周四，作为众议院公开弹劾听证会的一部分，两名关键证人将在国会议员面前作证。

前国家安全委员会官员菲奥娜·希尔(Fiona Hill)被唐纳德·特朗普总统任命为白宫俄罗斯和欧洲事务高级顾问，美国驻乌克兰大使馆外交官大卫·福尔摩斯担任政治顾问，成为最新一批现任和前任白宫情报委员会官员。预计他们将提供不利于总统的确凿证据。希尔在七月离开了她的职位。

一名负责弹劾调查的官员称，两名证人都在传票下作证。

这个故事不再更新了。

 

2019年11月21日，美国国家安全委员会前欧洲和俄罗斯高级主任菲奥娜·希尔和美国驻乌克兰大使馆官员大卫·福尔摩斯在华盛顿特区国会山朗沃斯众议院办公楼向众议院情报委员会作证前宣誓就职。该委员会在针对美国总统唐纳德·特朗普的弹劾调查的第五天公开听证会上听取了证词。众议院民主党人表示，特朗普在要求调查其政治对手的同时，阻止了美国对乌克兰的军事援助。

 

下午4:15更新:听证会以亚当·希夫激烈的闭幕词结束

主持公开弹劾听证会的众议院情报委员会主席、众议员亚当·希夫(加州民主党人)嘲笑共和党人，他们如此激烈地为总统辩护，反对民主党人对其行贿和其他不当行为的指控。

希夫通常是国会一名沉默寡言、较为保守的立法者，他的长篇大论充满了活力，不时提高嗓门，强调他对共和党同事质疑某些证人的爱国主义和可信度以及他们对乌克兰丑闻的处理感到沮丧。

“没有什么比一个不道德的总统认为自己凌驾于法律之上更危险的了，”加州民主党人说。“我们比那强！”

下午3:45更新:希尔没有购买戈登·桑德兰的索赔

 

11月20日，美国驻欧盟大使戈登·桑德兰在DC国会山的朗沃斯众议院办公楼向众议院情报委员会作证。

 

希尔对美国驻欧盟大使戈登·桑德兰没有意识到特朗普向乌克兰施压要求调查布里斯马一事表示怀疑。布里斯马是一家乌克兰天然气公司，乔·拜登的儿子亨特是董事会成员，该公司旨在调查拜登夫妇。

“我不相信他忘记了，”她说。

戈登在周三的证词中说，只有在白宫公布了特朗普与乌克兰7月25日通话的粗略记录后，他才与布里斯马和拜登建立了联系。尽管总统私人律师鲁迪·朱利安尼一再公开谈论这种联系，其他现任和前任官员也证明他们意识到了这种联系。

“很明显，很多人没有联系上，”桑德拉说。

下午3:30更新:即将离任的共和党人威尔·赫德正式排除支持弹劾

 

威尔·赫德众议员11月20日在DC国会山朗沃斯众议院办公楼举行的众议院情报委员会听证会上，向美国驻欧盟大使戈登·桑德兰提问。

 

众议员威尔·赫德是唯一一位将在明年任期结束时从国会退休的黑人众议院共和党人，他平息了任何关于他可能在未来弹劾投票中站在民主党一边的猜测。赫德此前对特朗普提出批评时，比他的共和党同事走得更远。结果，他被视为潜在的弹劾支持者。

但他否认了乌克兰丑闻构成可弹劾罪行的说法。

“可弹劾的罪行应该是令人信服的，绝对清楚和明确的，这不是草率或轻率的事情，”这位立法者说。"我没有听到证据证明总统行贿或勒索。"

然而，赫德确实形容特朗普7月25日的电话以及他随后要求乌克兰对手对一个政治对手进行调查的请求是“不恰当的、误导性的外交政策，这当然不是现任或未来的高管应该如何处理这样的电话。”

下午2:00更新:山地蝙蝠打倒共和党对亚历山大·温德曼的攻击

 

