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.

Trump will not be impeached. He will not be de-Presidented. There is a lot of misinterpretation of the facts, too much hearsay and too much anti-Trump animus.

I really don't think he has pants on maybe sweatpants

This comment section IS GLORIOUS!!!

Lmao every name he gave are people in dems pockets to assume they world lie for personal gain is what again? I love it when people act neutral only to show their own personal bias.....

People in Trump’s administration, one that gave a million to Trump’s campaign, are in the Democrats pocket? Lol, the things you come up with to protect your feelings.

Could you cover with COPPA and YouTube?

So would you ever consider a QA episode?

You took a look at Star Trek TNG: Measure of a Man, Would you consider doing Star Trek Deep Space 9, Dax Repack?

I would like to hear this Lawyer argue the other side. If he is a true unbiased lawyer he will defend both sides with the same vigor.

Did you ever ask a scientist to defend both evolution and creationism with the same vigor?

Hey LegalEagle Can you explain why BuzzFeed and other journalists are able you use FOIA for document requests but Congress doesn't and uses subpoenas? I am probably mixing some processes up and would love some clarity.

If the President of Ukraine says there was nothing wrong, then I don't see how they could actually go anywhere in this impeachment thing

You're right. And while we're at it, the Supreme Leader of North Korea told all his subjects he was God and invented the hamburger, and frankly I don't see why he would lie about something like that! It must have been true if he said it!

Sonland himself said that the only quid pro quo was in HIS OWN PRESUMPTION. He testified that Trump never told him that the aid was tied to the investigations.

I get the impression you've viewed everything from a _prosecutor's_ PoV, looking at the problems with the POTUS' defense under the assumption that he is guilty. It'd be good if you could do the same from a _defense attorney's_ PoV, i.e. under the assumption POTUS is _not_ guilty, by looking at the problems with the accusations. We do, after all, have a system where people are supposed to be innocent _until proven_ guilty. That'd be informative, IMHO.

So to be immune to investigation by the president, all you have to do is campaign against him?

The president does not investigate anyone personally. It's very concerning if the president is trying to personally investigate his opponents. The fact that you cannot fit the concept of "abuse of power" through your skull is even more concerning.

So when Biden threatened to withhold a billion dollars if a certain prosecutor wasn't fired, was that illegal? If so, why wasn't he arrested when he confessed to doing it?


Take on the idea of 2A sanctuary counties, you wont

Yo was there any good defense?

Just a tip when watching this video: The term "Steelman" when uttered by LegalEagle is in reality actually a Strawman. Carry on :)

Did lockheed martin actually get its money from weapons sale?

Why not react to 2005's "Trial of Eric Bischoff?" on WWE Monday Night Raw? Then react to the Tales From the Crypt episode, "Let the Punishment Fit the Crime."

Objection: We have Quid Pro Quo on tape

You should make a video about Unsworth v. Musk (2:18-cv-08048)


You've had four years, why isn't it great yet, _Julia._

The Flash s04e10. Good grade I think...

my vote for the next movie/show review is _"Psych - Cloudy... With a Chance of Murder"_

Do the people vs. oj simpson

Obviously you’re very biased.

Everyone is biased, dingbat, it's human nature to be biased. Even f***ing robots are biased.

This dude is a real life Harvey Spector

Unfortunately even with first hand evidence our country is way to divided as they are taking the party lines and acting very tribal. It is unreal that they are actually saying or acting as if it is okay to either do or talk about it, but because they are doing it as if it is okay, then no one cares. If this scenario would have happened in 1973/74, I'm sure "This" President today would have been impeach right away. Anyway nice vid, very informative...

People like Trump think rules like these do not count for people like him because too often he could get away white his nonsense.

thank you for laying this out more clearly.

I have a $50 that says President Trump beats this clean. Not only that. I've got a $100 that says President Trump gets re-elected.

OMG now they can attack Trumps life points directly!!

Kudos for explaining something that really shouldn't have to be explained :(

I thought the hearsay defense had to do with, they heard there was a quid pro quo, not that they heard about what was discussed in the call. The witnesses all heard the assumption that there was a quid pro quo?

He said "I buried the body in the backyard under the tree." That's admissible as foundation for the police looking under the tree, where the body was found. Also would be admissible to the act of the murder as an "admission against interest". But neither is required if the speech itself is illegal, the witness is the same as saying "I saw him shoot her", if the crime is "conspiracy" and the witness overheard Alice talking to Bob. Hearsay is almost the only evidence in some criminal conspiracies. Hearsay is usually admissible, not inadmissible. But the rules are there more to keep the evidence targeted, not to exclude it.

I thought this video was for the Imapplement???

Leftards think it's illegal to make international phone calls.

@Dog God I never said Trump hasn't done anything wrong. Whatever you think he's done, if you want to argue what he did was wrong, then that's a fair and reasonable thing to talk about. But the question is: Was it illegal? The answer is most likely no, but that doesn't matter to The Far-Left. Everything and anything to get rid of someone that you don't approve of.

And rightards think Spraytan Jesus can do no wrong.

Donald Trump is corrupt but so is Joe Biden. They should all be in jail. Because none are in it for the people.

My god, can you please hand in your law license asap. You should pretty much not even have a license to clean a fricken toilet. You left out EVERY part of the interviews that clearly showed the republican 'evidence' to be factual ... No doubt on purpose you fucktard.

@Dog God aw did they neuter you?

cry more, repubtard.

I think you're a democrat and you vision is shaded.

But I intent to bribe the cop.

"What do you want from the store?" "I DON'T WANT YOU TO STEAL FROM THE STORE!" Totally innocent and natural conversation right there.

There's nothing in that phone call that suggests a quid pro quo - completely ridiculous.

Now do Hillary....

They should just use the Chewbacca Defense.

I will explain the short term. Trump wins 2020.

Yeah, f***ing probably. Wish the universe would do us a favor and hit us with a f***ing comet already.

didn't care about corruption in 2017 and 18? are you kidding? he didn't know then what Guliani told him in the fall of 2019. steel man my ass. also he didn't try to "open an investigation in to an american". he asked for help with an ongoing investigation by Barr. you are just going thru CNN talking points

@Dog God i don't watch faux news sorry to disappoint you.

"You're going through CNN talking points!!!" says the guy who practically bulletpointed Fox News talking points. Pot, meet kettle.

The impeachment argument falls apart totally, once you realize that US Laws do NOT apply to non citizens. The Ukrainian official is NOT a US Citizen, and was NOT geographically in the jurisdiction of US Law, at the time of the alleged offense. Also, since when does US Law permit the prosecution of a US Citizen, when the supposed 'victim' (The Ukrainian offical) has NOT complained, and says that no crime was committed. This 'Lawyer' is just a global government, Marxist, loving con artist.

it is true that we do "quid pro quo" in foreign policy. BUT, it always involves a form of indirect consequence i.e. north korea. directly withholding public tax dollars to try and generate a smear campaign is quite new, and stupid. mostly stupid. imposing tariffs on china for certain reasons is a "quid pro quo", bribing and blackmailing a prime minister simultaneously to pull a public announcement out of him. stupid. also quid pro quo.

I object to all other objections, sustain?

oh look, almost 3000 Ben S fanbois trolling this video with a dislike. lol

I dont think ill be too engaged for a youtube law channel but this was quite informative and i enjoyed every minute of this. Appreciate your explanation!

welp, guess ill find a real lawyer to watch now...

Mens Rea is the WHOLE republican argument. When Jim Jordan asks why there was "this" but we never received "that", it goes to the mens rea idea that the appearance of a crime doesn't mean there is a crime. Furthermore, the president had both our Justice Department in conjunction with Rudy Giuliani studying this case. Asking a foreign power to join an investigation into crimes on their soil is PRECISELY how these investigations happen. This lawyer ain't gonna tell you the facts, just the facts that help his case.

POTUS requirements

I would love to see an episode of Rake get covered. if you can find one that is youtube friendly

This video is highly informative and weirdly entertaining but I can't help but notice that between every jump cut you slightly zoom out or in. Once I noticed this I couldn't stop, and it became quite distracting. I don't necessarily think this is a bad creative choice. I'm just wondering why it was implemented.

Unfortunately its all just window dressing for a partisan vote that does not even need to be justified; They could literally just flip a coin or look at which way the bird is flying to decide their vote.

Not at all surprised that you “rarely agree with Shapiro”. Your bias shines through in many of your videos.

@Quonset TheHutt Wait wait, so you think it isn't an obvious conclusion that you know of Shapiro since you reference him in your original comment. Or are you insinuating you were talking about a person you know NOTHING about? I am not sure which is sadder. Let me guess, you cover your eyes and assume that no one can see you cause you can't see them? Do you have object permanence yet? :-D

Rodney Warren never said anything about Shapiro except that this guy’s bias has been obvious for some time. Guess you’re just not smart enough to make an actual argument.

@Quonset TheHutt says the guy with Shapiro's hand so far up his backside I can see his knuckle hair in your eyes ;-)

Rodney Warren you’re a classic person who can’t think without someone else telling them what to say. Try thinking for yourself instead of parroting.

Your right he tries to act like hes not bias but clearly is. On the other hand Ben is open about having biases and shows him to be a more honest person.

"Not at all surprised that you “rarely agree with Shapiro”. Ben Shapiro's insanity shines through in many of his videos." Fixed that for you.

Speaking of circumstantial evidence... Trump's Departments of Defense and State twice certified that Ukraine had made sufficient progress in combating corruption to justify the release of the security aid as approved by Congress before the OMB subsequently withheld the aid. If the President's motivation were to have hinged on fighting corruption, it is difficult to believe his appointees - including Secretary Pompeo - would approve the release of this aid by certifying that they had made such progress. Further, Trump and his defenders have claimed that in addition to "fighting corruption", they were partly motivated to push for other countries to increase their contributions to Ukraine's security, but Trump did not ask the OMB for figures on how much other countries were contributing until over a month after the aid had been withheld. If the President's motivation were to have hinged on disparity in the amount of aid the US was contributing relative to other countries, it is difficult to believe he would not ask for the information on that disparity before the aid was withheld.

The Republicans don't need a defense. Trump didn't do anything to need a defense for. The democrats are really destroying themselves. The leader of Ukraine said himself Trump did nothing wrong. I guess the democrats can keep trying though, they may as well because they have given up on doing anything other than trying to impeach the President

and why is it not within a sitting us president right to withhold aid to a corrupt country that according to all news media in 2016 tried to manipulate the presidential election? are you not allowed to deny aid to a country that meddles in your election? sounds pretty silly to me, the fact that what is obviously in the best intress of the american people ( Not give money to ellection meddlers) also coinsides with what is clearly not in the intresse of biden should not matter, is it illegal to investigate corruption because it involves a presidential candidate? then why was there nothing but investigations of trump when he was running for president? as a european outsider the BIAS is such a seethru its childish to claim otherwise, the rest fo the wrold clearly see the democrats for what they are. corrupt selfserving, gredy, lying and ideologically possesed while accusing trump of the very things they them self do.

if it was for his own benefit, impeach if for the country, hey, that's just politics, America #1

It's not a crime if you don't get the goods. If you go into a bank, rob it, but get no money, then it's not robbery. If you declare "I'm not robbing the bank" while robbing the bank, then it's also not a crime. These are obvious legal facts. /s

You ignored ratcliffe and Turner? Did you consider them straw man argument? Because the Senate will. I don't mind if you are left of center, just be objective as possible, please? Not politics.

I hate it when people bring politics into our political process

I think that, primarily, even if Donald Trump is trying to 'get' Biden for 2020, the fact that we are have had such prolonged talks with so many inconclusive witnesses in the hearing is indicative of someone trying to 'get' Trump too. Corruption is rife in government. Democrats and Republicans both suck. We're stuck with them.

People arent goddamn fools. Trump did this to force an investigation on Hunter Biden and his corrupted fake job. Everybody now knows Biden is a corrupt shill, and no metrosexual lawyer is gonna change that.

According to Democrats: Hearsay: Impeachable Quid Pro Quo: Impeachable Pedophilia: Not impeachable Life of corruption: Not impeachable Connect the dots people. Media and leftist billionaires are trying to impeach a populist president who answers to his base rather than insanely rich donors. Thats the bottom of the issue.

Hey wasn't Trump close friends with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and then appoint the guy who gave him a sweetheart deal in 2008, and his AG allowed Epstein to die under his watch?

If the president doesn’t have the authority to hold up funds then how was he able to do so ?

He has the authority but doing so for personal benefit is wrong and impeachable. Kinda like I have every right to hit my brakes while driving; however I don't have the right to do so in order to cause an accident behind me.

Again. The "it's hearsay" argument is not to say that hearsay never matters. It's said because we have access to the primary party and the transcript. The argument is to say "the hearsay adds nothing of value." It's inferior and extraneous testimony. No quid pro quo

Intent is the name of the game here. You could be walking down the street with your buddies all in ski masks. It might just be cold outside. Maybe you’re Somalian and 10 degrees seems freezing to you, hence the mask. Intent is damn hard to pin down. If the democrats had half a brain they would allow bribery or extortion to actually take place before attempting to impeach Trump. But the dems can’t help themselves. And with their habitual throwing of anything and everything into the fan to make trump look bad, their believability has gone so far down the tubes that you’d have to be crazy to believe anything they accuse trump of. Trump wants an investigation into Biden’s corruption in Ukraine. The dems want to impeach trump for asking for an investigation, and to elect the guy that’s actually guilt of corruption! Absolutely crazy.

Hold up, John "friggin" Bolton was not a fact witness.

Can this guy please be on the impeachment committee?

A canadien lawyer in a tshirt DESTROYED your points and exposed you!

True story. I linked the video in a couple of these responses.

This overlooks the point that there are 2 actual issues here 1. asking for foreign help in the manner being discuss and 2. offering something in exchange (the quid pro quo). Both are not permitted actions. However, everything seems focused on the quid pro quo whilst ignoring the first issue above.

the fact witnesses? They loterally were saying how trumpmade them feel when he fired them. this is a total (((shit show)))

Tip: Your facial expressions and dialogue cadence is distracting. It comes off as an act. I do not know if anyone else mentioned it but I felt you should know.

