Rep. John Ratcliffe said there are two ways Republicans can determine if House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff has coordinated with the whistleblower.
Earlier this week, Rep. Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas, said Schiff and congressional Democrats are “complicit in working with the whistleblower,” a CIA analyst whose complaint spurred impeachment proceedings examining whether President Trump abused his power by pressuring Ukrainian officials to conduct investigations that would be politically advantageous to him.
Ratcliffe was asked on Friday whether Republicans can prove if Schiff was “complicit” during public impeachment hearings that are expected to begin this month.
“We can if we have access to either sworn testimony of the whistleblower or chairman Schiff and his staff,” the Texas Republican told Fox News.
Ratcliffe, as a member of House Intelligence Committee, has had a front seat to the impeachment proceedings that began five weeks ago but were only formalized this week when the Democrat-led House approved a resolution outlining the rules of the process.
Republicans have complained about closed-door depositions that have so far taken place, and what they say are selective leaks creating an inaccurate narrative that reflects poorly on the president. They have also championed Ratcliffe for how he has questioned witnesses so far in a way they argue “destroyed” the notion Trump leveraged a “quid pro quo” over Ukraine.
GOP lawmakers have focused their ire against Schiff after it was revealed the whistleblower met with a House Intelligence Committee aide seeking guidance before filing a complaint with the Intelligence Community inspector general, and Schiff knew about it but did not immediately inform his GOP colleagues. They have also accused him of “coaching” witnesses.
Under the rules of the impeachment process approved this week, Republicans will have the right to call witnesses and even issue subpoenas, but only if the majority Democrats agree first. Ratcliffe said the first witness he would call is Schiff.
“What the people need to understand is that this impeachment process didn’t start by a whistleblower going to the inspector general of the intelligence community. It started by that person going to chairman Schiff’s staff, talking with them and then going to the inspector general,” Ratcliffe said.
“The details of that,” he added, “when they met, what they talked about, whether they were directed, whether it was coordinated, will tell us whether or not this impeachment effort was orchestrated or organic. Those are material facts, and Adam Schiff is one of the folks that has knowledge of those relevant facts, and we ought to have the opportunity to cross-examine him.”
Schiff, a Democrat from California, was initially eager for the whistleblower to testify, but after considering creative ways to receive testimony without revealing the person’s identity, he has said it “may not be necessary” for the whistleblower to testify.
A source familiar with the discussions told the Washington Examiner that talks halted over potential testimony from the whistleblower, and there is no discussion of testimony from a second whistleblower, who supported the first’s claims.
