Share This Article with a Friend!

Four Impeachment Witnesses The Senate Must Call

Articles of impeachment
Now that the House has officially transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate, it appears that the Senate GOP’s Virtue Signaling Caucus composed of Senators Mitt Romney, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander and a few others is prepared to betray President Trump and help the House Democrats by calling witnesses the Democrats failed to compel in their impeachment investigation.

Given that the factual basis for the impeachment – flimsy as it is – rests in part upon the claim that by using the phrase "I would like you to do us a favor" Trump abused his power by asking a foreign government to investigate, without legal justification, a political rival, it seems entirely proper that, if there are going to be witnesses that were not allowed or compelled in the House investigation, the Senate should call witnesses that could shed light on whether or not the President was justified in asking the Ukraine to look into 2016 corruption and election interference.

The first witness that could shed light on that matter is of course Hunter Biden.

It would be absurd to suggest that presidents should be prohibited from asking or even demanding specific actions from foreign partners in return for the billions of dollars in foreign military and non-military aid the United States sends abroad every year.

In a March 22, 2019 news release (long before the phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky) the State Department said, “The United States believes addressing corruption begins with countries around the world sharing a common vision and a strong commitment to taking practical steps to prevent and prosecute corruption.”

The first country cited in the release was Ukraine: “INL supported Ukraine’s Ministry of Interior in recruiting and training 7,000 new police, revitalizing a police force which had struggled with corruption and restoring citizen trust.”

Bringing up anti-corruption efforts with the new President of Ukraine, who ran on and was elected on an anti-corruption platform, was a perfectly legitimate exercise of presidential authority to conduct the foreign policy of the United States.

But it also opened the door to revealing the extent to which Hunter Biden was involved in and benefited from that culture of corruption. Would it be logical or rational to claim that because Joe Biden is running for President his ne'er-do-well son should be immune from answering questions that might prove he was involved in corruption?

The next witness that the Senate should call is Joe Biden himself.

As Erielle Davidson wrote for The Federalist:

…we do know that Joe Biden, while serving as vice president, pressured the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son’s company. Hunter Biden joined the board of Ukrainian national gas company Burisma in 2014 while his father was managing the United States’ Ukraine policy and despite zero personal experience in the field. At the time Hunter Biden joined its board, Burisma was embroiled in allegations of corruption, allegations serious enough that Ukraine’s prosecutor general launched an investigation into the company.

Joe Biden was so proud of his role in the prosecutor’s removal from investigating the company paying his son $50,000 per month merely to serve on its board that he actually bragged about it in a 2018 speech at an event for the publication Foreign Affairs. In this speech, Biden boasts his threat to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loans from Ukraine if they did not agree to fire the prosecutor who happened to be investigating the company giving his son a cushy sinecure.

The prosecutor was fired, and the investigation was dropped six months later. While the investigation was just reopened last year, it has been a slow-moving process that has turned up little. At the time Biden pushed for the firing of Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general, Shokin had plans to question Hunter Biden.

You can watch Biden take credit for getting the prosecutor fired through this link.

That’s the kind of “Yeh, I shot him” moment that prosecutors live for, but no mention of the Bidens, or their corruption, was allowed by Democrats during the House investigation.

Then there is the fake “whistleblower” Eric Ciaramella.

One of our friends who was at the NSC in the early days of the Trump administration described Ciaramella as the most hostile Obama holdover at the NSC. “It makes sense,” that Ciaramella would be the one to use his knowledge and access to undermine Trump he said.

According to reporting by Paul Sperry for RealClear Investigations, Ciaramella left his National Security Council post in the White House’s West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

“He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump,” said a former NSC official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

So, let’s connect a few dots about Eric Ciaramella and this intelligence operation against President Trump. Ciaramella was connected to Alexandra Chalupa, the Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, and led an effort to fabricate links between the Trump campaign to the Russian government. Ciaramella was also linked to the corrupt previous Ukrainian government and to the Bidens, who were beneficiaries of that corruption. Any investigation into the Bidens’ corruption and the previous government of Ukraine by the new government of Ukraine was going to hurt Biden’s political prospects and Ciaramella’s friends in Ukraine. Finally, any investigation that resulted in Biden losing the Democratic nomination or being defeated by President Trump would eliminate Ciaramella’s political juice, mean permanent banishment from the White House and return him to the status of a nameless GS-13 hump in a basement cubicle at the CIA headquarters.

Connect all these dots from the reporting by Paul Sperry, Joe Hoft, Mike Cernovich, Dan Bongino and the information our friends who have passed through the Trump NSC shared with us and it is clear Ciaramella is no whistleblower, but a person who would greatly benefit from a Joe Biden presidency who was carefully planted to disrupt the Trump White House.

The final witness on our list of witnesses the Senate must call is none other than Rep. Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY-21) has said that House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff should be the first individual Republicans call to testify in the next phase of the House impeachment inquiry into President Trump.

As Justin Wise reported for The Hill, Stefanik, a Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee, said on Fox News that Schiff needs to answer questions "under oath" in light of revelations that Ciaramella corresponded with a HPSCI aide before filing his complaint.

"…there are a lot of serious questions about the coordination between the whistleblower and Schiff," Stefanik added according to Mr. Wise, noting that the whistleblower should testify before Congress as well.

Rep. Doug Collins (GA-9), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, also suggested that Schiff should the first witness questioned.

"This has been a partisan process from the start. Adam Schiff has conducted himself as counsel to witnesses, as judge and jury," Stefanik said on Fox News. "The American people deserve transparency."

The toll-free Capitol Switchboard number (1-866-220-0044), we urge CHQ readers and friends to call their Senators to demand that if there are witnesses called in the impeachment trial of President Trump, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Eric Ciaramella and Adam Schiff should be the first ones called.

Share this

NOW is the time for quid pro quo

Democrats want ANY say in how the Senate does their job and want to call new witnesses...fine. One for one - quid pro quo. Any refusals by Democrats or their wayward children invalidates the deal and the impeachment case is judged on it's own (lack of) is.


Forget it

Why give the Dems a victory on anything? Getting impeachment through is the only "win" they are entitled to since they run the House. The Senate should not be horse-trading over witnesses. I see it as negotiating with themselves. I'm under the assumption that the Senate, via the various committees, can call in the Bidens and anyone else for hearings (except Congressman Adam Schiff...I believe under normal procedure it is not allowed to call people from the House in). They do not need an impeachment trial to go after Hunter Biden. Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has the power; he is asleep at the switch. As much as I hate Adam Schiff, he is actually a good soldier for the Dems because he is using his power to go to battle against the Trump Administration. Republicans don't have similar warriors (with power) on their side. Instead, Senate Republicans pretend they cannot do things without giving the Dems something. You don't need 60 votes to call a hearing! Even if they bend over and give Dems everything they want, there still are not 67 votes to remove Trump from office. It's a waste of time to hear from witnesses, who aren't going to move the needle. Unless there are 20+ Republican Senators demanding it; that would be the magic number to force something because Trump would be toast if they aren't happy. There are only 4 though (the usual suspects). They just are dying for media approval, which they will never get until they pull a Jeff Van Drew and change parties. Just shut this witness talk down, and have committee chairs do their jobs later on if there is to be any pursuit on the Bidens and the "whistleblower." Besides, this looks like we need this because we are scared of Joe Biden. Let him be the nominee and have a field day attacking him over this stuff.