‘Fierce, focused and fearless’: Fiona Hill emerges as a principled voice in impeachment inquiry
WASHINGTON — As another long day of public impeachment inquiry testimony on Thursday wore on, attention turned to one figure who expounded on the greater importance of the subject matter at hand: protecting American democracy.
Dr. Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council official, delivered punchy lines of testimony and asserted her position as a witness in the inquiry who would present facts exactly as she knew them to be, persistent in the face of accusations of partisanship.
Hill rebutted the Republican theory that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 U.S. election and answered questions about the pressure campaign President Donald Trump is accused of levying against the nation.
Testifying alongside David Holmes, a State Department official in the U.S. embassy in Ukraine, Hill at times used her platform to explain her ideals of U.S. foreign policy and democracy.
More:Ukraine viewed White House meeting as ‘critical’ and other takeaways of Fiona Hill, David Holmes testimonies
She stated that it is in the best interest of both political parties to protect that democracy from the threats of Russian interference.
“Right now Russian security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election,” Hill said. “We are running out of time to stop them.”
She expressed the frustration of her role as a nonpartisan State Department official who had observed an unusual process of diplomacy unfold between U.S. officials and Ukraine.
“There was, let’s just say, a different channel in operation in relations to Ukraine, one that was domestic and political in nature…,” Hill said.
Withstanding accusations and threats
Hill told lawmakers about the threats and attacks she has faced and expressed sympathy with GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York whom Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said had been the subject of “vile” attacks in recent days.
Hill testified that she was the target of false accusations while serving in the Trump administration in 2017. She said she received hateful calls and death threats at her home and was accused of being a “mole” in the White House.
Hill also said over the last couple of days her staff is “constantly having to block Twitter posts” which include her name and address. “I guess, unfortunately, where we are today in America, that’s coming with the territory,” she said of receiving hateful calls and threats.
Hill said partisan attacks on Americans are exactly what foreign adversaries would like to exploit.
Hill’s pigtails on fire
As in her previous closed-door testimony, Hill’s wit and humor were on full display Thursday. And her display of resilience did not go unmissed by viewers.
A profile published about Hill in The New York Times and shared widely Thursday recounted the story of when Hill was 11 years old and a boy set fire to her hair in the middle of a test. She confirmed at the hearing that she put the fire out with her hands and resumed her test.
“It had some very unfortunate consequences. Afterwards, my mother gave me a bowl haircut,” Hill said to laughter in the room.
“I think it underscores the fact that you speak truth, that you are steely, and I truly respect that,” said Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif.
More: Fiona Hill outlines ‘fictional narrative’ in impeachment hearing
On foreign policy priorities—and women’s anger
In her October closed-door testimony, Hill described European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s conduct in Ukraine as “comical” but “deeply concerning” because of what she described as haphazard dealings with officials, opening up a counterintelligence risk.
On Thursday, Hill explained her final confrontation with Sondland was a difference over their priorities between domestic and foreign-affairs purposes, under questioning from Republican staff lawyer Steve Castor. As they sat down with two others during her final week in July, Hill said she was upset because of their different priorities.
“I was very much upset,” Hill said. “I, unfortunately, had a bit of a blow-up with Ambassador Sondland.”
Hill said after listening to Sondland’s testimony Wednesday that she realized why they weren’t cooperating. Sondland was meeting with Trump, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to urge Ukraine to investigate whether energy company Burisma meddled in the 2016 election. But Hill said the National Security Council was working on foreign affairs rather than domestic politics.
“When he wasn’t cooperating, it was because we weren’t doing the same thing that he was doing,” Hill said. “It struck me he was absolutely right because he was being involved in a domestic political errand. And we were involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged.”
It was that encounter Hill had with Sondland that led her to give a message that resonated deeply with women listening.
“I was actually, to be honest, angry with him, and you know, I hate to say it, but often when women show anger it’s not fully appreciated,” Hill said.
“It’s often, you know, pushed onto emotional issues, perhaps, or deflected onto other people.”
And after Rep. Michael Turner, R-Ohio, used his allocated questioning time to explain Republicans’ defense against the impeachment of Trump and describing Hill’s testimony as “hearsay,” a Democratic congressman accused him of “mansplaining.”
“Dr. Hill, first of all, I thought that was some epic mansplaining that you were forced to endure by my colleague Mr. Turner, and I want you to know some of us think it was inappropriate,” Rep. Sean Maloney of New York said.
Never Trumper: ‘It was a puzzling term’
Democrats asked Hill if she is a “Never Trumper,” a term Trump and other Republicans have applied to some officials who have testified in an attempt to undermine the hearings. Hill said she wasn’t sure what the definition of that term even is.
“It was a puzzling term to be applied to career or nonpartisan officials,” she said.
Hill said that it was her choice to join the Trump administration. “I could easily have said no when I was approached.”
She also said that attacks on officials should not become a new normal.
And she also defended Trump, saying that there should not be an effort to influence elections.
“I think it was unfair for people to already called the election and to make attacks also on candidate Trump and on President Trump,” Hill said. “And I know that this has put a huge cloud over this presidency and also over our whole democratic system.”
“That’s actually why as a nonpartisan person and as an expert on Russia, and an expert on Vladimir Putin and on the Russian security services, I wanted to come in to serve the country to try to see if I could help.”
“I take great pride in the fact that I am a nonpartisan foreign policy expert who has served under three Republican and Democratic presidents,” Hill said in her opening statement. “I have no interest in advancing the outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction except toward the truth.”
Contributing: Courtney Subramanian, Bart Jansen, Nicholas Wu, Christal Hayes
Powered by WPeMatico