The final hearing on the impeachment inquiry into President Trump is happening as we speak. Career diplomats and foreign affairs specialists Fiona Hill and David Holmes are testifying in what has been a week of hot air. We’ve had a lot of Democratic hyperbole and a lot of witnesses saying they don’t possess direct evidence of the so-called quid pro quo allegations that have been hurled at the Trump White House. It all stems from a whistleblower report that in July, President Trump threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine unless they opened a corruption probe into Hunter Biden’s position at Burisma, an energy company, despite having zero experience. Biden has been there since his father, Vice President Joe Biden, was in office. He recently left.

It’s a total clown show. Some of the witnesses, like Marie Yovanovitch, were just career diplomats who disagreed with Trump on Ukraine policy. Her testimony was a therapy session Yet, one thing that is missed in all of these proceedings is that Ukraine did collude with the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 in a failed attempt to detail the Trump candidacy. Veteran investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson dredged this up from Politico. It’s right there in black and white:

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

One of the strangest phenoms the last few days is those who insist Russia not Ukraine interfered in our elections, as if it's impossible to be both (?) One succinct article documents it quite well, has firsthand accounts, and has never been "discredited." https://t.co/TGFrVR1IqA — Sharyl Attkisson?????? (@SharylAttkisson) November 21, 2019

The idea that some of our top experts on Ukraine are closed minded to this info (and at least one said he was entirely unaware of it) but were making important decisions, could be considered disturbing. — Sharyl Attkisson?????? (@SharylAttkisson) November 21, 2019

Yeah, that sort of blows up disgraced ex-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s point that the Ukraine interference narrative was a “fictitious theory.” Then again, Andrew McCabe is a noted liar, and he lost his job because of it. Attkisson tweeted, “the idea that some of our top experts on Ukraine are closed-minded to this info (and at least one said he was entirely unaware of it) but were making important decisions, could be considered disturbing.”

Yes, but this is Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) kangaroo court, which is situated in the middle of the twilight zone.