‘Maybe there’s something here worth raising,’ then their case crumbles…’
(Claire Russel, Liberty Headlines) As impeachment works its way through the Senate, President Trump’s legal team continued its opening arguments on Monday.
Pam Bondi, one of Trump’s legal representatives and a former Florida attorney general, turned her attention to Former Vice President Joe Biden and the President’s concern about potential corruption surrounding his involvement with Ukraine and gas company Burisma, which placed his son Hunter Biden on its board of directors in exchange for compensation of at least $50,000 per month.
Bondi said every time Republicans bring up Hunter Biden and his father, the Democrats dismiss the GOP’s reasonable concerns.
“In their trial memorandum, the House managers describe this as baseless. Now, why did they say that? Why did they invoke Biden or Burisma over 400 times?” Bondi said. “The reason they needed to do that is because they’re here saying that the president must be impeached and removed from office for raising a concern.
“And that’s why we have to talk about this today. They say ‘sham.’ They say ‘baseless.’ They say this because if it’s OK for someone to say, ‘Hey, you know what? Maybe there’s something here worth raising,’ then their case crumbles.”
The folks dismissing the #HunterBiden #Burisma
Relationship are the same ones quick to attack #IvankaTrump and #DonJr for just being a Trump. #shakingmyhead
— Psquared… (@Psquared32) January 28, 2020
Bondi then dissected Hunter Biden’s involvement with Burisma, repeatedly saying Democrats must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump had no legal basis to look into the Bidens’ corruption.
She played several video clips and cited a 2014 Washington Post article that stated, “The appointment of the vice president’s son to a Ukrainian oil board looks nepotistic at best, nefarious at worst.”
Trump had every reason to look into Hunter Biden’s business dealings, Bondi concluded.
That the Democrats would argue otherwise, despite “the evidence” that “points entirely and equivocally in the other direction,” is nothing more than a “distraction,” she said.
“All we’re saying is that there was a basis to talk about this, to raise this issue. And that is enough,” she argued.