The former top Russia adviser on President Trump’s National Security Council thought his goals with Ukraine were undermining U.S. policy and were even at odds with national security. One particular moment in Fiona Hill’s public hearing in the impeachment inquiry underscored how frustrated she was by that.

The Intelligence Committee Republicans’ counsel, Stephen Castor, asked Hill about her private testimony that she was upset with Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland in July as he tried to offer Ukrainians a White House meeting in exchange for political investigations. She seized on the moment to explain she felt Sondland was doing Trump’s bidding — “a domestic political errand” — that isolated and usurped national security experts like herself.

We’ve annotated the transcript of that moment below. Click on the yellow highlighted text to read the annotations.

HILL: Well, I think you might recall in my deposition on October 14 that I said that very unfortunate.

I had a bit of a blow up with Ambassador Sondland, and I had a couple of testy encounters with him.

One of those was in June 18 when I actually said to him, who put you in charge of Ukraine? And I mean, I’ll admit I was a bit rude. And that’s when he told me the president. And that shut me up.

And this other meeting was about 15, 20 minutes, exactly as he depicted it was. I was actually, to be honest, I was angry with him. And, you know, I hate to say it. But often when women show anger, it’s not fully appreciated. It’s often, you know, pushed on to emotional issues or perhaps deflected onto other people.

And what I was angry about was that he wasn’t coordinating with us. I now actually realize, having listened to his deposition, that he was absolutely right. That he wasn’t coordinating with us because we weren’t doing the same thing that he was doing.

So I was upset with him that he wasn’t fully telling us about all of the meetings that he was having. And he said to me: “But I’m briefing the president, I’m briefing Chief of staff Mulvaney, I’m briefing Secretary Pompeo, and I’ve talked to Ambassador Bolton. Who else do I have to deal with?”

And the point is, we have a robust interagency process that deals with Ukraine. It includes Mr. Holmes. It includes Ambassador Taylor as the chargé in Ukraine. It includes a whole load of other people. But it struck me when yesterday, when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland’s emails, and who was on these emails and he said “These that these people need to know,” that he was absolutely right. Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand. And we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And those two things had just diverged. So he was correct.

And I had not put my finger on that at the moment, but I was irritated with him and angry with him that he wasn’t fully coordinating. And I did say to him, Ambassador Sondland, Gordon, I think this is all going to blow up. And here we are.

And after I left to my next meeting, our director for the European Union talked to him much further for a full half-hour or more later, trying to ask him about how we could coordinate better or how others could coordinate better after I had left the office. And his feeling was that the National Security Council was always trying to block him.

What we were trying to do was block us from straying into domestic or personal politics. And that was precisely what I was trying to do.

But Ambassador Sondland is not wrong that he had been given a different remit than we had been.

And it was at that moment that I started to realize how those things have diverged. And I realized, in fact, that I wasn’t really being fair to Ambassador Sondland because he was carrying out what he thought he had been instructed to carry out. And we were doing something that we thought was just as or perhaps even more important, but it wasn’t in the same channel‘