Share This Article with a Friend!

Is Hunter Biden Closer To Testifying In Senate Impeachment Trial?

Cruz Joe and Hunter
Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown speaking on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday said it would be "fine" if Senate Republicans requested Hunter Biden as a witness in the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump in exchange for House Democrats' requested witnesses.

Brown, though, added that he's not sure what value testimony from the son of former Vice President Joe Biden would provide.

"I think you bring in -- We take the position that we want to hear from the witnesses. I don't know what Hunter Biden has to do with the phone call the President made…" the Ohio Democrat told CNN's Brianna Keilar, adding: "The point is we need witnesses, we need to know who they are with the right to call witnesses, additional witnesses later. But I don't understand how you come to the American public, make the case that this is a real trial, if there are no witnesses and there is no new evidence."

Senator Brown’s claim that “I don't know what Hunter Biden has to do with the phone call the President made…" is absurd on its face.

Principled limited government constitutional conservative Republican Senator Ted Cruz, speaking with Mario Bartiroma on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures" had quite the opposite take from Democrat Senator Brown, saying that Democrats were "terrified" of hearing testimony from Hunter Biden.

Senator Cruz told Bartiromo that rules of reciprocity should apply in the impeachment trial, meaning if the prosecution gets to call a new witness, the defense should get to call one, too.

"If the prosecution gets a witness, the defense gets a witness," Cruz said. "If the prosecution gets two, the defense gets two. If the prosecution gets to call John Bolton, the prosecution gets to call Hunter Biden. The Democrats are terrified about seeing a witness like Hunter Biden testify because they don't want to hear evidence of actual corruption."

Senator Cruz is right on target.

As we’ve said in several articles, 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, and thus President Trump was justified in asking for an investigation?

This exchange between Ms. Bartiromo and Senator Cruz sums up the case for calling Hunter Biden quite nicely.

BARTIROMO: What would that open up a whole 'nother can of worms? I mean, obviously, this whole focus on the president and this impeachment trial has put Hunter Biden and Joe Biden to the backseat. No one is actually talking about what went wrong there and why he accepted this money from foreign countries, leadership of foreign countries, while his father was sitting vice president.

CRUZ: Well, Maria, you're right. And the Democrats desperately want to keep that topic off the news. And, sadly, an awful lot of folks in the media are very compliant with that. But that's why I said this week the president having the opportunity to defend himself is so important, because I think one of the fundamental defenses that I expect to hear from the White House this week is that the president has inherent authority and, in fact, a responsibility to investigate corruption. And when you look at what happened with Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, there is, at a minimum, prima facie evidence of corruption. You have got Hunter Biden getting paid $83,000 a month by Burisma, the largest natural gas company in Ukraine; $83,000 a month is a million dollars a year.


CRUZ: Hunter Biden had zero experience in oil and gas. It's not like he was a geologist or geophysicist. He was getting that money, the obvious inference is, because his daddy was vice president. And Joe Biden is on video at the Council of Foreign Relations bragging that he blocked a billion dollars in foreign loans and foreign aid to Ukraine until they fired the prosecutor who was potentially investigating Burisma, the company on which Hunter Biden sat on the board. When -- if the Biden family is profiting to the tunes of millions of dollars, the president is entirely justified to say, let's investigate and find out what happened. That's why Hunter Biden is such an important witness and why the Democrats don't want to focus on, what was the evidence of actual corruption? I expect to hear a lot from that -- from the White House defense team this week.

We suspect Senator Brown got a trip to the woodshed after his comments suggesting he was OK with calling Hunter Biden as a witness, because Senator Ted Cruz is right. The Democratic Party leaders are terrified that if Hunter Biden is called the focus of media attention will turn back to where it should be – on the corruption of Joe and Hunter Biden.

Share this