Lawyer Examines Impeachment Defenses (Real Law Review)

Lawyer Examines Impeachment Defenses (Real Law Review)

Show Video

Thanks to audible for keeping legal eagle in the air oh my. Gosh I have so much work to do today well let me read one more article by the mainstream media fake, news before I get started, testimony. Torpedoes Republican, defenses of Trump Trump's, defenses are almost entirely gone, Trump, has no defense after sunland, testimony, that. Can't be right, cannon. Hey. Legal eagles it's time to think like a lawyer because, Republican. And Democratic, positions, on this whole impeachment, hearing have been changing, over time, and I think it's worthwhile going, over the Republican, impeachment. Defenses, to see if they hold any legal, water quick disclaimer of course the, facts are fluid, and they are changing multiple witnesses are testifying, every, week so some of the factual issues here that I'm going to discuss I'm sure are going to change but I wanted to take some time to focus on some of the legal issues that are implicated, by these impeachment, hearings I'm going to try to do my best to steal man these arguments, in other words I'm going to try to give, the Republican, defenses, in the best light possible to. Avoid, attacking. Straw men and dealing. With the best possible version of those particular, defenses, some of these defenses, are better than others it's a bit of a moving target though because different Republicans, have focused on different defenses, there isn't exactly a unified, front on this but that being said let's, dig into the, main defenses, that the Republicans are using in this, impeachment, inquiry, so the first impeachment, defense probably boils, down to no, quid pro quo or in other words the call was perfect, there's a rumor out they want the first conversation. It. Was beautiful, it was just, a perfect conversation this, is largely the preferred, defense of President. Trump and that he, tends to tweet this out with some frequency this also appeared to be the early, favored, defense of the Republicans, that has largely, evaporated you still see it a little bit but it's not the favored, defense, at the time the argument is that as a factual matter there, was no quid pro quo between the, United States and Ukraine. I didn't do it there was no quid pro quo senators. And all, of these other people have actually done what they're accusing me of doing, which I didn't do as the president often tweets. And says and public read the transcript, whether you believe that the transcript, is sufficient to show a quid pro quo evidencing. Solicitation. Of a bribe or whether you believe that the transcript demonstrates, that the call was in fact perfect, as the president says is a factual matter for, you to decide, in a variation of this argument was used in the questioning, of lieutenant-colonel vin Minh by representative, Radcliffe who pointed out that no witness, in the depositions, as part of the impeachment, inquiry had, ever used the word bribery. In an impeachment inquiry, that the Speaker of the House says. Is all. About bribery where bribery is the impeachable, offense. No. Witness, has, used the word bribery, to, describe president problems conduct, none, of them instead. That witnesses. Had used the phrase quid pro quo bribery, is the ultimate, conclusion, in other words it is a legal conclusion that. The Democrats, are attempting. To prove if the analogy, to being a prosecutor holds. And it, would be improper, to ask. The fact witnesses about, an ultimate, legal conclusion, that's not what fact witnesses are, for and while reasonable Minds can differ about the conclusions, that one draws from the facts that have been elicited, thus far and I leave it to you as to where, you think the facts are going this particular, case it, does seem like most Republicans, are pivoting away from the argument that there is no quid, pro quo at all because, to believe that argument, you would have to believe that most of the witnesses that have testified so far are lying including.

Jovanovic. Sandlin, Holmes Williams, Taylor, Volker, Kent Hill, VIN Minh and John friggin Bolton, they're. All Liars in this particular, case and that's a hard argument to make which is why it seems, to appear that most Republicans have moved on from no quid pro quo to no. Illegal, or impeachable, quid, pro quo in fact even chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said, in the. Last press conference that he gave that there was in fact a quid pro quo and that quid pro quos happen all the time we do that all the time. With foreign policy and in fact that this particular quid, pro quo was conditioned, partially, on an investigation into, the Biden's Gordon Sandlin said in his testimony, that there was in fact an explicit, quid pro quo he straight-out, said it was, there a quid pro quo as I. Testified, previously. With regard, to the requested, White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes now, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy takes, a slightly more nuanced, path when he argued that the Ukrainians, got everything that they wanted so, there was no quid pro quo that's not exactly the same thing as arguing that there was no quid pro quo except to say that there. Was no ultimate. Transfer. Of a, thing of value which is a slightly different argument that we'll get to in just a second, Ben Shapiro points, out an interesting nuance on Twitter when he says the question for Sandlin today isn't whether Trump withheld aid in exchange for investigations. We already knew that the, question is whether Trump's, intent, was to get Biden, in anticipation, of 2020, or to investigate, 2016, activities, out of concern for corruption, even, if the latter was based on bad information and, conspiracism. Promoted, by Giuliani, and this, is true in a criminal, prosecution sense. I I don't often agree with Ben Shapiro but I think this is an interesting if, nuanced, point that, deals with the mens rea a defense, to, impeachment which we'll talk about in just a second but I do want to drop a footnote, that I want you to think about which is that it's, not an either/or proposition that.

The President's motivation, was either to, get, dirt on the Biden's for his own personal gain or to. Investigate. Corruption in. Ukraine, it's not necessarily, the case that he, had only one motivation, and the legal implications, of this mixed potential motive, are very, very interesting, and that brings me to the next argument it's, all hearsay the. Trump administration and, supporters, have been fairly consistent in arguing that the evidence that's been elicited, so far has, been hearsay. Testimony in. That it relies on out-of-court. Statements. It's all hearsay you can't get a parking, ticket conviction. Based on hearsay the whistleblower, didn't, hear the phone call now, I have done an entire video, on the nature of hearsay evidence as it regards these impeachment, hearings but. Suffice it to say while, there is a grain, of truth in these arguments, just, because something is hearsay doesn't mean it's number one admissible and number two bad evidence and the, public, shorthand, of thinking of hearsay. Evidence as, being second. In her third hand information is not necessarily, coextensive. With, the legal definition, and often. Hearsay, is, powerful. Evidence and it depends, on the particular circumstances, whether, particular, evidence, particularly. Hearsay, evidence is good evidence or bad, evidence it depends, on whether, that evidence is corroborated. It depends, on the, nature of the circumstances, themselves. And it depends, on whether the circumstances, would allow that hearsay evidence in or not now there, are arguments to be made that to the extent the information, is hearsay, there, are all kinds of exceptions to the hearsay rule, there using every day in court to, allow, that information to, be admitted into evidence. Sometimes, hearsay evidence is incredibly, strong I would argue that things like business records, in the form of emails or video or. Testimony. Of the accused, who admits to a crime all of which are considered hearsay but, are admissible, in court because they are very strong pieces, of evidence but admittedly sometimes hearsay, is particularly, weak it depends. On the, nature of the evidence of the nature of the circumstances, in that particular case now, I will point out that in these proceedings there's a bit of what, lawyers we call an unclean, hands, problem, in, that the people who have first-hand, knowledge of, what, the president said and what the president did are. Being, prevented, from testifying, in, these proceedings, and I think the Democrats, would argue, that for, example if the mob intimidates. A witness into not testifying that member. Of the mob shouldn't, be able to then argue about the lack of witnesses the. Testifying, against them and as, Neal Katyal has argued, on Twitter the only reason that we don't have the first-hand knowledge witnesses, is because Trump blocked them from testifying that. Itself is impeachable. And as time goes on perhaps we will get more testimony, from those individuals who had first-hand. Knowledge of, the actual, instructions, that President, Trump may or may not have given and on, November, 20th. Gordon Sandland who did, have some, first-hand. Interactions, with the President and first-hand knowledge of the events described, did, testify, that apparently. The entire State, Department led by Mike Pompeo and chief, of staff Mulvaney, did, know about the explicit, quid pro quo you've, testified and that. Mulvaney. Was aware. Of this quid pro quo of this condition, that, the, Ukrainians, had to meet that is announcing, these public investigations, to. Get the White House meeting is that right, yeah. A lot of people were aware of it and, including. About including, mr., Mulvaney, correct. Which brings me to the next big defense which is that the aid, the military, and financial aid that was allegedly conditioned.

On Investigations. Into the Biden's was, in fact released, or for. Short the Sideshow Bob defense, this, is the defense that was made famous by the Simpsons, and arguing, that attempted. Crime is not really, a crime, victim of. A crime I didn't even commit. Murder. Now honestly what is that do they give a nobel prize for attempted chemistry. Tuesday I know. This may come as news to many, of you out there but attempted. Crime is, in, fact, a crime and unfortunately, for many of you next, time you are pulled over by the police you. Can't try to get out of it by offering the police a bribe, and then claim that it wasn't attempted, bribery because, the police officer didn't accept the bribe that you offered that will get you in a lot of trouble hashtag not legal advice now. I think most people intuitively, understand, that attempted, crime is still, in fact a crime in and of itself but, this, argument in particular, in the, context, of bribery makes absolutely, no sense. Solicitation. Of a bribe is a federal, crime under, 18 USC two a one particularly, subsection, B to federal. Bribery occurs, when a public official seeks a thing, of value in, exchange for some, official, act or Duty it doesn't, rely on the. Person who is the target of the solicitation actually, giving the, politician. In question, the thing of value it's. All in the ask arguably, there, isn't such, a thing as attempted, solicitation. Of bribery in the context, of someone who has asked, for a bribe in that particular case the act has been consummated there's no attempt there is an actual violation of, the law so here the argument is that President, Trump sought an investigation. Into a political, rival in exchange, for releasing a hold on funds that Congress appropriated, punctuated. In these lens, the transcript, readout where, President, Trump talks about the aide and then says I would like you to do us a favor though, along those lines nikki, Haley says it didn't succeed so, it was absolutely okay, the, Ukrainians, never did the investigation, and the. President, released the funds I mean. When you look at those there's just nothing impeachable. There, the main argument being, here that because, the four hundred million dollars in aid was in fact released, that is evidence, that there was no conditional. Hold on it in the first place and therefore no quid pro quo and it, certainly, is potential. Evidence of that particular, argument the, counter-argument, there is that based on the timeline that the aid was released only after Politico, did, it's famous article, on this, particular, potential, quid pro quo after. The whistleblower had already come forward, and after the house had started investigating, the whistleblower, that based on that timing the actual. Release of the funds is. Not as exculpatory, as, the. Administration. May want it to seem and as far as I know there doesn't appear to be a strong, counter narrative as to why the aid, was held in the first place Gordon Sandlin says he, reached out to the administration, for an answer as to why there was a hold, and no. One including up until the present day ever provided, him with a, reason, for why there was a hold on these Ukrainian funds, which, was particularly important, because the aid was. Going to expire at the end of September if it wasn't released based on the Congressional Budget arey rules the, best defense is that it was somehow related to anti-corruption. Measures which we'll talk about in just a second but, that brings me to the next argument which is that Ukrainians, didn't, feel any pressure, this is a slight variation on, the aid was released, argument, now it remains to be seen to what extent, the Ukrainians, knew or thought, that the four hundred million dollars in aid was being deliberately withheld, on condition, of investigations.

