On Monday, President Trump's legal team will finally get to present the President's affirmative

defense. Here's what I would argue. For 24 hours, House managers devoted hour upon hour

to proving two factual propositions. Number one, that the president temporarily delayed military

aid to Ukraine. And number two, that the president temporarily delayed military aid to Ukraine.

And number two, that President Trump sought an investigation into Burisma, the Ukrainian

natural gas company, and a corruption potentially involving Vice President Joe Biden and his son,

Hunter Biden.

On those two points, they devoted more than half of their argument, arguing ad nauseum with

sight after sight and clip after clip.

Both of those points are undisputed.

Both of those points, everyone admits there is no dispute that the military aid was delayed and there is no dispute that

the president sought an investigation into Burisma indeed he has said so on national television

multiple times neither of those factual propositions are impeachable offenses in fact neither of

those propositions are remotely contrary to law.

Presidents have the authority and regularly have temporarily delayed foreign aid in circumstances where

they had concerns. And when it comes to investigating corruption, a president has the authority

and the responsibility to investigate

serious claims of corruption. During their 25-hour opening argument, the Democrats built

their case on the proposition that it was utterly fraudulent, that it was completely

baseless, that there was no evidence to seek an investigation into Burisma and corruption.

That proposition is laughable, because not only was there sufficient evidence to seek an investigation into Burisma and corruption,

there was so much evidence that there was a need,

...