You should review a case in Ted 2 for legal realism.

That Bernie commercial made me throw up a little. That moldy, old communist bast@rd got thrown out of a hippie commune for not doing any work. F-Bernie.

Republicans keep using the defense that trump is too dumb to commit a crime... but then i keep asking... why did they put him in office? ...because we sure as hell didn't.

This reminds me a lot of ( ). Where the point of the trial in the show was mainly to show to decipher what Worfs mental state was at the time of the incident in question. Seems very odd in real life though.

And let's be real.. If there was known corruption... would you give that country aid? I wouldn't. I would do the same. There s corruption in your government we are not sending aid, because it will get wasted to corrupt people. My question is why are people mad at Trump for going after corruption and not the people who were being corrupt??? Biden is on video BRAGGING about being corrupt and literally FORCING Ukraine to fire the guy to get his son in the position of said bussines. Because that guy was going after said Bussines. So get rid if that guy, force them to use the guy he wanted so that the company will be fine and his son can become powerful within said company and use that company to launder money....

Ok guys what have we learned here today, anyone can commit a bunch of crime admit to it on camera in front of a crowd of people ON VIDEO, to fire a prosecutor investigating corruption leading to your kick backs. Just run for president and you get away with it all crimes for life you can;t be prosecuted for anything ever. JUST RUN FOR PRESIDENT GET AWAY WITH ANY CRIME.... LMAO.

Lol, keep lying bro. Trump is still getting that ass impeached! G. T. A. I

Yea im no lawyer but i completely disagree, In the call he told Ukraine they would get their money and needed to talk about crowed strike and Biden which is his job which had no connection to each other in the conversation, He stated plainly multiple times he didn't want any quid pro quo and the fact is if he hadn't asked for the investigation he would have been up for impeachment since Biden in also on the republican ticket and not the front runner.

Can you talk about U.S. Code title 2 chapter 6 section 192, and how Trump and the State Dept. has asked witnesses to not answer to subpoenas requesting staff to appear before congress and has refused to produce documents that were requested via subpoena.

You're a tool. Why don't you give us an example of quid pro quo and show the video of then vice president biden doing just that.

You lost me when you said Ben Shapiro had a point

OBJECTION: at 14:55 "Amatuer" should be "Amateur"

" a factual matter for you to decide." No, that's not how facts work.

Can you review losing Isaiah with Halle Berry and Jessica Lange

Your sarcasm.

I don’t really mind your videos and they are really good for the most part, but please try to make sure that you don’t misrepresent certain things (I.e. There is no transcript of the phone call released, there is only a memorandum issued from recollection of the call) I think before we look at defense or not, we should have the full unclassified transcript as evidence.


OBJECTION: I think the most important question we should be asking is- Why are we starting the process to impeach Trump when the National Election is less than a year away? and by that time we'd still be in the process, so why not just focus on the election rather than whatever this is? It's not illogical to think that you should focus more on the thing that'll give you better odds of convicting him (IF he did anything wrong, I haven't exactly been keeping tabs on this thing). I mean, let's say we Impeach Trump, Pence will pardon him, just like what happened with Nixon. If you vote Trump out, you can then do normal criminal trials, and you'll have whoever else as President. where as with this all you're doing is riling up both bases with their preconceived ideas on whether he's guilty or not, with a small amount actually free-thinking.

Every picture of Gulianni looks like a bearded dragon in various phases of shedding

There is absolutely zero evidence a crime has been committed. Even the "investigation in the bidens" wasnt even true. The transcript asked about investigation into crowdstrike. A first year law student could figure this out. The reason for all these investigations for impeachment was answered by adam Schiff, when he said hes just scared trump will be re elected. It's all a show.

If a teacher catches a kid with a cheat sheet before he/she writes an answer, it is still cheating. If a teacher asks a parent for a favor for their kid to get a higher grade, it is bribery.

Great video, I understand the arguments a lot better now. A quick question: If Trump is impeached, will this case set a precedent that incumbent presidents cannot investigate their rivals for fear of impeachment? The situation seems to create a 'moral hazard' whereby a corrupt party can turn the corruption dial up to maximum if they are running against a sitting president, at least internationally where the U.S. cannot directly subpoena evidence. That is, a candidate could conceivably drum up as much foreign support as they want through their own quid pro quos, and the president would not be able to touch them due to a conflict of interest with an election opponent. Would it have been ok if he had not withheld Congress-appropriated funds and instead given them reduced tariffs or something, since this falls under the purview of his power as the arbiter of foreign policy? So many questions.

Savaged. Threw every arguement under the bus and Ben Shapiro.

Okay got to the Quid Pro Quo, Ukraine didn't pay up. I think you're confusing political pressure and stress with law. Maintaining national relations is a complex topic as one country can get aggressive with another and in most political relationships there is aggression. In this case, people are pointing the finger at the President because he is a very blunt and aggressive person. So in a sense, this may look like extortion but we need to delve further into the political nature of national conversations. Often times we get leaders of major powers who disagree. We have many instances where even these very same leaders back out of what is essentially a deal or a promise between countries to benefit both people. It is not wrong to provide this pressure nor is it criminal to actually deny one side or the other. The truth of the matter is these are leaders who hold many traits and abundances of resources that it gets caught in the argument. So it's actually normal that a country denies one thing but in turn, takes the gamble of not receiving aide from their partner countries. Just because so much could be at stake. And finally, nothing is actually holding up a guarantee for Ukraine to receive aide if they do not provide something in return. As societies and partnerships require a contribution to make the relationship work. A sort of back and forth nature. So this is not really extortion as Mr. Profession explains it. This is just politics and it does get aggressive and stressful. We have to let our leaders be as such because again a lot could be on the line here.

Hm....starting on the Defense rather than the accusations first. Bias much? As a professional you should know not to show that. So I expect an analysis on the Democrats accusations and how they hold in such a case. Rather than flat out trying to debunk what is essentially one half of the whole case which is after the testimonies brought into the spotlight. So do they hold or not? You cannot just debunk a defense without showing the prosecution with it to compare side to side. That's basic law.

Hm. My bad I just saw the older video going over multiple points of the Democrats. I just find it strange it's tilted multiple topics rather than Democrat Prosecutions. "What are the Democrats accusing and what else is there to blame Trump."

I'm not from the US but I do love this channel. It's fascinating. I wish there was a UK version too.

i love how you bend over backwards to justify the charges rather then examine anything

Are you paid to present that BS as "facts"? If so, who pays you? - There are just opinions and 0 facts. Nothing you could build a case on. - Your Videos are already debunked from other Lawyers.

Impeachment and Trump aside, who is in charge of alerting us to events concerning us outside of our country if not a President? I as a citizen of this country want to know why Hunter Biden a cocaine-junkie whom has no prerequisites whatsoever for his position is being paid a fortune by a corrupt businessman in Ukraine related to this cash flow. Would they be embezzling our funds if not withheld, the possibility of the Biden's being corrupt is far more suspicious than anything our Cheeto could be conjuring.

So who do you think this guy is voting for? Biden or Warren?

I don't know where you're getting your evidence. But from the testimony from what we've heard from the Republicans in response for not being allowed in the closed hearings. They are not being allowed to testify by the Democrats. Also since this is not being performed by the judicial branch, at least not yet, the Republicans are not required to testify. The president cannot stop them from testifying if they want to. The president can only recommend that they don't testify. Seriously though, even if you order them not to bus to stop them from testifying? After all this President isn't the clintons. No witness has died from Air Force 2 crashing. Are wound up dead in the middle of the park in freezing temperatures hip-deep in snow. Nor has evidence been shredded by the First Lady. The first amendment allows even the president to say things that might upset people. This is not intimidation. Intimidation is threatening someone's life or family if they say something or do something that someone who threatens them doesn't want them to do.

Okay, but it's still really messed up how people have been desperately trying to find a reason to impeach Trump since day one of his presidency, when those same people have committed much worse crimes than he has.

OBJECTION!! Under Oath Ambassador Sondland when being questioned by Adam Schiff, who is NO fan of President Trump, comes out and relays the President's intent. If the President didn't want anything there can be no crime committed as the mens rae for bribery/ quid pro quo or whatever the Democrats and the mainstream media, but, I repeat myself happened. We DO already know why aid was being held, President Trump came out and said it LONG before the impeachment inquiries even started. Long before the whistleblower's phone call. This would go along with what the President thought. As of the fiscal year 2017, foreign aid provided through the U.S. State Department and USAID totaled $50.1 billion, or just over 1% of the budget Last but certainly not least President Trump has also stated he was worried about corruption in Ukraine.  Alen Beck did a long timeline of the corruption in Ukraine from all the way back in 2014.  If half of this is reliable than we as Americans need to know the FULL story. (skipped to the start of the timeline)  At best the Dems could say President Trump was bad in his dealings with Ukraine, and use that in the 2020 elections.  They already know Impeachment is never going to pass in the Senate where 61 votes would be needed to overturn and impeach President Trump.

Based on what you said about solicitation (around 17:50-18:something), can we hold politician criminally liable for solicitation? or must one's word/favors be transcribed to a single/direct party for it be solicitation?

React to Lord of War

Objection! It sounds like the Democrats and Republicans are basing there arguments on precedent. The Democrats (upon other things) seem to banking on the conduct of the president; even if it was only outrageous or inappropriate. From what I gathered is that not impeaching Trump would set a precedent for future presidents for similar behavior (factual matter for you to decide). Adversely the Republicans are arguing that the process Democrats took in starting and conducting the impeachment proceeding invalidated it. Again, from what I understand, it sounds like the Republicans are arguing that the impeaching the president would set a precedent that would make the impeachment process less objective (factual matter for you to decide). Personally I think both positions have equal validity and therefore the questions is how do we remedy both and who is liable for what.

The real question is what evidence given has proven President Trump has done something impeachable.

If you accept all of the democrat arguments you are not steal manning the case.

dude you level set all of the information for me, for that you got my like, comment, sub, etc....thank you

Best actual defense: Trump did absolutely nothing wrong.

"I don't often agree with Ben Shapiro-" Well, that's reassuring.

Hey can you do a video about the newest meme, Road Rage Guy Maybe give some tips about how to deal with someone like this if they confront you? Or what legal action could be taken against the man?

Trump was so concerned about corruption........just like he is so concerned about fast food on his health! Trump University and the Trump Foundation are prime examples of Trump's concern about corruption.

What the heck is this bull you are spouting? Biden is NOT the nominee. So he should be absolved of any type of investigation? I also want to point towards the extreme partisan aspects of what is going on here. I truly wish I could fully, state my case to you. You went from someone I respect, to someone that sees half the picture, in a way that ultimately benefits you. You know exactly what I mean.

"I can eat a peach for hours" - Trump Wait....that was Castor Troy, my apologies.

How does LegalEagle interpret? Law Prof cites supreme court case to say Trumps acts were not bribery. George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley testified during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on the constitutional grounds for the impeachment of President Donald Trump, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2019. As for the modern definition of bribery, Turley referenced the Supreme Court case McDonnell v. United States (2016), the Court vacated the bribery convictions of former Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-Va.). The bribery statute makes it a crime for a public official to "receive or accept anything of value" in exchange for being "influenced in the performance of any official act." In McDonnell, the Court ruled (8-0) that merely setting up a meeting or talking to another official or organizing an event does not fit the definition of an "official act." In that case, Turley explained, "gifts were actually received, benefits were actually extended. There was completion. This was not some hypothetical." Yet "the Supreme Court unanimously overturned that conviction." "It's a dangerous thing to take a crime like bribery and apply a boundless interpretation," the law professor warned. "These crimes have meaning."

Shocking that a single academic called by the Dems would have been so honest. Did I misunderstand something? I thought the anti-Trump House/Dems selected these academic witnesses. Am I wrong?

I really dont understand the point of this.... Republicans have a majority in the Senate, he wont be impeached. I think it will make it out of the House, because the Dems have a majority there. Then it dies, hypocritically or not, in the Senate. He has the only defense he needs, a majority in the Senate.

To be fair this whole impeachment thing is a wasted off money. 2020 is right there just beat the man in the elections and move on. I would support this If he were starting another term.

Needing a defense implies there was actually a crime. This whole thing is a temper tantrum. It has no basis in facts.

No, people can be falsely charged with a crime. In that situation, an innocent person still needs a defense.

how does heresay specifically apply to this investigation? no one is dead or anything. by what standard is heresay allowable in this investigation? also, why can't a president casually ask for a favor?

Why can't a president ask for a favor? Easy peasy. Because that favor might expose political crimes that occurred in the prior administration. Thus, it is important that such President is impeached and removed by any means necessary. Enjoy the Holiday circus.


Foreign aid is a bribe in and of itself. (1) Allow our companies to do the rebuilding so the aid money comes back to us, or (2) Elect the people who are friendly to us, or (3) Vote 'this way' at the UN and we'll keep the aid money flowing.

Trump has nothing to worry. There are just enough fools that trust and vote trump, even if he stated the world is flat and shot someone in broad daylight.

I have lost a lot of respect for LegalEagle on his coverage of the impeachment hearings. Everyone of the testimonies he says points towards "quid pro quo" are all the opinions of these individuals. Not a single testimony could even be taken in court as hearsay for bribery, extortion, or quid pro quo. As none of the individuals actually had conversations or documentation to back up a single thing they said. I use to watch your videos and enjoy your content, but its pretty clear whose side of the isle you are on. Edit: The first hand witnesses aren't being blocked by Trump, the house has shown they can just subpoena whoever they want. They are actually being blocked by the sitting chair Adam Schiff, he is in charge of witnesses being brought forth. Secondly Soundlands testimony with Schiffs questioning in the video they are talking about how everyone was aware of the "bribery and extortion" following the news article being published, not him acknowledging that the Trump administration knew about it prior. Also in further testimony it is found out that no meeting ever took place to discuss Trump or Giluianis dealings with Ukraine. Further showing that there is still not a single witness that can provide a shred of evidence supporting any crimes by the Potus.