Into, The Biden's there are conflicting witnesses, on both sides but I think it's unanimous in that everyone, knew that the aid wasn't, delivered, and that there was some, kind of delay on the four hundred million dollars in aid now, some including, Mick Mulvaney have argued that the president withheld the aid to ensure that it was put to good use but. It's, worth pointing out that the president doesn't have authority to, withhold congressionally. Appropriated funds. The, 1974. Congressional, Budget and impoundment, Control, Act at 31 USC 1512. States, that the president can only impound. Funds, under limited circumstances and. For no more than 45, days, because. Congressional. Power is at its zenith when, you're talking, about the budget congressional. Appropriations. Congress, has the power of the purse and the, funds would have expired if not released by the end of September because of the way that the congressional, budget works, the, relevant federal budget was passed in September of. 2018. A year prior and in February, of 2019. The Trump administration said, it was releasing the aid to Ukraine and it wasn't until almost the entire, year after it was passed that, the Trump administration actually. Released the appropriated, funds which I probably don't need to tell you is far. Longer than the 45, days that the impoundment, Control, Act allows the president to delay, and as, to whether the Ukrainians, actually, felt the pressure or not it, actually doesn't matter for the crime of bribery. Elly, missed all makes this point in a great article in the nation which I will link to below he, talks about the difference between the crime of bribery and the crime of extortion bribery. Or, at least in this case solicitation. For bribery does, not require that the recipient feel any, particular. Pressure whereas the crime of extortion does, require undue, pressure being levied against, the, victim. And, that forcing. Them to do something, as a result of that which takes me to the next offense which is too bad to, crime AKA, quid. Amateur, quo, in the, world of attempt it doesn't, matter if you are stopped, beforehand, or are so, inept as to not be able to actually, consummate. The criminal, act contemplated. Or that. The victim, is unaware. That the, criminal. Acts are going on what, matters are, whether you have the requisite intent and, whether, you take a step in furtherance, of that particular. Act so for example if you are wearing ski masks with the intent, to rob a bank it doesn't matter if you are arrested, before you get to the bank that's, attempted, bank robbery or if you go into a bank and ask the teller for money gunpoint and she says no, and you don't get any money that's also attempted, bank robbery, so from in a criminal law perspective, it doesn't actually matter if you're, not good, enough or. Competent. Enough to actually complete the crime that you are accused, of what. Matters is that you, attempted, to do it and that you have the requisite mens, rea or corrupt intent, to be able to do it of course as we've discussed in the world of solicitation. Of bribery all, that's required is, that the ask be, made it doesn't actually require that the thing of value that was sought actually, be transferred, there really is no attempt.

In This particular, context, it's the, full crime itself, so, whether the, people who are being accused here are competent, enough or not is beside the point at least as it regards general, criminal law which, brings me to the next defense the Ukrainians, didn't, pay up this. Is a variation on the actual crime itself was not completed, argument, and this was the focus of representative. Jim Jordan during, the questioning, of Gordon Sandlin on November, 20th, representative, Jordan focused on the fact that allegedly. President, Trump had extorted. The Ukrainians, to investigate. The Biden's and to do an investigation, into the, CrowdStrike. Ukrainian. Servers, and he, focused on the idea that because the Ukrainians, didn't pay up for what was part, of the quid pro quo that therefore, there, was no underlying, crime you know what a quid pro quo is I, do. This, for that, right. Looks. To me like Ukraine. Got that. Three, times a week there was no this there, was we, we, didn't do anything. Or. Excuse me they didn't have to do anything the argument goes that effectively, no harm no foul because the Ukrainians, got what they wanted and they didn't have to investigate the Biden's again, the problem with this argument is that the. Idea of attempted, solicitation, of bribery is a little bit inchoate, and the, no harm no foul argument sort of breaks down when you compare. It to an analogy, to something that we can all agree would, be absolutely, solicitation, for a bribe so imagine if you had a politician, who is on a city council for example and says. To, a local, developer. I will, approve. Your project, if you give a million, dollars, into my bank account well we can all agree that. That is solicitation. Of a bribe it doesn't actually matter, if the, developer, pays, the million dollars, or, eventually. Goes. To the newspaper reveals. It and then the development. Is approved, the fact that the politician, asked for a million dollars, is the improper, Act and is the consummation. Of the crime of solicitation, of bribery and here, representative, Jordan is probably correct that the Ukrainians, didn't have to do the ultimate, things that. Were asked, of them the factual evidence appears, to show that the Ukrainians, were in active talks, with. The State Department, to eventually. Make an announcement there were negotiations back, and forth as to what, the announcement was going to say and during, the July 25th, call president. Solinsky says that he is going to do it effectively the, damage was done and the ask was, made and on November 20th Gordon Sandlin testified, that in exchange for the official, act of actually releasing, the four hundred billion dollars in aid, the Ukrainians, only had to announce. Investigations. Into the Biden's they actually didn't have to do the investigations. Into the Biden's I never, heard, mr., Goldman. Anyone. Say that the investigations. Had to start or had to be completed, the only thing I heard from mr. Giuliani, or otherwise was. That they had to be announced, in some form and that form kept, changing and now it's publicly announced, publicly now it's probably worth pointing out that the aide was released only after the Trump administration allegedly. Got caught, and as, possible that there are other explanations there, could be other evidence here, and that the timing here is only a coincidence but. So far the White House hasn't really provided, that evidence, or provided, an alternative narrative all right that takes us to the no men's raya defense, and the variation, the too dumb to crime, defense, now, some crimes have a very specific intent. Requirement. Sometimes, called mens rea a' in, other words a lot of criminal laws require not only do you do the act that is considered criminal, the actus rheya but you also have to have the mental state that goes along with that particular, act in this particular, case president, Trump needs to have had these specific, intent to solicit. A bribe, proving mens rea 'it sounds hard, it requires, proving. The mental, state of another. Person, and often, times that is very, difficult but it's also something that the criminal, justice system is very very familiar, with you. Use the witnesses other actions, and statements to show state. Of mind here, for the most part I think we're talking about 18, USC 201, B 2, which is the solicitation.

Of A bribe now the caveat here is as always, impeachment, does not require, proving. Beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed, a crime the burden for impeachment is not the same as the. Burden for a criminal prosecution. Impeachment. Is a political, device and high crimes and misdemeanors can often mean whatever, Congress says it means this, particular statute does provide a good definition of generally. What courts look for in terms of solicitation, of a bribe now the jury instructions, for federal, bribery state, that at least when you're talking about trying. To bribe an official, the defendant must have promised, offered or given money or a thing of value to the, public official with a deliberate, purpose of influencing an official act of that person the analogy, being that when you're talking about the solicitation of a bribe it's the other way around the public official, is asking, to be influenced, in exchange, for some other official, Act but that is the general mens. Rea of the intent, requirement that, the, prosecutor, would have to show in order to prove solicitation. Of a bribe now here, on November, 20th Gordon sunland's said that the president conditioned, a White House meeting on, the, Ukrainians, providing. The investigation, into the Biden's and the Ukrainian. CrowdStrike, server, but, sawn hland also testified that he never heard the specific words that the four hundred million dollars in military aid was conditioned, on the Biden investigation, he said that, was his conclusion from all the instructions, that he received from McMullen, II and Mike Pompeo, now contrary to what you see on TV criminals, rarely, say the actual, explicit, words that by themselves, are sufficient, to prove the actual crime generally, prosecutors. Have to prove that with circumstantial. Evidence now also contrary to what you see on TV circumstantial. Evidence can be very very strong, DNA. Evidence is considered circumstantial, evidence and in fact if this were a criminal prosecution, the jury would get an instruction from the judge that says circumstantial.

Evidence Is as strong if not stronger, as. Direct evidence and, all circumstantial, evidence means is something, that is not by itself, directly. Sufficient. To prove the crime itself, or in this case the mental state now in this particular case the, circumstantial. Evidence of the. Potential, mens rea F for solicitation, of bribery would include, the July 25th, call with President Solinsky, the, July 26th. Call with Gordon Sandlin, the, fact that Rudolph, Giuliani was a, go-between, even though he's not a member of the government and everything else that was said and done as between Sandlin, and the members of the State, Department in fact Gordon's, onlin testified, that he cleared everything with Mulvaney bolton and Pompeyo and he. Assumed, that if it came from those people that they came from orders, from the President himself on, the other hand defenders, of the administration, would point to other circumstantial, evidence that they would claim as evidence of lacking. The required, mens rea a' to. Effectuate. A solicitation. Of bribery and in fact gordon, Sandlin says that after Bill Taylor famously, texted, as I said on the phone I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign in a September, 9th phone call with the president, that potentially, raises, the questions, that Bill Taylor raised I just asked, him an open-ended, question mr., chairman what do you want from Ukraine I keep hearing all these different, ideas, and, theories and this and that what do you want and it. Was a very, short, abrupt. Conversation, he. Was not in a good mood and. He just said I want nothing I want nothing I want no quid pro quo well you, can argue that the president explicitly. Saying that, he doesn't want a quid pro quo is exculpatory, evidence and, shows that he lacks the requisite mens, rea uh you can also argue given the timeline that it's actually supports, a potential cover-up from, the president that given, the timeline that the political article had already revealed the. Potentially. Improper, hold on Ukrainian, foreign assistance and, the fact that even Bill Taylor was, saying it was crazy to condition. The aid on, the. Ukrainians. Investigating. The Biden's that this, call. And the statement, that President. Trump made to Gordon, Sandlin is actually evidence that he was backtracking, and trying to cover up his tracks we can go both, ways that's, the, issue with circumstantial, evidence at Cannes, or one narrative but it can also support a different, narrative as well and I will leave it to you as to whether you believe the president intended the exchange for his own purpose, or for, an official purpose of the government which brings me to the next potential defense, which is that the president, controls foreign, policy, and it would be improper to impeach, him over a foreign policy decision, now, there is certainly, some truth to this the president has almost. All of the power for, foreign, policy he is the commander-in-chief of, the Armed Forces and he, controls almost every decision when it comes to foreign policy really, Congress. Has the power to declare, war ratify, treaties and. Appropriate, funds when, it comes to foreign policy but that's really, about it the executive, is really in control of foreign policy now there is a dispute, about whether a constitutionally. Enumerated power, can, give rise to a. Crime or to impeachment, when the President does it that means that it is not illegal by. Definition exactly. But, most constitutional, scholars, agree, that even.

An Official act, that is enumerated, by the Constitution, can give, rise to impeachment. If not, criminal prosecution, that being said you would imagine that given, that the president has vast, foreign, policy, powers, that, you would be very very. Reluctant, to impeach. The president over, something that he or she has plenary. Authority. Over in, this case setting. Foreign policy or removing. An ambassador, and there's no doubt that interactions, with Ukraine, touch on foreign, policy power, but, just because you have a right doesn't mean that you can escape the repercussions, of, exercising. That right in the same way that you, have a First Amendment right to freedom, of speech but that doesn't absolve you, from all, of the repercussions, of, actually, using that speech in a specific way by analogy consider, a hypothetical involving, pardons. Now in the same way that the president has almost unfettered, foreign policy power the, president absolutely has, unfettered. Pardon power it can't be checked by Congress and it can't really be checked by the judiciary, either but if a president started, selling, pardons, for a million, dollars apiece that. President, could and pretty. Much by all accounts should, be, impeached, for that kind of action despite the fact that the president is allowed to pardon people under almost any circumstances. And in fact one, might argue that that president, should be criminally. Prosecuted for solicitation, of a bribe so the fact that this particular instance implicates, foreign, policy, should give everyone pause because the president has wide powers here but just because the president has wide powers doesn't. Act to absolve, the president of potentially. Untoward activity, which brings me to the next offense which is that the State Department or, Gordon, Sandlin went rogue. I think we're gonna be seeing more of this particular, defense in the wake of Gordon Salman's bombshell. Testimony, but, at base Gordon, Sandlin testified, that in, a few calls he had but the president he didn't explicitly link, releasing, the aide with investigations, into, the Biden's but that everyone knew that that was what the president, wanted that, was the understanding amongst, Pompeo Volcker, and Sandlin. The aka be three amigos. So, potentially. Those three people could be the fall guys for, the administration, saying that it wasn't the president, that ordered the conditionality, of the, Biden, investigation, on the 8th but, rather these State Department officials that went rogue the argument being that the president didn't order it if, the State Department officials, had, that understanding, it wasn't an understanding, that came from the president and that the State Department and the chief of staff slashed. The head of the OMB Mick Mulvaney effectively. Went rogue in a. Coordinated. Effort to extract, something from the Ukrainians, that the president actually didn't, want I will leave it to you if you think that it is more likely that these, individuals, acted without the knowledge and consent, of the President or whether. It was more likely that the president gave orders, that were trickled, through the. Secretary of State and chief of staff secretary. Perry. Ambassador. Volcker. And I. Worked. With mr. Rudy Giuliani, on Ukraine. Matters, at the. Express, direction. Of the, President, of the United States now. Gordon sunland says that when Giuliani, gave orders, it was assumed to have come from the president specifically, when the president, says talk to my personal attorney, and then mr., Giuliani, as his personal attorney, makes. Certain, requests. Or demands we assume it's coming from the president now one issue with this particular defense, is that Rudy Giuliani didn't. Have the authority, to hold up Ukrainian, aid for almost an entire year that. That falls under the purview of the OMB that's, led by Mick Mulvaney which is one reason we, would really want to know what, people told Mick Mulvaney and why as well as what was told to Rudy Giuliani and what was spoken between the two of them which, brings me to the next potential defense the president has a duty, to root out corruption, both domestically, and abroad I think that this is probably the main defense that we're going to see going forward, now, as we've covered the president controls foreign, policy, and there's no doubt that rooting. Out corruption is. Intertwined, with that mandate, to deal with America's, foreign policy now, based on the evidence that's been elicited, so far I leave it to you as to whether you believe that the president was motivated, to root. Out corruption abroad, or whether, he was motivated to get dirt on a political, rival but, note that people, are complicated, and it, can be both people can be motivated by multiple, different things at the same time now, in the criminal, world in terms, of mens rea uh if there are multiple, reasons for committing, something if any one of those mental states is sufficient.

