Lawyer Examines Impeachment Defenses (Real Law Review)
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 audible.com 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 audible.com 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
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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQWojyJoupc (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 https://youtu.be/KQWojyJoupc 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. https://youtu.be/KQWojyJoupc
@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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQWojyJoupc
@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 summary.you 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?
YOU SHOULD DO NATIONAL TREASURE!!!!!!
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. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-12-03-mn-504-story.html
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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_c17vxrPWQ
@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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBh0oJFtV_c
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIqQ5CicfeA
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.
Hacker10
daniel@4alphapro.com
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 criminality.....it 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 transparent....in 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? https://youtu.be/K2L8kOnz4_w 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xGluGlQgdA
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 maybe.......na 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-DbvapybVs
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?
"BUT JOHNNY ATE CANDY BEFORE DINNER YESTERDAY, SO WHY CAN'T I HAVE THIS COOKIE" is not a good defense.
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSF3reVr10
You should make a video about Unsworth v. Musk (2:18-cv-08048)
MAGA2020
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 https://youtu.be/se24eIObW7w
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.
https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf 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 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_Engagement_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine) ). 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. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title2-section192&num=0&edition=prelim
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"
"...is 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.
HEY COVER REDFLAG LAWS AND HOW THEY ARE A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND A2 FREEDOMS! YESTERDAY SOMEONE GOT OFFENDED BY AN INSTAGRAMER WHO WAS A FORMER US MARINE SO THEY CALLED THE COPS WITH THE INTENT THAT THE COPS WOULD MURDER THE MAN SINCE NO MARINE WOULD SURRENDER HIS WEAPON WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AND CAUSE.
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!! https://youtu.be/uWEDhTwEUsg?t=612 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. https://youtu.be/MbosGQJlcOY?t=206 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. https://youtu.be/kuvfYE7ZdL0 (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 https://youtu.be/z1HB2dnfSbo 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.
thx
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQWojyJoupc
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQWojyJoupc
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSF3reVr10 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 https://youtu.be/UBhN28eTuP8
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?
It's a COUP. TREASON. DEATH PENALTY.
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.
THEY ARE ALL LAIRS ~ HOW IS THAT UNBELIEVABLE ???? THERE ARE !!!
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
https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/07/22/governors-veto-means-hawaiians-will-continue-suffering-property-rights-violations/ 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: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-11572837/announcement-regarding-ongoing-license-violation Russia Licensing Statement: http://05command.wikidot.com/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!
https://youtu.be/FwlwO2Z2HBk
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...
HOW COME THERE IS ONLY 1 WHISTLEBLOWER?
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 Biden.....so 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". So....do 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
PLEASE DO A VIDEO ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME ONISION COULD FACE IN PRISON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
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!*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKoEH2R9z90 https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Book_of_Judgement 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.
your*
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.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZKUNKZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
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...
yuuup
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 ...so 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--- https://www.whitehouse.gov/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?
Seriously..call 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 aliens...at 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 ......so 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 corruption....no 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: https://youtu.be/yyed8UDeLM8 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.
CAN WE GET A NEW 911 INVESTIGATION STARTED I AM A 911 TECH GATEKEEPER I KNOW ALL ABOUT THE SCIENCES USED ON THE TOWERS EXO'S CHOPPER ARCING DEW THREW A DROP WIRE TO CREATE A INDUCTION FIELD AND DROP BOTH TOWERS AT GRAVITY IT WAS THE ONLY WAY TO DROP THOSE TOWERS THEY FILM THE EVENT FROM PAT GOOD JOB RED CHOPPER 5 ( THE WOMENS VOICE SAID ON THE COMS ) NOW YOU WILL BELIEVE ME
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.
LIBBBBBBBERUUUUUUULS
"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. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/07/trump-impeachment-judiciary-committee-releases-report-legal-basis/4364859002/ 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.
@Misha the Fridge i cant prove them all, just Sondlands testimony, which is cut short in the clip he showed. If you just watch the same line of questioning for several more minutes, Sondland tells Schiff that he assumed the collusion and never witnessed it.
How easily can you prove that all witnesses are collaborating and lying?
@Peter Nguyen Correct. Right now all we can do is basically wait for the hearings to resume and see what evidence comes to light and see just what the implications are. Everyone should 100% have the country in mind instead of insulting each other. "Let Justice be done though the Heavens fall"
Andrew Pillion I will agree with you on this, I absolutely condemn those who’ve been indicted. Also I said impeachment favor was high, but the polls said they took a dip by 2-3%, not saying that our nation isn’t against impeachment, but the places that support it is in high populated urban cities in blue states, which make up a majority of America’s population. But those in swing states have an unfavorable rating towards impeachment. I honestly care about this country and I think both Democrats and Republicans have ruin a lot, right now I don’t trust either party. Adam Schiff is revealing private information, and Republican representatives are resigning over their illegal actions. I think that you have a great opinion on the situation and though I may favor Trump, I’m not ignorant to say that I’m right or you’re wrong because in the end, what matters more to me is having a discussion and being friends rather than start attacking each other for our views.
@Peter Nguyen But the thing is, the Russia probe did amount to something. There were real indictments, and 12 of those indictments were Russian intelligence operatives and it was confirmed that there was interference in the 2016 election. There were also at least 10 counts of obstruction that are *highly likely* to be brought up again in what is currently happening. Failing that, it will be brought up again when Trump no longer holds a presidency. To your other point, the actual % of those in favor of impeachment/removal of position is quite high. I fully agree with your closing statement though.
Andrew Pillion I won’t deny that and it’s just my opinion on the outcome. I won’t say it’s a clear outcome. The problem with the whole investigation is the witnesses, they don’t give a yes or no straight answer rather moving around it. Great example is Sondland saying he heard quid pro quo from another source which overheard. Then later says no quid pro quo, but says that quid pro quo was inferred. I won’t say that it’s one sided, but at this point impeachment seems like a scam. First was the Russia probe and it came out to nothing. I’m not a Trump fan, but impeachment is not an issue people like anymore. Look at polling in the swing states and the nation as a whole, support for impeachment is down. Now while there is still a lot of support for impeachment, Democrats alienate other swing voters. I just hope as a country, instead of impeachment all day, they’d talk about issues such as education reform, returning troops, UN spending, infrastructure, etc.
