Trey Gowdy Suggests Obama and Biden Are Potential Relevant Witnesses in Senate Impeachment Trial

As Democratic impeachment managers make the case that President Donald Trump’s actions are unprecedented, former Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) says that makes actions of former presidents are relevant when considering the case.

Speaking to Fox News’s Sean Hannity, Gowdy said former President Barack Obama and his Vice President Joe Biden could be considered relevant witnesses in the impeachment trial.

Noting that Democrats have called Trump’s actions unprecedented, Gowdy said, “Adam Schiff loves to say this is an unprecedented abuse of power, okay. Well, that makes what other presidents did relevant.”

He continued:

“If President Obama gave Joe Biden permission to condition loan guarantees on the firing of a prosecutor, then that makes both of them potentially relevant was witnesses.”

Watch his comments below:

Gowdy’s comments came after Hannity noted that it was the “second anniversary” of Biden “admitting that he leveraged and shook down the country of Ukraine with a billion taxpayer dollars.”

Hannity was referencing previous comments made by Biden when he recounted the time he threatened to withhold loan guarantees for Ukraine if a prosecutor — believed to be corrupt — was not fired.

He dubbed Biden “Quid pro quo Joe,” and suggested that the former vice president was trying to get the prosecutor fired to protect his son, Hunter Biden

However, USA Today reports that Burisma was not under investigation at the time that Biden called for the removal of the prosecutor. 

Ultimately, Gowdy agreed that the Senate should try the case based on the information gathered and compiled by House Democrats — instead of calling new witnesses. 

“It’s the House’s job to investigate it,” Gowdy said as he slammed House Democrats for their impeachment timeline, “These investigations take a long time, this is about the removal of a duly elected chief executive. They wanted to do it in three months.”

Gowdy argued that Democratic calls for new witnesses are “really about putting a handful of Republican senators in really tough re-elects.”

Democrats have argued that it is important to call new witnesses and documents that could provide new supporting evidence in their case. 


  1. Yes. Let’s have the Senate vote to include witnesses and testimony the Dim House somehow missed in their “bombproof” case.

    I WANT to see the Bidens, Schitt, and Eric Caramel with Nougat (whatever) on the stand. Let’s be thorough.

    1. “Bidens” I Ching

      Here you go again making no sense.

      No matter what you think, Hunter Biden has NOTHING to do with King Donald The Loser’s crimes, except in his mind and Giuliani’s conspiratorial mind. Nothing. The overseeing judge will have no reason to allow Hunter to testify about any of the impeachment evidence.

      Both of those two dunderheads are trying to falsely accuse Joke Biden of a quid pro quo, too, but obviously that won’t go anywhere, either.

  2. Like he said the house gets all the evidence and decides if to go forward or not. Then if they decide to go forward the Senate acts as the jury and votes. The evidence they came up with is hearsay or opinion. Were is the evidence? In a real court of law hearsay isn’t even aloud. Also why werent
    the Republicans aloud to call any witeness or question any of their witness? That’s fair? I think not. Now the demwites are saying this fair. Well they set up the rules and the Senate is just doing the same to them. They started it now live with it.

    1. “Were [sic] is the evidence?” ron

      Pay attention much?

      What did you use as your primary news source about the House impeachment? The Onion?

Comments are closed.