To Meet. The standard, of mens, rea oh that's required that person, can, be convicted of, that particular, crime so the underlying argument, is that if there was a basis, for the hunter, Biden / corruption. Argument, then, the president, is absolved, but that. Actually goes the wrong way at least when you're talking about the, criminal context, if someone has committed the act that is sufficient, for a crime say bank, robbery and has. Multiple reasons for doing it one of which is the. Mental state that's required, for, the criminal, offense say. Bank robbery again the fact that there are multiple different, motivations. Is irrelevant if any one part of that motivation is sufficient. That person, can be convicted and, again, we would have to go back to not only what the president has said but what the president has done and what everyone. Else had done around, the president to determine, what, the president's, mental state actually, was at the time and whether that was sufficient, to, prove. Solicitation. Of bribery now Kurt Volker testified, on November, 19th, that he saw investigations. Into burries mo to be separate, from, the Biden's. The former being okay the latter being improper. Quid, pro quo solicitation, of bribery there was no mention of Vice President, Biden. Rather. In referencing, burries MA and 2016, election interference, it was clear to me that he mr., e remark was, only talking about whether any Ukrainians. Had acted, inappropriately, he. Concluded, that others in the Trump administration saw the two as intertwined. And as the same if that is indeed the case that could be sufficient, to prove, solicitation. Of bribery but, what could be potentially, even more damning, in this context, and might obviate, the corruption. Defense, is that, multiple witnesses have testified the, president Trump wasn't interested. In the investigation. Into the Biden so much as the announcement. Of the. Investigation. As I think a Sheeran Gotha was the first to point out this, is what's considered black, propaganda propaganda, that. Obfuscates, where it came from the, Trump administration wanted. The Ukrainians, to make an announcement of the investigation, into the Biden's and make, it look like it had nothing, to do with the Trump administration and. On top of that it doesn't appear that the Trump administration cared. About this corruption, in, 2017. Or 2018 when. Hundreds, of millions of dollars of aid, went to the Ukrainians, it was only in 2019, when Joe Biden became. The political frontrunner, for the Democrats, for the 2020, election, and since, President, Trump asks us to read, the transcript, in the transcript, of the July 25th, call the, president doesn't actually mention corruption, he mentions the Biden's, three, times and similarly President Trump doesn't ask about Purisima, but about the Biden's now other witnesses, may have a lot more to talk about this that we may learn evidence, that the president was more concerned, about corruption, of, course as we've talked about on this channel before there. Are proper, channels for opening up an investigation into an American citizen abroad and president. Trump does not appear to have followed any of those procedures and of course those procedures, never involve, using your own personal, attorney as a figurehead. For American, foreign policy and, also as several, witnesses testified, foreign, policy, and/or, the National Security Council is supposed to be very separate, from domestic.

Politics, So, arguably, it is correct, that whatever, hunter Biden may or may not have done and whatever Joe Biden may or may not have done isn't relevant to, the question of whether the president engaged in some illicit action, but what is relevant is the president's, understanding. Of what, hunter, and Joe Biden may or may not have done and I think this is what ben shapiro was getting at in his tweet he, accurately, points out that the president's motivations, do, matter in this context, that, similar. Action, can, be liable. Or culpable, depending, on the mental state that's at issue but at the same time the process matters, to given, how, unusual some. Of these actions, are and how, bad some of them look it can be very very difficult to make a defense that the mental state is missing, in this particular, case the process, does matter and you can't just put lipstick, on a pig by, saying, that something, that was completely. Illegal. And improper was. Done for the purpose of rooting. Out corruption for. Example as law. Professor, Orin Kerr said very facetiously. You, can't impeach Nixon for, trying to uncover corruption, at, the DNC's, Watergate, offices, it was Nixon's duty to fight corruption and it's not his fault that his political opponents, were so corrupt that it required him to send burglars, over to break in some might counter that a president, has better ways to fight corruption such, as sending the FBI whose, job it is to do that but, Nixon is so passionate, about fighting, corruption that, he felt compelled to secretly, send his own burglars, loyal only to him to, get it done right it's, disgusting, that some. Think Nixon should be impeached simply for loving America so much that he just wanted, to investigate corruption in, the most effective, way he could you'd. Have to love corruption, to criticize the Watergate, break-in it was a perfect, break-in that, really gets to the heart of it the process matters. And the process, also gives. Us a window into the. Motivations. That might have motivated, the particular, actions, at, issue here now, I think I'll have to do an entirely separate video on hunter, and Joe Biden in the potential for corruption but. Suffice to say both sides could, be right at the same time there could be underlying, corruption.

And It could also be the case that President Trump did something, illegal and impeachable, both could be true at the same time hunter, Biden could be the incarnate. But. President. Trump's axe could still be an illegal solicitation of, a bribe they are not mutually exclusive, which, is one of the reasons why I think a lot of the president's, defenders, will retreat, to the position that it's bad but it's not impeach, ibly bad this, is a political, question as, to whether these actions, give rise to impeachment. Or whether it is prudent to conduct, an impeachment under the circumstances, it's a political question that I will leave to you but also remember that the standard is not whether this is a crime or not it is whether it is an abuse of power that is sufficient, for impeachment or not and all I'll say is that it might be a good time to read Federalist 65 and 66 written by Alexander, Hamilton which. Gives a pretty good summary of why. The founders, gave Congress, the power to impeach and when it's a good idea to impeach, always. A good idea to read the Federalist Papers and then, of course everything else pretty much falls into the Chewbacca, defense ladies. And gentlemen this. Is Chewbacca, nothing. About that for one minute that does not make thing or in, other words as lawyers. Like to say when you don't have the facts pound the law when you don't have the law pound the facts and when you don't have the law or the facts pound the table. The. Funny thing is that in my Twitter timeline I am seeing both Democrats, and Republicans using. This phrase to describe the, other side so, I will leave it to you as to whether you think that it is the Republicans. Who are using the Chewbacca defense or the Democrats are using the Chewbacca defense and of course as Mark, Twain said history. Doesn't repeat but. It does rhyme, and I would say that everything that is unfolding, in this impeachment, inquiry rhymes. With the Nixon impeachment proceedings, and if you're not familiar with those impeachment, hearings you are missing a huge part of the story of course the, easiest way to get up to speed is to listen to some incredible, books on Watergate and impeachment, on audible, I've actually been refreshing, my memory about Watergate by listening to impeachment in American, history it's a fantastic, book in which for experts, on American presidency review. The only, three impeachment, cases from history against Andrew Johnson Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton and explored, the power and meaning of impeachment today and you can also listen to Neil cot y'all's audiobook, impeach the case against, Donald Trump catchy, I'll wrote the Independent, Counsel statute, under which Robert Muller was appointed, and was the former acting Solicitor General for, the United States so, that book is absolutely incredible, and gives you a window into, the arguments for and against impeachment and right now audible is giving legal eagles like you three, months of audible for just 695. A month that's more than half off the regular price there's going to be a lot more impeachment, news over the next three months so it's a great time to get an audible subscription, and learn, about the history of impeachment. In the United States all you have to do is go over to slash legal, eagle which you can click in the link below or text. Legal eagle to five hundred five hundred and clicking, on the link in the description, really, helps so, learn how these impeachment, proceedings echo the past and how they're new on audible, just head over to slash legal, eagle text, legal eagle - 500 500 or click the link in the description, do you agree with my analysis, leave your objections, in the comments and check out this playlist over here for all of my other real law reviews including, all of my impeachment, coverage where, I will see you in court.

2019-12-06 07:40

Show Video


⚖️ What do you think of the republican defenses?

You are not a legal eagle you are just another leftist partisan hack!

@alex kirrmann Does that mean you want to know why Biden gave Ukraine $1B in 2015 as a quid-pro-quo? And then it disappeared.

@Kavik Kang I was trying to respond to the video, but got fed up and read the comments. I should have given your response. I'm certain he knows this is a coup against the people. This is their fourth attempt and they're going for their fifth. 1) Manaford, Papadopoulos (campaign manager, advisor) 2) Mueller investigation (Spygate) 3) Epstein (kids for rich) 4) Ukraine (impeachment) 5) Stone, Giuliani (bribery, money laundering) I agree, the worst part is that the impeachment inquiry is unconstitutional. The house may have the right to decide the procedure to follow, but not the legal framework that the consitution defines. When you don't provide a crime and refuse to allow defense witnesses, then there is no defense to make. And even after all this, the impeachment is a failure, no offense. Also, Trump wants to be impeached because the Senate will hold a trial, where Trump will be able to defend the charges, subpoena the whistleleaker, Schiff, and many others involved in the coup. Then criminal cases can be drawn up. I think any call for impeachment must result in treason/sedition charges where the impeachment fails. Checks and balances.

@Patrick Foxchild Look no further .............. for a Dunning Krurger

@Jacob McMahan "@O'honey I think you don't know what you're talking about." Neither does LegalEagle evidently. The impeachment is imploding and a last gasp from the 2015 coup attempt, but the Dems are pivoting onto Guliani now. Lets hope neither Stone nor Guliani end up like Epstein.

@Paul B Not sure what your point is here. Are you trying to say we should ignore constitutional amendments or enforce them? The fact that it was REMOVED should tell you that constitutionally it DOES NOT constitute an impeachable offense.

This entire video has as it's basis the belief that lots of hearsay, even from political opponents with an axe to grind, amounts to "strong evidence". It stands to reason that a clique of political operatives who oppose Trump and/or his policies might all make similar assumptions about intent, each of them desiring to see crime where none exists. The fact that not a single one of them has first hand knowledge of these events should skew this "evidence" towards being uncorroborated not the other way around. And not once do you acknowledge that the hearings themselves denied Trump any representation to refute the allegations. It's not a trial, it's a political hack job that you're trying to paint as a serious proceeding.

@Shifu RC what I am saying is the normal law should not affect the branches why are we allowed to amend it?

@Shifu RC the constitution founded the country laws I see the branches as lower so he does not have to follow the law as long as its him executing the powers of office

@Untimely Avengest ok can you retype what you are trying to convey? It really wasn't clear what you meant.

@Shifu RC I meant the constitution not congress

@Untimely Avengest congress is not the boss of the President this is incredibly wrongthink.

problem with the law that says the president cant withhold in order for it to affect a branch it needs to be part of the constitution why else would it be there its like saying a you as an employee try's to order your boss

I lost a lot of respect for you today.

@zemorph42 So you only watch left wing partisan stuff then ask why don't they use it? That's silly. (here's a counter to this video from another lawyer, 99% sure he isn't conservative). If you want to break your echo chamber you can watch Tim Pool (left wing journalist who is a media critic, he calls out both sides). I'm not aware of a single video that breaks down the impeachment from a conservative perspective.

@Andrew Niccol Fracture is horribly written, its perversion of the law ludicrous.