@Peter Nguyen I hate to break it to you, but not all Republicans are in favor of exoneration. It's a two way street, and nobody knows the exact outcome of this whole thing.
You are categorically incorrect on this. Sure, he offered his opinion on some stuff, but there is actual information here.
@Financial Tradesman If they're not allowed to call upon witnesses, what was Jonathan Turley doing at the hearing to testify on their behalf? What I would like to know is why people who have been subpoenaed have been explicitly instructed not to follow through on it on the Republican's behalf.
Are you suggesting that contradicts the charges put against Trump?
But not all of the aid has been released. There is still $35 million unaccounted for. Could you explain this?
1 This is not an opinion 2 He doesn't come to a conclusion, he simply shows the flaws with Trump's main defenses
This has nothing to do with securing an election. While some people/organizations choose to in fact smear Donald Trump, there are those among us who genuinely want to know if illegal shit is going on in our own house, and what we can do about it. This is not grasping at straws, and saying there's no chance this passes the Senate and the House is not an entirely true statement, because when it comes right down to it, there isn't anyone in this whole comment section who knows 100% what is going to happen.
nice strawman arguments
Trump wasn't being coerced into doing anything. He would have to listen to people for that to happen. He just does things. Sees people are mad, so points in a direction and runs the other way.
Pardon me from stealing from star wars but when it does come to politics and Biden and them is that they control the Senate and the courts.
Trump should have never got in the first place, you people who votes for him area bunch of idiots
There's always a defensive stance to take. Not necessarily good or strong ones, but there's always a defense one can take.
Guilty. Well, if you want to use logic and reasoning, understand facts and details. Trump is the antithesis of a decent American.
A huge hole I saw throughout your argument was you made false comparisons like bribing police and quid pro quo in foreign policy. I’m not a professional but I hope you can make actual comparisons because your videos are very informational.
Lays out a damning case for Trump. Concludes by refusing to state the obvious and take sides. Yep. He's a lawyer alright. If this issue were being handled in court, Trump would be totally screwed. The only thing saving Trump is that it won't be decided by an impartial jury, but rather by a senate controlled by his political allies.
If hearsay is allowed then anyone can be charged with crimes that came from an unverified source. I am by far not a legal person but this sounds like a false statement. You cannot use hearsay in a court as it can be false. There have been many cases where this was attempted. For example if I made a claim that I heard from another that you did something that was a crime. This would not be allowed because of several factors. If you say it is then our judicial system is severely broken. It would allow criminals to throw false accusations to send innocent people to jail. (Innocent of the crime where the hearsay that was false that is.) The real issue here is the fact that the Democrats involved pushing for impeachment are using criminal tactics to overthrow the president. You are only addressing the impeachment defenses. The republicans are very careful not to break any rules/laws otherwise the criminals who are in control would take advantage of that. The impeachment is a sham and anyone with a moderate education can see its just a game to these rich jerks. I do not claim that Trump does not have something he has done wrong. Its just the way the democrats are going about this. They from the start talked about impeachment back when he was elected and even before. Its all on video and there is direct evidence. What about what Joe Biden? Did he do a quid puo pro? Its on video and is direct evidence. I am sick of hearing about how Trump is the problem when many democrats and a hand full of republicans are fighting over money and power. Its not about the people. There hasn't been a good president since I have been alive. Stop pretending that Trump has to be some perfect person! Several democrats are full of criminal behavior but none of the media will bother to touch them. So this means that either the democratic puppet masters are threatening those who get in their way and we are all doomed to be under their rule, or we have rich assholes who are using their money to buy their way to the top. Either way it appears that Trump can't be bought out or controlled by them. Just like Bush and McCain. I say we use term limits for all of congress. Trump can't do more than 8 years then why not Nancy P., Chuck S., Adam S. and the rest...
26:00. Wtf was that. Stupid.
You should do an analysis of Barry Berke's cross examination during the impeachment hearings!
Make a Jim Jordan review as of today, December 9th. Then, make a Trey Gowdy review. The jury wants to see it.
Better Question... why are we giving Ukraine 400 million anyway when veterans are struggling to receive care
Sounds more like Legal Parrot. He is definitely paid by Demoncrap
Thankfully the House is going forward with impeachment. Now the Senate can get their hands with it and play partisan games with this farce but from a Pro-Republican viewpoint, then inevitably not impeach Trump. Annoyed by the months of yet more blustering, independents will vote in favor of four more years of Trump and four more years of (insert country) collusion hearings, but hopefully with a stronger Republican presence in the House and Senate.
"Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." I WANT TO BE PRESIDENT!!!
“High crimes and misdemeanors.” So, which are the “low crimes”? The high crimes only pertain to the presidency? And a “more perfect union” it’s already perfect it does not get any better than that. So why “more”? The lexicon gets to me.
Dude we get it, you don't like Trump. But you're literally ignoring the mountain of evidence and legal precedence that contradict your take on this. In short, I'm glad you're making YouTube videos instead of defending people in a courtroom.
Omg Adams eyes are scary, the eyes are the windows to a persons soul, what dose his eyes say about him?
@LegalEagle is there a difference between those laws how the apply between to people under that law, and when only one is? How does this change when we withheld aid from North Korea until they halted nuclear programs? Is the only crime here really on if he was investigating a political rival vs corruption involving a us citizen?
Here's what has me questioning the whole thing: How is the person responsible for the illegal recording, allegedly of Trump in Trumps Office, not being prosecuted for illegally recording Trump's voice? There is no indication that Trump gave permission for his voice to be recorded, and Trump should have had a reasonable expectation of privacy within his own office. >>> My conclusion, due to this one single fact of no arrest, is that it must be a fraudulent recording of Trump. And, since that fraudulent recording was the originating factor to this whole case against Trump, why is the court entertaining the case at all?
I am a bit confused. At NO TIME was the Bidens mentioned. Just a clean up your act to the Ukraine, which IS known to be corrupt.
Has the president actually mounted these defenses within the context of the hearings? It's my understanding that the presidents legal representatives have been barred from participating. Is that true?
Can you do one about the Magnitsky case?