Very concise. Just the facts.

"What defenses do the Trump Administration defenders have left? " The same one they always have: The fact that the accusers are completely making shit up as they go along.

I think you should make a video on the movie conviction

I really appreciate how he is trying to give us the facts, and showing little bias (none as far as I can tell) in the process. Thank you very much good sir.

24:55 When you say "Congress can declare war, ratify treaties, and appropriate funds", are you being sarcastic when you say "That's about it"?, because those sound like three big ass things.

are you sure it’s Federalists #’s 55 & 56? I just read them and they don’t seem to relate to impeachment to me, but are rather to a justification of the number of representatives in the House.

Presidementia Trumpski for 2020... YEARS IN PRISON :)

If the sheep won't sleep don't impeach

Is this an Impeachable Offense? The President has just pardoned a person convicted of bribery and money laundering after his company made a large legal political donation to the President's Wife's Senate Champaign.

you know he is guilty of this crime...

Is this an Impeachable offense? The president has secretly sent Navy Seals or Drones to kill a foreign Entity not on U.S. Soil. This violates U.S. law, should the President be Impeached?

For the rebuttal check out

I personally believe Trump's campaign promise to "drain the swamp" was more of a promise to replace one group of swamp dwellers with another, meaning he intended to root out a particular brand of corruption. And that involves political sides, which thoroughly muddies this particular situation. I'm not a fan of the type of corruption that Trump relies upon, but I feel the corrupt elements he is associated with would be more easily removed than the multi-decades long entrenched elements that were in place on his arrival. Should those more deeply entrenched elements become uprooted, and once his cult of personality center moves on toward retirement, a much less corrupted bureaucratic infrastructure would be left behind. Anyone who isn't completely naive knows how people and their networks operate. Side based biases, whether consciously applied or not, will always lead to that which is outside of a network to receive more negative scrutiny than insiders will, and usually insiders will be insulated from negative scrutiny by their network. I'm not entirely against Trump's rather unsavory side based attack on corruption, since once a particular brand of corruption has entrenched itself, it can be particularly difficult to remove. Because of this fact, the "proper channels" argument is extremely weak. There is more than sufficient evidence to determine that the "proper channels" that were needed to drain this particular patch of swamp (the Bidens/Ukraine) couldn't be relied upon to bring negative scrutiny upon their own side, especially knowing what was at stake (political power; a presidential election). Moving outside of "proper channels" in order to avoid the entrenched corrupt elements is the only way to deal with such a situation. And, yes, in cases of two different opposing corrupt groups trying to root each other out, the lines between rooting out "corruption" and rooting out political enemies blur to the point where they are objectively one and the same. Since they are inseparable, the idea that there could be two different reasons for the "quid pro quo", with one being legitimate and the other not, is a pointless one. Anyone who is having trouble following what I wrote here, just ask and I will attempt to clarify.

Apparently the establishment is so very deeply entrenched that they have convinced light weight lawyers that it is "a crime" to investigate the crimes of establishment politicians. Never mind that rooting out this corruption would benefit the U.S. *tremendously* .... if Trump benefits by proxy, then its a "high crime" and he must be impeached.   Per transcript: Trump asked for "a favor". Meanwhile, that favor was to put the Department of Justice (AG) in touch with Ukraine. What kind of criminal out for "personal gain" asks to involve policing authorities in the MIDDLE of the their crime? Media has created a vengeful class of people, who yearn for despotic totalitarianism because they are too fragile to lose an election. YouTubers like this aren't helping.   Anyway, point noted. Draining the swamp is messy and no one is going to come out smelling like roses. Shame that the swamp got so deep and mirky. Mirky Merica, we are.

Just come out and say it, he's guilty AF.

You should react to The Oreville season one episode three about a girl.

I feel like people aren't talking enough about how trump's actions have destabilised internal politics within Ukraine. Forcing their hand has publicly challenged the Ukrainian prime minister's character and moral judgement. Similarly here in the UK the collaboration of Boris Johnson and Trump over potentially criminal acts is a serious issue that will undoubtedly come up in our upcoming election.

Citing Ben Shapiro? omg seriously

love watching these videos. But i'd love to see you review Tim Heidecker's Electric Sun 20 trial. It is in my opinion a brilliantly written and acted trial, set in the entire Tim Heidecker universe (On Cinema at the cinema, decker, dekkar, ...)

Lawyers really ARE sneaky! Just the sneak of it all!

It is pretty cut and dry to me: "Investigate the Biden's and we will give you aid" is clearly a personal goal to undermine a electoral opponent. "Get rid of your Nuclear arms or we will cut aid" is clearly in the best interest of the country. Trump was doing this for himself, not the country. Whether or not that is a crime is irrelevant, he is using his office for personal gain and should get removed from office for doing so. Let a criminal court decide if what he did was illegal afterwards.

@Eric There were 4 Constitutional experts. Three are pro-impeachment and 1 is arguing this process is going too fast for impeachment. The poor bastards are still sitting there answering the same questions from everyone over and over again.

@J ateabug I haven't heard the testimony of the lawyers but yes the house stipulated that they would have three constitutional lawyers and Trump would have one. So basically it sounds like it played out as expected

@EricThe sad state of this whole House Judiciary Committee seems to be boiling down to Republicans stating there is no good reason to impeach and Democrats stating that there is. In business, what Trump did is called "Leverage" against another company/corporation. The question we really need to ask that is outside of party lines is, Did President Trump abuse the office of the President by applying this leverage over the President of the Ukraine? Did he abuse his power by obstructing congress? Did he abuse his power by ordering his subordinates to ignore subpoenas? 3 of the 4 Constitutional Experts called to testify today say yes, he did. Maybe 3 of them are Democrats. This system is so broken.

@J ateabug After reading the phone call, and hearing the testimonies, the evidence can suggest which ever possible explanation one wants. The implication is whatever people want to believe.

@Eric You are correct, I didn't give the exact words, but the implication was there.

except at no time did trump say this

Mulvaney didnt say that. He was answering a question asked before the quid pro quo question.

They're both using the Chewbacca defense, mostly because pushing for impeachment on grounds that would actually lead to impeachment would... lead to impeachment of every successive president for exactly the same reasons. Nobody wants to open that box.

I'm watching the 12/4/2019 hearings, and can't help but think: "If you don't have the law, pound the facts. If you don't have the facts, pound the law. If you don't have either, pound the table. And if you can't pound the table, use the parlimentary rules to waste time and confuse the issue"

No matter what side of the political fence you fall on you should remain as unbiased as possible. In this video you clearly failed to do that. As a sign of respect to your fans and to your profession you should redo this video in an unbiased manner as if didn't care of the outcome. >_> Its shameful, i dont care about politics in the least but when you clearly see a lot of bias in the "real law review" you've gone do far. Maybe ill resub in the future but for now you've lost one.

@TheMarsCydonia I watch, or rather used to watch all of his content. So yeah I do, and I often commented on his videos to agree or disagree whatever its part of the content. I dont understand how you think that would be hard to believe.

@Eric Sure, since you do not know to whom I am specifically referring to. Just as it isn't unreasonable for anyone to wonder that those who claim to be unbiased are in fact biased.

@TheMarsCydonia I'm sorry but it's not unreasonable for me to wonder if you labeled those complaining as having bias even though they might not be.

@Eric I've yet to see evidence of anyone unbiased complaining. I've seen a lot of people complaining about bias but that's because the video was not pandering to their biases.

@TheMarsCydonia that may be true, but those that are unbiased can clearly see the biased, along with those that have been paying attention to the actual situation. Basically your statement points out one of many possibilities. Legaleagal is biased as hell

@yelsew82 Hope you're not expecting anyone to believe this... People that actually don't care don't watch and comment and tell how it should be done.... Well, not exactly how it should be done because their list of examples are habitually a long *nothing* they usually call it biased. When you can't address the arguments, better call them biased and move on.

@TheMarsCydonia Well that's definitely not the case as I don't care either way how this case plays out. I do however do not like subtle and not so subtle in this case biased reviews and examinations of the material with an injection of ideals/agenda/what ever from either either side of the fence. There isn't any need for it what so ever. >_> All I want is facts thats it

Someone biased will evaluate other people as biased if they don’t share their bias.

First of all. Im no Trump fan. But the idea that No quid pro quo in the transcript is a matter of opinion Is UTTER NONSENSE! There just WASN'T . Not in fact. Not implied. Literally none of the words even suggest it. The Ukrainians didnt even know any funds were being withheld. The Ukraine President Himself insists there was no quid pro quo. Its a total nothing burger. The Demonrats are tricksying the system and the media is Lying for them because? TDS apparently. Im baffled...

Objection: Please review “All Rise” a new legal drama

Even if there was a quid pro quo, it's not a crime.

This is by far one of my favorite videos you have done! Is there anyway you can give us a short written version which highlights your answers to each of those defenses? I want to use this as a guide when trying to explain some of these to some of my friends lol. If not I guess I can re-watch it over and over while taking notes lol

If you use these arguments against any moderately legal savvy person, you will get torn apart. Here's a video to see what I mean

Andrew Sturdivant this is so biased you have to be 0IQ to see that

Mmm yes how impartial and bipartisan this video truly is

Talk about psych season 1 episode 12: Cloudy with a chance of murder Why wouldn't any competent person want this investigated?

You, the lawyer, failed to tell us whether you think the phone call contained quid pro quo. You also failed to tell us which, if any, hearsay testimonies are weak or strong. Those things seem key to determining whether the defense is adequate. Perhaps you should do a video examining the allegations since the prosecution is the one making the claims of wrongdoing.

16:30 For the umpteenth time, on behalf of the good people of Ohio, I apologize for Jim Jordan. Please do not judge all Ohioans based on his words/actions. I promise you, my skin crawls at the mere mention of his name just like yours does. Again, Ohio apologizes for Jordan.

NO COLLUSION NO COLLUSION NO QUID PRO QUO, HILLARY IS THE RAEL CRIMINAL If your mind was already made up, which is stupid cultish behavior by definition, why’d you come here and make this loser comment?

@TheMarsCydonia yes nobody will doubt your clear bias your inability to do your own research is the issue in that aspect... Sorry i really don't have time to debate a heckler such as yourself im sure you will find another

@heartless0n3 There's nothing that says "I'm unbiased" more than assuming that Trump appointees are secretly Democrat agents...

@TheMarsCydonia lol funny you make assumption s so fast to defend your personal bias i watch this stuff to avoid that and trolls such as yourself

TheMarsCydonia I can tell.

John Doe entertainment

TheMarsCydonia why are you spamming this video lol.troll

@Dog God Ah yes, The leader of North Korea lies so I guess every statement of every nation's leader must be as well! That's not an extremely nonsensical statement at all! The President of Ukraine MUST be lying to the world to defend someone he didn't work with. If I was being wrongfully pressured by a foreign leader, then when he is facing impeachment is the perfect time to come out *against* him, not in *defense* of him. You're really looking for something where nothing exists.

Chris P yes, among other things

I'm not an American, but it amazes me how you all are this hellbent on seeing your president in the worst light possible... This very video neglects to show Mr. Sondaland say in his own words that the quid pro qou was his perception... The only person to say there was any expectation for a favour from the Ukrainians admits that it wasn't explicit, but a matter of perception... Further more, the IS a video of Mr. Biden with his own words admitting to telling the Ukrainians to fire their prosecutor or no money... But hey, what if that benefited a company his son was working for at the time, he was doing it for America

If I had enough time and a big enough paralegal staff I could find something technically impeachable on every president we've ever had.

Mayor Jasiel Correia (Fall River, MA) is under federal indictment.for just this... Bribery.

I guess if you take into account the so called "witnesses" have actually seen and or witnessed anything then i can believe them. However they themselves stated they did not do so. How about when he testified their was no quid pro quo or are you just assuming they are telling the truth and when he admitted that he was lying while telling the truth. So which one is it. While your at it explain the rest of the witness admitting their was no quid pro quo. What whistle blower?

@jim c another issue i have with your statement, Congress is meant to be a representation of the people, no matter how much you hate it, congress SHOULD vote on the beliefs of their people and if they dont than they should be voted out, And again, how do you think the ammendments were written? I can sure as hell tell you that they werent written at the time of the constitution, If you believe that congress should never pass laws to overrule previous "laws of the land" then african americans still wouldnt be full people in the eyes of the law, Your logic seems to only be aplying to issues you disagree with rather than ones you do.

@jim c slight issue, it was withheld from july to september, i just looked into it past this video, It was more than 12 days, if it was than its slightly understandable Edit: im sick and tired of people calling the left communist or socialist, They are a decent part of the segment but most liberals are capitalist in nature as I am.

@Zenix Hrothguar I fear the day the congress can make up rules to supersede and overrule the laws of the land as they see fit. Yes the money was held for a grand total of 12 days and that maybe wrong I am just wondering how many times it has happened under other presidents and nothing was said by the same sanctimonious congressmen who are screaming from the towers how dare he. To me a government that is run by a single body and not the people is horrifying especially when the leading power considers themselves to be socialist aka communist they are one of the same.

I think a larger argument could be made of the administration withholding the funds over the words of congress, I fear the day the president has more power than the congress.

Objection: Video, audio recordings, and ESPECIALLY "testimony of the accused" are in no way shape or form hearsay. Those are DIRECT evidence. The last of which is an "end all" evidence.

"end all" meaning once we have that particular piece of evidence, there's no further need for a trial, we can go straight to sentencing.

To expand on the attempted bank robber analogy, the ukrainians saying that the investigations were not a condition of the release of aid, is the same thing as if the bank teller testified publicly that the alleged attempted bankrobber did not demand money from her.

Surprised he hasn't been assassinated tbh

Request for John Adams episode 1 Join or Die regarding the Boston Massacre.

Do the trial of Ron Swanson in parks and rec or the movie puncture starring Chris Evans

As I'm re-watching this video to get a better understanding of it, I just got an ad to take the impeachment survey. Brilliant.