If the money is supposed to be given in 45 days, why isn't it a crime to hold that money for a year?

Rump is guilty. Now the question is, will he EVER have to pay for his crimes? Probably not.

@Kavik Kang OK GOOBER

What about Biden boasting about threatening to hold Americans Tax payer aid to get a prosecutor fired and was fired for looking into his energy genius crack smoking son's corruption? How is that debunked? Looking for a spec whilst ignoring the plank, but why? Why are you being so dishonest or stupid? You one of the worst legal experts if you think any of that lawful but a perfect phone call criminal, yea you an expert all right.

@andy fumo It's funny - Trump wants to have this so called impeachment to go forward so he can actually defend himself and call forth both bidens and schiff himself and the so called whistle blower - and have it all on national tv infront of the entire world - this is why the dems are scared of - they have literally walked back the entire impeachment bs because of this. The left knows it really f'd up ever since Trump did the unthinkable - and released not one but two different calls with the Ukraine President. hahaha This dumb sh*t leftist lawyer is either too stupid to see this or he knows - I think he knows - and I'm positive he gets paid by the DNC to push this bs propaganda - he's like antifa - but with a degree - maybe? Is this guy even a real lawyer?! haha

@rayan razavi I'm not a lawyer but to answer your two questions: I'm 99.9999999% certain Trump will be impeached, if only to satisfy the base of the Democratic party. As to your second question I doubt with the same level of certainty that the Senate won't remove him from office . Full disclosure" Trump 2020 Make Liberals Cry Again!

And whom do you support politically? If you answer the Democrats I object on the grounds of bias. From the other videos you've done concerning the President's various legal issues I say it's safe to presume you aren't a Trump supporter.

It just hasn't clicked yet has it Children, Perfect, thanks for getting the word out.

@Nicholas Brown I'd love to see Hunter Biden

A fact witness - NEEDS TO GIVE FACTS. lol - Oh and why does the President not get to have fact witnesses on his side? It's his right to have representation. Not even one Republican was allowed to have their own fact witnesses.

It boils down to ONE thing - It is the LAW to make sure there is no corruption before sending funds to another country. IT'S THE LAW. End of story. READ THE LAW.

What you're saying is we should impeach Trump, AND indict Biden

@zemorph42 that's because these aren't defenses. Legalsparrow here is quoting the CNN arguments for impeachment line for line - hyperbolically speaking. So he's not using steel man arguments against impeachment - he's using straw man arguments for impeachment.

@Jeff Slote do you think attemped murder is not a crime to ???? that is basical how you have to see this did he attemt ??? yes or no i in doubt look at .. i would like you to do favot though .... that is attempt ... only 1 % or racist vote for the trumptard which one are you ???

@O’ Honey democrats are pedophiles and are calling republicans liars to avoid an execution which is why Jussie smollet faked a hate crime so that kamalla harris can push an anti lynch bill because theyre afraid of getting lynched once this is all over.

22:02 It can STILL be wrong and alot of men WERE proven innocent, but due to "muh dna test scientists said so" they got thrown into prison... Only its kiiinda worse if Trump gets to prison... *Democrats win and will NUKE USA economy, freedoms(such as freedom of speech, and gun rights), integrity(Illegal immigration)* so its kiiinda scary to see innocent man get thrown to prison, but when an entire nation depends on said man, it gets worse

7:23 This is why court system is corrupt to the core(and its not about democrat vs republican) There is quite a nice video on YouTube that's named something like"Why Cops beat you at the Interrogation Room" and it perfectly encapsulates that Testimony of accused is a sh*t evidence, because you can always *force* said individual to admit his guilt(specifically in interrogation room, not talking about outside of it, but still)

Unfortunately most of us have lost faith in the legal process. It's political and they will vote their party.

Isn't that video pointless? Republicans will never vote against Trump because of fear (that's in itself a big concern for democracy when someone controls a party like that...). The only concern of all those politicians is to be reelected, it's not the comon good...

@zemorph42 I am afraid that is true. I hope I am wrong but, from what I have seen for the last several years political parties come first. Politicians seem to be rewarded for following the party line rather than doing what is best for the country. I see it more in the Republican party than the Democratic party. Not because the Democrats are better people, but because... well... Will Rogers said it best. "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat."

Objection, not only are you not finishing your clips, your steelmaning the Democratic offense. Many of the clips you played make it seem like their arguments didn't fall apart with their next sentence. And most of them did.

They are weak.

@mark Schippel So his actual innocence or guilt is irrelevant? Partisan politics subverting the law is okay if you like the result? Why?

@HolographicFrog What is, then, and if they have anything better, why don't they use it?

The jury is mostly Republican. President Trump will be found innocent.

@zemorph42 That's because it isn't republican's defense. Hell anyone who bothers to burst the echo chamber would know.

@Syrus Coy buh, bye; cultist.

@Syrus Coy Neither, actually. But I don't expect a Trumpist to believe the truth.

LegalEagle I don’t know how you can claim you are going to give a republican defense when you are so closed minded and are pretty Bias.

@zemorph42 Sorry but you either live under a rock, or an echo chamber

Hi, I would like to buy 1000 books, can you lead me to your amazon sponsor?

Please look into the other sides coruption. A good lawyer should know arguements from both sides of the aisle right. Plus in 2015 we were told there was corruption from alot of sources saying there was none so please look into that as well. Be the true american hero that lawyers allways have been. Signed a paralegal studies major.

@c c y cAngus Yu the favor was announcing an investigation into Trump's top political opponent. How does that benefit "us"?

@c c y cAngus Yu are you high?

@John Smith"I would like you to do US a favour", comes out as a request if someone asked you, and US is plural. "I would like you to do me a favour", or "I want you to do me a favour", or "I would want you to do me a favour", can you spot the difference? Have you ever asked your friend for a personal favour they can't say no to by referring to yourself as "us". Have you ever asked your friend to do something they can't say no to by asking them "I would like you do to us a favour"? And it's important to note alot of the wtinesses said they didn't know the reason.

You showed clips of Sondland's opening statement. What about how, under cross examination, Sondland said that he just presumed there was a quid-pro-quo, and that Trump explicitly told Sondland he wanted "NOTHING"? Most of the other witnesses got their opinions from Sondland. Further, Sondland admitted the only evidence he had of a quid pro quo was presumption, and the thing Sondland thought Trump wanted never happened. And if withholding funds is bad, what about Biden threatening to withhold a BILLION if the guy investigating Burisma wasn't fired? Tired of double standards.

@roguedogx If you mean what I said about the democrats, that funny. Funny either way, really. :D

Not a single witness has provided evidence for wrong doing without contradicting themselves upon questioning. Ukraine didn't know about the aid issues during all three Trump phone calls. All the witnesses save one is actually first hand and even he was forced to admit nobody told him to request Ukraine to do anything for the funds. This video is such a bad straw man argument that it looks like you are trying to get hired by the dnc.

BHO did an ACTUAL QPQ thru Biden and no cared. Alan Dershowitz already said QPQ is in the authority of the Exc Branch, or the Prez can withhold money from ANYONE for ANY REASON. So you are basically saying elections are meaningless because the losing Party if in power can just vacate the result because they don't like the person. This is how civil wars get started.

Kavik Kang haha. Keep trying. Polls have stayed the same at 59% but hey believe and state you emotions as fact as much as you want!

in short? best they can do with what they got, but you can't make a picasso out of bullsh*t and expect it to be on the same level.

Do the Democrats even have a case? Do you have a video of their case? What about their double standards with Joe Biden: With his fire the prosecutor or forget the billions of dollars threat? Nice channel, by the way. :)

Red pill Once again, thank you Mr Eagle for providing so much unintentional hilarity. To paraphrase First Dog on the Moon, your parody of being a lawyer has actually transcended satire. Well done. May you continue to provide more mirth and joy.

Have you seen this analysis of your "steel man" argument? I hope so.

@John Russell

I believe the house will impeach and the senate will acquit. Then next November Trump will be voted out along with alot of senators and house Republicans.

I think it doesn't matter, this isn't a legal procedure, it is a political one.

You are a liar..... like a bad liar. Like almost everything you said is easily debunked

I got to say it's pretty clear your choice of video clips and personal opinion is very obvious. I'm not trying to be negative but you did a very poor job of representing both sides.

This is what happens when DemocRats can't compete with truth and logic - they start distorting both in order to deceive their target audience and stir them to keep voting for their immoral buddies.

You're a good little democrat spin artist. Did they give you your cookie?

water5000 lol. Legal Eagle is a staunch Democrat and is very biased

I'm happy that you finally put out a non-biased analysis on the situation.

@fsf dsfa Opposite of what? That they were on the call? They all described a quid pro quo. Their opinions on its legal implications are irrelevant, as none of them are lawyers, and neither are you.

Thanks for democracy America!!!... but sometimes maybe perfect a system before shoving it down other peoples throat... LOL!

Good video, but isn't the ultimate conclusion more akin to extortion, rather than bribery?

NYS Jerry Nadler was a manager at the defunct New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation where he was pressured to resign due to allegations of misconduct and sexual harassment so he became a NY "politician" and possibly a Russian asset due to alcohol or gambling problems?

Israeli's Adam scratch-n-Schiff and Jerry Nadler are Israeli citizens and Schiff is a Fusion GPS foreign agent! Schiff meetings are DOCUMENTED but his "fees" remain UNDISCLOSED .. Both should RESIGN as FOREIGN GOV operatives!

Israeli Adam Schiff is a Fusion GPS foreign agent and his meetings are DOCUMENTED but his "fees" remain UNDISCLOSED .. Schiff should RESIGN as a FOREIGN GOV operative!

When we can see the video about Biden? I'll waiting.

The thing is if a fact were to change, it's technically not a fact, but an opinion stated as a fact.

If he is too dumb to crime is he not then too dumb to President?

Please answer this question: Many Republicans argue that the whole impeachment proceedings are invalid because the person conducting the investigations is "a known liar" I don't know what is their basis to know with certainty that Adam Schiff is a liar, ( I think that the basis is that Trump said so, accused him and started calling him "Shifty Schiff" so now all the followers take it as fact). However, It doesn't sound reasonable to me to say that the inquiry is invalid because it is led by a liar, especially that we are seeing it live on TV, we are seeing that all the representatives are asking anything they want and the witnesses are answering in front of them and the whole country. Mr Schiff, seems to me is more like the conductor of an orchestra that points to each musician when they are going to play, or actually like a moderator in a debate, keeping time. So would it matter if the person appointed as a moderator is "a known liar"? I guess it is a similar case in a jury trial, would it invalidate the decision of the jury in a trial if it comes to light that the judge who presided a trial is found out to be "a known liar"? My guess is no since they are not giving testimony. Please weigh on this, since even Trump himself has said in the media that we shouldn't believe the proceedings because they are led by "Shifty Schiff" other Republican radio personalities have repeated the same, and many internet comments repeat it. Thank you.

Inquiry: Was Trump's tweet about Yovanovitch witness intimidation?

You don't need a law degree to see there's no evidence and it's all rumor and hearsay. Some people love rumor and hearsay so it's playing in a very small circle.

When everyone involved tells the same story, it's either true, or the President had the worst choice of personell in the history of presidents, since obviously all people involved in his inner circle, working for him, must have been bought by the democrats... Since Donald Trump, as he explained himself, knows "the best people. people so great you haven't even heard of them"; if you believe him; that would only leave the first option...

It’s all hearsay! Your argument is the same argument the Democrats lead house is lying about. Lol, there is no case, thus no lawyers opinion needed. Considering what happened to Epstein, to Snowden to Wikileaks and Assange, and so many other thing we can point to? It’s almost unbelievable that we would believe the media or the Democrats, especially after all the lies and hearsay’s lack of truths.

What about a Video on civil forfeiture !