11月19日，美国国家安全委员会欧洲事务主任亚历山大·温德曼中校抵达DC国会山朗沃斯众议院办公楼，在众议院情报委员会作证。

 

希尔为周二作证的国家安全委员会官员亚历山大·温德曼中校辩护，反对共和党人和保守媒体专家先前的攻击，他们认为乌克兰移民的忠诚可能与美国以外的地方结盟，因此不可信。

希尔和温德曼一样是移民。她出生在英国，2002年成为美国公民。但是，随着温德曼令人发指的证词——因为特朗普7月25日与乌克兰总统通电话，他提供了第一手信息——而来的指控是双重忠诚，因为一名乌克兰官员最近为他提供了一个最高政府防务职位。

“我认为这很不幸。这是一个移民国家...每个人都在他们家族历史的某个时期移民到美国。对我来说，这才是真正让美国伟大的地方，”希尔说。“我不相信我对英国的忠诚。我对美国的忠诚就在这里...我知道一个事实，我的每一个同事——在我的办公室和整个国家安全委员会中有许多入籍公民——都有完全相同的感受。我认为这非常不公平。”

希尔全力为她的同事辩护，支持文德曼在乌克兰问题上的判断和专业知识，称她对这位军官唯一的担忧可能是他无力处理围绕美国-乌克兰政策的日益政治化的诉讼。

上午11:30更新:霍姆斯削弱了共和党人的反交换叙事

霍姆斯反驳了共和党人反复提出的一个论点，即特朗普不可能通过拒绝乌克兰的军事援助来换取政治动机的调查。

共和党人表示，由于乌克兰人似乎不知道援助在发放前几天被搁置，特朗普不可能进行交换。但包括霍姆斯在内的几名目击者表示，美国和乌克兰官员已经开始理解，在乌克兰公开承诺调查拜登和2016年大选之前，援助和白宫会议将继续被搁置。

霍尔姆斯说:“当[·乌克兰]没有得到关于为什么要搁置的解释时，他们就会得出这个结论。”。

共和党人还辩称，由于乌克兰既不同意也不进行调查，特朗普的行动不可能再次构成交换。

但是希尔说他有”几个迹象“乌克兰总统沃洛迪米尔·泽林斯基计划在美国有线电视新闻网上宣布特朗普将进行预期的调查。然而，就在采访开始前几天，对援助的搁置于9月11日解除。

上午10:50更新:特朗普只关心像“拜登调查”这样的“大事”

 

前副总统乔·拜登11月20日在佐治亚州亚特兰大市的泰勒·佩里工作室与观众打招呼。

 

霍姆斯就像他私下告诉立法者的那样，表示特朗普最感兴趣的是乌克兰进行政治动机的调查，比如调查拜登夫妇，而不是他们根除腐败或挫败俄罗斯的侵略。

7月26日，美国驻欧盟大使戈登·桑德兰(Gordon Sondland)在乌克兰的一家餐厅与特朗普通了电话——就在特朗普臭名昭著的7月25日与泽伦斯基(Zelenskiy)通话的第二天——霍姆斯(Holmes)与桑德兰等人共进晚餐，他问他特朗普关心什么。

霍尔姆斯回忆道，桑德兰回答特朗普没有对乌克兰发出“[咒骂”，而是对“大事”更感兴趣

“我问他，‘嗯，什么样的大事？“我们这里正在发生大事，比如与俄罗斯的战争。”他说，“不，像朱利安尼先生推动的拜登调查这样的大事，”霍姆斯说。

霍姆斯称，桑德拉还告诉特朗普，泽兰斯基“爱你的屁股”在周三的证词中，桑德拉回忆了他与特朗普的对话:“听起来像是我要说的话...这就是特朗普总统和我交流的方式，很多四个字母的单词。”

上午10:20更新:“这是一个虚构的故事”

希尔，在她身上开场白没有提到任何人的名字，而是瞄准了共和党人，他们似乎质疑俄罗斯在2016年美国选举干预中的作用，并暗示参与其中的是乌克兰，而不是俄罗斯。特朗普希望乌克兰进行的一项调查涉及此事不可信的阴谋论。