The most hilarious thing about this whole hearing is that the very DEFINITION of politics is quid pro quo LOLOL. Not necessarily personal. We help you, you help us. That's international relations.

This was a very thorough overview and was done with the utmost respect. Thank you for you doing your homework and educating myself and other in this case. The Segway to Audible was impeccable and very relevant to your presentation. Kudos to you. Cheers from Canada.

Can you give your viewpoint on this trial

I think his defense is that he had cause to probe corruption in Ukraine. It's not his fault that the corrupt people happen to be connected to a Democrat presidential candidate. Maybe Democrats should consider not being corrupt.

Oh also, i would like to bring up how alot of members in the Trump administration have been expanding the funds they are paid (Take into consideration Ben Carson firing someone due to them not willing to buy things for a christmas party over budget), You need to realize both sides are very corrupt and you are pointing at the other side blaming it for something yours is doing.

However the larger argument is if he did this due to ending corruption OR because Joe Biden is running for president, I get it if he did it a year or so in however it seems more likely that he did this due to him running against him, The tower seems to be shaking.

Thank you for breaking it down for us!

Have you ever reviewed Goliath?


Anyone else think he looks like a GQ ad? Also, he raises some interesting points. One he left out was Trump's propensity for accusing others of what he's been caught doing.

Main thing I got is LegalEagle wants to go in on a bank robbery case.

George Washington warned it would be shit, and it pretty much is.

Do we have to have political parties?

This video is just as unbiased as NPR.


So the USA asked a country to investigate corruption/possible election meddling? Hold on a second while I clutch my pearls.... Also how is this any different from biden and Obama's demands on Ukraine? You know when they actually held the funds back...

ahhh yes the thing we do when trading currency for services is bribery, why did congress decide to give 400m+ of Taxpayers $$ to Ukraine? what to fund arms dealers? it's not even for peaceful things. Congress is making the US citizens financial backers of proxy wars. i honestly dont see anything wrong with saying we are gonna need you to do some investigations on these people we feel have done things of a corrupt nature within your borders before we hand over 400M+ Sure it would benefit Trump if they were to of found evidence against Biden but it would also benefit the American people...... now if trump withheld the funding in order for them to bury evidence on his wrong doing i would consider that bribery. like trading currency to get away with a crime is how i see bribery not trading money for someones service.

Here is what I know. The witnesses thus far have testified about what they felt was by what they where told was said. That isn’t even hearsay. Edit: I mean I honestly think Trump doesn’t need a defense. The actual events aren’t at issue. Whether or not he did anything is irrelevant. The Dem’s are trying to impeach because they have been ranting about it three year of this president; and four other of the last six Rep presidents too. This isn’t based on any actual crimes or wrongdoing. Trump actually being innocent or guilty is immaterial to these proceedings. This is political, nothing more.

Rooting out corruption? P.L. 116-6, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, provides the following for Israel: $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF), of which $815.3 million is for off-shore procurement; $5 million in Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) for refugee resettlement $2 million in a homeland security grant; Reauthorization of U.S. loan guarantees to Israel through September 30, 2023; and Reauthorization of War Reserve Stock Allies-Israel (WRSA-I) through Sept 30, 2020. All without delay from the Trump admin. Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu charged on 11/21/2019 with corruption. Let's have no more of the "rooting out corruption" nonsense.

During a rant of republican represetaive I thought they were using the Chewbacca defense,

Is this point of view completely bias? Doesn't come off that way does it?

No one has to call them liars, but they can say that it was their OPINION that a quid pro quo existed. None can say that they KNEW of a quid pro quo when it came to the aid. Assumptions aren't evidence. Quid pro quo for the white house meeting is a different story. That one however is extremely common in the diplomatic world. Later in the video, you state that trump talked about the aid, then said "do us a favor though" and that is factually wrong. The favor came LONG before the aid and was dealing with a different talking point Maybe you could do a video explaining what the heck is going on in this

Trump didnt ask for anything for the money. geez all this talk and you seem to miss that part. He said he wanted a favor. he NEVER offered that cash for the favor. They were close to each other in the conversation, however they dont have to be related because they are in the same paragraph

Love the South Park reference, thank you sir. Chewbacca defense.

Impeachment is vote based and get over it.

Counselor, Primal Fear is now on Netflix. Please review!

You forgot the parts where all of the 'witnesses' had no evidence, and no first hand knowledge. Sondland.clearly said it was his *PRESUMPTION* , which, as stated in the hearing, means *NOTHING* . I could PRESUME that Extra Terrestrials exist, but where's my proof?

I would like to bring up the fact that trump still withheld funds illegally for a year, The funds were set to go through my congress and the President may only withhold funding for 45 days... There is a massive issue with overstepping congress.

Hey, btw, how about lawyering the latest Dredd movie?

"It doesn't appear that trump administration cared about corruption in Ukraine in 2017 or 2018, it was only in 2019 when Joe Biden became the political front-runner for the dems in the 2020 election." Says a lot, doesn't it?

Can you cover the court case of Jean-Claude Van Damme vs. Frank Dux

The best defense so far is Trump giving the Democrats the middle bird and just telling them to give him a call for a subpoena once they have some real evidence.

You could not be a bigger hack. Show the evidence of a QUID Pro Quo. No one has provided either proof of the QPQ OR the proof of the results of the QPQ. Your statement that most of the witnesses are lying there ARE NO WITNESSES to something that never happened. NONE of the people called to testify had first hand knowledge of a QPQ conversation, and the "whistleblower" refuses to testify because he would be exposed as another partisan hack. Go back to explaining movies you were far better doing that.

I don't know if you're ever going to read this, but I would really like it if you covered the case of the SCP Foundation's Russian Division facing closure because Andrey Duksin abused lax Russian trademark standards in order to trademark the SCP Logo to turn a profit on what was free-license contributions by fans. US Forum Announcement: Russia Licensing Statement:

May be beneficial to not use imagery or etc that paints the GOP in a poor light, so that those of them who come by may actually be convinced of the arguments and not just put up their shields because you're displaying that you are against them.

Even with all the evidence. When it goes to trial Trump wont get impeached & democracy will begin it's dying breathes.

Suggestion on new video... How can Schiff get ahold of Trump phone records between him and his lawyer and use that in the impreachment.

Democrats have nothing to impeach him on. The only 'crime' was Trump beating Hillary in 2016.

Please watch the video, there is a LOT that shows issues in hoe trump has gone about this, You are following a person who will say what he says for people to view him as a god.

impeachment? hahahahaHaHaHAHAHAHAHA I'm looking forward to 2020 lmao

So what is wrong with him asking about the crimes that a person running for the highest office in our land. But it seems it is alright to claim that Trump has done lawless things. So they are investigating him and have been every since he was voted in, even before he was in the white house. If he did not commit any crime why would every one state he committed a crime by asking.

This is unrelated to the video but I just started to wonder today what happens if a lawyer for some reason becomes a witness for their client

Great channel. I think it would be very interesting to see you break down the 1993 Long Island Railroad Massacre. Thanks!

ayo can u react to the boondocks episode of the r jelly trial

If there is a god(s) out there in the universe Andrew Yang will win in 2020! please god please make people realize that Yang is the only person who has a chance of making life better for all!

There was a conditional hold on the money due to corruption. Let’s go legal eagle. Your a liberal I can smell it on you.

Ben "if I speak really fast I'll seem smart" Shapiro

I think it great, all history accounts, if you're in to a little bit of history.

Fake Lawyer Logic!! Sad...

0:39 I've heard you say that before and...truer words were never spoken. 8:12 This is suspicious. Why would Trump "block all the witnesses from talking to Congress" if he had nothing to fear from it? 14:56 That should have been "Amateur." Also, I see "Pro" in the text on the screen, but you did not say it. 36:44 Objection! He didn't have a table.

Witch hunt. 100 %

Nixon's impeachment was a lengthy 2 years or so because the evidence took that long to be released. All the evidence on Trump has been released; Ukraine did NOT feel pressured, the aid was released, and the witness testimonies are even completed. Trump would've been removed from office already if his actions were impeachable simply because we know everything already.

I notice you never actually cover the supposed crime, which doesn’t exist.

So word against word? No money flow with added interests? No written contract? When 2 people are in a car and try to bribe a cop without recording software then they might get in trouple. But if they form a "united front"(no one snitches) it will be word against word. It is illegal, but without recordings..... meh.

He loves to leave it up to us the viewer to decide and never gives his opinion.

Sondlend lied under oath, he admitted that he alone presumed a quid pro quo

"I want nothing I want nothing no quid pro quo!" Wow what an incredibly suspicious thing to say. Its like a solving crime for dummies book.

yeah right. corrupt Donald is concerned about corruption. who can believe this?

Just like Magnus

@Michele M lol

"I don't often agree with Ben Shapiro." Well ya did it... Now I am in love with you!

One president enquiring about investigating a corrupt politician from his country with the president where said corruption took place and he implicitly (at best) uses foreign aid they give him as leverage to come to a deal. This is how politics and business works!

Hi! Don't know if you'll see this request but please discuss the Elon Musk libel case. I just think the jury must have been clueless.

Donald Trump really really really wanted to testify before the Impeachment Hearings but his Doctor has diagnosed Brain Spurs. He is so disappointed, poor man

"... and John Friggin' Bolton..."

I like how you are a a filthy neutral. Keep up the good work.

Ukraine also still hasn't recieved 35million of the original sum so...


there isnt even one

I love that when J.D. covers these subjects he never leans one way or another he lets his audience decide what they think after giving some evidence from either side.

hey man you want some money??? do me a favor though. oh thanks *five minutes later* wait you didn't do me a favor??? jeez welp here's the money!

This guy, what a joke.

December 7, news today is $35 million in aid Still withheld.

Around 22:36, how did you find the ONE normal picture of Rudy Guliani?? (Just kidding, great video!)

You must also have the “capacity to commit “ the act. I could say, give me one million dollars and I will destroy the United States of America. Obviously, I don’t have the ability to commit the act. So there is no crime. First year law students doing YouTube.

Don't you think Trump would've found a better way to get dirt on Biden than doing something so potentially explosive as this ? I mean really.......don't you think Trump is aware that his phone calls, to world leaders, are being monitored ? Don't you think that Giuliani has a bit of "know how" when it comes to doing skeevy things, due to his prosecuting Mafia figures all these years ? I know none of that really matters, from a legal point of view, but c'mon now people.....a little critical thinking. TRUMP - "Hey Rudy....I was thinking of using a high profile aid package to pressure the Ukraine president into digging up dirt on my political rival, Joe what do you think of me using an official phone call, monitored by several people, to do it" ? GIULIANI- "Go for it, Donny, I've never heard of a phone call being used as evidence against someone, for criminal actions before". you really think the Dems. are concerned about "abuse of power", with this.....Really ?

at 4:30 you say sondland said there was a quid pro quo, which is not true, cause if you watched the hearings he says HE ASSUMED or PRESUMMED it. HUGE difference. so i wont watch anymore cause i can see you will probably do this all video and lie

Just fyi there is a small typo in your legal disclaimer, 3rd line down. you should conta tc ...... contact*

Objection: Facts will not change. Opinions and perspective may change, but facts are immutable.

"Hear say is strong evidence" ok so next time im going to tell a cop that i heard someone say that they killed someone, from what this lawyer says and i have a more confidence that he is not telling a lie for any reason cause hes a lawyer, you can always trust a lawyer, lawyers never lie.

Not related to trump but still a legal question. How come it's so difficult to win a case of self defense especially if the person who inited has more injuries? I think this is the case with kids too. Two kids get into a fight. The school doesn't care what happened except that one kid got so the other kid should be punished.

Laws Broken: The Shawshank Redemption.

There is no argument. What Republicans are going to say in an impeachment trial is that there is a treaty between the United States and Ukraine to cooperate with regard to eliminating corruption. The Presidents of the two countries can discuss any corruption or suspected corruption, including specific persons involved. The position of the Democrats is that their candidates for political office cannot be discussed. This is nonsense. If Democratic party candidates do not want to be discussed in telephone conversations between Presidents of nations, then what they should avoid doing is having family members who are accepting bribes and should not be using political position to withhold loan money unless a prosecutor is fired. This impeachment is going nowhere and is a total loser for Democrats.

If there's a standing treaty, why did Trump ask for an investigation into the Bidens in exchange for the military aid? Surely that treaty would leave the Ukrainian President obliged to open the investigation without needing anything dangled over him. Yet the line from the transcript was "I would like you to do us a favor, though" so he was asking for the investigation to be opened in exchange for the promised aid. And before anyone says it; yes Trump did eventually give Ukraine...most of the promised military aid. However, this was only after the situation was revealed to the public, so it's still suspect in the best case


cant wake someone up whos pretending to be asleep...joe Rogan podcast

Presume a crime occurred so I can bill you for legal advice; the proper title to this video. Even the Harvtard professors refused to name a crime and simply pushed an emotional hatred of the man and nothing else. *Obstruction of justice by interfering with the legislatures quasi court hearings?!? Spare me.*

The problem is they are all hyper partisan liars. Anyone should know this. Also, the president has authority for “quid pro quo” when dealing with foreigners. Those Latin words are just being used to confuse the average idiot to think Trump did something wrong. All presidents put force on other nations. They have such authority granted by the Constitution. What a parade and a circus of radicals they brought forward. No real witnesses to anything. They are all anti-Trumpers and have made fools of themselves and I ascertain they have committed treason. Knowingly making statements on behalf of thugs to remove a duly elected president. I can go on. And on and on. But what it will come down to if they keep this up is well over 400 million guns in the hands of Americans that are becoming as angry as a hornet’s nest ignorantly struck with a stick. I’d highly recommend they stand down in this farce. This clown show of trump haters. They will endure another term of Trump and that I guarantee.

I think the best thing i've heard was a response to a guy that said the president said there was no quid pro quo and the other guy said so if you get shot to death by a guy screaming no homicide do that mean you were murdered.

