Impeach Hearing’s 1st Witness: Dems Don’t Want to ‘Face the Facts’

On Thursday, during the first session of impeachment inquiry hearings into President Joe Biden, forensic accountant Bruce Dubinsky expressed concerns over what he deemed as “misleading” behavior by the Democrats. In an interview on the “Rob Schmitt Tonight” show, Dubinsky shared his thoughts on the day’s proceedings and the information he expects to come forward in the investigation.

Dubinsky voiced his apprehension, suggesting that the Democrats appeared reluctant to address certain presented facts. He stated, “They seemed to sidestep the facts presented today. It’s crucial to determine whether these facts might lead to additional discoveries and to understand if there was any misconduct by Vice President Biden at the time.”

He further elaborated, “The main focus should be on understanding the purpose behind the funds in question. If there is any validity to these financial transactions, the Bidens must clarify their stance.”

During the show, Schmitt lauded Dubinsky’s unbiased approach throughout the hearing. When questioned about what he needs for the continuation of the inquiry, Dubinsky expressed, “A deeper look into bank records and understanding the flow of money is pivotal. The core issue is to discern the reasons behind these financial transactions.”

In light of this, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer of Kentucky announced his intention to procure the bank records of Hunter Biden and James Biden, son and brother to President Joe Biden. Comer views this move as a pivotal progression in the inquiry.

Dubinsky raised questions about the nature of a particular transaction, stating, “For instance, understanding the reason behind a $3.5 million transfer to a firm, of which a portion went to the Bidens, is essential. Was this a consultancy fee, or was there another intent?”

There have been allegations from the Republican side suggesting possible unethical behavior on the Bidens’ part, with claims that Hunter Biden leveraged his father’s status for business gains overseas. The crux of the matter is to ascertain whether Joe Biden also reaped any benefits from this.

Dubinsky also addressed queries about financial gains Biden might have received post his tenure in the Obama administration from CEFC China Energy. Dubinsky remarked, “Such payments often seem like deferred compensations. But the objective behind such a payment, especially if deferred till after leaving office, raises concerns. If there was a deliberate intention to structure payments in such a manner, it’s problematic.”

Concluding, Dubinsky conveyed uncertainty regarding the outcomes of the hearings. He mentioned, “Investigations are unpredictable. While one avenue might not yield results, another could provide significant insights. The investigation’s success depends on its unhindered progress. Any interference will undoubtedly hamper our quest for answers.”