“I think the House managers made a very serious strategic error today,” Cruz told reporters. “Adam Schiff’s arguments to open the day today directly drew into question Hunter Biden and made not only his testimony relevant, which it already was, but it is now critical because the House Democrats have built their entire case on the proposition that any investigation into Burisma and corruption was a sham, that it was completely debunked.”
“The problem is there is very significant prima facie evidence of corruption,” Cruz continued.
“Hunter Biden, the son of the then-sitting Vice President Joe Biden, was being paid $83,000 a month, a million dollars a year, this is someone with no background in oil and gas, no experience, and at the same time Joe Biden has publicly admitted that he threatened Ukraine, he withheld, or threatened to withhold a billion dollars of aid unless and until Ukraine fired the prosecutor that was potentially investigating the company on which his son served on the board.”
Cruz concluded, “If the House managers case is based on the allegations of corruption concerning Hunter Biden and Joe Biden being a sham than it is directly relevant and I got to say the need for the Senate to hear the testimony of Hunter Biden and the need for the Senate to grant the White House lawyers the ability to take that testimony has become all the more relevant.
WATCH:
Cruz later addressed comments made by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who is an impeachment manager, during the Senate trial.
“One last observation: Yesterday, representative Nadler threw up great indignation and he said out of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian companies, how can it be that President Trump was just concerned with this one, this one company Burisma?” Cruz said
“Well, the obvious answer that the House managers ignore is Burisma was the only Ukrainian company that had the son of the vice president that had real prima facie indications of American corruption.”
Cruz continued, “We’re not talking about some abstract interest in any sort of corruption that might exist in Ukraine but if you have a sitting vice president making public policy decisions to benefit his family to the tune of a million bucks a year that raises a serious question of corruption and a president not only is justified in asking for that to be investigated, but has a responsibility to see that that’s investigated and that was a question not about Ukrainian corruption, but a question about American corruption and Ukraine being integral in helping investigate whether there was, in fact, American corruption.
“I think we’re gonna hear another two and a half days of arguments from the House Democrats, but the longer they talk at this point, the weaker the case is getting,” Cruz concluded.
Pollak: House Democrats Accidentally Make Case for Calling Joe, Hunter Biden as Witnesses in Senate Trial
This article was sourced from Breitbart
House impeachment managers inadvertently made the case for the Senate to call former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, as witnesses in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial Thursday — if witnesses are called.
Democrats did so in the course of arguing that President Trump had no legitimate interest in asking the Ukrainian president to investigate the Bidens and Hunter’s involvement with the allegedly corrupt Ukrainian company Burisma.
Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-TX) bizarrely argued that there was nothing wrong with Biden boasting about forcing Ukraine to remove prosecutor Viktor Shokin from office because Shokin’s investigation into Burisma was “dormant.”
Previously, Democrats had suggested that the investigation had concluded, or that no wrongdoing had been found, but the word “dormant” implies that the investigation, while no active, was still open.
That, in turn, confirms that Joe Biden had a conflict of interest when he intervened to fire the prosecutor — and in running Ukraine policy generally.
Then Rep. Garcia claimed, “Biden’s son didn’t do anything wrong in connection with Burisma,” though he earned a fortune for serving on a board with no relevant experience and a recent discharge from the Navy for abusing cocaine.