3.2k dislikes are from trump and his bot accounts

In the beginning of the video he says he will do a steelman view, and then throughout the video does the complete opposite. The president cannot withhold aid unless congress allows provisions...and now we are debating on whether trump did quid pro quo by speculation-how could we possibly know what trump was thinking WITHOUT HIM TESTIFYING! Are these people saying trump told them it was indeed quid pro quo or a bunch of people who...”thought that?”

@GiftOfKnowledge 0001 quid quo pro is simply not in any way illegal

I mean from what I gather, a lot of the people saying there was a quid pro quo were acting on either the direct instruction of Trump, or Rudy Giuliani, who gets his instructions directly from Trump. Their testimony seems pretty solid in that regard. But hey, if Trump's testimony would help convince people, he has been invited to testify (repeatedly, I believe). He's declined, but someone might talk him into it, and if he doesn't then I'm sure they can reach a conclusion without him. I mean the accused refusing to testify is rarely a good sign for them, but I doubt it's a requirement for most court cases and I further doubt it's a requirement for impeachment. Testifying is Trump's right, but of course he can waive and un-waive that right as he pleases.

Eagle, if you run, I'd vote for you.

"Like" for not often agreeing with Ben Shapiro.

Joe Biden shouldn't be voted for, to begin with. He talks about how he loves kids to sit on his lap and sniffing their hair...

Would you review the court scene from the Golden Girls season 5 episode Love Under the Big Top?

Dislike ratio indicates a lot of boomers didn't like hearing a legal expert explain their strong opinions and hundreds of hours watching Fox News don't make them legal experts.

I just unsubscribe from your Channel, I didn't want to but I feel like I don't have any choice. The reason I unsubscribed just because if YouTube is on autoplay no matter what I do it starts playing this particular video after it plays the first video I select. Every single time, I wish there was a way to avoid having this happen.

Excellent take.

the only person who said there was quid pro quo was sondland. he "presumed" there was, which isn't evidence, and presumed the quid pro quo was related to the meeting, not the military aid. also, democrats changed the accusation of quid pro quo to bribery because it sounded better. they can't even keep their accusations straight. also, when he said "we do that all the time", it was referring to holding military aid, not because of quid pro quo, but because giving aid to a foreign country is a big deal and there are hurdles you need to overcome. it's virtually never smooth when aid is given. with all due respect, you sound quite biased in this video.

Think like a lawyer? You mean sell my own mother? Nope.

34:00 *best part!* review the Imperiums legal framework as a lawyer. I happil await the legal headache.

I didn’t know that determining a crime can be contingent on how the victim feels about the crime. Because it can’t. Because that doesn’t make sense. I wouldn’t say necessarily that the person who was extorted need to feel pressured, rather that the attempt to apply pressure was made and can be proven that the intent was to apply pressure for a personal goal, much like the case of quid pro quo really depending on what it was that was promised. Attempted murder, attempted burglary, attempted bribery. Why not attempted extortion, then? Well, that’s difficult for the same reason it will be difficult to prove Donald’s motivations in the quid pro quo he made with Ukraine. It’s a lot easier when we can observe the outcome of the crime in these cases after they’ve been committed, because trying to prove that someone attempted a quid pro quo or attempted extortion is basically a game of “he said she said.” So when they argue “Ukrainians didn’t feel any pressure” so? Doesn’t mean you didn’t try to pressure them. If someone punched me in the gut for no reason, would it matter if it hurt me or not in determining if the person was guilty of assault? If they attempted to kill me but failed spectacularly, would it matter that they never even came close? No, not so long as it can be proven they did indeed intend to murder me. So why do these people really think “ukranians didn’t feel pressure therefore no quid pro quo” is a good defense? Simple. Because, like I said, it’s basically just a “he said she said” this case is. Because the exchange was never made we can’t observe who it benefited the most, and we therefore can’t determine the why, since the results of this exchange would be the desire of both parties. And that’s why the results of it would show why it was done. But without that, it’s really easy to lie because there is no truth that exists outside of the person that attempted the crime. Therefore the person can manipulate that truth at free will, and it doesn’t matter if people believe it or not. There’s no way to prove otherwise. Edit: I hadn’t watched the video past the point where he talks about the republican defenses before commenting (I know, shame). LegalEagle says what I wanted to say but more elegantly. It wouldn’t even matter if you didn’t know they’d attempted to kill you, they still attempted to kill you. It doesn’t matter if you’re too stupid to actually pull it off, because the definition of an act is a lot more nuanced than people seem to think it is anymore. If I try to do something, I acted, even if I failed to succeed. to commit a crime you have to act. And acting includes trying, and failing, to do a different act. That’s why attempted crime is a crime.

The simple fact that Trump's lawyers try to argue that the president is legally allowed to murder people, proves that Trump does not understand the country and its history, does not understand the Constitution, does not understand the oath of office, and is unfit for the Office of the President of the UNITED States of America.  No politician worth their salt can argue this, because checks and balances is what the Constitution is built on, and (this one's for the GOP) it has always been the precedent.  There is no freedom under a monarch or dictator.

So by Jim Jorden Logic, I could try and bribe him not to Vote yes one bill. And even If he did not take the money. I could not be charged with bribing a sitting house of representative.

Listen to MadMen y'all...he knows what he's talking about!

Forever Trumper's have left the chat.

Quick question about posting bail. If someone is released on bond, but didn't pay anything then shouldn't that person still be incarcerated for the crime they committed?

Can you cover the Bill Nye/Disney lawsuit???

Why the shirt and tie without waching you face?

This was very well done. Thanks for helping me wrap my head around the subject.

Can the camera operator / editor please stop zooming in and out!

So should Joe Biden be in trouble for what he did ? Seems like if they get trump for this , they could not turn a blind eye to the video of Joe that we have all saw ... Seems like ur a bleeding heart dem right under the tacky suite...

I mean sure, someone probably could get Biden for...whatever he did. But I think the biggest issue is demonstrated right there; the consequences of Trump trying to get dirt on the Bidens is completely overshadowing anything the Bidens did. To the point that this is the first I'm hearing of any actual evidence of wrongdoing and I don't even know what it is, just that there's a video. I mean once the impeachment thing concludes people will probably focus on whatever evidence was found, but for now the impeachment is the biggest thing in the west and it's just gonna overshadow everything else.

I'm not a lawyer but I enjoy your clips very much. Thank you for taking the time to do them.

All of the political arguments are pointed towards allegations that are based purely on third party speculation. That's why this whole thing has been a mess

Legal eagle, ive asked twice and will keep asking. When are you going to discuss joe biden witholding a billion dollars unless a prosecutor is fired.

You EARNED MY SUBSCRIPTION like a mothaf***a. Great vid, great channel

10:00 If you think about it, this has to be the case or it would be necessary for the police to allow people to actually complete any crime before arresting them for it. In the UK I think the definition under the criminal attemps act is something like "Any person who, in attempting an act which is an offence jailable on indictment, performs an act which is more than merely preparatory to the offence is guilty of attempting that offence (does not apply to offenses of aiding and abetting)" & attracts the same sentencing tarrifs as the offence being attempted. Of course you may well get a lesser sentence for attempting them as the outcome of the offence is different, so you don't have things like Victim Impact Statements to contend with at sentencing.

I specifically remember in another video you saying how rare and difficult it is to use hearsay in a court of law and here you're essentially saying the opposite. bigthink

so the take away i can get from this is: "the president has the authority to do this, but it doesn't mean the president has the authority to do this"

You need to do a review of The Lincoln Lawyer

lets put it this way... lets say their are two different gangs of people... one person (from one gang) is on trial for a crime, and the chief witness that the prosecution (other gang) is using, didnt witness the crime but overheard that the individual committed the crime. Now lets say that "witness" also shows bias, as he is linked to the prosecution (other gang) in both supporting with funds and jobs... is this still a credible witness?

Please do the Bidens

The presidents private lawyer should not be involved with foreign affairs matters.

Do you normally get this many dislikes? Or is it because the impeachment\president topic?

You need to testify before Congress

That's like getting caught stealing from a store and screaming but grabing the item is part of the process of buying it! You dont use your own personal laywer to use tax payer funds ( which he had no right to hold for so long ) for things you personally want. Hes also been caught lying, putting the call in a sec vault. Others denied knowing of the cll when it turns out they were part of it lol. The president is not allowed to use his power for shady deals. Bill got impeached for lying about a bj. But you cunts cant think of anything trump did wrong? Righhhhhhhht lol

I mean he's not really being accused of having a quid pro quo, that's just something Trump denies being the case in one of his defenses and so has to be disproven. The quid pro quo is a just a step in determining if Trump is guilty of bribery, so if there was no quid pro quo then he can't be guilty, but if there was then he might be. Like I said it's just a step in the process.

The exact line was "I would like you to do us a favor, though" said in response to the Ukrainian president asking about the money and further business between them. And I gotta say, that "though" at the end there sure does seem to connect the money to the request, almost as if he was asking for the favor in exchange for the money.

You did a great job of defining the defenses Trump is relying on and the holes in those defenses... Thank you

Can you please do some videos about international series/movies like the excellent lebanese drama "The Insult" or the australian legal comedy "The Man who sued God" with Billy Connolly or the german legal drama "Terror - Your Verdict"? I wouldn't mind your thoughts on the australian version of "Rake" either...

If Trump was asking to look into improper actions of a former Vice President and not a political rival then it wouldn’t be a thing of value.

This has been a clown show. More crap from the democrats not getting anything done for the American people. Sore losers.

Objection!!!!!!! If the Ukraine’s didn’t know the money was being held does that not change the narrative?

The like/dislike ratio on this video says everything about why we are having issues politically. There will always be 14% of us who are functional retards, and unfortunately we believe in free speech.

Any advice on copyrights on personal seasoning mixes and sauces that I my sell in the future?

The problem with courts is that a person saying something is considered "strong evidence" while there's actually no lesser form of evidence than people (and that said even without considering the possibility of them lying).

Defense? Shouldn't there be a crime first?

and WHY don't you alway agree with Ben Shapiro? Because you're a democrap HACK!!! Shame on you!!

Yeah this video did not age well lmfao

guilty AF

You want to embrace the darkness, that's your business. I have faith, and know, that justice will win. Hopefully one day before you die you will see the light.

The thing that bugs me is that the executive branch cannot withhold foreign aid for any reason after congress has voted to send it.

can you not call it a transcript? it was a memo. not a transcript.

The problem is motivation, what was the President’s Clear motivation. Also the reason for Trump mentions of Biden between him and Ukraine were because Ukraine’s told him about it. There is also a Politico story about the Biden’s corruption, which is probably archived and the person writing that story was fired. I respect your evaluation of the case, but right now I would say that both Trump and Biden won’t be affected. There’s no evidence from either sides, the only thing that is fact is Hunter Biden works for Burisma. Impeachable, no, improper, yes. The question is did Trump do quid pro quo and did he fear losing to Biden. Answer to both is no, he released the transcripts and also Sondland said he heard from other conversations, not making him credible due to him not being the person that was given the information rather a hear say. There’s so much evidence of Democrats committing crimes, but no investigation such as the Bidens, Ilhan Omar, etc. Now that doesn’t make Republicans not guilty of crimes too, but double standards. Finally Biden, who would be scared of him, he is full of gaffes and if he wasn’t VP, he’d be out already; not to mention the Iowa Caucus and the other primaries, he’s behind Pete in IA and NH.

show the whole sondland clip, including the response to the very next question. yes. they are alll lying. all of them are following the line

Someone said: -"If I had a big enough paralegal staff I could find something technically impeachable about every president." I corrected him: No. Impeachment is both legal and political, you would need law scholars and the congress to decide that, also review the congress history. They are doing that, and so far it shows this one is impeachable for good.

Republicans have left reality. The only way you can defend Trump's actions is if you are intellectually dishonest about reality or lack any and all integrity.

222ckc When you’re losing support in the swing states over impeachment, you must think who is actually not in reality. I’m sorry but even Democrats aren’t all on board with impeachment and flip flopped. Also when Adam Schiff isn’t sure, you know your screwed. What Trump did was improper, not impeachable. Even if Trump was impeached in the House, but the Senate will deny it and call their witnesses.

"Bribery" in the Constitution refers to ACCEPTING a bribe...NOT 'making a deal'. These dems are really good at twisting terms to fit their twisted agendas.

30:10, I recall reading some case law from the U.S. Supreme Court a few years ago that stated the exact opposite. That, if there are two possible motives for an act, and one is lawful (such as acting in self-defense) then the finder of fact, usually the jury, cannot just assume without evidence that the mens rea must have been the culpable one. Imagine if a prosecutor--rather than have to prove a criminal mens rea--could simply invent a criminal reason for doing something that might have been lawful, for example firing a warning shot to stop a burglary. If the prosecutor could simply state, without other evidence, that the home owner wanted to endanger the criminal, she couldn't simply win a conviction just on that statement on closing. The State is required to prove all elements of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and disprove all lawful, rational explanations and justifications.

If the bank robber can be proven to be robbing the bank BOTH for a lawful and unlawful reason, then it would be sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unlawful intent existed. However, in this case, if President Trump merely wanted criminal wrongdoing by Biden and Burisma investigated, then he may have had either motive to want the Ukrainian gas company investigated. Obviously, the whole case gives the impression that Democrats in Congress are trying to remove President Trump for trying to "drain the swamp," as it were, and most of the comments on social media seem to uphold that. To gain a conviction in a criminal court, the prosecutor would still have to prove that the motive was not to clean up corruption nor investigate a particular crime involving Hunter and Joe Biden. The fact that Biden admitted in a CFR video that he'd made calls to withhold U.S. loan guarantees to the Ukraine to get them to fire the prosecutor who was looking into Burisma and deals with Crowdstrike (which his son was also involved with) provides evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and someone trying to expose corruption in Washington, D.C. Because it's possible that that is THE motive for Trump making these phone calls, and that is a lawful, rational explanation, the Democrats would need more than what they've dug up so far to disprove that lawful, rational explanation.

If nothing else, it's wonderful that Kelsey Grammar (or a character of his) is used as a point of argument against The Donald.