她表示:“委员会中的一些[人似乎认为，俄罗斯及其安全部门并没有针对我们的国家开展运动——或许，出于某种原因，乌克兰确实这样做了。”。"这是一个虚构的故事，由俄罗斯安全部门自己实施和传播。"

希尔进一步警告称，俄罗斯可能在即将到来的2020年选举中再次进行潜在干预，他要求议员们“请不要宣扬明显推进俄罗斯利益的政治谎言”

该委员会的高级成员，众议员德文·努恩斯(加州共和党人)反驳了希尔的批评2018年共和党报告此前对俄罗斯选举干预进行了长达一年的调查。当时，该报告因质疑俄罗斯总统弗拉基米尔·普京(Vladimir Putin)是否试图帮助特朗普赢得选举而受到批评，这一结论长期以来一直得到情报界的支持。

背景资料

在本月早些时候的闭门作证中，希尔对特朗普的私人律师鲁迪·朱利安尼在外交政策事务中的作用表示担忧。她还对他在推动乌克兰进行政治调查的压力运动中的作用表示担忧。

霍姆斯在他的私人证词中说，他无意中听到特朗普和桑德拉之间的一个电话，在那次通话中，两人在臭名昭著的7月25日与泽伦斯基的电话后讨论了调查。

霍尔姆斯告诉立法者，根据他之前的证词，在桑德拉和特朗普通完电话后，他说总统“没有对乌克兰发出[的咒骂”

“总统只关心‘大事’...霍姆斯说:“这对总统有利，就像朱利安尼先生推动的‘拜登调查’。

几位弹劾听证会证人描述了一种交换条件，即拒绝白宫会议、电话和大约4亿美元的外国军事援助，以换取承诺调查2016年选举干涉阴谋论和乌克兰能源公司布里斯马，乔拜登的儿子亨特在该公司任职。特朗普和他在国会的共和党盟友继续否认总统有任何不当行为，辩称安全援助最终在乌克兰没有调查特朗普最大的政治对手之一的情况下被释放。

另一方面，民主党指责特朗普与外国对手“行贿”，他的行为是可弹劾的罪行。

众议院情报委员会主席亚当·希夫(加州民主党)在开场白中说:“在未来几天，国会将决定什么样的回应才是合适的。”。“如果总统滥用权力，邀请外国干涉我们的选举，如果他试图对一个脆弱的盟友施加条件、胁迫、勒索或贿赂，让其进行调查，以协助他的连任竞选，并通过阻止官方行为——白宫会议或数亿美元所需的军事援助——来这样做，那么这些行为是否符合总统办公室的要求，将由我们来决定。”

LIVE UPDATES: FIONA HILL, DAVID HOLMES ROUND OUT WEEK OF PUBLIC TESTIMONIES IN TRUMP IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

Two key witnesses are testifying before lawmakers on Capitol Hill Thursday as part of the House's public impeachment hearings.

Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council official who was tapped by President Donald Trump to serve as the White House's top Russian and European affairs adviser, and David Holmes, a diplomat at the U.S. embassy in Ukraine serving as a political counselor, became the latest current and former officials to come before the House Intelligence Committee. They are expected to offer damning testimony against the president. Hill left her position in July.

Both witnesses testified under subpoena, according to an official working on the impeachment inquiry.

This story is no longer being updated.

 

Fiona Hill, the National Security Council’s former senior director for Europe and Russia, and David Holmes, an official from the American embassy in Ukraine, are sworn in before testifying to the House Intelligence Committee in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill November 21, 2019 in Washington, D.C. The committee heard testimony during the fifth day of open hearings in the impeachment inquiry against U.S. President Donald Trump, whom House Democrats say held back U.S. military aid for Ukraine while demanding it investigate his political rivals.