I understand that there is a good case for impeachment, but what is the point of attempting it if the senate will never vote for it? It is not a court of law, it is a political process, so it is subject to partisanship rather than the search for truth and justice. My conviction is that Trump had the intention of using his powers as president to gain an advantage in the upcoming election campaign. I do not see his entourage taking initiative as he has surrounded himself with sycophants, yes men and people who are more loyal to him personally than to their oath of office.
"The investigation doesn't have to take place, only has to be announced" - this seems like an argument for the intent to be dirt on Biden with no actual concern over corruption...? EDIT: posted this while watching and happy to see it mentioned later in the video :) Also... too dumb to crime, but totally fine to be POTUS.
This whole issue would be avoided if a sitting president cannot be elected right away. Instead of fixing the problem, they parade impeachment hearings. Common sense?
Out of curiosity though, is it not possible that President Trump was also serving the American people by investigating curruption with the Bidens, I mean i know plenty of people who do want to know what the hell went on with that situation? Did Biden use money to do exactly what Trump is being accused of? I mean it seems like a double edged sword in that case , because any poltical opponent would effectivly be un investigateable of crimes? If there is legit suspician that Biden commited a crime than who would be allowed to invistigate them? And would that person have to have been the sole originator of that request?
Loosely translated as long as you tag out as a “Political Opponent” no one can investigate you for corruption?
@rms 5194 "a preconceived opinion of someone." "let me guess. 'muh....Russia'" Please, do explain to us about the problems with preconceived opinions.
Gaylen Oraylee neither is disregarding punctuation that expresses a question, even if for irony, to bolster a preconceived opinion of someone.
@rms 5194 memes is not a defense, it's a deflection, too. y'all just can't help but tell on yourselves.
Gaylen Oraylee let me guess. “muh....Russia”
No. That's not even remotely what he said. That you have to willfully misconstrue it in order to find anything to object you is revealing.
Bottom line, Joe Biden is immune to any kind of criminal investigation because hes running for president, got it. Great argument, liberal. Gotta love how it's always the left who pretends to be apolitical.
When trump says every single day Europe needs to help more instead of America funding Ukraine and this guys says nobody knows why aid was withheld...... no connections to dirt on Biden. Was aid held for specifically that? I require proof not "disproof."
The US has always been able to place conditions on foreign aid that is not an impeachable offense Ben Shapiro is absolutely right
Yeah, but when has it ever been continent on doing something that will benefit a single individual? I don't think anyone has made it conditional on something directly related to re-election...at least not so obviously correlated. Maybe to get their campaign promises furthered, but not directly attacking their incumbent.
When this goes to the Senate the democrats won't be able to deny witnesses and they will burn. Trump wanted impeachment, and the democrats are gonna give it to him.
So our entire government needs to go to jail? Quid pro quo (this for that) is a crime now? The issue is whether Trump was going after dirt or was actually looking into corruption. That's it.
Leaving it to us to decide? OK: #ImpeachTraitorTrump 1. Waging war on the States, in the form of information warfare, by his incessant lying and attacks on our free press. 2. Receiving emoluments from foreign powers. 3. Obstruction of justice. 4. Failure to uphold the laws concerning immigration. 5. Abuse of power in religious discrimination. 6. Failure to uphold chartering laws concerning delegated regulatory power. 7. Abuse of delegated power of laying tariffs. 8. Misappropriation of funds to pay off those hurt by his above abuse. 9. Failure to uphold and defend the laws prohibiting foreign meddling in our elections. 9a. Siding with a foreign enemy against us (in the agency of our intelligence and law enforcement services). 10. Solicitation of bribery. 11. Violation of impoundment limitations. I feel as though I'm forgetting a couple. Oh, yeah: I almost forgot *Treason*, begun with 1., and complemented by 9a.
The people you named ending at 3:47 of this video, Sondland said very clearly there was No Quid Pro Quo. During the Sondland testimony to House Republicans, three of them got to the root core of QPQ. Since Sondland was asked, in the telephone conversation, to which several people were also listening, Sondland told him, "No the President said Trump clearly stated he didn't want anything from Ukraine, not from Zelensky that he wanted nothing, just let him do the job he was elected to do, in his own way." He was then asked why he told the Chair there was a Quid Pro Quo, Sondland replied, I presumed there was a Quid Pro Quo. Assumptions are not fact, as you should know!!! You may not agree, but you do have a personal dislike for the President, therefore your Bias is showing.
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
2020.. the year of the great revealing. It'll be so great, powerful but great, that the world will be thrown into war and chaos.
So basically not illegal but potentially impeachable. I just can't help but laugh however since the people who push this impeachment are probably the most corrupt people in our gov.
I've been watching both you and legal Vlog and I object reliant very much on the 6th Amendment though I could go through the Constitution as well as our history of jurisprudence to object further. but it's very frustrating to me that we're getting the cart before the horse there are procedures required before you can go to trial and I list some of the more Salient points below AMENDMENT VI 1. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial A. Many of the procedures were done in secret in a basement not in the public as required by the 6th Amendment. This alone makes these proceedings Null and Void. 2. By an impartial jury. A. The concerted effort by a political party and with very little exception the media (which in all fairness I refer to as Goebbel's communication). Has tainted the jury pool (We The People) Beyond all reason but perhaps even more importantly demands inquiry into conspiracy to overthrow the presidency. A cursory study of the Nuremberg trials and principles allows for this comparison as being reasonably accurate as Joseph Goebbels was being charged with war crimes for propaganda that brought about war, murder and genocide. 3. To be confronted with the witnesses against him; A. This up to present moment has not been done. Once again this makes these proceedings Null and Void. 4. To have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. A. Once again completely missing from this proceeding thus making this Null and Void. Let me be clear it is not a collection of these egregious actions but any one of these by itself requires the proceedings to be thrown out and in fact raises very significant concerns how about those who would undermine due process and the rule of law. But just to put a more fine point on this conversation witness the following statute 18 U.S. Code § 242.Deprivation of rights under color of law Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; This may be an opportunity to have sport over one of the most serious conversations of this century the overthrow of the presidency. That it is taking so likely in our conversations is disturbing beyond belief for me. This surely must have been the political landscape under Nero and I find it saddens me greatly that we have devolved so significantly in our Humanity. I am a Vietnam veteran and I am so pissed all the time about how we just blow up the world and have these inane conversations that lay the groundwork for these destructive actions taking place all around us. Well I'm 71 three heart attacks and a pacemaker so I guess it won't matter much to me but you fellows look young enough to have kids and shouldn't be concerned if I have so much deeper understanding and conversation is required as people are listening to you and you helped shape that discourse leaving out the contextual sense of what implications are that faces not only as a nation but a species. Joseph K LaBonte
The metaphor with Nixon is shows too much anti Trump bias.