Quid Pro Quo is not the exception in the conveyance of Foreign Aid, often military aid, by the US government. If you look at the previous    US regime in it's dealings with Ukraine, Victoria Nuland had 5 billion bucks to provide to people whom she and the gov. she represented  wanted to replace the Ukrainian government then in place but successfully replaced through the deployment of Nuland's  5 million bucks. or such is my understanding. The details are findable online. A famous aspect of the generous sum of money the US government gives to Egypt annually is the quid pro quo that was and remains as part of the  US aid; that quid pro quo  is that Egypt shall not do anything to bother or interfere with Israel with wom Egypt shares a border. This is the quid pro quo that should annually be top topic of complaint because it is yet another example  of the US government having been  suborned to the interests of a foreign and hostile nation [911 & the attack on the USS Liberty are 2 salient examples]  especially the US Treasury and the DoD expended for the alien interests of the rogue Israeli state.  I do not think much of the Legal Eagle  as he clearly  invests his credibility in the obvious hoax of Mr Shiff's & Pelosi  impeachment farce. It is unworthy of the credibility LegalEagle   confers. Don't forget that this hoax comes after the 40 million dollar fishing Mueller expedition. Clearly there is a coordinated conspiracy between the 4 corporate news media  entities that control 96% or somesuch number of the massmedia and the news has been rendered these last several years r more into  fake news and psy-ops under the monopolistic media cartel. A cartel that lies incessantly about  the Federal government esp the democratic party's activities and denigrates and maliciously lies about president Trump daily. Legal Eagle presumes that Joe Biden is above the law- and his presumption is deeply assumed but falsely by him. To defend the Shiff Pelosi /democratic party /fake news big four corporate entities  hoax coup   and harrassment daily every day of the presidency simply means he is duped  by his own preference and has in fact been programmed by the massmedia which he apparently identifies with though he evoked the term fake news but does not believe it is fake news.  We shall see. Already he was wrong about his hopes for Sondland's testimony. The FBI - a corus corruptus should be investigating Biden & son's Ukrainina money/ getting a prosecutor fired scandal which biden publicly bragged about on camera. But sending the organ od corruption, the FBI as it currently exists, to teh Ukraine is not a viable option and suggesting that the Ukrainian president who won his job with the promise to eradicate corruption look into the matter or have it investigated and sharing the info with the US gov. executive branch makes perfect sense except to  Mr Legal Eagle. Or maybe I misunderstood LE .

you obviously ignore the most important facts that everyone who watched clearly seen . like the fact that every one of the witnesses said trump never said any such thing to them . or that he never said to implement a bribe or whatever you hacks want to call it today . or the fact that every witness said they heard from someone or assumed . and more about feelings with no facts . you are a lawyer ? obviously not impartial

Whether the president ordered the act or not, if he knew that someone under his authority ordered it, doesn’t it mean that his silence to oppose the action is consent to the act?

Laws broken : Home alone.

I really enjoy the way you explain the law and the process in which hearings work. The public think of court hearings as if they were porn films. All the flutter, glitter and sounds that make a good court case but the actual truth is more like a lecture from Stephan Hawking on string theory and its effects on the quantum realm. Five minutes later and your like a dog that saw a squirrel and thats about all the attention span the public has for the law.

Before you dows us in legalise why don't you explain the criminal basis of this impeachment process since most of us find none.....

Really enjoying your channel. Great content and you've got a lot of charisma.

Anyone with a half a brain can tell, trump did some shady shit by looking at the timeline.

transcript? what transcript? the stuff that trump claimed was released is not a transcript.its a summary. `a written or printed version of material originally presented in another medium. ' "a word-for-word transcript comes with each tape" the paper that was released is not a transcript.its a can easily left out many other details in a summary.

When did a testimony of a decorated soldier become lies and the word of a coward becomes truth... wtf?


How do you do this whole segment without addressing Ratcliffe and Turner's counters. They absolutely destroyed the witnesses.

Now go watch "Donald Trump quotes read by Zapp Brannigan" It would be funny if it wasn't so scary.

I object " you made a parable about attempted bank-robbery, " if you hold a teller at gun point and demand money, and you get nothing." this is not a Attempt, this is Robbery. Attempted would be "they shut and locked the door on you before you ever got in." failure of the crime dose not always automatically make it a attempt. / its like saying Attempted theft because you got caught when you left the store. 1 more example attempted theft, you Try to steal a ATM, but cant get any money out of it, run away and are latter tracked down by the cops.

at 4min in and you neglect to point out the fact that NONE of the "witnesses" testified ANYTHING relevant to the presumed charge... when asked did they hear the call: all answered NO. They all had no interaction with Trump nor the President of Ukraine. I present to you the summed up version of all the "testimony": Representative: Was there quid pro quo? Witness: YES! Representative: Were you apart of the call? Witness: No Representative: Then you heard it direct from Trump? Witness: No Representative: Then you heard it direct from President Zelensky? Witness: No Representative: Then how do you know? Witness: WE JUST KNOW Their testimony is about the same worth as the mud on my work boots.

I love these clips. It reminds me of those sting operations where cops pretend to be a jilted lover and want to hire a hitman, only to arrest said hitman before he even gets to the target. I'm pretty sure they aren't going anywhere other than jail. Just saying.

To those wondering why we give foreign aid to Ukraine, and why our assistance is vital: The United States and other Western nations are very concerned about the fate of the nuclear weapons now based on Ukrainian soil--according to some estimates, a full third of the Soviet arsenal.

this guy is wrong a lot and should probably stay away from politics

I like a criminal Trump better than the current democrat party, but it's hard to believe that Trump isn't a mafia like criminal. The way I put it is; if you had a million dollars that you had to bet and a god would give you the answer after you bet, would you bet that Trump was guilty or would you bet that he was innocent. I think most people would bet that he is guilty. With that said, I don't think it's a clear cut case and I wouldn't be surprised if Trump was setting up people to take the fall for him. Lastly, I liked how you fit in your audible ad into the context of your topic. That was a good way to do it. Good video.

You are so biased that it borders on grotesque.

who do you think pays his salary? .. follow the money, this shill would prolly defend the Clintons even if people found out they were high profile pedos..

What do you think about Russia impeached

I still think the left is using impeachment is an attempt to shield their crimes during the previous administration. I believe we are witnessing the dismantling of a long established corrupt institution that has existed for many many decades. Call it what you will... The cabal, the cartel, the deep state, it's all the same. A corrupt element within the government and top corporations that influenced policy and conducted business that benefited themselves. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the deep state is comprised of just Democrats, but after McCain died, the cartel lost control of the Republican party and the rest retired. Remember all the retirements after Trump was elected. They know that if they don't stop Trump, there will be a lot of indictments coming their way. I think What Trump did was right. If there is / was rampant corruption surrounding Ukraine, then let the chips fall where they may. If Biden was involved, then so be it. The USA has an anti-corruption agreement with the Ukraine, and the President was well within his authority to ask the Ukrainian President to look into criminal activity, regardless of who committed the act.

I see I walked into the leftist bubble on youtube again..

or did you accidentally just leave your own political bubble?

Nope. He's just analyzing Republican defenses. It isnt his fault that they are bad defenses.

I disagree with you completely and wonder if you have done any investigation outside of MSNBC or CNN.

“There is NOTHING wrong with this phone call. It doesn’t even come close to violating any law.” - Office if Legal Council, Department of a justice

You completely mischaracterize the entire argument and straight up lie thought out this video. According to you, the very thought of an action is the same as carrying it out. You’re a fraud.

Republicans: No quid pro quo! Also Republicans: But they got the quid! (the military aid) Also Republicans: Why can't we do the quo? (call Hunter Biden to investigate him)

So we need the Ukraine president to testify that he needed to investigate the Bidens to get the military aid? If this country Ukraine or government is so corrupt why give them the military aid just because it affects USA interests? Let's Rusia take Ukraine as well is indecent what this president and his corrupt accomplices has done Just help Ukraine and do what u do best run like cowards like living the Kurds alone betrayed them and now thousands of Isis members are free Hunter Binden is Ukraine legal system problem to investigate not the USA business why USA don't ask the Syrian legak system about the humam atrocities they did and do

A lot of selective quotes to support your point. Those statements out of context hold up your argument, but in context you are tilting at windmills. Good luck on your YouTube Career. PS You look sad, Stop it get some help. Maybe you can move out of your grandmothers house.

This guy isn't much of a lawer,he contradicts most of his points regularly and it's obviously politically slanted

How about you try criticizing the democrats and the left side? So we can truly get the big picture? All your videos are anti-republican...I don’t know if I can trust a lawyer that has emotions controlling all of his thoughts.

"why does reality not favour my agenda!?!?!?!?!"

Man Trumptards are getting fired up!! LMAO

For another movie to examine can you tell us what crimes The Losers Club would be charged with for IT chapter 2 since they are all 40+ now they can be tried as adults.

Who’s the devil at 35:35? Feel like I’ve watched that video before

why would trump even care about getting biden when biden's brain is falling apart and he's a creep? the guy is out of the race, just give it a month, probably bows out after christmas, he has dementia and bernie is having heart attacks at near 80yo, it's insane, anyway, sry to change topics, just annoys me, also did you folks see that dem congressman that said "hearsay evidence is better than direct evidence" haha what?! did you see the chair adam schiff read a version of the transcript aloud that he completely made up word for word? crazy desperate deceitful stuff, anyway the bidens and clintons and epstein's death should all be investigated

I've got a solution: Put Hunter Biden behind bars, Joe Biden drop out of the race, and Trump get impeached. That's a compromise.

The timing of the action says everything about intent. If the idiot started the investigation when he assumed office in 2017 then one could argue that the intent was on corruption. But to ask for it when Biden is clearly the frontrunner to being his political opponent in the upcoming elections, then the claim of investigating corruption is very suspect. Maybe ask Jim Jordan about being complicit to the crime of sexual abuse of athletes when it was reported to him but did not lift a finger. He's complicit in abuse of students, what's a little more to ignore abuse of the entire country?

Trump's "favor" request was a crime whether he offered anything in exchange for it or not - he was asking a foreign power to involve itself in a U.S. election, and that is illegal. When he held up the military aid Congress had voted for, that was a second crime and an abuse of power. When he made the release of that aid contingent on the President of Ukraine helping Trump's 2020 campaign, that was soliciting a bribe - a third crime - and given that withholding the aid was causing Ukraine harm in their defensive war against the Russian invasion, it was also extortion, a fourth crime. Add in all the obstruction of Congress, and no sane, honest who knows the facts and the law person can defend Trump. And as Lindsey Graham said when he was managing Bill Clinton's impeachment, no actual crime is needed as grounds for impeachment anyway - it's about character and 'cleansing the office.' When the impeachment process reaches the Senate, if it does, the House impeachment managers should begin their opening statement by playing that clip from Graham and others along the same lines from then-Graham and other then-Republicans. Then they can ask, "Senator Graham, do you agree with Congressman Graham, and if not, why not?"

Well for one President Trump can't have a lawyer or anything for a defense or call any Witnesses. little Adam Schiff Schiff made up the rules as he went! shouldn't the Republicans be able to call in anyone they want as a witness instead of Adam little Shifty shift leading witnesses that he wants and refusing all Republican witnesses that they want. They have been after President Trump since the day he's been elected. With one lie after another. President Trump has done a great job and these Democrats haven't done a damn thing for us these past three years!

Excellent very informative

Drop a video in the JayZ lawsuit to the children's book case

Stupid Bep Shapeepo. Moving the goalpost and magically making a point that isn't a complete lie or falsehood.

Solicitation of a bride let's see oh Joe Biden on tape saying fire the prosecutor that's looking into a company my son happens to be on the board of or you don't get this billion dollars aid. sound like a pretty good bribe to me quid pro quo same thing. And let me just say this ain't the only country Joe Biden and his son Hunter got their hands in and getting millions of dollars which is our tax dollars in aid. You're going to see there's a lot of countries and we need to make sure they're all clean and not corrupt anymore

Shouldn't we want me want to make sure a country like Ukraine isn't corrupt like they have been for years before and giving Kickbacks to all these corrupt politicians. I'm sick of this and my taxes are going to the other countries then right back into these corrupt politicians pockets. My taxes could be a lot lower and more money in my pocket if it wasnt for this crap

let me save you 40 mins... criminal president is criminal. criminals do criminal acts. bribery only requires the ask... criminal president is criminal. no exoneration.