 

Update 4:15 p.m.: Hearing ends with fiery closing statement from Adam Schiff

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee that's conducted the public impeachment hearings, ridiculed Republicans who have so vehemently defended the president against accusations from Democrats of bribery and other wrongdoing.

Schiff, a usually quiet, more reserved lawmaker on Capitol Hill, was animated in his lengthy remarks, raising his voices at times to emphasize his frustration with his GOP colleagues for calling into question the patriotism and credibility of certain witnesses, in addition to their handling of the Ukraine scandal.

"There is nothing more dangerous than an unethical president who believes they are above the law," the California Democrat said. "We are better than that!"

Update 3:45 p.m.: Hill doesn't buy Gordon Sondland's claims

 

Gordon Sondland, the U.S ambassador to the European Union, testifies before the House Intelligence Committee in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill November 20 in Washington, DC.

 

Hill expressed skepticism that U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland was unaware Trump pressuring Ukraine to investigate Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company where Joe Biden's son, Hunter, was a board member, was a push to probe the Bidens.

"It is not credible to me that he was oblivious," she stated.

Gordon said in his Wednesday testimony that he only made the Burisma-Biden connection once the White House released a rough transcript of the July 25 Trump-Ukraine call. This despite Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal attorney, repeatedly talking publicly about the connection and other current and former officials testifying they realized the linkage.

"Apparently, a lot of people did not make the connection," Sondland said.

Update 3:30 p.m.: Outgoing Republican Will Hurd officially rules out supporting impeachment

 

Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX) questions Gordon Sondland, the U.S ambassador to the European Union, during a hearing before the House Intelligence Committee in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill November 20 in Washington, DC.

 

Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX), the lone black House Republican who will be retiring from Congress at the end of his term next year, put to rest any speculation that he may side with Democrats in future votes for impeachment. Hurd has previously gone a step further than his GOP colleagues when levying criticism of Trump. As a result, he was viewed as a potential impeachment supporter.

But he quashed the notion that the Ukraine scandal amounted to impeachable offenses.

"An impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelmingly clear and unambiguous, and it's not something to be rushed or taken lightly," the lawmaker said. "I've not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion."

Hurd did, however, describe Trump's July 25 phone call and his subsequent requests to have his Ukrainian counterpart conduct an investigation into a political rival as "inappropriate, misguided foreign policy and it's certainly not how the executive, current or in the future, should handle such a call."

Update 2:00 p.m.: Hill bats down GOP attacks against Alexander Vindman

 

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman (C), National Security Council Director for European Affairs, arrives to testify before the House Intelligence Committee in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill November 19 in Washington, DC.

 

Hill came to the defense of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official who testified Tuesday, against previous attacks from Republicans and conservative media pundits who suggested the Ukrainian immigrant's loyalty may align somewhere other than the United States and was, therefore, not credible.

Hill, like Vindman, is an immigrant. She was born in England and became a U.S. citizen in 2002. But with Vindman's damning testimony, which provided firsthand information because he was on Trump's July 25 phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart, came allegations of dual loyalty because he was recently offered a top government defense position by a Ukrainian official.

"I think it's very unfortunate. This is a country of immigrants... Everyone immigrated to the United States at some point in their family history. This is what, for me, really does make America great," Hill said. "I do not believe that my loyalty to the United Kingdom. My loyalty is here, to the United States... And I know for a fact that every single one of my colleagues—and there were many naturalized citizens in my office and across the National Security Council—felt exactly the same way. I think it's deeply unfair."

Offering a full-throated defense of her colleague, Hill backed Vindman's judgment and expertise on Ukraine, stating that her only concern with the military officer was perhaps his inability to handle the increased politicized proceedings surrounding U.S.-Ukraine policy.

Update 11:30 a.m.: Holmes undercuts Republicans' anti-quid pro quo narratives

Holmes undercut an argument that's been repeated by Republicans as evidence Trump could not have committed a quid pro quo by withholding military aid from Ukraine allegedly in exchange for politically motivated investigations.