Proper channels through the Deep State that is participating in a coup t etat. Protecting the Constitution is the over riding factor.
Hunter Biden is a smoking gun. Vice President's son sits on a corrupt oil board, can't speak the language and never attends a meeting....and receives millions of dollars. Nothing to see here.....
The real key here is if the President acted in such a way that was different from every other previous President. Was the phone call handled any differently then every other phone call made by every previous President.
You are trying to apply rational arguments when dealing with irrational criminals. Ukraine is famous for being corrupt and we are giving them 400 million dollars. Trumps knows that this money is going to line some oligarch's pocket. He held it up for a few days, they should be happy they got it at all. What about the mutual investigation treaty?
so the president can't withold the funds to ukraine and only the parliament has the power to do so,then why are they acusing him of bribery if he actually can't even touch those funds?digusting sham..
More people need to see your videos!
Your country is lost: when the President demands interference in your election from foreign countries and you have people like you wilingl to put him above the country, even willing to die for him and die as an enemy of your constitution.
I don't think that is true , all you have seen since he was "impeach 45" it's been one attack after another . I believe even a certain number of Democrats are tired of this spectacle . He may get more vote than we expect
You hate the president, you hate the president and how good he is for this country! You're all biased from day one! The President clearly hates the democrats from day one. He hates the members of his own party and cabinet that dare criticise him on any level. You can't blame all of your mistakes, and the fact that they are noticed completely on partisan politics. And you can't justify those mistakes by their economic results.... if the economic figures are actually correct and actually the result of your policy. It's not an ethical pass to justify whatever you do.
The only quid pro quo I saw was between the ukrainian president and the people who elected him. He ran on a platform of investigating crookery. The Bidens fit the bill.
Summary: Joe Biden MAY have done something wrong, we don't know as of yet but possible. Donald Trump's action very well could be impeachable, we don't know as of yet but possible.
The Cherry picking is strong in this video.
I watched this guys Russian Collusion video. He was wrong on everything. This video he left out the end of Sondlands testimony when he said the Quid pro quo was his assumption. It must suck to be wrong all the time.
First time here, really appreciated this video, thank you!
Hey Legal weasel, the reasons Trump withheld aid are numerous. He doesn't like aid to foreign nations to began with. He thought the Europeans were not paying their fair share. He didn't trust the nation of Ukraine after how they had supported Hillary and worked to keep him from being elected. They were the most corrupt nation in Europe and possibly the world. They had just elected a new president and it was not certain that the new president was going to follow through on his campaign promises to end corruption and the parliamentary elections in Ukraine were in process. Zelensky still hadn't completed his cabinet selections. So get outta here with that crap you are spouting that there are no reasons Trump withheld aide except that he required an investigation into Biden first.
are we legally obligated to give Ukraine Aid? Cause we should be.
Would the Statement Against Interest permissibility be appropriate here?
so I am at 5:43 and i am just going to go on a limb and assume you will not mention how Shifty is chair and a fact witness, how the dems denied the reps any witnesses, how shifty new the WB and continuously denied the reps the ability to ask questions. how months prior shifty held closed door/ only dem meetings with witnesses in the skiv at the congressional building, or any of the outright partisan and in some cases Illegal actions the dems partook in. I will finish the video to see if you even touch these actions, and if I don't see it, I will have to contest your understanding of law and congressional proceedings. "preventing people from the state department from testifying is an impeachable offense." the impeachment herring is a sham, conducted by a partisan chair who also has it on record being a fact witness, who has lied on multiple occasions in the herrings. So if it came to a just court it would be dismissed. 19:45 not once so far, and I do not have hopes that you will. so you know nothing about what is going on, nor do you care enough to actually watch the herrings, or even read the full transcript of trumps call. not worth the time to watch.
Check out the vlawg on this video.. he destroys this guy. It isn’t hard but he does it well.
Here Sir. "LegalEagle", I'd really appreciate it if you'd watch this back & forth of Counsel Vs Counsel, perhaps sharpen your own wits on the "Impeachment" witch-hunt, because you're about as biased as the FBI, DOJ & the Demoncrats! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZWeiirNmds
When you say that investigating 2016 crimes vs digging up dirt for 2020 is exclusive to criminal law, and that we have to look at it from a constitutional law standpoint, you imply that one could commit a crime in one election cycle and then impeach a sitting president for investigating that crime with the help of allies directly involved simply by running for the nomination of any political party for a presidential run. This is patently wrong. If Trump believes something illegal happened, you don't have much argument past that. Biden isn't protected simply for the fact that he is in politics, and against Trump. This is the most elitist attitude I've seen these over payed frauds in politics convince the general public of.
If Trump had withheld aid to the Ukraine on the basis of results of the Ukrainian investigation into Biden being presented to him prior to releasing the aid, that's extortion. He did not do that. As President, he is permitted to insure that any country receiving U.S. aid does so within the context of the dictated terms which involved the Ukrainians assuring him their internal corruption has ceased. When so satisfied, the aid was immediately paid.
I'm out of the loop.... why is Ukraine getting 400 million of our tax dollars again ?
As a firewall against Russia’s aggressive military expansion. Keeping Russia from toppling a democratic ally and encroaching into Europe is probably in America’s best interest from a foreign policy perspective.
Hi, LegalEagle. You have a strong nose and a commanding jawline.
disclosure: you are not a real lawyer
So you are going to ignore how people like Sondland contradicted themselves in their claims of quid pro quo? You are going to do the same selective quoting that CNN has been doing all this time? So you are not a real lawyer, you are just a mob lawyer? Did you get your law license from a cereal box?
The republican defense is the Chewbacca defense, it makes no sense
Might want to take a pinch of salt with his assessment. He basically got his Russian Collusion analysis 100% wrong.