Gym Jordan sure has a whiny voice. I didn't realize it until just now listening to this with my eyes closed nursing a migraine. His voice is the only one worth the pain of typing this out right now. Anyway he's a real treat of a guy from the latest news just like Devon Muuunes. Maybe they all have mad cow that would explain a lot.

This jackass is like " So when did you stop beating your wife ? "

26:02 The basis of freedom of speech in Canada in a nutshell.

Community season 3 episode 17: Basic Lupine Urology. A Law & Order based episode where the study group tries to find the person who smashed their biology project.

Unrelated to the subject at hand. Can you do a review on Boston Legal? Particularly the episode Allen goes to Texas to defend the guy on death row.

Wow, you are really funny, and, I enjoy your videos... but you obviously have an agenda that lines up with the Democratic Party. Which is sad. It's also sad that you frame this entire argument in the false dichotomy of "Republicans and Democrats." I don't know if you are "Thinking like a Lawyer" when you obfuscate the facts in order to win the argument for your(DNC) side, or, if you are seriously nil. Neither are good options in my opinion. Why not look at it objectively rather than politically? I know you would say that impeachment is not a legal proceeding. But they are using laws and conventions that would be considered to be a court. It's like saying Civil Disputes are not legal disputes. They certainly are legal disputes. They use laws to settle disputes between two parties. So there, Mr. Smartypants. Also, please leave the Democratic Party. They are doing nothing for you. In fact, they are clouding your judgement. P.S. After finishing the video, you sound like you are moonstruck. Go make a tin foil hat, you nutty conspiracy theorist! Seriously, you sound like a hysterical McCarthyist. "Are you now, or, have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" - Legal Eagle

Being objective doesn't mean creating false equivalency. If facts point to one conclusion, the there's no "agenda" needed. All your post proves is that you have the agenda.

This shreds every Republican talking point -- with a smile too. Excellent. It should be required viewing for anyone following the impeachment. Schedule him for a FOX network impeachment special with Judge Napolitano.

Iron man sounds so much cooler as a solid talking point over steel man. Either way both would beat the stuffing out of a straw man lol!

I have a request: The Trial of Gaius Baltar from Battlestar Galactica!

Aw The Chewbacca defense, RIP Peter Mayhew.

Legal Straw-eagle

Lawyer man confirmed Nerd City fan?

Sondland: There was no Quid Pro Quo:

@Michele M So still Quid Pro Quo. As for your second claim, "there aren't any"' can't be claimed to be true until Mulvany, Pompeo, Giuliani, etc. can testify so why even try this spin.

@TheMarsCydonia The clip you provided specifically states that QPQ is related to a meeting, not aid. You won't find any direct witnesses of qpq with regard aid because they aren't any.

Sondland: Was there a Quid Pro Quo, the answer is yes:

Is Melania still a prostitute even though Trump didn't pay his bill?

I know French court martials are not your Forte but Paths of Glory has an awesome Trial scene that you should look into (provided you have not already and even then). Thank You.

Interestlingly, in 1929, Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall was convicted of accepting a bribe in the Teapot Dome Scandal but the following year, Edward Doheny was acquitted of paying bribes to Secretary Fall.

Next time a cop asks me a question, I'm going to assert 'citizens privilege'.

I don't think anyone should consider any charges by the Democrats until the overt biases and agendas of Caramella, Vindmann and Zaid are addressed

You leave too much to your audience. There are facts in this case, and facts are actually facts. People don't decide on facts, they only decide whether or not to acknowledge or act on the facts. Maybe some of the facts in this case are not yet fully known, but your audience doesn't get to "decide" them. You're trying to play the middle to avoid being accused of any political bias. That's a false argument to moderation. When people watch your channel, especially as concerns this impeachment, they are coming to you for answers to important legal and political questions. Not all of those questions have answers yet - but neither you nor your audience get to decide the answers.

There's no need to have strong defenses when none of this ultimately matters and there are no consequences for either side except political ones. The Dems have not voted to begin impeachment; this psuedo-impeachment is basically a mock trial. This is why most people I know aren't even following it, and those who were have lost interest. It is, at best, lame reality tv. I appreciate you attempting to examine it, but since it is not a real legal proceeding I am wondering why you would... my cousin vinnie was about as real and at least that was amusing.


ATTICA! ATTICA! REMEMBER ATTICA?- Al Pacino's, Sonny, Dog Day Afternoon, Based on a True Story.

"I'm going to try to give Republican defenses in the best light possible." Well, you failed. You give off a list of names and claim that asserting there was no _quid pro quo_ requires asserting they are all liars. But you don't provide any of the relevant testimony. My brother (whose bias is opposite yours) notes that none of the witnesses called ever met with Trump and that none of them would have any ability to confirm a _quid pro quo_ if it existed. Here's a suggestion. If you want to present the Republican defenses in the best light possible bring in someone who believes in them to present them. "It would be improper to ask the fact witnesses about an ultimate legal conclusion." So the members of the House committee can't use the word "bribe." It doesn't stop witnesses from giving their own opinions. But I'm wondering why all the witnesses? If there is a _quid pro quo_ it should be apparent in the transcript of the president's interaction. These witnesses should be unnecessary, unless they are there to blow smoke. "It is not necessarily the case that he had only one motivation." This sound a lot like, the actual action may have been completely proper, but because Trump gets a side benefit from the completely proper action (pure luck) it is an excuse to take him down. "Just because something is hearsay doesn't mean ..." The problem I have is that all this testimony is less direct than the transcript itself. We have the transcript to answer the relevant questions. The transcript should supersede all of these witnesses. Re: Sideshow Bob: You claim that the release of the funds was contingent on the Ukraine reopening an investigation that it, in fact, did not reopen. The fact that those funds were released is evidence that it was not so contingent. This is not very comparable to offering a police officer a bribe, which he refuses, and you keep the money. ===================================================== I agree with some of the other comments here. You should leave the orange man bad videos behind You are trying to present yourself as impartial when you are anything but. We know you hate Trump and want him removed from office. And you are presenting a vigorous case for your own position while strawmanning the opposition.

The thing that puzzles me is the pro-impeachment people were for impeachment pretty much from the beginning of Trump's term well this phone call ever came up. When the motive is purely political it makes it hard to think of the rationale as legal. I fear opinions on both sides were decided long ago and neither have much to do with legal details.

@TheLoneRideR Are you still trying? _Various groups and people, and the two specific examples (not one as you misstate, making it seem like an outlier)_ I wrote "Congratulations, you found an article that names two" and that is exactly what you copy-pasted, the name of two individuals: Al Green and Brad Sherman. So you can claim two specific examples but it wasn't at all what I referred to. Also note, you couldn't even be bothered to link to the article itself so not exactly making it easy to verify those "two specific examples" did you. You should really get better at backing up your claims. _I offered this as an example, not some all inclusive list_ Unfortunately for you, whatever Al Green and Brad Sherman may have felt since 2017 does not apply to the whole group you accused in your first comment if you cannot provide evidence that it does. Something you've repeatedly failed to do, after multiple opportunities. Indeed, the best you could do was your example. _I do care enough about truth_ Is the evidence for this your inability to support your accusation. Or the bias you've shown so far? I stand by my statement, you've made your accusation, refused at first to support your accusation then came up with "this example" as if it was evidence for all the people you accused. So you have your accusation but you do not have much else so indeed my opinion is that this is all b.s. You can guess what this tells me about you.

@TheMarsCydonia Various groups and people, and the *two* specific examples (not *one* as you misstate, making it seem like an outlier) were Representatives, with a serious proposal, and it was in 2017 way before the phone call. And again, I offered this as an example, not some all inclusive list... if you expect me to document everything you might have seen over the last 3 years you are mistaken, I don't care enough about you to take that trouble. I do care enough about truth to try and point in the right direction, but I am not about to scour the interwebs trying to show every example under the sun... So much "b.s." here indeed, but not from me. Obviously you have an opinion and not much else. As I said, good day to you sir. Your intellectual dishonesty (illustrated by deliberately both mistating and mischaracterizing the examples I gave) tells me all I need to know about you.

@TheMarsCydonia From wikipedia: "Various people and groups assert that U.S. president Donald Trump has engaged in impeachable activity both before and during his presidency,[1][2] and talk of impeachment began before he took office.[3][4] Formal efforts were initiated by Representatives Al Green and Brad Sherman, both Democrats, in 2017, the first year of his presidency." If you were asleep for the last few years do a search sure you'll find more specifics but I'm not gonna play games and try to come up with examples of what was in the news all along and, if you have a view on the subject, you should have been following. As I said, I find it beggars belief you never heard anyone talk of impeachment prior to the phone call coming out. So you are either lying or trying to be asinine and foolish. ...and as I said I do not prefer to converse with fools.

@TheLoneRideR One person prior to now? You did not claim "one person prior to now", you claimed the "the people that are for impeachement" and "pretty much from the beginning of Trump's term". Do you spot the differences? Between "one person" and "all the people that are for impeaching Trump now"? Between "prior to now" and "from the beginning of Trump's term"? Fool" is not a synonym for "someone not falling for my bs". It defies belief to think anyone would.

@TheMarsCydonia So you never heard anyone in the Democratic party talking about impeachment prior to now? I don't know what to say to that. It defies belief. Goodbye sir. I do not like to converse with fools.

@TheLoneRideR Sorry but without evidence, you can assert that it's my memory that is the problem but it might as well be that your memory is biased as all out.

@TheMarsCydonia Poll? what do you mean poll? I was talking about my own perceptions. As I said "I fear opinions on both sides were decided long ago". Why would I have a poll for my own perceptions? Do you take a poll before ever deciding on anything? .... or if you are talking about a poll of the pro-impeachment people being pro impeachment before this phone call came out... no need to poll them just remember their own words freely published. Don't remember what people were saying? not my problem you don't but then next time pay attention, meanwhile do a google search re: what they said on tv or the newspapers in the past ever since Trump was elected. If you don't remember it sorry but I am not capable of providing your memory for you...

Any poll from 2017 to back up this claim?

All they have to do is prove there was a reasonable concern of corruption and unethical behavior on the part of Biden and his Son. That is the solid defense that turns "dirt" into "investigation". What is most alarming is that the dems are willing to create a process that is ripe for abuse in the future. Its a tragedy they are willing to invite corruption and abuse just to get a president who is not all that conservative, one who would have been willing to make all sorts of deals with them on healthcare, DACA, prescription drugs, etc.

You know what would have demonstrated a reasonable concern? - If Trump had first ask one, just one, U.S. law agency for the investigation. - That Ukraine could have stated "at the demand of the Trump administration". - That Trump had withheld aid in 2017 for this concern before Biden announced he would run. - That Trump had withheld aid in 2018 for this concern before Biden announced he would run. - That Trump had not released the aid in 2019 because Ukraine did not do anything to relieve the "reasonable concern for corruption" Well, at least, on the positive side, we can look forward to the next president saying "China, do us a favor, investigate Ivanka".

Well I knew That already about Attempted Crimes, and I'm a Layman.

The "fighting corruption" defense under these conditions almost sounds like a Jean Valjean defense. "I stole the bread because I was hungry!" (Yes... but (leaving aside the socio-economic situation portrayed) he still STOLE it!)

General Hospital Just had a Trial against Sam McCall Episode, it was a Murder Episode, I think You'll like it.

I would never believe Ben "never move the goal post" Shapiro at all. 2 months ago he said "no quid pro quo, and no moving the goal post." to 2 months later saying "there was quid pro quo, but was it corrupt quid pro quo." so yeah. Ben's a political hack.

Should be called 'Biassed Lawyer Examines Impeachment Defenses (Biased Law Review)'

Everyone has biases, it would be like pointing out that water is wet. You didn't preface your comment with "Biased commenter's biased comment" did you?