Republicans have said that because Ukrainians were seemingly unaware of the hold on the aid until days before it was released, Trump could not have engaged in a quid pro quo. But several witnesses, including Holmes, have indicated that U.S. and Ukrainian officials had come to understand that the aid and a White House meeting would continue to be withheld until Ukraine publicly committed to investigating the Bidens and the 2016 election.

"When [Ukraine] received no explanation for why that hold was in place, they would have drawn that conclusion," Holmes said.

Republicans have also argued that because Ukraine neither agreed to nor conducted the probes, Trump's actions could again not have amounted to a quid pro quo.

But Hill said he had "several indications" Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy planned to announce on CNN that Trump's desired investigations would take place. Just days before the interview was allegedly set to take place, however, the hold on aid was lifted on September 11.

Update 10:50 a.m.: Trump only cared about the "big stuff" like the "Biden investigation"

 

Former Vice President Joe Biden greets the audience after the Democratic Presidential Debate at Tyler Perry Studios November 20 in Atlanta, Georgia.

Holmes, like what he has told lawmakers behind closed doors, said Trump was most interested in Ukraine conducting politically motivated investigations, such as a probe into the Bidens, rather than them rooting out corruption or thwarting Russian aggression.

After U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland got off the phone with Trump on July 26 at a restaurant in Ukraine—the day after Trump's infamous July 25 call with Zelenskiy—Holmes, who was dining with Sondland and others, asked him what Trump cares about.

Holmes recalled Sondland replying that Trump did not give a "[expletive] about Ukraine" and was more interested in "big stuff."

"I asked him, 'Well, what kind of big stuff? We have big stuff going on here, like a war with Russia.' And he said, 'no, big stuff like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani is pushing,'" Holmes said.

Sondland, according to Holmes, also told Trump that Zelenskiy "loves your ass." In his testimony on Wednesday, Sondland recalled his conversation with Trump: "Sounds like something I would say... That's how President Trump and I communicate, a lot of four-letter words."

Update 10:20 a.m.: "This is a fictional narrative"

Hill, in her opening remarks and without mentioning anyone by name, took aim at Republicans who've appeared to question Russia's role in 2016 U.S. election meddling and have suggested it was Ukraine—rather than Russia—that was involved. One of the investigations Trump wanted Ukraine to conduct involved this discredited conspiracy theory.

"[S]ome 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 stated. "This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves."

Hill further warned of the potential interference Russia could again offer in the upcoming 2020 elections, asking lawmakers to "please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests."

The committee's ranking member, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), refuted Hill's criticism by citing a 2018 Republican report that followed the year-long probe into Russian election meddling. The report was criticized at the time for questioning whether Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to help Trump win the election, a conclusion that has long been supported by the Intelligence Community.

Background information

During a closed-door deposition earlier this month, Hill raised concerns about the role of Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, in foreign policy matters. She also raised concerns about his role in a pressure campaign to push Ukraine to conduct politically motivated investigations.

Holmes, in his private deposition, said he overheard a call between Trump and Sondland, a conversation in which the two men discussed investigations the day after the infamous July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy.

Holmes told lawmakers, according to his earlier deposition, that after Sondland got off the phone with Trump, he said the president "doesn't give a [expletive] about Ukraine."

"The President only cares about 'big stuff' ... that benefits the President, like the 'Biden investigation' that Mr. Giuliani was pushing," Holmes said.

Several impeachment hearing witnesses have described a quid pro quo that occurred by withholding a White House meeting, phone call and roughly $400 million in foreign military aid in exchange for promises to investigate a 2016 election interference conspiracy theory and Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company where Joe Biden's son, Hunter, was on the board. Trump and his Republican allies in Congress have continued to deny that there was any wrongdoing by the president, arguing that the security assistance was eventually released without Ukraine investigating one of Trump's biggest political rivals.

Democrats, on the other hand, have accused Trump of engaging in "bribery" with a foreign counterpart and that his actions are impeachable offenses.

"In the coming days, Congress will determine what response is appropriate," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) stated in his opening remarks. "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."