I would have to say that the president didn't intend for military aid in exchange for anything. The reason why is this. It has been stated in this video that the president can only put a 45 day hold on an act passed by congress. The aid was passed last year. The interests in the investigation by ukraine is very recent. I don't know why the aid was delayed passed the 45 days, but it sure is a long time to wait to ask a bribe. Just isn't logical to say that event (A) from a year ago as anything to do with event (B) when so much time has passed.
I would be interested in an analysis of Andrew Johnson's impeachment Because the actual events that led to his impeachment (and like 90% of his actual presidency) are completely and utterly bonkers, and really point to the fact that the man was arguably the worst president in American history But the actual law that he was said to have broken was almost definitely unconstitutional, and was actually overturned years after he left office. Obviously you're neither a presidential nor historical scholar, but I'd be curious for your take.
This lawyer must be a trump lover. And he's trying to sell his stuff on here to make money. Stinkin rich and corrupt.....Just like Trump.
Lol, the democrats got nothing! This WHOLE thing got started because they said he committed bribery and what are the article of impeachment?! Abuse of power and obstruction...no bribery BECAUSE they know this is all a farce, a joke, made up because orange-man-bad syndrome. I'll tell you whats going to happen. Democrats are going to impeach because this is a political process so they can do whatever they want and impeach for any reason then its going to the Senate where it is going to DIE. After that President Donald J Trump is going to be elected for a second term! I'm sorry orange-man-bad is a thing you all suffer from but maybe you'll get over yourself and move on.
People should watch this. LegalEagle has a long history of letting his ideology get in the way of his legal arguments... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQWojyJoupc
Shapiro makes a good point that bribery hinges on proof of intent which there is none, and the charges that were released don't include bribery for this reason.
Aaaand the charges have been released! No bribery to be seen...
Idiot. You realize quid pro quo is latin for bribery? Trumps own guy Ambassador Sonland, "there was a quid pro quo."
Just a reminder that Legal Eagle actually claimed that it is perfectly legal to punch a guy and steal his motorcycle because he asked you to smile. All in the name of liberalism and Social Justice. Remember that when watching these...
If they "Did not pay up" I would like to ask pay up what? If there was no Quit pro quo. What could be paid? The Impeachment is around the Quit pro quo attempt, not if it was completed or not. Like you said in your Video, if you offer the policeman money you get punished for the try. No matter if the policeman accepts or not.
Ukraine's former president was corrupt no doubt. Congress approved aid in Feb. Aid isn't given to corrupt countries for various reasons. New Ukraine election in April, new president wants all corruption investigated. Burisma turns out to be corrupt. Fast forward 7 months and the aid will expire and will be sent regardless. Corruption still occurs and they got the money
However, not 100% of the aid was released. They are still missing millions! Still.
@Ann Anderson I wonder why, and no one is talking about it
@DatBoyC 88 it's about 35 million short.
Really ? They didn't get the full 400 million ? Do tell more info please. News outlets haven't said anything about that.
So when one party holds a bill in Congress in limbo until the other party agrees to a stipulation (quid pro quo) ... this could be considered a bribe.
Also ... special interest groups threatening to withhold funding for re-election of a public official unless they vote on their favored bill a certain way.
If you travel at light speed in a executive position and everything you do is in the microscope you may do things that are not perfect. Your legal analysis is in a perfect world and in hindsight, good points, but unrealistic. Try sitting in the Oval Office and get a country on track while juggling 20 balls in the air. Go back 20 years and see bribes and influence were played out via Military spending, State Dept, US AID etc - no innocent parties, Dems and Rep alike. I give well thought out latitude to anyone busting there ass and would cast a vote of confidence for Pres T while I keep a watchful eye out. Am no stranger to Fed Papers or the conflicts at that time, Hamilton would puke in John Jays boots watching this and George would say,"really guys, you got no idea what I had to put up with".
Thank you for this video. I'm a Canadian so no dog in the fight, but I've heard both side and didn't had anything close to this level of detail. Thank you again.
In the transcript Trump said just do the right thing i wan't no quidproquo.I would also ask them to look into Biden beings they been accusing me of what he did,and so would any other person in this comment area.And if not they are liars.If somebody came after us we ALL would in return go after them.
The supposed star witnesses have now said no quid,I don't think there is a whistleblower now.
This isn't really a question regarding the inquiries of two weeks ago, but rather the current Judiciary hearings: Yesterday, the Republicans, as the minority, called before the closing gavel, a request to schedule a minority witness hearing day, as layed out in House Rules XI 2(j)(1). Nadler declined to make that scheduled day, and continued on with the hearing. This day would likely be a day for the Republicans to call on Schiff and ask him questions regarding the whistleblower (as they had attempted to do so by using Daniel Goldman as a proxy to Schiff), whose identity is under protection, and is likely the reason why Nadler declined to schedule the minority hearing day. My question is this: Does Schiff have anything to lose, should he testify? The scheduled day, at this point, would likely be Schiff simply not answering questions regarding the whistleblower, and if asked about any further evidence, he'll likely be saying the same things Goldman said yesterday. EDIT: Made to clarify, House Rule XI, not IX.
You know it’s pretty disheartening. The lesson We are ultimately going to learn is that the president can get away with whatever he or she wants including murder, as long as they have the support of their party as the majority in the senate.
Here's what has me questioning the whole thing: How is the person responsible for the illegal recording, allegedly of Trump in Trumps Office, not being prosecuted for illegally recording Trump's voice? There is no indication that Trump gave permission for his voice to be recorded, and Trump should have had a reasonable expectation of privacy within his own office. >>> My conclusion, due to this one single fact of no arrest, is that it must be a fraudulent recording of Trump. And, since that fraudulent recording was the originating factor to this whole case against Trump, why is the court even entertaining the case at all?
Except this is a hearing and not court, dems can get around these legal issues until it actually hits the courts but by then everyone's reputation is ruined anyways.
Stick to the Simpson’s, you’re in over your head here
Dual motivation means one could be found guilty of a crime. It doesn't mean they should be found guilty at a trial and I am glad there is very little chance of Trump being found guilty by the Senate.