Objection, around the 2:20 mark you say that the interpretation of the call as evidence to or exoneration from a quid pro quo is a "factual matter for [us] to decide". Factual matters, and facts in general are not up to subjective interpretation and opinions, else wise they would cease to be factual.

Lmao, this guy is so full of shit

Gonna be sharing the literal F out of this video...

Are you one of the Manning brothers?

Had to drop a like after that South Park Chewbacca defense clip.

.uhhgg. before watching this, i was only disappointed in the prez. Now... I think .,. gawd, he did something terribly wrong.

Objection clear case of the lawyer having tds

How so?

i feel your a democrat

facts have a liberal bias

More anti Trump crap from the corrupt establishment

34:22 :D

Sadly, I do not think anything about the upcoming impeachment trial hinges at all on real evidence, proof, or truth.

so... do you even lawyer IRL anymore at this point?

This video is sponsored by CNN (c) Legal Eagle

OK. So, can we like, do something?

Trump 2020

Sorry Butt, I mean Budd, they are all lying. Apparently you don't know dems. They do NOTHING BUT lie. And now so do you.

Republicans defenses are not very strong, imho. Theiir attorneys try to provide some legal arguments, but mostly it is about messaging.

In none of the several trials which affected political parable of Berlusconi, we ever got to the point that the best defence would have been "too dumb to crime". That's quite impressive. By the way, I know it is a lost cause, but qui pro quo means misunderstanding. What you want to say, in Latin, is Do ut des.

Thanks for the great video streamlining and explaining the various impeachment defenses. Have/could you do a video explaining the complaints republicans have about the impeachment process and the differences between a criminal trial and impeachment?

I would like to suggest the second season of 13 Reasons Why. That whole season is about a court case etc. and I wonder what you think about it.

Hello, I am wondering if you have any thoughts on the New York State Rifle & Pistol v. City of New York?

When even the President of Ukraine says multiple times that nothing happened, I think it's fair to say this whole thing is one big nothing burger

TL;DR Trump is guilty as hell

LegalEagle, have you been contacted yet to aid in the prosecution of Trump yet?

Also remember that the "transcript" is a curated version of it that was Ok'ed for public release. We don't have the actual transcript.

Trump's Aide watching Legal Eagles: Mr President, this guy is pretty sharp, we should hire him for your legal team! Trump watching Suits: No, no get this Harvey guy, I like him. He has the best laws.

This guy was quite handsome a few years back, but he's not aging well.

Can you react to the movie " The Castle"?

how bout court case at the end of "Air Bud"?

100s of thousands of people killed in illegal wars over the last couple decades, and no serious effort for impeachment. Trump asks Ukraine to investigate an obvious 'pay for play' relationship, and we have this circus. it's hard to fathom just how dim and gullible the mindless zombie horde that is the modern democratic base is.

very thorough, but where did you gey that fly ass suit?!

QUESTION: If Congress subpoenas you, but the President says don't go, whom do you obey? Asking for a "friend". ;)

NOTHING ELSE is getting accomplished while this is happening, that's the largest complainant about this process.

Implied consent, Implied intent, it still puts even more power into the hands of the Prosecutor.

Simply a waste of time and tax money. Senate will never place the tax cuts at risk. Just another reason to focus on #AndrewYang 's #HumanityFirst and a #FreedomDividend that would jump start America's economy. Impeaching Trump will only fire up his cult.

obamas irs scandal shoulda been bigger than watergate

2.9k Trump supporters have a headache.

As my favorite Republican idiot has said "Impeachment is not about is about cleansing the officeIf Trump cared about "corruption" he would not start with his political opponent and trying to go after clearly debunked theoriesTrump is super that he is completely corrupt and doesn't even try to hide it......the hypocracy of a President going after Biden's kid when his own kids are given security clearances they have no business having while the pursue financial interests in pattens in China.Nobody is talking about that......because the focus is all on Trump

Objection!: Many of the things you've stated in both the Quid Pro Quo video and this video are pure speculation and honestly, halfway through your first video, you would have been held in contempt. Even further, there are limits in how Congress can investigate the impeachment in question. I swear I should just go back and keep track of how many times your speculation would be objected to and sustained, to the point where you would be threatened with contempt on multiple occasions. Where did you get your law degree? Law and Order SVU? You make accusations like you're in a crime drama. Three terms to describe your entire argument: Speculation Poisoning the Well Argumentum Ad Populum. Two of three of which are basic logical fallacies and speculation being "whataboutisms" and the whole tweets from Orin Kerr thing, a judge would just send you straight to contempt for. Insulting a witness is easily contempt worthy. From yours truly, A politician. I.E. the profession lawyers wish they could take, but don't because they can't hack it in politics.

Damn, YouTube isn't showing LegalEagle's videos to me in my subscriptions area :< dangit. Just found this video.

BEN SHAPIRO is a pseudo intellectual. He was told what a smart kid he was and now thinks his shallow thoughts are deep. I would make him cry in a debate.

Those are good points but I would like to counter that Trump does not like brown people and neither do his supporters who vote for other Republicans so nothing else matters.

Objection, while impeachment can be used for political purposes, it is entirely unsettled as whether impeachment is a political act. Congressmen and congresswomen swear an oath to the Constitution that they are not permitted to ignore. Their oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States is invaluable, and requires that they impeach the president of whatever party and under whatever circumstances are necessary for the protection of the Constitution!

Mostly good stuff, but I think you misunderstand what they are saying. It's not, "well we tried to bribe them, but wee couldn't figure it out so we aren't guilty." It is, "The fact that your watch is on your wrist is proof that I didn't want to steal it."

The transcript determines that there wasn't Quid Pro Quo. You have yet to solidify any sufficient case to determine either Quid Pro Quo or Bribery. There is no truth to these claims, because there's no positive outcome for Trump.

The problem with all of this is that if the insane person in the White House believes but the Ukraine's were hiding corruption bye Hunter Biden, then requiring do ukrainians to investigate it, my highly unusual incompetent and stupid, it's not outside of the context of the president's job. That said, the SOB should be impeached for violating the emoluments clause. In fact that impeachment should have happened a year ago.

Your obviously a partisan hack. You should work for the deep state, they need all the slimy lawyers they can get these days.

If Argumentum Ad Populum was a legitimate argument, we would still be in Jim Crow Era.

My favorite: "This violates his due process." lol that doesn't even make sense.

So the sideshow bob defense is basically: Because Trump is a lousy criminal, he’s not a criminal.

Tried & convicted by yet another probable leftist, I say that because I actually watched the hearings. Sondland's testimony was merely a recitation of his & others' "presumptions." He was considered the majority's best witness, and a laughably weak one at that. This is an orchestrated attack presented in such a way that we are led to believe it is an "unbiased law review" presentation when it is not. One of the most glaring omissions is that the history behind the "deep state" attacks on DJT predicated his attempts to dig out evidence on the scope & depravity of the deep state coup's tentacles. Tentacles that were planted deep in the Ukraine. The left does not want all their corruption involving the Ukraine to become public knowledge, which would expose their complicity. But, whether they want it or not, all will be revealed. Justice is near.

Do Goofy's trial by filthy frank next

"The Trump Administration and supporters have been fairly consistent in arguing that..." This is how you can already tell that an argument is born from a gross misunderstanding of how things in the world actually work, and is perpetuated by playing to the tendencies of their supporters to be of the subset of people who absolutely refuse to believe anyone might know better than them, nor do they care to learn about what they do not know, instead insisting that they don't need to know, despite their readiness to correct everyone else but themselves.

PLEASE DO A VIDEO ON COPPA!!!!!!!!!! We need it ASAP!!!!

Can you do a Reacts video to the 1994 remake of Miracle on 34th Street

Any and all testimony is irrelevant at this point. We have exculpatory evidence, the transcript of the call. The democrats have gone all in on soviet communist style inquisition against Trump and his supporters. Investigating Biden is perfectly ethical, legal and is actually a duty of the president, to root out corruption. Democrat have no problem investigating their political enemies, Trump for over three years.

Trump 2020! :)

Have you seen this? Does it have any merit or is it just for fun? :p

I'm curious then, in your mention of how if the president started selling pardons he should be impeached, what if the price was campaigning for him.... like he's done with the navy seal who was found guilty of war crimes and recently pardoned? It's no secret that Trump is pushing him to be on the campaign trail in exchange. The main impeachment point is done and dusted, there's no wiggle room and mens rea won't save Trump as the Mueller report is a background of obstructive behavior that supports that he did commit that crime and he was in the right mental capacity, I just wanna know how many more impeachment articles can they bring? Also I'd like to say there was definitely pressure put on Ukraine if they had to wait a whole year while in an active hot war with Russia for desperately needed financial aid and weapons. It's not just bribery but really extortion, Ukrainians were dying while this aid was being held.

Testified with the same story YES IT WAS BRIBERY QUID PRO QUO perfect call that trump tried to hide. TRUMP IS A DISGRACE .

Need Help. A friend got pulled over for passing on the right while a car was turning left, which is legal according to many sources. They are going to court to fight it. However, he may have crossed into the new bike lanes and we can't find any info if it's not allowed in that circumstance. Location cap-pele, New Brunswick, Canada. Any help from anyone would be appreciated.

I would just add that with regards to the "no quid pro quo" statement by trump: 1) Not only was the politico argument out and the Bill Taylor text, but the WH already knew about the whistleblower complaint and that there were multiple people in the administration; and 2) there is a lot of evidence that the call Sondland referenced never happened. Rather it was the Sept 7th call that was testified to by Morrison and Taylor. Sondland told both of them that the POTUS has said there was no quid pro quo but then went on to say that Ukraine had to do the investigations or else there would be a stalemate. Morrison (a very political republican) even felt strongly about it that he reported the call to the NCS attorney.

"Hearsay is strong evidence" Annnnd unsubbed. Lol

You might check this video out. The common definition of hearsay is not the legal definition.

This is a good example of a Biased Lawyer. Great job. This video gives you the people's stereotype of a "crooked lawyer". I was doubtful until you brought Sideshow Bob to attention, "absolutely no sense".

Off topic but if a police officer breaks the law (like entering a house without exigent circumstances or a warrant)but in doing so performs a necessary task (like rescue a kidnapped person). Is it likely the kidnapper will still be able to be prosecuted (fruit of the poisonous tree). Also what are the potential ramifications legally for the officer

That dislike bar though.

You should do a legal review of law and order

you completely misrepresented not only people's testimony but the whole impeachment sham in general. its clear where your loyalties lay. and its NOT with teh truth. Youre obviously democrat and youre obviously against Trump. Unsubscribing.

@Brian Reynolds its 4am in NY and im going back to bed but i hope we can continue this conversation in the morning. You seem like a normal human and its always a pleasure to speak with someone who isnt a ragin never trumper lunatic who facts and proof mean nothing to. i look forward to picking this up tomorrow.

@Brian Reynolds of coarse. any company's point of existence is to make money. but cnn and msnbc etc take it further than that. they dont care about their ratings, clearly, because theyre plummeting. all they care about is protecting democrats and smearing Trump and anyone related to trump, and anyone supporting trump.. its THEM that is the reason for the massive division we see today in the people. they are purposefully destroying the country. they are committing treason imo and i look forward to the day people are brought out in handcuffs and cnn as a whole is shut down for good.

@Brian Reynolds i stopped watching the video after like halfwayish through. i see enough propaganda on a daily basis. and yeah of coarse theres always going to be some bias. humans have bias. so theres inevitably going to be bias in the news. but the difference with fox is that they allow both sides on their network. some anchors are pro trump, some anchors are anti trump. so you get mostly fair reporting. and Trump does NOT have to release any aid at all. if he believes the money is going to a corrupt country he has a right and a duty to stop that aid from going to them. Trump is notorious for not liking foreign aid. and he is notorious for being anti corruption. so for him to hold the aid until his people he trusts told him they werent corrupt is nothing special and nothing even news worthy, let alone the thing they are trying to illegally impeach him on.