None of these facts that you base your opinion on, are facts. It's all conjecture and presumptions. So you're whole legal basis is incorrect.


You are definitely well versed in law. Thank you for your insight on this. I would say though I feel that you have misrepresented some of the republican lines of questioning. I wouldn’t say you have already taken a side on this, but it does seem that you have a lean towards the left on this. If I’m wrong than great, but that is how it seems to me.

I will agree though that this does not look great for President Trump at this moment, however I do have an issue with Republicans not being allowed to call upon witnesses that would shed light on this situation.

ol' joe was literally caught on video bragging about getting rid of the top inspector for aid money. guess what the inspector was investigating? that's right, a company his son had heavy ties to. if that's not literal quid pro quo and blatant corruption, i don't know what is.

Great. If the evidence is as you say, put Biden and Son away. Trump will have to face his own charges in his own trials. Maybe they can have adjoining cells.

Umm is hearsay corroborated actually still hearsay ?!? A lot of talking in circles going on here in this video... but you know what they say “ those who can’t do teach”

Not one person who has testified can say that they were told by Trump that the aid was to be held until Trump's request was fulfilled. Not one. It's all conjecture, assumptions, and hearsay. Here's the facts we know. Aid was temporarily held up, and then released. Trump allegedly wanted a public announcement by Ukraine of an investigation to damage the Bidens, that never happened. The president of Ukraine involved in the phone call was not even aware that aid was held up, and said he did not feel like Trump was trying to pressure him. The Republicans have not been allowed to call witnesses or subpoena documents or anything else you'd expect a defense to be able to do. Now, whether you feel that what was done was right is a matter of opinion and you're allowed to have that. But the question for impeachment is was a crime committed. The framers of the constitution were very careful to only impeach if there was a crime, not for maladministration or dislike. For the last couple centuries, we have done a pretty good job of sticking to that standard. But this case, there is no evidence of any crime. No judge worthy of their post would convict with what we have today. I'd also like to point out that what Trump was wanting to investigate is an alleged abuse of power by Biden while he was VP. And THAT allegation has a lot more evidence behind it than this one. There's been a trend in recent years of a double standard. Democrats are allowed to spy, cheat, abuse power, and nothing happens to them, while Republicans are not even allowed to suggest that Democrats did anything wrong without being treated like criminals themselves. The tactics Democrats use today would make famous witch-hunting politicians like McCarthy blush.

Lindsey Graham: ...You couldn't get a parking ticket conviction on hearsay... Do we convict someone of being guilty of a crime for a parking ticket? Isn't that, by definition, a lesser offense and not characterized as misdemeanor or felony. Aren't you cited for the violation; and these are considered civil offenses. Don't the capitalize on our ignorance to get that money into their coffers. Isn't one of the points surrounding this, that the solicitation wasn't a violation or crime; have to do a better job of framing Lindsey.

no one has ever gotten a parking ticket because a cop HEARD from someone you parked wrong. ever

Ultimately it boils down to theater. And I think the republicans are well versed in theater.

According to this opinion Trump is guilty and will be found guilty. I tend to disagree.

Impeachment shouldn't be used as a political power move to secure an election. This is a political charade by the left and there is zero chance that this passes the Senate and the House and the democrats know it. They want to smear Trump as much as possible before the next election in a move of propaganda solely to diminish his odds of winning in 2020. You need a high percentage to impeach and on an incredibly partisan issue like this it won't happen. Democrats are grasping at straws because they know they won't win and when this stuff actually goes to a real trial you'll see all the holes.

Humm. so how is promising to lower taxes if I vote for someone not also a quid pro quo equal to the favor trump asked for?

That's the dumb part. Almost everything is a quid pro quo. I'd like to see how lobbyists and campaign contributions do not fall under this murky quid pro quo standard.


Isn't the fact that the president has multiple defenses show that hea guilty....I mean if I'm innocent I have one defense and I stick to it

I'll see you in 2020 when Trump resumes his 2nd term.

So I'm not familiar with US jurisprudence (I hold a South African law degree), but to my mind Shapiro's point gains a fair amount of traction. Coming from a rather detached principled position, I apologise if this comes across as ignorant. From what I can tell, the fundamental issue is whether the US president used his official position (in essence a fiducairy position as regards the public interest etc) to gain a personal advantage such that it falls outside of the scope for which his powers were meant to be used. Given that impeachment is at its core a political question, I submit that the question of intention/ mens rea should take centre stage as this throws most light on whether there was a violation of a fiducairy duty. If it's a reasonable version of events to hold that Trump leveraged the aid in order to ensure that funds weren't flowing to a corrupt government, and assuming a criminal burden of proof is applicable (this is beyond my limited knowledge of the US impeachment proceedings), then the question of abuse of a fiducairy position falls way. If Trump was in violation of other legislative provisions, his actions may well have been unlawful, but not necessarily an offence that should result in impeachment given that it doesn't amount to a violation of trust in the same sense.

Ultimately the question of mens rea would come to an inference that must be drawn from the objective facts. The question then remains as to what the evidential burden is for proceedings of this nature, i.e balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt. Seems like something that ought to be addressed via proper evidential proceedings in a court of law. How can these factual questions be solved objectively if the outcome ultimately comes down to a political vote, whereby these votes are given in freedom of conscience?

I think you hit it on the head in your explanation of the Repubs attempted use of exculpatory evidence, i.e., the weight of the crime is cancelled by virtue of its failed outcome. This continued use by the Repubs clearly evidences Trump's criminal behavior by virtue of the fact that a failed outcome to a crime does not excuse the crime itself. They are acting instead as defense attorneys for Trump in the respect that a lawyer who KNOWS his client HAS committed the crime CANNOT legally claim that they are innocent. This tells a lot about what the Repubs think of Trump's actions.

When is foreign aid not used to pressure or bribe a country into some sort of submission? Examples please...


Not to mention that we know now, at least 30 million of that money, STILL hasnt been released to Ukraine.

this guy is an idiot he tosses John in there and he hasn't said shit

i kinda hope a democrat gets elected after Trump gets 4 more years people can feel the pain that comes with having a democrat in charge taxing your ass.. you are from cali so you are brainwashed liberal who thinks giving up control to government is a good idea as an adult man you gotta be kidding me Trump Administration Accomplishments---

Objection! The information as of December 7th has changed the defense yet again! The melting ice under the feet of trump!

dude they changed to nadler shiff got rekt so badly

Your bias shows, and you're not "thinking like a lawyer" or at least not as an unbiased one. I don't care what Sondland said in his opening statement. It all went out the window when he admitted the only proof he had of quid pro quo was his "presumptions." Maybe you missed that part. Pretty sure presumptions don't count for much in matters of law.

@Peremalfait Do you know what circumstantial evidence is? When you have multiple strands of evidence (which don't include the President saying "I did this, I'm guilty") that strongly point to a particular conclusion, that matters. And circumstantial evidence is used to convict people all the time. In this case, the actions taken by the President were interpreted by virtually everyone working for him, and everyone on the Ukranian side, as him conditioning military aid on the investigations. I mean, that was the clear understanding by basically everyone, and we wouldn't know that had we not received the testimony, including from Sondland. He was a diplomat working for Trump so his understanding and "presumption" is obviously relevant, especially since he communicated this presumption to the Ukranian side. But because the President didn't explicitly say that no aid would be coming if there were no investigation, the mountain of evidence we have should all be discarded? Maybe I'm misunderstanding but what proof do you have in mind that would be acceptable?

@Luigi Vincenzo We're going in circles. Isn't the premise of this video and this channel that LegalEagle gives his thoughts on issues from a lawyer's perspective? Law requires facts. Understandings aren't facts. Beliefs aren't facts. Presumptions aren't facts. Because all these things can be wrong.These things wouldn't be enough to convict a man of littering. "It's my understanding that Luigi is a litterer. Everyone says so." "Did you see him litter?" "No, I have only my presumptions that he's a litterer." "Case dismissed." It seems absurd to have to point out that a fact witness should have some facts. One more and final time, Sondland, in his own words, under oath, told the committee that he had no evidence and I quote "other than my own presumptions." He testified that no one on earth told him there was a quid pro quo. As a fact witness, how in hell is his testimony of value to anyone?

@Peremalfait He was saying that everyone, including himself, came to understand that the military aid was tied to the investigations based on all the information they had at the time. Given the Presidents personal and persistent interest in getting Ukraine to announce these investigations coupled with the unexplained hold-up on aid would have been more than enough for Zelenski to link the two, which he and almost everyone else did. Now personally I think that Sondland is lying because we had two other witnesses testify that Sondland told them that the President, on the phone, said that although there was *"no quid pro quo, unless Zelensky announced these investigations, we would be at a stalemate."* Which is like saying "this isn't a robbery, but give me all your money and you won't be hurt.": When queried about this in his public testimony, Sondland said that he didn't recall, which I find highly unlikely. But the circumstantial evidence is more than enough anyway.

The point of my op was, specifically, as a fact witness, Sondland was useless. LegalEagle said that Sondland came out and said there was a quid pro quo. Again, that he says there was a quid pro quo is negated by his admission that no one had ever told him there was, and he had only his own presumptions to go on. That doesn't make him a liar, but it doesn't prove anything either. He's not really a witness to anything.

It does if everyone working for Trump and everyone on the Ukranian side concluded that no military aid would be coming unless Zelenski announced the investigations. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and it is still relevant even if the President didn't explicitly say that there was a quid pro quo. What evidence are you looking for anyway?

@Peremalfait Ok, and if we go by the evidence, it would seem his presumptions were correct so...impeach.

@Arctc 1386 When asked directly what evidence he had of quid pro quo Sondland answered that he had none "other than my own presumptions." So yes, according to the witness himself, his testimony was based solely on presumptions.

His testimony wasn't based on presumptions. Quid pro quo was clearly illustrated in the transcript, interviews, and testimonies. Just bc Trump says "No quid pro quo" doesn't mean there wasn't.

Damn your channel is doing well! Congrats!

Prosecutor: "Was there quid pro quo?" Random guy on the street with no first hand knowledge: "Yes!" Prosecutor: "There you have it folks! It's an open and shut case."

First random guy: "Trump is blocking the witnesses and documents that he says will exonerate him". Second random guy: "He's guilty AF!" I'm here to help.

"Random guy on street" You mean former members of the Trump administration? Former diplomats working for Trump? Lol what?

Being too dumb to commit a crime is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard... They're basically saying the most powerful person in the world really wants to commit crimes but hes too stupid to do it.. So let's let him keep being president. I feel like everyone has gone insane

Traitor Trump, plain and simple. Follow the money, let the facts and obstructions speak for themselves. Trump deserves a Traitor's punishment. Though since he'll be spending the rest of his life in Federal and State level courts (thank you, New York), we get to watch his fate and punishment play out...though I'd be much happier with him suffering the Traitor's "reward" rather than watching his idiotic visage on the screen every day for the rest of his (and our) lives.

Doesn't mounting a defense require actual charges? yourself an unbiased lawyer? Evidence, evidence, evidence, Mr Legal Eagle.. 1 The transcripts (you forgot to mention the fact that you haven't read them, or you wouldn't have made that statement.) prove that there was no quid pro-quo. (Hearsay, conjecture, or opinion, will not suffice in a court of law). 2 Quid pro quo. definition. "a favour or advantage granted in return for something. (Not illegal) 3 Bribery definition "offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official, or other person, in charge of a public or legal duty. (So they are not the same thing in legal terms) 4. At the time of the phone call, the Ukrainian president didn't even know that the aid had been delayed, and it wasn't brought up in the call, so how could there have been a "quid pro quo situation? 6 The Ukrainian authorities, at the instruction of the new President, (14 sworn affidavits of Bidens corruption) tried several times to give them to the FBI, and they sat on them for months, so eventually, they gave them to Rudy Guilliani..... I could go on and on here, but as I go through your video, I now realize that this is purely propaganda and a damage limitation exercise on behalf of the democrats. (PS have you read those 14 documents?) I think not.

@Arctc1386 "What affidavits?".....Wait and watch friend. Wait and watch.

1. Zelensky mentions the military aid then Trump asks him about the Bidens and the server. Trump didn't have to literally say "do investigation, get aid". That's not how people talk anyway. 2. Quid pro quo isn't illegal by itself, but using it as the potus to get dirt on a political rival for personal gain...that's super illegal. 3. Bribery is a form of quid pro quo lol what? 4. It doesn't matter what Zelensky thought of or was aware of regarding the aid. All that matters is why said aid was frozen in the first place. 5/6? You skipped 5 lmao. What affidavits? The investigation into the Bidens found no wrongdoing. Links? Sources? Wtf are you talking about? The only biased one here is you my dude.

if the president had no Right to withhold the Money as Long as he did, what would be the legal consquence of that?

Oh how I love legal eagle getting right to the facts. ^_^ your saving everyone alot of time.

Objection This is chewbacca.....