I agree with Legal Eagle and his obvious bias towards the fact that Trumps actions were likely impeachable however just because someone could be found guilty doesn't mean they should be found guilty. The dual motivation arguement only shows impeachability but not justification for impeachment
“All that requires is the ask be made.”.....So what about Joe Biden telling Ukraine that U.S. taxpayer funds will be withheld unless a prosecutor is fired? There’s a video of him bragging about this shakedown in case you haven’t seen it yet. He was also the Vice President when this happened. The same prosecutor that Joe Biden wanted fired was looking into Burisma Holdings, which Hunter BIDEN was a board member of. Isn’t that a quid pro quo? You’re a complete hypocrite if you’d don’t cover this in a future video. You’ve already established yourself to be biased partisan hack, but you could at least give the full story.
This guy is a pervert. Hearsay is strong in this post. (Thumbs up if you corroborate)
The DNC and the fools running it just don't get it. The American people run America, not the DNC. They are going to find out the hard way that their abuse of the Presidency and the People is going to drag them down to destruction. America is stronger then the corrupt DNC. Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler with all pay a heavy price in the annuls of history as traitorous souls. Their vengeance will dig their own political graves.
Stop hugging the fence, we wanna hear your opinion!
That’s a lot of strong circumstantial evidence...
one thing to point out as well is , to me personally I find it a bit dishonest that the democrats are leading this instead of doing another probe of independents , I think it would be a waste of money but it would be a good look for the democrats as they are painful obvious that they hold malcontent towards trump ever since he was elected even going as far as to try and abolish the electoral college witch would just mean people outside big city's would not have there voices heard. To me i really don't care if you love him or hate him but he A: Deserves the benefit of the doubt cause he is our leader as such people mainly in the "media" need to stop treating this like some reality tv show. B: People need to look at this objectively preferably an bipartisan group instead of figures like pelosi who just talks about wanting him arrested 24/7. C: He should be able to testify as well before people jump the shark in any way. if he is guilty kick him out but it is a bit underwhelming considering Russia gate as well as the attitude everyone has been treating the matter with
Not sure why it's necessary to say "allegedly" when Trump himself said, point blank, "Investigate the Bidens". Repeatedly.
Don’t look now, legal eagle, but your bias is showing. I used to enjoy your movie review videos. Thanks.
i don't know about the other's that provided information. but yovanovitch did literally do a 180 on her story and change so many things in her testimony that in a way to me means she is an unreliable source of information
What if the president wanted an investigation into the Bidens becuase he honestly believed they were corrupt, and their influence would inhibit effective use of the aid? Is that still illegal? If so, wouldn't it be wrong to force the president to sit there and watch the corruption without being able to do anything about it?
@Down200 the fbi lied to a fisa judge.
he brings up an official investigation with the FBI, not an external country
This was fantastic and a huge relief to hear with all the gaslighting from the right swirling around. My fear is that none of it matters anyway, because the power structure will bulldoze anything and everything that threatens it.
"If a mob boss intimidates witnesses into not testifying against him, that mob boss can't then complain about the lack of witnesses against him." If only... Republicans burying the evidence in the desert and shouting how there's no evidence too.
I wish more people would talk about the transcripts more. The phone call allegedly lasted 30 minutes and there's not a chance in hell that the transcripts contain everything spoken about in that full thirty minutes. It's roughly six pages of text which only takes a few minutes to read out loud at a normal pace. All the juicy, incriminating details have presumably been left out...
3 years later and still tryna find anything incriminating. They still claim russia this and that. Please stop watching CNN
This video did not age well. Your TDS is showing unfortunately.
"I don't like his conclusion, therefore he is incorrect!!!111!!" Plus, this video is only a few weeks old. What do you mean it "did not age well"?
Bias much
Hey could you do a video on the impeachment hearing that happened on dec 8th and how much of a circus it was?
These talking points though true are totally cherry picked and biased
Ugh - don’t give any more publicity to Ben Shapiro. He is a snake who is making content for stupid racists. Excellent video otherwise!
The fact that the Republicans are moving the goalposts is indication they do not have a strong case. When you keep changing your defense then you really don't have a leg to stand on.
Like from quid pro quo to asking a group and changing it to bribery cuz it sounds worse now it's something else then it's another thing.
I always enjoy so many dislikes that don't understand implicate neutrality and attempt to provide the best option for every defense, and it completely going misunderstood. Thank you LegalEagle, for trying to teach so many people that don't understand this country's laws, regardless of like for them or not.
This lawyer is ridiculously intelligent...is anyone else enamored by his intelligence?
You are definitely biased. "If you are wearing ski masks and you get arrested before you get to the bank, that's still bank robbery". This is very telling. Maybe you should clarify this. I could stand outside of, or walk across the street to a bank in a ski mask and not be arrested.
Thank you for such a fair realistic analysis of this, and for taking the time to do this right and not condensing it down to 10 minutes.
I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. A concise, easy to understand the explanation for the everyday person that also does not gloss over the facts and uses reasoning and actual facts. You have done so much to help the country understand what is going on and I just wish every person in America could see this video. I don't even have a preference on what conclusion they reach that is up to them but with the number of lies and misinformation flying around out there Its good to see someone who has integrity actually speak.
I understand you went over hear say evidence and have your own opinion on this all. However, I honestly feel that the Inquiry is missing a lot of information to actually nail Trump down. My understanding is that the Ukranians had no idea the money was being withheld and more importantly, the only thing that can be proven without a doubt is that Trump asked for a favor from Zelensky. That favor was to investigate burisma and hunter biden. I think that if they were to nail Trump to the wall they need more info. The withholding witnesses was in response to Schiff doing the same. Although the charge for that is against Trump, I wonder if the same will be pressed against Schiff and if not, why not, it is the same act but from Schiff's side.
@MJR Boaner That doesn't disqualify anything. hearsay is evidence and Trump is holding up anyone with more direct connection to the call, that btw is also impeachable
@Banned If you watch the proceedings (which I have) you will see the witnesses back peddle on a lot of statements and use statrments such as "I believe" "In my personal opinion" or "I was told by someone that overheard". By cherry picking I was pointing out how he was not pointing out these important factors that would disqualify their testimony, especially as hear say.
The inability to see his bias is amazing
The inability to provide examples is strong in this comment.
