2

On November 6, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee led by Congressman Devin Nunes sent a letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff containing a list of witnesses they wanted to testify in the House Impeachment Inquiry: Devon Archer, Hunter Biden, Alexandra Chalupa, David Hale, Tim Morrison, Nehlie Ohr, Kurt Volker, the Intelligence Community whistleblower, and the whistleblower’s sources. And today, they sent Chairman Schiff another letter containing a list of subpoenas they want issued: subpoenas for closed-door testimony from the whistleblower and Hunter Biden, along with subpoenas for documents from the whistleblower, Rosemont Seneca Bihari LLC, and the Democratic National Committee.

Chairman Schiff has granted some of these requests, but he has denied many of them on the grounds that they’re not relevant. And since Republicans don’t have a majority in the House of Representatives, they don’t have power to call witnesses or issue subpoenas on their own. Republicans do have a majority in the Senate though, so my question is, have Senate Republicans called any of the witnesses or issued any of the subpoenas that Devin Nunes wanted? I imagine Nunes has allies in the Senate who would be willing to cooperate with him on this. Right now some relevant Senate committee can call the same witnesses and/or issue the same subpoenas that Devin Nunes is asking for.

  • 4
    Do you mean that the Senate start a separate inquiry now for these witnesses or do you mean that if and when this gets to the senate the witnesses are called there? – JJJ Nov 21 '19 at 1:55
  • 2
    @JJforTransparencyandMonica I just mean that right now some relevant Senate committee can call the same witnesses and/or issue the same subpoenas that Devin Nunes is asking for. There are plenty of Senate Republicans, like Lindsey Graham, who believe in the same sorts of conspiracy theories. – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 21 '19 at 5:16
  • 2
    Why the downvotes? – Keshav Srinivasan Nov 21 '19 at 5:17
  • 2
    FYI, there are close votes (not mine) for "unclear what you're asking". I've edited in your last comment into the question. Until I saw that it was unclear to me what exactly you were asking as well. With that addition, it is actually a good question. – Fizz Nov 21 '19 at 6:47
  • Unlike the House investigation the trial in the Senate is presided over by an actual judge. Is there a possibility of the head of the supreme court barring witnesses on relevancy grounds? If so I imagine Republican leadership would want to avoid embarrassing themselves so publicly? – Jontia Dec 28 '19 at 7:03
3

Not the ones you name, but they have been interviewing witnesses. They seem to be focused on the whistleblower, and those involved in the related process.

According to ABC News:

The Senate intelligence committee's investigation is focused on examining the whistleblowing process. And despite the snag with the whistleblower's lawyers, Burr said his committee's probe continues.

"We're talking to the individuals that are involved in the process," Burr said Tuesday, naming Intelligence Inspector General Michael Atkinson, DNI Joseph Maguire, CIA General Counsel Courtney Elwood, and others at the Justice Department.

[...]

"I'm only concerned with the whistleblower, the accusation, and the process that they went through," Burr said of his panel's investigation, and if at the end of that there's a reason to widen the scope of it, Burr said, "If when I get through that, there's a reason to open the aperture, we'll make a decision as to whether we do that. But understanding the claim, how it came about, what process they went through, I mean that's at the heart of counterintelligence."

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .