Republicans cite newly declassified intelligence records and years of subsequent disclosures as undermining major elements of the original Ukraine impeachment case.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Republican lawmakers are intensifying efforts to formally repudiate or expunge the 2019 impeachment of President Donald Trump, pointing to newly declassified intelligence documents and subsequent testimony that they say contradict central claims presented during the original proceedings.
The latest development came after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released previously undisclosed intelligence memos, available in the official DNI press release. The records detail internal concerns about the credibility and potential bias of the CIA analyst whose complaint initiated the impeachment inquiry.
According to the memos, reported by Just the News, investigators working under then–intelligence community inspector general Michael Atkinson flagged the analyst—now publicly identified as Eric Ciaramella—for having “potential for bias.” The documents further state that he provided false information in his original complaint and later apologized, while also expressing animus toward individuals connected to Trump’s political circle.
Gabbard criticized Atkinson’s handling of the matter, stating that the whistleblower process had been “weaponized” and alleging it was used to “manufacture a conspiracy that was used as the basis to impeach President Trump.” She referred both Atkinson and Ciaramella to the Justice Department for possible criminal investigation. Neither has publicly responded.
The memos’ release has renewed scrutiny of the 2019 proceedings, with lawmakers including House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Rep. Claudia Tenney supporting efforts to expunge the impeachment vote. Legal scholar Alan Dershowitz also argued the newly revealed information could justify such action.
Another major issue raised involves the 2015 removal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. During the impeachment inquiry, then–Vice President Joe Biden and State Department officials maintained that Shokin was ineffective and that Biden acted in line with U.S. policy when he pressured Ukraine to remove him by withholding $1 billion in loan guarantees.
However, documents obtained through litigation by Just the News, available in State Department records released through a lawsuit, show that U.S. officials had previously assessed Ukraine as making sufficient progress on anti-corruption efforts. An October 1, 2015 memo from an interagency task force stated, “Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third guarantee.”
Additional reporting and testimony indicate that Shokin had been actively investigating Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian energy company linked to Hunter Biden. Evidence cited in reporting on Burisma-related concerns noted that the State Department had flagged the company for potential bribery issues.
Testimony from Hunter Biden’s former business associate Devon Archer further described Shokin as a direct threat to Burisma’s leadership. “He was a threat,” Archer told Congress. “He ended up seizing assets of Mykola – a house, some cars, a couple properties.” Archer added that Burisma’s owner did not return to Ukraine after those actions.
These disclosures prompted reassessment even among prior defenders of the original narrative. A Washington Post analysis, available in its fact-check review of Biden’s role, concluded that Biden effectively conducted an “audible” in pressing for Shokin’s removal.
Further contradictions emerged regarding testimony from State Department officials during the impeachment hearings. At the time, officials stated that Hunter Biden’s role at Burisma created only the appearance of a conflict of interest and did not affect U.S. policy. However, a confidential 2016 email from diplomat George Kent, available in the archived State Department email, stated that Hunter Biden’s position “undercut the anti-corruption message” the U.S. was promoting in Ukraine.
Financial dealings involving the Biden family have also been scrutinized in the years since the impeachment. In 2019, Joe Biden stated, “I have never talked with my son or my brother, or anyone else in the distant family about their business interests, period.”
But congressional testimony in 2023 from former associates including Jason Galanis and Tony Bobulinski described instances where Joe Biden interacted with his son’s business partners. Galanis recounted a 2014 meeting in New York involving Hunter Biden, foreign business figures and a phone call from Joe Biden, during which the vice president concluded, “Ok then, you be good to my boy.”
Another witness, Rob Walker, told investigators that Joe Biden met with representatives of a Chinese energy company shortly before a $3 million payment was made to a company linked to Hunter Biden.
The newly released intelligence memos also provide additional context involving a second official, identified as “Witness 2,” who had knowledge of the Trump-Zelensky call that formed the basis of the whistleblower complaint. According to the memos, the individual reviewed the call transcript but did not independently escalate concerns, citing limited insight into broader circumstances.
The memos further state that “Witness 2” had worked with FBI official Peter Strzok, a central figure in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Strzok’s role in that probe is detailed in reporting on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The documents note that this connection could be used to question credibility, given prior concerns about bias in that investigation.
Additionally, the memos reveal that “Witness 2” had contributed to the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian election interference, which was prepared under the direction of then-President Barack Obama and senior intelligence officials, as outlined in coverage of the ICA’s origins.
Despite describing a “moral and patriotic duty” to assist the original complainant, “Witness 2” stated he would not have independently acted on the information, noting that he could not connect the same conclusions drawn by the whistleblower.
As these cumulative developments continue to surface, Republicans argue that the record surrounding the 2019 impeachment has materially changed. The proposal to expunge the impeachment would require action by the House of Representatives, where discussions are ongoing.
Original article
Comments