It'd far worse if he said "I KNOW there was a quid pro quo"...it's not a witnesses job to make conclusions, any witness who says "I know for a fact it was quid pro quo" is doing it for political reasons only, a witness is supposed to out line facts like "Trump asked them to do ____ and in return he'd do ____" Or "I didn't hear Trump say if they did ______ he'd do ______". It's not a witnesses job to say "it was bribery!", if anyone gave two shits what a witness BELIEVED someone was guilty of maybe it'd matter?
But...none of that is actually true xD
@Banned No, the "Narrative" is biased, there is 0 evidence of POTUS breaking the law. Heresy from a bunch of Anti-American Neo-Fascist & Communists, using "The Law" in secret, closed door hearings to design a "Narrative"! It's ALL about the narrative & these criminals trying to project THEIR PROVABLE CRIMES on Trump! The American public will not stand for much more of it, you can bank on that!!
Weird, the LAW is biased? Cool story bro.
Eric Fan ah that makes sense. I really don’t follow news as much as I should.
It's actually pretty easy to figure out where he got his law degree, Google is your friend. Can't figure out where you think you got yours though xD
Yes....a long term lawyer got the LAW wrong, not the Youtube commenters...makes sense. LOL
Yes...MUST be...xD
I can dig that. Can you at least give me that the qpq is worth investigating and not entirely a hoax being pushed by the liberal left.
@Psybear All I can say is that I've heard otherwise with regards to the question of bribery vs qpq. And it's a legitimate question on executive privilege, not being "above the law."
@Account Sorry man but this is just false: Qpq happens all the time without elements of bribery, it just means "this for that" basically. Bribery is the actual crime which, as far as I'm aware, needs a tricky variety of evidence to actually prove. They are the same thing unfortunately. And I sincerely hope you're not trying to argue that a President is above the law when you say we don't know if the court cases apply to the President :(. We're on the same side man. If you're not worried that Trump committed a crime you should support the subpoena! Dude if he's innocent you get to watch Dems be exposed for the hoax they supposedly are.
@Psybear Qpq happens all the time without elements of bribery, it just means "this for that" basically. Bribery is the actual crime which, as far as I'm aware, needs a tricky variety of evidence to actually prove. Also, we're in pretty new territory with executive privilege as far as I can tell so we have yet to know if those court cases even apply to a president.
Also check out Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund
@AccountPost above
Where are you getting that information? How is a qpq different from bribery? Not responding to a congressional subpoena is a crime known as Obstruction of Congress. Reference Wilkinson v. United States if you don't believe me.
@Psybear "Obstructing Congress" is literally not a crime. And they need to prove more than qpq, they need to prove bribery, those are very different things legally.
@Account There can't be sufficient evidence of the crime until Donald Trump responds to the subpoena. Since he's not responding to the subpoena he is obstructing Congress, an impeachable crime. He only has two choices here: 1) Comply with the subpoena and prove to the world what he is being accused of didn't happen. If it did then he should be impeached. 2) Don't comply with the subpoena and get impeached for obstructing Congress.
@Psybear My question is if there is sufficient evidence of those crimes, why didn't the dems charge him with any of them?
@Account See below, forgot to tag you in. I was expecting a hateful reply haha.
Sorry I forgot, here you go. All the facts point to Donald Trump committing bribery. Because of this Donald Trump was invited to clear his name and didn't. He was then subpoenaed to release documents that would prove his innocence but didn't. He refused to participate in the judicial process. Therefore, the actual charge is obstruction of justice. You can't just refuse to participate and hope it goes away lmao. Also man. I really don't care about the Democrats. I'll gladly vote for a brand new Republican of your choice that doesn't commit multiple impeachable crimes.
@Psybear Oh so you're just going to ignore my original reply, that's fine. You should probably ask the Democrats why they didn't charge Donald Trump with bribery (an actual crime for which, if found guilty, could remove him from office). Instead, again, they charged him with abuse of power and "obstruction of congress" which literally every president is guilty of. It's total posturing by the dems in a hopeless attempt to somehow get an advantage over Donald in 2020.
@Account bribe: Persuade (someone) to act in one's favor (this), typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement (that). AKA, quid pro quo. Admitted to by Trumps own ambassador. There is plenty of evidence here.
@Psybear Actually it's latin for "this for that," not bribery. If it were actual bribery why didn't the dems charge him with bribery instead of "abuse of power," something virtually all presidents are guilty of, and "obstruction of congress," which pretty much all presidents are guilty of every time they veto a bill? It's pure political posturing, nothing more.
Actually...no, he said it was legal to detain him and call the cops and that it WASN'T legal to steal or sucker punch him...you know the video is still up right? Like people can WATCH it and see that you're being kinda dumb? xD Literally the only thing he said was that grabbing/shoving someones news paper from their hands and acting threatening was considered assault under the law...you seem to have an issue with the law and not the lawyer quoting it :P
I totally agree. My comment was more rhetorical than an actual question. Unfortunately the general public doesn’t understand. Political parties have a habit of criminalizing everything during election seasons.
You're kinda messing up the issue here. Both examples are quid pro quo but "quid pro quo" isn't a crime in anyway. Governments couldn't FUNCTION without them, don't invade my allies or I'll stop supporting you, give your citizens human rights or we won't send you money, remove tariffs from my products and we'll remove them from yours. ALL legal. The problem comes when it's PERSONAL gain that someone is after, give ME money and my GOVERNMENT will give you money. Give ME dirt on someone I dislike and my GOVERNMENT will give you aid. Give ME a 10 million dollar job and my GOVERNMENT will give you a billion dollar contract to build tanks. THAT is illegal. Basically your second example is illegal, your first is legal :P
I feel like even I, who would be an objectively awful president, could avoid withholding aid to our allies in order to pressure said allies into investigating a political rival who, in reality, isn't even much of a rival xD Mind you've I'd also drop a nuke on congress and change the national anthem to "F&*k the police" so there isn't MUCH I'd get right but...yeah, still wouldn't ruin my political position in order to discredit the child of Creepy Joe.
Ok...but that's illegal. This is like saying if someone shot my kid I'd go after them with a gun and so would most people...it's still not legal even if it would be a common urge. Something being appealing doesn't make it legal and most humans can stop themselves from doing something they'd LIKE to do to avoid ruining their own lives and the lives of their family and friends. Unless Trump is a child with zero self control he could stop himself and...especially when you consider he BEAT them and became president....seems kinda stupid to potentially throw away all that just to try to get dirt on Creepy Joe.