But dont you think that bribe was meaning you cant buy influence through purchasing american plicies through bribery number 1 and number 2 ... why is Biden consistantly called a political opponent .. hes not gunna even be his opponent that makes him the previous vp whos child gained actual millions in his bank account. yet dubbed a political opponent not the ex vp in terminology.. this is fake of you to not even be human and ask the reality of common sense feelings.. It seems like after the President has endured 2 years of cock blocking and accusations.... of bribery... russian spying... etc... none of this is clearly even something the people have been raising as a question.. instead the media and democratic party leadership is pushing without the people sure of what is going on ... The truth... The old powerful people didnt evolvle and underestimated the B table Trump and he and them do not like each other and they are attempting to buy the power he won through their failure to evolve in social media.... he beat 2 billion dollars of donations with a twitter account and stole it through his dumbed down understimated social media skill and evolved.. Plus the fact the leaked opinion on a phone call... is only a persons opinion who was by nature employed to be not releasing private calls and have them in the first place... This looks like TV NEWS thinks the PUBLIC are toddlers... HUNTER MADE MILLIONS while his dad was VP... why not SAY THAT and keep saying its a political opponent .. its the previous vp . and he is fine asking them to explain why millions were put in his sons account who never visited the place doesnt speak the language and has no experience in the field.. also made millions personally in payments to him... in his accounts.. Bribe ment you cant buy the presidents power ... not he cant use it to influence other leaders,, that his power useless

As LE pointed out Trump doesn't need to be guilty in the criminal sense to be impeached. However it does matter if they can win and frankly I don't think they have the votes to impeach. Sure there are some Republicans who aren't fond of Trump but I don't really see them crossing party lines to do it. Also you got the boy who cried wolf attitude from much of the public after so many failed hit pieces like Russia Gate, Muller report, and others that even if Trump does something at this point people will think it's just another witch hunt and those who's base support Trump won't like it if their representative joins in on the hunt regardless of if it's justified are now. Like stated in the video Impeachment is not a criminal matter but a political tool. And the Democrats having failed in so many other regards to knock Trump down a peg are reaching for that tool. Regardless of if you think he did it or not that doesn't matter as all they need to do is paint a good enough narrative that he did do it and most importantly convince enough in congress to vote Yes on Impeachment, but I don't see them getting the 2/3 majority required for that.

Not sure if you heard, but “paid in full”? Nope! Trump STILL hasn’t released $35 million, about 14% of the total; WHICH gels with Rudy’s tweet..which..well..I keep thinking I can’t be shocked anymore, then hours later and trying to decide between laugh and cry..AGAIN. Rudy tweeted a threat that Ukraine won’t get the rest UNTIL they announce the investigation...while he was in Ukraine a few days ago, “colluding” with the corrupt former prosecutor who Biden helped get fired and who NOW is supposedly helping Rudy “dig up dirt on Biden and his Son”. Ever wonder HOW the HELL are history books going to cover this in 20 years? My friends overseas are absolutely dumbfounded, wondering if we have been invaded & taken over by delusional this point, so am I.

Ok...But why isn't he impeached yet?

Do the trial from Blackadder goes forth

Objection! on the grounds of necessary levity, please review the case of the people vs Martin Sugar from the show American Dad.

OBJECTION: You make it sound like Sondland said there was a quid pro quo for release of funds, when in actuality it was for the political favor of meeting with POTUS. A very big difference. Nothing happens in DC without the exchange of political favor, whether or not that's illegal, it happens for every member of that committee when actual legislation happens.

what a waste of tax dollars..

OBJECTION!! Trump should never be impeached by ANYONE EVER!

Oh no, corroborated evidence. RIP Trump

"Trump is done.1"

15:41 the legal response to that is "Sucks to suck"?

You know, the whole "but the aid went through anyway" argument kinda gets me. I mean, imagine this scenario compared to the bribery of a police officer: _"Sorry, I'm going to have to take you into custody."_ "Would $5,000 change your mind?" _"What? No, that's attempted bribery, now I'm REALLY gonna have to arrest you."_ "Okay, okay, I hear you, but here, I'm just going to give you the $5,000 anyway. Now, you see, I never intended to bribe you with that money, I was just giving you a present out of the kindness of my heart. You can't convict me of trying to bribe you with a gift!" Obviously this is far from a 1:1 comparison, I'm making a general point.

Bench Appear-o! (It's a Hogwarts spell for summoning a seat)

To be fair we may not have known about any of this if it wasn't for the whistleblower, which the President probably didn't expect or plan for.

@HNIC It's still the FBI's job to investigate corruption, not any of Trump's men. Even if they did need Ukraine's help, nobody outside the FBI should've been talking to them about it expect perhaps Trump himself to set any meetings up. And Trump should not have offered money already promised to Ukraine in exchange for this request, especially since Trump didn't have jurisdiction over the money; Congress was in charge of it and the most Trump could do was put a 12 day hold on it (and just to be clear, his hold was longer than 12 days). The accusers have managed their burden; they've found hard evidence that Trump made a deal with a foreign power using money he should not have had control over to get an advantage in his reelection by attacking a political rival. At this point, Trump does have to prove something, he needs some kind of defense against these accusations. Which is gonna be hard since there's evidence and multiple testimonies of a quid pro quo, so saying there wasn't one is unlikely to work. And he can't say he didn't do it for personal gain since it definitely benefited him, he did it all in a way that most benefited him, and they're probably not gonna buy it if he says it's just a coincidence and he really meant no wrong. Look, I'm just some guy on the internet, same as you. I imagine few people here are lawyers or legal professors. All any of us can do is look at the evidence, see what accusations levied against Trump they support, observe his defenses, and suppose how they'll fair. And from what I'm observing, Trump's defenses look weak at best and non-existent at worst. Besides, you're making suppositions yourself, aren't you? You're supposing that Trump's deal with Ukraine is perfectly normal and doesn't constitute bribery, but a good few lawyers and law professors seems to disagree with you from what I'm hearing. I hear one of the professors from the hearings was even from Harvard. And I trust their judgement just a bit more than I trust yours, fellow random guy on the internet.

@GiftOfKnowledge 0001   That still wouldn't be called bribery because it isnt bribery. And again you cant even prove that. The fbi has no jurisdiction over a ukranian company. Your analogies are bad that's why they don't word I need no pretense. Actually no trump doesnt have to prove a thing. Just because you might say he could have a political gain doesnt mean much. When the party has demonstrated clear conflicts of interest. The burden is always on the accuser. This is not a court and even if it were the court may not assume anything. You havent proven one single thing all you have are suppositions.

@HNIC Bribery is totally possible; say if a president withheld money that was already promised to a foreign power and said he'd remove that hold in exchange for something that personally benefited him, like an edge in the next election for example. We know this would be considered for personal gain because it did benefit Trump and he did it in a way that most benefited him (using his own men & Ukraine instead of the FBI), and like the video said; if there are multiple likely motivations for why someone did a potential crime, and one of those motivations is criminal, they'll just assume he acted on all possible motivations. (I'd include an analogy about a man shooting someone being charged with murder vs manslaughter here, but I suspect you'd pretend not to get it.) This is to say; Trump may have asked for the investigation to expose corruption in a person running for president, and he may have done it to get an edge against his main political rival, the latter possibility being criminal & Mens Rea. To use a Mens Rea defense and say he didn't abuse his power, he would have to somehow prove he had no intention of gaining a personal edge in the election without (and this is important) saying it was to expose the Bidens for corruption. The court is perfectly capable of assuming he did it for both reasons. And claiming he didn't do it for personal gain is gonna be hard because of that "not using the FBI thing." So yeah, evidence is pointing to him doing it for personal gain and being convicted of such.

@GiftOfKnowledge 0001 I never said bribery was. I said it it impossible to have bribery in a foreign aid context. You have yet to prove this was for personal gain. This is a lie no one took orders from Giuliani. It doesnt matter the personal status of Giuliani. He may act in service of the president for any reason the president deems needed. You have no evidence of anything you claim

@HNIC Bribery is not an inherent part of politics, it's just a crime, especially when it's bribery for the president's personal gain. Don't change the subject about the theft analogy, that's not the analogy's point and you know it. The guys who didn't get their orders from Trump got them from Giuliani, who's only possible involvement in these proceedings could have been to relay orders from Trump and act on his behalf, since he is just Trump's lawyer and not a foreign diplomat or anything. If it comes from him then it's as good as coming from Trump, is what the White House stall are told to assume when working with him.

@GiftOfKnowledge 0001 No it doesnt mean that at all. It is essentially for there to be bribery in a foreign policy. You analogy doesnt evem make sense. He owns and controls the object. Theft is impossible. P.a. no one was acting on direct orders from trump it was all presumption and most witnesses had never even spoken to the president

@HNIC Oh of course, the problem is not that there was a quid pro quo, it's just that a) there being one means Trump could be guilty of bribery & abuse of power and b) Trump said there was no quid pro quo. It's like if a person is accused of theft and one of the accused's defenses is "I never even touched the thing," but then they find the accused's finger prints on whatever was being stolen. It not only causes that specific defense to fall apart, but also means they lied, which hurts their case in general

Hmmmm, I've only listen to part of this, but Alan Derschowitz appears to disagree with you. Who am I going to listen to,?You? Alan Derschowitz? You? ALAN DERSCHOWITZ? And did you listen to the full testimonies?

Hey Legal Eagle, don’t you still lack the proof that this was an act against the Biden’s as well as with a focus on 2020? If Ukraine supported the anti trump ‘Russia collusion’ narrative, and he was focused on finding out their involvement in the 2016 campaign then it would be in national interest for your country to investigate vs. The intent being that he was getting political dirt to benefit himself for 2020? Having watched all of the hearings there is still no proof that this was singularly in his benefit. What are your thoughts?

dis is poo poo

Wait, wait.... did you just say that circumstantial evidence is not sufficient enough to prove a crime, but judges direct juries to take it as strong as, or stronger, than direct evidence? Wow...... that's is some morally and ethically corrupt stuff there. I guess our overflowing prisons make sense now...

This attorney can say what he wants, this is akin to Trump being accused of robbing a bank,,,, he doesn't have to put up a defense at all, in fact the accusers had not met their preliminary showing of probable cause,,,,, Trump denies robbing the bank, the owner of the bank did not complain that the bank was robbed, you have prosecutors saying and reporting he did and their entire complaint is that a bunch of people stated he did based on speculation, and rumor... I would be ready to fight to the death and wish there be declared civil war, if congress can remove a president on speculation and rumor, because our country would be considered lost and we would have the duty to fight for the return of it. This Attorney is the type to make you think he is uneducated and poor, just like the one at the Southern Poverty Law Center, because he has a dirty unshaven face he wants you to think he is unorganized and sloppy but that tactic never worked on myself, I go by the facts, speculation is diversion, this whole thing is to get people to look away from their controversy that process can resolve by removal, no case, it is that simple, if the leader of the Ukraine stated a complaint then we would have a different story but that did not happen.. The cops can't go and arrest you for hitting your neighbor in the nose, if your neighbor is competent, and made no complaint that would allow law enforcement to proceed with an investigation and indictment. Proceedings for impeachment simply can not be triggered by a whistle blower unless he she has first hand knowledge, and in this case at the very least is backed up by the leader of the Ukraine (alleged victim) and if he is shown to be incapable of speaking for himself due to being in fear of harm from the accused or determined by two independent experts in psychiatry to be unable to speak for himself and be declared a ward of congress(?) they have no standing for removal .

hear·say /ˈhirˌsā/ Learn to pronounce noun information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor Pretty sure that's not good evidence If there's evidence to what someone says, it's not hearsay. It's just evidence

You are, obviously, a left leaning dimocrat. Being a lawyer doesn't exempt you.

You completely missed the entire point of connecting the holding of aid to the investigations. The aid was held MONTHS prior to the phone conversation. Only the dimocrats have made this assumption. Trump NEVER threatened the Ukraine. He held the funds due to the elections and who was going to win. One of the terms of his platform was corruption. He was aware of the corruption of Joe and Hunter Biden. I am surprised (but not really) that a "lawyer" would ignore these facts. Sondland testified that he PRESUMED the quid pro quo. When Trump was asked he said he wanted NOTHING from the Ukraine. No quid pro quo. You have missed too much to have a valid opinion. NO ONE testified to direct knowledge of a quid pro quo. If this goes to trial the first hand testimony will come out. Joe and Hunter Biden will also testify. They have the "dirty hands". How will your opinion change if it turns out Joe and Hunter Biden have been stealing money meant for Ukrainian aid?

But the military aid to Ukraine was never fully released. To this day. The Pentagon is still holding on to 35 million dollars. This per the report by the Intelligence Committee.

Donald Trump will lose the popular vote by a much larger margin this time, if not the whole election

I dont believe in humanity enough to think President Trump didnt at all think of the elections when he asked. On another note is there any benefit at all to a political party system? All it seems to do is keep misinformed people misinformed by demonizing opposing views. It's gotten so radically out of hand that right and wrong went out the window with Republicans and Democrats. Both vehemently oppose each other for power and its supported are so defensive a divisive that people are outright villainized for their political stance. I understand this isnt really in the scope of legality and may be out of your personal comfort of answering, but you would have a lot more experience in seeing the pros and cons of a political system than a simple aircraft mechanic.

I think the Republican attempts at a defense have all the strength and durability of a tissue in a rainstorm.

You know, I'd really hate to give the Trump camp of people an out here, but is there not a defence that they could be taking which centres around the fact that corruption is corruption and it really shouldn't whether it was a Australian gem tycoon, German ambassador to the Ukraine, or the relative to an American political candiate? If I was Trump and I wanted to down play the wrongdoing that I do think took place here, I would perhaps be aggressively attacking the point that I was urging an investigation into corruption, and that the corruption is corruption no matter who is doing it, and that America does not make a habit of dishing out millions of dollars to countries where corruption is knowingly taking place at a high level. I might argue that only because of the closeness of his political sphere and through his inner circle did he come to hear about potential corruption of an American in the Ukraine. I would stress that it shouldn't matter who was being investigated - only that high-level corruption itself was the subject of the quid pro quo. I haven't heard anyone talk about this, so I'd be curious to know what the legal-minded creatures of the internet think about this notion...

32:29 okay fine, that's a good point. I'll stop trying to give the crazies ideas now. lol

Cool, so then I finished watching the video and you did touch on this at around 29:25. I think his motivations will be entirely personal interpretation and I think that's why it becomes his best argument. It doesn't really prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his intent was the solicitation of bribery. Does reasonable doubt not hold the same weight in this type of ... "thing"?

I hope they have more evidence. This seems like semantics to over turn an election. You are biased

Thank you. Please say hi to your brother Ryan Reynolds when you have Christmas together

Fake news

My question is if the money was held up. Who held it up? Or who was in charge of releasing it? And did anyone tell them too? Can they be found? You talk about clear intent, but the money was it self was never mention it was only assumed as far as i can tell from what I've heard. Unless a person names the intent or the terms most of this is just speculation. How can anyone gleam intent without your own bias getting in the way?

