Laughable: Fiona Hill's claims to 'non-partisanship'

Like the mainstream media that claim to be "unbiased," Fiona Hill's claims to being "non-partisan" don't quite ring as credibly as she thinks they ring.

Here's the Politico transcript of her opening statement with that whopper:

I take great pride in the fact that I am a nonpartisan foreign policy expert, who has served under three different Republican and Democratic presidents. I have no interest in advancing the outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction, except toward the truth.

...and...

For the better part of three decades, I have built a career as a nonpartisan, nonpolitical national security professional focusing on Europe and Eurasia and especially the former Soviet Union.

Though she's not explicitly partisan — she's no Eric Holder or Xavier Becerra, and sometimes she does debunk the most obvious of left-wing truisms — she's got plenty of evidence of partisanship in her background.

Can she explain why she wrote a column for Vox of all places, arguing that the Russians had good reason to hack Hillary Clinton's emails?  There's no evidence she ever wrote anything for any conservative publication.

Can she explain why she wrote a column in the Washington Post earlier still, arguing in concert with the Obama administration that Ukraine, while it was being physically attacked by Russia, should have no access to U.S. arms?

Can she explain why she now thinks Ukraine should have arms, just because President Trump (based on corruption concerns), temporarily held back on sending any?  Funny how her views react so concertedly with Democratic positions no matter who's in power.

Can she explain to us why she had Joe Biden write the blurb to her most important work of scholarship, her biography of Vladimir Putin?  I wrote about that here.

Can she explain why she's been affiliated with the leftist Brookings Institution, home of President Obama's über-partisan National Security Adviser, Susan Rice?  Surely there'd be some kind of common feeling, given that conservatives don't turn up there.

Can she explain why she failed to upload or else removed any reference to serving in the Trump administration on her LinkedIn page?  Might be a prestige-killer with the lefty-establishment crowd, eh?

Even her decision to testify at the Democrats' grossly rigged impeachment hearings, despite not being anywhere near the infamous "phone call," was partisan.  How do we know?  Because it's something her boss, the reliably conservative John Bolton, refused to do, based on not wanting to help the Democrats even though he'd had a falling out with President Trump.  That pretty well affirms what every swamp-dweller understands: that this was a Democrat thing.

Non-partisan?  Only the way the press is "non-biased."  It's the view of people so ensconced in their leftist-establishment world that they can't see straight, at best, they view themselves as the mainstream with everyone else a fringe extremist not worthy of consideration.  At worst, it's partisan opportunism for political advantage of the worst sort, disguising one's views in the name of advancing within any power circle, leftist agenda in hand. 

Image credit: Vimeo screen shot.

Like the mainstream media that claim to be "unbiased," Fiona Hill's claims to being "non-partisan" don't quite ring as credibly as she thinks they ring.

Here's the Politico transcript of her opening statement with that whopper:

I take great pride in the fact that I am a nonpartisan foreign policy expert, who has served under three different Republican and Democratic presidents. I have no interest in advancing the outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction, except toward the truth.

...and...

For the better part of three decades, I have built a career as a nonpartisan, nonpolitical national security professional focusing on Europe and Eurasia and especially the former Soviet Union.

Though she's not explicitly partisan — she's no Eric Holder or Xavier Becerra, and sometimes she does debunk the most obvious of left-wing truisms — she's got plenty of evidence of partisanship in her background.

Can she explain why she wrote a column for Vox of all places, arguing that the Russians had good reason to hack Hillary Clinton's emails?  There's no evidence she ever wrote anything for any conservative publication.

Can she explain why she wrote a column in the Washington Post earlier still, arguing in concert with the Obama administration that Ukraine, while it was being physically attacked by Russia, should have no access to U.S. arms?

Can she explain why she now thinks Ukraine should have arms, just because President Trump (based on corruption concerns), temporarily held back on sending any?  Funny how her views react so concertedly with Democratic positions no matter who's in power.

Can she explain to us why she had Joe Biden write the blurb to her most important work of scholarship, her biography of Vladimir Putin?  I wrote about that here.

Can she explain why she's been affiliated with the leftist Brookings Institution, home of President Obama's über-partisan National Security Adviser, Susan Rice?  Surely there'd be some kind of common feeling, given that conservatives don't turn up there.

Can she explain why she failed to upload or else removed any reference to serving in the Trump administration on her LinkedIn page?  Might be a prestige-killer with the lefty-establishment crowd, eh?

Even her decision to testify at the Democrats' grossly rigged impeachment hearings, despite not being anywhere near the infamous "phone call," was partisan.  How do we know?  Because it's something her boss, the reliably conservative John Bolton, refused to do, based on not wanting to help the Democrats even though he'd had a falling out with President Trump.  That pretty well affirms what every swamp-dweller understands: that this was a Democrat thing.

Non-partisan?  Only the way the press is "non-biased."  It's the view of people so ensconced in their leftist-establishment world that they can't see straight, at best, they view themselves as the mainstream with everyone else a fringe extremist not worthy of consideration.  At worst, it's partisan opportunism for political advantage of the worst sort, disguising one's views in the name of advancing within any power circle, leftist agenda in hand. 

Image credit: Vimeo screen shot.