maine Sen. Susan Collins will also be there, a source familiar with her plans said.

Former top White House official Fiona Hill just arrived at the US Capitol ahead of today’s impeachment inquiry hearing.

She’s expected to testify at 9 a.m. ET. David Holmes, the counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Ukraine, is scheduled to appear alongside her.

President Trump again tweeted that his July 25 call with Ukraine’s president was “perfect,” and he’s continuing to rail against congressional Democrats.

In his latest tweet, he lamented that he “never in my wildest dreams thought my name would in any way be associated with the ugly word, Impeachment!”

Remember: Trump is the fourth US president to face an impeachment inquiry.

A former top White House official will today offer a full-throated rebuttal to the narrative pushed by President Trump and his GOP allies about Ukraine’s role meddling in American politics, according to a source familiar with her testimony.

Fiona Hill, who served as Trump’s top Russia adviser until she left the administration this summer, will also warn the House Intelligence Committee as part of the impeachment inquiry that the Kremlin is prepared to strike again in 2020 and remains a serious threat to American democracy that the United States must seek to combat, the source said.

In her brief opening statement, Hill will offer a strong pushback to the claims peddled by Trump, his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and some congressional Republicans that Ukraine may have interfered in the 2016 elections to help Hillary Clinton.

Hill is scheduled to testify at 9 a.m. ET.

US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland changed the course of the House impeachment inquiry on Wednesday.

Here are five takeaways from Sondland’s testimony:

Fiona Hill, President Trump’s former top Russia adviser, and David Holmes, the counselor for political affairs at the US Embassy in Ukraine, are testifying together publicly today before the House Intelligence Committee in the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry into Trump.

The hearing is scheduled to start at 9 a.m. ET.

Here’s what we know about Hill and Holmes:

About Hill: A former national security official, Hill served in the Trump administration from April 2017 until July of this year. During her time with the National Security Council, she oversaw rocky Washington-Moscow ties, and her views sometimes seemed at odds with Trump’s desire to improve relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin whom he has praised on multiple occasions.

In her previous deposition, Hill said US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland told Ukrainian officials in meetings on July 10 they would have to open an investigation to secure a meeting between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

About Holmes: Holmes is a career foreign service officer who arrived in Ukraine in 2017, according to a source who knows him and describes him as a “sharp guy.” He joined the foreign service in 2002, according to the American Foreign Service Association, and has previously served in Kabul, New Delhi, Kosovo, Bogota, Moscow and Kosovo.

He told lawmakers during a closed-door deposition that he overheard a conversation between President Trump and Ambassador Gordon Sondland the day after Trump spoke with the Ukrainian president by phone in July, CNN previously reported. Holmes heard Trump ask Sondland on the call if the Ukrainians were going to “do the investigation,” and Sondland responded, “He’s gonna do it.”