@Joshua Stagnitto Any 24 hour news network will tell you what they need to in order to make you watch. If they keep their audience on the edge of their seat, they can keep their ratings up and make more money. Money is their primary goal, not reporting the news.

@Joshua Stagnitto You either didn't watch the video, or you didn't pay attention. By law the president can only impound money appropriated by Congress for 45 days. The President still has rules to follow. I agree with you about CNN and MSNBC, but you can include Fox News in the category of biased, untrustworthy sources for information.

@Brian Reynolds start watching fox news ONLY. and your head wont be pumped full of lies 24/7. and even fox has certain anchors that are anti trump, but atleast for the most part they are fair in their reporting.

@Brian Reynolds nobody is even saying he withheld it for longer than he was legally allowed to. that sound like another lie cnn or msnbc said. hes the president. he can withhold it for 8 years if he felt like it. or never give it at all. or release it immediately. he was under zero obligation to release a PENNY to ANYONE at ANY time. This was help. not obligation. And he did release it after several of his people told him met with the ukrainian president personally and they basically vouched for him that he was serious about being anti-corruption. and furthermore, it is his duty actually to make sure that corruption is taken care of and especially when hell be handing billions of dollars to someone he is actually constitutionally obligated to make sure hes not handing aid to a country who gonna use it to line their pockets. cnn and msnbc literally do nothing but lie so if thats where you get your "news" youll never know the full story. youll only be hearing one twisted side of it twisted into being something bad against trump. Asking a foreign power to investigate the corruption that happened in their country in 2016 isnt a quid pro quo. isnt illegal. isnt bad at all. But itll be exposing a protected person (biden) so of coarse they have to immediately smear Trump and twist everything to make him look like the bad guy. not one single witness had first hand knowledge of a quid pro quo. so they switched it to bribery. then when nobody could speak on bribery they switch it to extortion. then when nobody could speak on extortion they switch it to whatever the newest lie is.. is it russian hacking? ukrainian hacking? fake bank accounts? spies? treason? This is like a horrible fiction book.

Is it not true that Trump withheld aid for much longer than he was legally allowed to? That seems pretty hard to defend, but I'd be interested in hearing an intelligent defense for it.

Interested in your take on the new film "Dark Waters" the story about the du pont court battle it's was created with direct input from Robert bilott the lead prosecutor

Because this is a political, not a legal, matter, there's really only one defense the republicans have; we're afraid of his zealots.

Do a video on Joe Biden ADMITTING to quid pro quo on video? I can find the link of the video for you if you are too incompetent to find it on your own.

What facts? All these idiot they parade up as witnesses have NO FACTS at all, only "Mu feelings" or "they just assumed". They all admit is when they are pinned down on these questions. You also have to ignore the fact that these hearing s are slanted to prevent any of the republicans from actually finding any "facts" because every time they ask a question, Schiff-for-brains blocks their line of questioning. These hearings are all a sham and anyone who's head is not firmly lodged up their ass can see it. There was literally NOTHING proven with these hearings so far, it's just more of the Demorats trying to overthrow a legally elected president.

Trump used to attack the media the same way when they reported on his failing casino. He's never been one to let facts get in the way of his personal agenda.

Could the 3k downvotes voice their exact reason where they disagree with the video?

The TDS is strong in these comments.

The Republicans just released a statement on their position. You could not have been more correct about their strategy. In my opinion based on what you have said they have a weak case built around denying evidence and saying an attempted crime isnt a crime because it didn't happen.

Impeachment isn’t going to happen, it’ll drop dead in the senate even if the house follows through. This whole ordeal is just PR

What about the argument that Biden did it first? It’s a children’s classic. Mom: Donald, why did you do that? Little Donald: Mom, Biden started it.

Hey idiot you want good defense how about it's not an impeachment. It's not a legal full and peachment it's nothing but Oppo research. With what they've done they can't impeach the president.

OBJECTION!! At 19:31 you completely flip the standard of guilt; its not on the President to prove he is not guilty or offer alternative theory's to the theory's being promulgated from people who testified, many in secret. You are spinning there, not offering legal insight: Notify your carrier for that one. In this section you keep offering alternatives, such as "perhaps they released the funds because they got caught" This is first class speculation just like the testimonies of the witnesses. Wha't your theory as to why the "whistleblower's”complaint doesn't match up to the actual transcript that was released. What is the hearsay exception for his/her compliant being allowed into evidence when the complaint itself is not based on first hand knowledge. Doesn't the prejudicial value there outweigh the probative value? Oh, we don't know because there's been no foundation established because we can't test the veracity of the witness who's complaint is faculty incorrect. Perhaps you should consider whether it is a good idea to impeach a President on speculation. You really entertain me with your reviews of fantasy topics such as the movies. Perhaps never mind. This presentation is more like a closing argument, one that would prompt, (not normally done), objections from opposing counsel due to statements containing facts not in evidence. But you have lit up the eyeballs and got a lot of views. Good for you.

He's a crook

I wonder how much that shelf behind you cost. xD

Not ' the troublesome priest' defense for goodness sake.

you do realize sondland took back that whole thing about there being a quid pro quo, right?

if anyone is dumb enough to believe anything that this imbecile is telling you, you need more help than a lawyer can give you. he totally overrates the entire situation, the total lack of evidence, and the fact that schiff has already admitted witness tampering and stated that the other members of the committee has engaged in witness tampering also. schiff is a harvard law graduate, he knows that at even the merest hint of witness tampering he should have ordered the committee to recuse themselves, and then he should have recused himself. this video should by all rights be about why schiff should be disbarred by his home state. he threw the entire legal ethical code out the window and then some. exactly like this gentleman just did. the gentleman in this video should hire a real lawyer and sue to get every penny back that he wasted trying to get his law degree. it apparently isnt worth the paper it was printed on.

18 U.S. C. sub 201(b) (2) Bribe. Did you mean for example "if the prosecutor is not fired (the one investigating my son, the one who had a job - with no experience- on a board for 10's of thousands of dollars of a corrupt energy company) your not getting the money." As to the transcript, if there was any quid pro quo it was for CrowdStrike to turn over a copy or the actual server that was kept in the basement of the former Secretary of State's home, which the President and others believe to be in their possession; not to investigate the former VP: Now that's corruption and security breach wrapped into one, maybe.

Too many words. The leader of Ukraine has said no quid pro quo. Are they going to call the leader of another country a liar? Are they going to call the leader of another country with a subpoena? Will they hand out a punishment? /shrug No. It's over. Word it up. Won't change reality.

It doesn't take ten minutes before the facade of unbiased information goes out the window.

I find this whole thing funny. The point of giving other governments money is quid pro quo. We give them money and the give what we want for it, whatever that may be. We don't give it to them for nothing.

Ever hear of proof?

This is the biggest bunch of biased crap I have ever heard. Comparing official negotiations between countries as only being able to be bribery is completely false. Also your analogy of it being attempted bank robbery is completely wrong and only looking at it as if it could only be an illegal act. A more appropriate analogy would be if you went in to your bank, furious, after discovering services charges on your accounts, in your dispute with the bank you demand the money from your account but you phrase it in the way of "Just give me the $1000 and the service charges", the bank refuses and will only give you the $1000 from your account.  After you leave the bank discovers that it accidently handed you more than $1000 and calls you to ask you to return the extra money, of which you agree to do. In this situation did the person rob the bank considering both the intent of a bank robber and the account holder is to receive money from the bank that they do not own? The intent was to receive more than the balance of their account from the bank and they did even receive, however temporary, more than the balance of their account. Is an official not able to negotiate with another country (without personal gain to the individual, family member, or personal acquaintance) on behalf of the country? in this case, in order to investigate corruption.

There was no crime committed. You're obviously a terrible lawyer. Sharp suit, though.

Phenomenal bias here.

so if politico had just kept their mouths shut for a bit they would have had stronger evidence, damn this 24 hour news cycle.

You do not have to defend what does not exist. Corrupt traitors like Adam Schiff will fall hard. The "witless witnesses" have said nothing but opinion and conjecture. The President of Ukraine has said again that nothing was wrong. And lawyers have much too high an opinion of themselves. If you want true bribery and corruption just listen to Joe Biden confess on video. But I guess you do not want to go there.

Just saw this on a twitter feed: "By itself, distinctive knowledge might justify freedom of speech for the excluded, but not equal citizenship."

One thing that nobody talks about is, if Trump didn't withhold the aid as part of a quid pro quo, then why DID he? He's never given a reasonable explanation for why he would take such an action.

I think Hunter Biden is the devil incarnate AND that Trump should be impeached ;)

You suck at steelmaning :/

Sondland also said that he has no evidence of quid pro quo, besides his own presumptions...

Are you serious? Hearsay is one of the basic things about being a lawyer. Hearsay can not be admitted as evidence, and you are saying that they are only right with a grain of sand? You are such a joke and so biased into beyond belief.

This has very little to do with the law, left half says it's a crime and right half says it is not, which makes it political.

A good "Full disclosure" for this guy would be to give his party affiliation and say who he voted for in the last election. What I see in this video is that he is NOT giving "steel man" arguments but strawman arguments and giving them a different name. Look at his main bit of deception, he keeps bringing up a point for the Republicans and then countering it but it should be going the other way. Instead of something like "Trump didn't get the investigation BUT that doesn't mean that a quid pro quo did not exist." Rather the analysis should be "In the absence of the requested investigation and the absence of "money withheld" it will be hard to prove that a QPQ existed." Then you could say that that does not prove that there wasn't one, absolutely. I'm sure that this guy is on the left or a democrat but fortunately the truth is getting out there.

@LegalEagle I enjoy your content and I'm critical of you here. In the sense that one party exchanged something with another party it is bribery . . . Except that party is the American government and the Ukraine government. That's is the President's job, he's the chief diplomat. It would be like if I called you an asshole for constantly arguing things. . . It's literally your profession; you're lawyer (allegedly). There is nothing illegal about that. The fact that it could beneficial to him is overshadowed by the fact that it is beneficial to the country. He was investigating the possibility of election meddling, and corruption from the Ukraine. He is actually required by law to do that in the Defense Authorization Act (he has to certify that aid will be used for it's intended purpose). So it's not just that it's legal, he would be derelict in his duties if he did not. That is the argument that Republicans WOULD be making if they didn't suck at arguing things. None of that matters because impeachment is a political process not a legal one. This is being used politically by Democrats (in the absence of party unity, a strong candidate, or a sane platform). It should be carried out with some level of clout but we already know how this ends. If it passes a vote in the House the Senate will reject it and that will be the end. Thank you for your expertise, but I reject your conclusion.

Withholding something from someone unless they give you something in return is called "diplomacy". And Hunter Biden was engaged in corrupt practices, so is it illegal to investigate a crime committed by the opposing political party?

It's like some kind of witch-thingy...

Thanks for such a great video with concise researched legal opinions on the subject. Now...can you shout this for me at the Christmas table when my aunt and uncle try to ruin that holiday too? Hah!

So if Biden does not become the dem nominee, does that absolve Trump?

In simple terms: Joey stole the cookie from the cookie jar, and when Donny threatened to tell on him, Joey's friends threatened to beat Donny up. Then they told Joey's parents that Donny stole a cookie from the cookie jar, and threatened to beat up Joey if he told on him.

Does this lawyer not understand that the US has entered into an agreement with Ukraine for investigating and ending corruption, that he had every right to request this of Ukraine? This agreement was made in the '90s. Does this "lawyer" also realize that the POTUS has 100 percent control over U.S. foreign relations and it's actually his job and one of the reasons he was voted in? Does this lawyer realize that Sondlan's "quid pro quo" statement was in his opening statement that he later walked back and said it was "his presumption" there was a quid pro quo? This lawyer really makes a good lawyer. An hour to say absolutely nothing constructive.

Very articulate ...( for a lawyer

"The facts are fluid and they are changing." Objection: Facts are not fluid, nor do they change. Thank you for saving me 37 minutes.

If you couldn’t understand that, you wouldn’t have understood the rest either. Stick to cartoons.

Other news