Republicans call for Hunter Biden, Ukraine ‘whistleblower’ to be impeachment inquiry witnesses

ABC News
(Screenshot/Getty)

When House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff requested that Congressional Republican leaders list out the witnesses whom they’d like to see testify once the impeachment hearings go public, he likely never expected this.

In a letter sent early Saturday morning to Schiff, top Republican leaders in the House listed their desired witnesses, and some of the names were stunning.

Particularly the top two listed below:

  • Former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden
  • The infamous partisan whistleblower
  • The infamous partisan whistleblower’s sources
  • Hunter Biden’s long-time business partner, Devon Archer
  • Former Democrat National Committee staffer Alexandra Chalupa
  • U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs David Hale
  • Former National Security Council member Tim Morrison
  • Former Fusion GPS contractor Nellie Ohr
  • Ambassador Kurt Kolker

The letter was written by Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, presumably on behalf of the House GOP’s top brass.

Included in the document were justifications for every witness’s participation in the upcoming hearing. Regarding the younger Biden, Nunes chose to recount all the red flags surrounding his suspiciously “lucrative” career.

“Burisma has a reputation in Ukraine for corruption,” Nunes wrote. “According to public reporting, Burisma recruited Mr. Biden to its board to improve its public image at a time when Mr. Biden’s father, Vice President Joe Biden, was the Obama Administration’s point person for Ukraine policy. Mr. Biden reportedly received $50,000 a month for his presence on Burisma’s board.”

Reports have in fact suggested that Hunter earned far more than $50,000 per month.

But why is any of this relevant to the Democrats’ impeachment push against President Donald Trump? Because it may help explain why the president felt compelled over the summer to ask Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into the Bidens.

“Mr. Biden’s firsthand experiences with Burisma can assist the American people in understanding the nature and extent of Ukraine’s pervasive corruption, information that bears directly on President Trump’s longstanding and deeply-held skepticism of the country,” Nunes wrote.

Read the full letter below:

Regarding the whistleblower, Nunes chose to highlight both his known partisanship and his connection to the Bidens, as well as America’s commitment to due process.

“Because President Trump should be afforded an opportunity to confront his accusers, the anonymous whistleblower should testify,” Nunes wrote. “In addition, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community reported that the whistleblower had a bias against President Donald Trump and public reports indicate that the whistleblower worked closely with Vice President Biden.”

Fact-check: TRUE.

The mainstream media confirmed that the whistleblower used to work in the CIA, and Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson likewise confirmed that the whistleblower had a “professional tie” to a 2020 Democrat presidential candidate.

Based on this information, experts concluded the candidate is most likely Biden.

“From everything we know about the whistleblower and his work in the executive branch then, there is absolutely no doubt he would have been working with Biden when he was vice president,” an unnamed retired CIA officer told the Washington Examiner last month.

Another CIA official said that, based on the whistleblower’s deep knowledge of Ukraine, it’s possible that he accompanied the former VP on some of his trips to the European nation.

“Moreover, given the multiple discrepancies between the whistleblower’s complaint and the closed-door testimony of the witnesses, it is imperative that the American people hear definitely how the whistleblower developed his or her information, and who else the whistleblower may have fed the information he or she had gathered and how that treatment of classified information may have led to the false narrative being perpetrated by the Democrats during this process,” Nunes’ letter continued.

The Intelligence Committee ranking member also made it clear that he wants the whistleblower’s own sources to testify. Why? Because the whistleblower’s own claims are in fact secondhand assertions that originated with other persons. More important, these other persons allegedly have firsthand information about Trump’s alleged misdeeds, and this information could prove very useful in an impeachment hearing that has thus far relied on second-, third- and even fourth-hand testimony.

Even some anti-Trump liberals have complained about this discrepancy:

“In the whistleblower’s complaint, the whistleblower suggests that he or she received accounts of President Trump’s July 25 phone call with President Zelensky and associated information from ‘more than half a dozen’ sources,'” Nunes wrote.

He added that the information that these sources allegedly shared seems to contradict the claims of the witnesses who have thus far testified to Congress.

“These sources provided information that does not match the closed-door testimony from witnesses, particularly as it relates to whether the President actually conditioned a face-to-face visit or U.S. military assistance on opening an investigation into the President’s political rivals,” Nunes noted. “The whistleblower’s complaint alleged that most, if not all, of these individuals had firsthand information related to the whistleblower’s claims, making their testimony particularly relevant to the American people.”

It remains to be seen whether Schiff, who has also been called to testify, will agree.

Comments

Latest Articles