Fiona Hill has decided that Ukraine never attempted to interfere in the 2016 Election. The Ukraine problem is “fictitious” she states. Let’s talk about Fiona’s veracity, her lecture on fiction, and the Ukraine meddling shall we?
“Fiona Hill, the former White House adviser on Russia, is expected to open her testimony before the impeachment inquiry Thursday with withering criticism of Republican attempts to sow doubt that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”
First off, her opening statement was, thankfully, not as long-winded as Gordon Sondman’s statement was yesterday. Secondly, after going through her resume, she pulls on her lecture hat.
“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. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.
The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified.
The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert career foreign service is being undermined.”
Now, I’m not sure who she is pointing the finger at with the above statement (fair bet that it is Republicans), but her assertion that no one believes Russia didn’t try to meddle in our elections is false. The Mueller Report made it clear that they spent a lot of money meddling. $25 million in fact. Which was a drop in the bucket compared to what was actually spent during the 2016 Election. $2 BILLION on messaging vs Russia’s $25 million. So yes, Russia took a shot at trying to cause problems with our election process. However, that does NOT mean that bad actors in Ukraine didn’t.
Fiona Hill has quite an interesting resume as Narcissi outlines here. Given her assertions this morning and the fact that she knows and worked with Christopher Steele, I have to wonder about her credibility.
Especially given the fact that it was quite easy for folks to dig up reports backed by evidence that Ukraine DID try to disrupt the 2016 Election!
In a Politico article dated January 11, 2017, we find that Alexandra Chalupa was working with key Ukrainian Embassy personnel on an investigation into ties between Manafort, Russia, and Trump. All of which was shared with the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
But… Russia!!
CNN’s Andy McCabe: “Fictitious theory” Ukraine meddled in 2016 election pic.twitter.com/1iGT2J8p6X
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 21, 2019
Andy McCabe as a credible resource on who did what and when is absolutely laughable. That said, Fiona Hill started the ball rolling and the media/Democrats set today’s narrative. Ukraine meddling in the 2016 Election is a work of amazing fiction according to our betters!
Financial Times, Aug. 28, 2016: "Ukraine’s leaders campaign against ‘pro-Putin’ Trump” pic.twitter.com/a9vncjwqs9
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 21, 2019
Does that mean we should take our focus off of what Russia did? No.
However, Ukraine has had and still has serious corruption problems. Burisma is one key element of corruption. But for Fiona Hill to tell us that Ukraine didn’t attempt anything of the sort when it’s been credibly reported that they had? What is her goal here?
Especially given that the investigation into Burisma has widened, yet the head of the corporation is nowhere to be found. But nothing to see here according to Fiona.
I did like the fact that, during her testimony, she spiked Adam Schiff’s narrative by telling him that Russia’s main goal was to sow discord amongst us.
Amazingly, Adam Schiff agreed with her assertion that Russia’s goal is to cause chaos! Schiff wants Trump impeached so badly that stepping on a big rake like that didn’t even phase him.
Fiona Hill is correct. Russia went after both parties to try and sow discord. And it’s working like a charm with the Democrats. However, I’ll say it again, that doesn’t mean that Ukraine is innocent in this matter.
Spouting fiction is, according to Fiona Hill – pointing a finger at Republicans, guaranteed to help further Russian interests. Isn’t it interesting how she’s willing to lecture the GOP, but not the Democrats on their own problems with fiction?
Welcome Instapundit Readers!
Feature Photo: Kuhlmann /MSC [CC BY 3.0 de (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/de/deed.en)], Wikimedia, cropped and modified
GWB says: systematically attacked our democratic institutions
Please. They tried to buy influence (and disrupt our election) with FarceBook ads.
If you want to talk about “attacking our institutions” I would suggest looking at the capital expenditures over the years to spread communism among our academic elite, our “journalists”, and the Democrat party. That’s where Russia has done the most damage. Get people with critical thinking skills, a moral spine, and a halfway decent history education, and Russia could own FB and it wouldn’t sway an election.
Yes, they have attacked our “democratic institutions”, but not in the way the media and Democrats (BIRM) have been discussing.
Our highly professional and expert career foreign service is being undermined.
Yes, and no. A great many of them are “professional” and some are experts. But the entire institution has been undermined by their attitude of elitism, and that has happened without any outside help from Russia. (The idea that many foreign service officers think they’re there to help the other country has been a critique for at least several decades. With good reason.)
$25 million in fact. Which was a drop in the bucket compared to what was actually spent during the 2016 Election.
Soros has probably spent that much in the last few cycles just on District Attorney races.
However, that does NOT mean that bad actors in Ukraine didn’t.
Yeah, she seems to set up a False Dilemma with her statement.
I have to wonder about her credibility.
Mainly I wonder whose side she’s on – America? Or some trans-national global elite?
Russia’s main goal was to sow discord amongst us
For those in Rio Linda*, we’re all rolling our eyes and saying “Duh!”
(* This is a Rush Limbaugh thing. It’s so old I don’t even know if he uses it anymore. It signifies the people who are just totally out of it and incredibly gullible to the left’s propaganda.)
GWB says: OK, I’m not quite right about the Rio Linda explanation.
Here’s one of Rush’s explanations.
Scott says: “Mainly I wonder whose side she’s on – America? Or some trans-national global elite?”.. Given that she worked (works?) for Soros, I think the answer is pretty clear.
Mike says: I’m usually impassive about these testimonies, but after listening to some of Hill’s remarks, I thought “someone needs to do a deep investigation of this woman”. She has the odd sound of an extreme egotist or a Russian plant.
rbj1 says: “Amazingly, Adam Schiff agreed with her assertion that Russia’s goal is to cause chaos!”
And Adam Schiff is doing just that. So that means that Adam Schiff is Vladimir Putin’s puppet.
Kjon says: I voted on the day in question and I saw no Russian interference. Others I have spoken to also saw no Russian interference. What interference did Russia commit? Have others (not Americans) interfered with the election by donating untraceable money?
James Raclawski says: kinda serendipitous that the good doc got early access to the “steel dossier” … thanks to a clintonista…. mr strobe talbott. I kinda gotta agree with an earlier commenter…. this ditz is in dire need of a very deep dive by counterintelligence – water boarding or poly exams – such a quandary…..
[…] the Bushs and Romney (Jonah Goldberg and Bill Kristol) were giddy. Of course, Alexander Vindman and Fiona Hill took up the fight during Impeachment 1.0, both offended that Trump didn’t let them run […]
8 Comments