House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attempted to pressure Senate Republicans to call new witnesses in the coming impeachment trial by holding the articles of impeachment hostage until Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky caved to her demands.
Pelosi eventually acknowledged she had no leverage in her desperate gamble to unearth new evidence in an impeachment effort based on no crime. On Friday, Pelosi announced she will work with colleagues in the House on transmitting the articles to the Senate to allow a trial to move forward without one concession from McConnell.
As Pelosi moves ahead with passing the articles to the House, Democrats are pushing to allow new witnesses to testify before Congress after weeks of rushed proceedings in the lower chamber failed to bring to light any incriminating evidence against the president. To the contrary, Democratic witnesses either exonerated the president of all wrongdoing or destroyed their own credibility during their testimony, making for the weakest impeachment case in American history.
It’s no surprise, therefore, that Democrats are pleading for new witnesses as if their case depended on it, because it does. The latest polling on impeachment illustrate just how poorly the proceedings have gone for Democrats. According to Real Clear Politics’ aggregate of polls on the issue, support for impeachment went underwater after Democrats’ House hearings. Now Americans remain nearly split on impeachment, with those opposed with a slight majority.
If Republicans do bow to Democrats’ demands for new witnesses, it would only make sense that the following individuals came forward for the proceedings. If Democrats had taken their job seriously in the House, these people already would have come forward to testify.
Democrats have pinned their impeachment case on an anonymous whistleblower complaint lodged against the president based on a July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. The complaint based on no first-hand knowledge of the call was marked as both credible and urgent by the intelligence community inspector general but not by the Department of National Intelligence. The complaint charged Trump of pressuring his Ukrainian counterpart to launch an investigation into the Biden family in exchange for nearly $400 million in military aid.
In response to the knowledge of the complaint leaked to the media, the White House broke precedent and declassified an unredacted transcript of the phone call between the two world leaders revealing no such arrangement. The “high crime and misdemeanor” unveiled in the damning transcript’s release? That Trump urged the Ukrainian president to weed out the corruption plaguing his own government and investigate Ukraine’s involvement in peddling the Russia collusion hoax that did irreparable harm to the United States. That’s the made-up crime Democrats have run on for their four-year impeachment crusade.
It is only reasonable, then, that the whistleblower testify before lawmakers in the Senate trial. Real Clear Investigations has reported the identity of the whistleblower to be Eric Ciaramella, a former intelligence employee whose profile appears to fit the description of circumstantial reporting about the alleged whistleblower.
The whistleblower’s complaint is what allegedly kicked off Democrats’ impeachment proceedings last fall. The whistleblower’s testimony would have therefore been critical in serious impeachment proceedings in the House. If Democrats are going to argue for new witnesses in the coming Senate trial, the whistleblower must come forward to offer what he or she knew to the American public before ousting their Democratically elected president.
Hunter Biden and former Vice President Joe Biden
The ongoing impeachment proceedings against the president have exposed more about the Biden family than about President Trump. The released transcript of the conversation between Trump and Zelensky shows Trump pointing out Hunter Biden’s shady business dealings with a Ukrainian energy company as an example of nepotism to be dealt with in a country notorious for corruption.
While his father oversaw U.S. policy towards Ukraine as vice president, Hunter Biden served on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company raking in $50,000 to nearly $85,000 a month despite no prior experience in the energy industry. A Federalist analysis of Hunter Biden’s pay reveals just how much the vice president’s son was being showered with excess compensation, as board members who possess extensive knowledge in their field earn far less at corporations of comparable size.
On the campaign trail, Joe Biden has denied having discussed business with his son while Hunter served on the board of a foreign corporation. According to The New Yorker last summer, however, the two had discussed the arrangement.
“Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’” Hunter recalled to the magazine. “And I said, ‘I do.’”
Meanwhile, Democrats are terrified of Hunter Biden’s potential testimony while calling other witnesses to be subpoenaed. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California reiterated his concern on a Monday appearance on ABC’s “The View.”
“There is not much light Joe Biden or Hunter Biden can shed on the president’s conduct,” Schiff said.
“Then why not have them show up, if you have nothing to hide?” pressed Abby Huntsman.
“It would convert the Senate trial into the same kind of sham proceeding,” Schiff said, as if the impeachment proceedings haven’t already been a sham to begin with.
It’s clear that Hunter Biden doesn’t want to talk about his work in Ukraine either.
“One thing that I don’t have to do is sit here and open my kimono,” Hunter said in an interview with ABC News in October.
With both Hunter and Joe Biden’s business dealings called into question from the impeachment proceedings, a Senate trial that includes new witnesses must include the Bidens who are at the center of the investigations into the president’s dealings with Ukraine.
Adam Schiff’s Staff
The anonymous whistleblower at the heart of the impeachment case coordinated with staff working for Rep. Adam Schiff before proceeding with filing the complaint, according to The New York Times.
While Schiff denies knowing the identity of the whistleblower, which is highly unlikely, his staff undoubtedly knew and guided the impeachment process in the House with special knowledge withheld from the rest of the rest of the chamber. Given the weeks of closed-door depositions leading up to the public hearings, the knowledge of Schiff’s staff throughout the investigation would be critical to any Senate trial in which new witnesses were to be called.
Schiff’s staff should be asked under oath exactly what they knew and how it guided their decision-making moving forward leading up to impeachment and throughout the process.