It’s said, by many that President Trump’s behavior toward the Country of Ukraine was “Inappropriate”.  Well, President’s Trump’s comment “F___ the Ukraine” was clear. Please communicate the fact, the reality, and the following truth.  “Dr. Hill (former Senior expert and advisor on Russia and Europe) testified this week before the impeachment committee and criticized the Republicans for peddling theories about the Ukraine interference while ignoring the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia meddled in the election to help Trump win.” “This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetuated and propagated by the Russian Security Services themselves.”  “It was Russia who attacked the U.S.” In addition, please read Heidi Blakes new published book “From Russia with Blood”.  It documents KGB officer Putin’s War on the West and the conspiracy theories to undermine Western Democracies.  It is at the heart of our President’s actions, and false election in 2016.  He is motivated to act based upon an alternate reality, false conspiracy theories as it reflects Russian Security (spy agencies) lethal methods and actions.

Please do a video on the prince andrew interview

1:22 "No Quid Pro Quo" AKA "The Call Was Perfect" 5:52 "It's All Hearsay" 9:21 "The Aid Was Released" AKA "The Sideshow Bob Defense" or "Attempted Bribery Isn't Impeachable" 12:44 "The Ukrainians Didn't Feel Any Pressure" 14:58 "The Quid-Amateur-Pro Defense" AKA "Being Bad At Crime Doesn't Mean You're Not a Criminal" 16:22 "The Ukrainians Didn't Pay Up Defense" AKA "There Was a Quid and a Pro, but No Quo" 19:34 "The Too Dumb To Crime Defense" 24:40 "The President Controls Foreign Policy Defense" AKA "Checks? Balances? Never Heard Of Them" 27:03 "The State Department/Gordon Sondland Went Rogue Defense" 29:14 "The President Has Must Root Out Corruption"

@LegalEagles Ok, On a completely different subject, care to make any comments on the following Isaac Arthur video: Isaac has brought this question up a few times so, I thought I might bring it to your attention his main legal question starts around 7:25 and I would really like to see if you might consider a team up to answer the Alex inheritance Question that he presents.

I’d be interested in getting your take on Rep Nunes defamation lawsuit against CNN. As a non lawyer the first thing I noticed is that Nunes defames CNN in his court filing. He calls CNN “The mother of all fake news”. My humble view is that you can’t sue for defamation and defame the defendant at the same time. I’d be interested in how the law treats this.


The "State Department Gone Rogue" defense seems like the flimsiest of any defense considering how explicit Trump was in the transcript and the fact that he named Sondland as his spokesman in the bribery in the call.

I really hope we learn from this president.

Great clip. Legal Eagle. Very informative, but you damage your credibility when you get basic legal terms wrong. At 19:48 you mention "actus rea", but any first year law student knows that the latin terms are "mens rea" and "actus reus".

A guy further down this thread tried to make an analogy of Trump's action saying that it was as if Trump walked into a store, paid $400 mil, and left with nothing. Here's a more accurate analogy: Trump walks into store, and says that there is a reason that he's been holding back on paying the $400 million of shareholders' money that the company, of which he is the CEO, is contracted to pay the store owner. The reason is because he wants the store owner to commit libel and slander against a guy who is probably going to replace him as CEO next year. The shareholders find out about Trump's attempt at extortion, so then Trump belatedly releases the company's earmarked funds as was his duty to do in the first place, and then claims that he did nothing wrong.

None of this is about criminal law. It's about constitutional law. It's about executive authority in the context of international relations.

This is not a legal proceeding. It is a political proceeding. The house may impeach, because there is a Democrat majority in the House. The Senate will not convict, because there is a Republican majority in the Senate. All of the rules of this proceeding are up to the respective houses.

I'm hoping for a speedy resolution to this whole mess, both to prevent Trump from causing any more damage in office, and so that you can finally take a break from all of this nonsense. You deserve a nice long vacation, for having to put up with this crap.

Soundland did say there was a quid pro quo in his opinion statement but under questioning said That trump had never told him that That it was never blatantly said That the Ukrainians did not believe that And that the only word from trump was that there was to be no quid pro quo So that doesn’t really hold up does it

and in the end nothing will happen...the impeachment will fail. if not because of weak evidence, then because of republican unity. i mean, the democrats need 67% in the Senate and that's not gonna happen. true story

Was there a quid pro quo? _"..., the answer is Yes."_ How do you know? _"I presumed it."_ What a sad joke this is.

If you think these are steelman arguments I don't wanna know what you think stawman arguments are

+PELOSI and others stand up and swear "...without purpose of evasion" to defend and support the Constitution. +Then she turns and tries to change our government by advocating taking out the Electoral College, which is a part of our Constitution. +On that basis alone why hasn't someone taken her out of the Congress by arresting her for fraund and "false swearing"?

Please stop making political videos. We're on YouTube to escape politics.

the Chewbacca defense...

Is "mens rea" mental motives?

The Judiciary Committee should just enter this video into the record, without objection. Great job!

Nikki Haley is probably the most terrible person who, on the surface, seems like a good person.

This isn't a lawyer's analysis. A lawyer considers the facts from both sides but is always on one side...not both. As a lawyer, which side are you on?

Never hire a #milquetoast lawyer.

Not a single one of these conspirators is a witness. How can you accuse your victim of a crime for exposing their criminal activity? The president didn’t ask for a personal monetary benefit. He asked the president to investigate possible corruption by the Biden’s. If they didn’t commit any crimes, they’ve got nothing to worry about. It sounds as if corruption is rampant and the criminals are desperate to keep their activities secret. In the internet-is-forever-age, nothing is secret.

The fact that Biden is a political rival should not grant his family impunity from investigators into their obviously corrupt dealings in the Ukrainian government and energy systems. I argue the fact that Joe Biden has further political aspirations should strengthen the need for investigations and requesting those investigations in exchange for something is a service to the American people to protect its people from corruption. I understand this isnt a defense presented yet but this is not a trial and these are politicians and lawyers. They wont present an "I did it because" defense until the "I didn't do it" one no longer works for them.

In regards to the Federalist Papers you hold dear, has anyone won a case in court using them as reference, for Prosecution or Defense?

Pelosi is guilty of abuse of power, exactly what they are charging Trump with! Sad day in America!

There is such an overwhelming amount of things when we're guards around to Trump that's one thing alone should not be the weighing Factor but all the advanced end behavior of the president should weigh in and for that it is a failure of our government system that he has been allowed to continue to be the president it's been a long time now since he was elected and truthfully it was a long time ago that our government showed it is inept at doing its job there is such an overwhelming amount of things when regards around to Trump this one thing alone should not be the wing factor but all the events and behavior of the president should weigh in and forth that it is a failure of our government system that he has been allowed to continue to be the president it's been a long time now since he was elected and truthfully it was a long time ago that our government showed it is in that at doing its job and the longer continues just will show how in that it is if he is not impeached it is less reflection on him but more reflection on our government as well if you were to look at Trump as just a person the things he has done in the past with his own businesses prior to the presidency Woodland most small people in jail yet he is not so if further presses the point that aren't laws government systems have failed because you can give a case-by-case analysis of someone who is not wealthy who has engaged in less severe practices who has gone to jail for things that Trump has done for far heavy damage to individuals

these focal shifts are uncomfortable

I don't live in the states. But imagine democrats using all this energy to fix the country instead of trying to remove Trump... Now that would make america great.

They have many bills already out there. The Republicans just don't want anything threw. Or did you not hear that Mitch McConnell calls himself the grim reaper and any bills the Democrats bring to him are dead on arrival

New sub, I really like your channel.

I love how rational logical people try to explain this stuff to sycophantic low-IQ dishonest Republicans who are working backwards from a conclusion that their dear leader is perfect.

Democrats are violent barbarians. Utter imbeciles. Its good that the Senate will end it within seconds, then vote to expel Biden from the Senate for taking $1.5B from Ukraine in exchange for illegal political favors.

So like that Key and Peele sketch “but is it against the law though”. Just turn it to “is is impeachable though “. No matter what side wins, it is definitely interesting to see what happens during and after.

Terrible analysis and awful video

Your analogy with the bank robbery is a false equivalent. Its not the same. I had the intent to bribe someone, and i voiced an intent but didnt do it. Your equivocating these things and they are not the same. This is not a violent crime

Evidence of trump blocking witnesses would be nice. Really shouldnt just gloss over that statement

So are you saying that we get to determine facts for ourselves? 2:05 What are they teaching you guys in law school?

Please do a Lawyer review on Molly's Game

Why are you omitting the "witnesses" evidence "i want nothing, i want nothing, i want no quid pro quo, tell Zelinski to do the right thing" ? Dont you have to prove your accusation and not expect the accused to prove innocence?

The much bigger problem is the precedent that's been set. Compare Nixon to all the shit Trump has gotten away with. If they raise that bar even further, it'll be almost impossible to remove any criminal presidents in the future!

leagle eagle, you are not a smart man. Your arguments are weak and unconvincing. You clearly have no ability to objectively look at facts. You and your democratic buddies make up stories, push them as real, talk and talk and talk and tell your stories, but it doesn't matter if 50 million people are lying, it doesn't make it true. Move to Canada so you can live without guns, doctors, or food in your socialist paradise. Leave the US to those of us who use words with specific meaning and believe in the declaration of independence and the constitution.


"The facts are fluid?!? and will change?!?!" Does anyone have any actual, nonfluid factual, concrete evidence against President Donald Trump? If he is guilty of crimes while in office, then he (the president) needs to go. He has been entrusted with faithful and lawful execution the duties and responsibilities of the office of the President of the United States of America. If there isn't any actual evidence, then leave the man alone, he's great for the economy and job numbers and (usually) the stock market and holding China's feet to the fire. As for the actis rea/mens rea - whatever, ignorance of the law isn't a defence against the law. I hope he isn't guilty, he's great for the U.S.

@Cliff Campbell Yesterday the House Dems wrote up the grounds for impeachment. I believe this is the formal Articles of Impeachment, but not totally sure. The next step would be a senate hearing & vote. I don't think Mitch can or would block either part of this, so I'd expect it to proceed. I don't know when the hearings will start, I would guess next week since things move slowly.

@David Schwab hold on a second. I thought the inquiry part was done and this Monday starts the hearings.

@Cliff Campbell I've been following Andrew Yang with earnest these days. I actually think he'd make a remarkable president if he can walk the walk. Tulsi is pretty awesome as well. I don't think it's a fair assessment that people are saying the Democratic side doesn't have strong candidates because they do. As far as the other stuff, I'm in the camp that does think he's guilty just because of all the testimonies and evidence thus far. I'm very interested to see all the people subpoenaed actually appear and testify, and I'm particularly interested in Lev Parnas testifying.

@Cliff Campbell Alright, I have a better answer for your question, and that is: WE are the judges. You're wanting a hard answer from politicians of "this crime was/wasn't committed". That will come, but for right now, the impeachment inquiry is doing 2 things: providing evidence for the public to see, and also letting politicians probe their constituents (us) to see if voting for impeachment would be in their best political interest. Look at it this way, if you are assigned to be a juror, you cannot just walk into court and say "well is he guilty or isn't he??". It's YOUR job to assess the facts. Likewise, once senate impeachment hearings start, it is the job of the senators to be the judges. And senators are (supposedly) acting in the interest of their constituents, so effectively the public is the jury. Now, after Trump leaves office, he could also face criminal trial, with a real jury, but that's another story. So it's your job to look at all the evidence provided. That's why Legal Eagle is trying to present both sides without bias. From MY perspective, there are tons of witnesses clearly pointing out wrongdoing (strong case for impeachment). All of the defenses seem pretty weak. And, Trump's administration is preventing the most important witnesses from testifying (which doesn't look great against his bribery charges, but is ALSO a separate crime of obstructing justice and congress). So, happy hunting in your own assessment of the public facts.

@David Schwab thank you for the clarification. As for the "there's clearly evidence" part, well, one side says "this" and the other side says "that." Highly conflicting points of view. Until the process starts, goes thru and ends, and the (wait a sec, does it go to the house from here or did it just come from the house and they start grilling witnesses in Congress?) government body responsible for uncovering the facts, find hard evidence of his wrong doing, is when I'll believe he's guilty. Not before then. You know what? I'm so over all this crap. All the left say is "there is no doubt, he's guilty" and the right says "they don't have anything, the whole thing is a sham." I'm done. He's done a lot of good for this country, and I think he can do even more if reelected. If he loses in 2020, I hope it's to Tulsi Gabbard, because the rest of the democrats just aren't tough enough, not leadership material.

"The facts are fluid" is his way of saying that we haven't seen all the evidence yet, more continues to come out. That's it. If you watch the whole video, there absolutely is evidence, and he would almost certainly be convicted in a criminal trial. Bribery, at the very least, has clearly been committed and we have enough corroborating evidence for it. Likely also obstruction of congress and justice.

If one of the mental states is a curropt one is definately grey area. So basically trump could never investigate a democrat running for office even if they were the most curropt politician ever simply because someone could say he was using the investigation as a political tool. Idk trump almost certainly was using to help the election in 2020 but if there was legitmate curroption by hunter biden and the bidens he could never investigate?

Sorry don’t know any farmers who are on welfare and I know a lot of farmers.

Meanwhile farmers are on socialist welfare because of the President's ongoing trade war with China that he is in fact losing when the exact opposite was promised. But a politician has never lied about what they campaigned to do, right? =)

@Andrew Pillion lmao you mean just the fake ass article written about that dossier?

@Erin Lobo It's not a so-called farce if articles are being written. ;) Just like you can't call an actual event a hoax. Just like you cannot call something fake when it is in fact real. Let me know if you need additional help determining what *is* reality. =D

@Andrew Pillionthere's nothing BUT ill will from the left! The whole impeachment farce was just political theatrics and it's a damn shame!!!

Because this is a country where people are free to disagree with each other with no ill will between each other, ergo the First Amendment. We're still in America, ya know.


@Andrew Pillion huh? so because donald is a moron and keeps calling a transcript, it must be a transcript?

"Read the transcript!" -Donald Trump. Next.

Other news