One of two testifying right now just made her opening statement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Hill_(presidential_advisor)

Harvard scholar, studied under Daniel Pipes, Council On Foreign Relations... and then in her opening statement chastised the House Committee members during her hearings not to make any mention of Ukraine as having interfered in the 2016 U.S. election, as she sees that as a complete fiction that shouldn't even be dignified with questions! Yeah, this lady is a Hillary Clinton voter for sure.

The then-Ukranian ambassador wrote an editorial in 2016 in support of Hillary Clinton. The Ukranian embassy in the U.S. absolutely did deed information to the Russia Dossier of Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS, which absolutely did get back-doored through Nellie Ohr/Bruce Ohr in DOJ, and Comey and McCabe in the FBI. Despite the narrative Fiona Hill would like to front. Ukranian interference in the U.S. election was definitely there, and the previous Ukrainian goverment was clearly a Democrat ally highly invested in Hillary Clinton winning the 2016 election.

The new Ukranian president was elected on an anti-corruption platform, and the Ukrainian parliament is likewise 80% reformers, but let's be honest that Ukraine had players who were definitely doing their part to influence the 2016 election, and they were definitely Hillary Clinton allies.

The Russians definitely were making an even greater effort (greater than th Ukranians) to influence the 2016 election in other ways (and even that for all their efforts had very little if any influence, with about $100,000 of internet ads, against a Hillary Clinton campaign that spent $2 billion on ads.
And Russia played both sides, also contributing to the Russia Dossier and propagandizing against Trump, with allegations of Trump caavorting with urinating Russian hookers in a Moscow hotel room and so forth. Democrats like to allege that Russians were an ally of Trump, but the truth is the Russians' goal was to undermine U.S. voters confidence in the elections, regardless of who won. And with Trump's massively increased military aid to Ukraine, the Russiaans at this point likely wish Hillary Clinton had won the election.

Regardless, their wish in 2016 was that Trump would win instead of Hillary, and their oh-so-calculated orchestrations to help "Russian assett" Donald Trump win still had them believing Hillary Clinton would win in 2016, and Russia had elaborate propaaganda planss to undermine Hillary as president. But Russian interference was so ineffective that they expected Hillary to win regardless of their interference, and they were as surprised as anyone on election night, when Trump won a landslide electoral victory in 2016.

So Fiona Hill's attempt to slinece any mention of Ukrainian 2016 election interference makes me distrust her testimony from the outset. She's clearly a globalist, a neocon, and not a Trump supporter, and that became clear in the 8 minutes of her opening statement.

It should also be pointed out that *ALL* these witnesses are Adam Schiff's picks, that any of the witnesses House Republicans wanted subpoenaed were rejected. All witnesses in these hearings are strictly Democrat picks, and only inadvertantly will any of these witnesses present opinions or evidence that supports or exculpates Trump.




And...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Holmes_(diplomat)

David Holmes is testifying alongside Fiona Hill. That he served in the Ukraine embassy alongside Bill Taylor, and describes himself as a great supporter of Marie Yovanovich (Yovanovich, who openly bashed Trump in front of other staff before she was fired in March 2019, and planned a victory party for Hillary Clinton's presumed election win in 2016) makes pretty clear where Holmes' allegiances are.
The phone call Holmes partially overheard again is spun by Holmes against Trump. But all it really shows is that Zelensky and Trump had shared anti-corruption goals, not that Trump exerted any intimidation or undue influence over Zelensky. And ultimately is just a hearsay confirmation of what was in the July 25th transcribed Trump/Zelensky phone call, despite the best efforts to spin it otherwise.