There was no "star witness" and...yeah, there is a whistleblower. Why does everyone who defends Trump have to know nothing about the facts? There is like...1% of Trump defenders who HAVE a point that isn't based on non-sense. Either stop defending Trump or stop making his supporters look like illiterate fools, stuff like this makes me regret voting for him just because being associated with such idiocy hurts. Also the MASSIVE corruption...
@Banned no strawmaning the arguments of the party are strawman. Idiot
@LB Otaku Quoting the law=making a strawman -Republicans
@Banned I know what it means and it applies perfectly. Try watching a video from a lawyer dissecting this video and explaining why he is strawmaning every argument
If only you knew what that word meant you wouldn't have used it lol
Yes, yes, and you people who MOTIVATE us to vote for him because you are so full of vitriol and hate are just GENIUSES xD You know I'd have voted for Bernie but it seems like some party...I forget which one, was so corrupt they let Hillary pay for the nomination. Probably us right? Since were SO stupid?
Banned well I was trying to be civil but legit none of what you said is factual. Turkey airbases hold missles too discourage Russian invasion into Europe. Without it Europe is vulnerable to Russia due too America’s distance away. Also I’m actually kinda done wasting my time because clearly you haven’t got a clue as too timelines and arguments. Trump released it before the impeachment talk happened it’s the money that he still holds that is up for question. Also I never said once trump didn’t play dirty, I was only stating that the world is still benefitting from the Ukraine deal. I was hoping to get you to think not insult you so I hope you can be more civil in how you talk to others in the future. (I’m not responding to the rest better things to do also note to you google it isn’t a counter argument)
@Kleb Brockman "Banned tell me why we lease airfields in Turkey? It doesn’t have anything to do with security, oh wait. " Because planes need to land? Also, again the REASON GIVEN is the BS war on terror...you can google this you know? "Tell me why we have Ukraine the support? Oh wait is there something called Russia." Are you...TRYING to speak english? I guess...yes there is "something" called Russia, it's a country :D "Wether trump was plying to get dirt on joe or not is not important." Well...actually it'd be illegal if he was doing it for that reason. "What’s important is that the deal with Ukraine benefited world security." Well no, GIVING Ukraine the money helps world security, trading it for political dirt doesn't help anyone but Trump lol "By giving Ukraine this support Russia is unable to do what they did to Crimea. I think in the long run this benefits the whole world but if you don’t care about the world then just ignore what I said." You're acting like it was IMPOSSIBLE to give Ukraine the money with out trading it for dirt on Biden, that's so transparently false that it's laughable xD "Also Ukraine didn’t even investigate so I don’t know what your saying with the Ukraine police thing." Yes...because Trump got found out and had to release the money. It's kind of like when you're beating someone up for their lunch money and a teacher catches you, they tend not to give you their money when they are no longer in fear for their safety, weird that.
Banned tell me why we lease airfields in Turkey? It doesn’t have anything to do with security, oh wait. Tell me why we have Ukraine the support? Oh wait is there something called Russia. Wether trump was plying to get dirt on joe or not is not important. What’s important is that the deal with Ukraine benefited world security. By giving Ukraine this support Russia is unable to do what they did to Crimea. I think in the long run this benefits the whole world but if you don’t care about the world then just ignore what I said. Also Ukraine didn’t even investigate so I don’t know what your saying with the Ukraine police thing.
Naw, you're the one messing it up. Regardless of whether you believe Trump is good or bad the issue has nothing to do with "quid pro quo in foreign policy". The thing he's being accused of is offering our money (tax payer money) in exchange for PERSONAL gain. Not the gain of the country, not the gain of the tax payers, PERSONAL gain. You know how companies were paying Hillary hundreds of thousands of dollars for a 5 minute speech? And the idea was they'd keep doing it if she did what said companies wanted in government? Well that's what Trump is being accused of, trading political favors to get personal gain in the form of Ukraine's police force being his private investigators. The only real difference is Trump got caught I guess.
It's more than that, it's also being argued by the corrupt Dems and since everyone knows both sides are corrupt to their core they don't really believe either side would tell them the truth if it didn't suit their agenda. Dems wouldn't believe it if the republicans found proof Trump was innocent and republicans wouldn't believe it if dems found proof he was guilty, both sides are too scummy for the system to work regardless of who we each individually think is worse.
Example: I can yell "FIRE", if i do so in a crowded place that causes panic I can also be arrested for disturbing the peace. I can swear, if I do so for an hour outside the police station about said police I can be arrested for disturbing the peace and harassment. I can walk down the street but if I do so 50 times a day in front of my ex-girlfriend's house I can be arrested for stalking. Having a right doesn't make it impossible to ABUSE that right.
@Banned Russia already has the Ukraine. They annexed Crimea (peacefully btw) and blockaded Ukraine's naval base years ago. It's all bs and a bad investment.
The idea is that if we DON'T then Russia gets to take over the Ukraine and move further towards their goal of taking over more European countries. This hurts the US in the long run because we have treaties with many European countries and may have to intervene when Russia invades THEM next. By spending a bit of cash now we lower the chances of needing to spend the lives of our troops later. That's the argument at least, make of that what you will.
To...repeat the actual law? Seems like a waste of money xD
Pfft, the dems are too corrupt to elect a decent candidate anyway so Trump is pretty much a sure thing barring some miracle xD
@Oscar Rincon It's irrelevant when someone literally says they think the president is a king and supports said kingship? Ok. xD
@Banned irrelevant. In that case you just repeated the mistake
@Oscar Rincon It was a republican quote xD
You spelled democrat wrong
And yet you give no evidence to support your claims, I'm glad you're making YouTube comments and not doing...well anything important at all in life xD
The big the difference there is North Korea not having nukes benefits the country and investigating Biden really doesn't. The only way this benefits the people PAYING Ukraine, the taxpayers, is if there was 100% PROOF that Joe Biden was corrupt. This SEEMS like it was just Trump freaking out about Creepy Joe because he was ahead in the polls and Trump honestly thought Creepy Joe would somehow win the nomination which...well, Trump never said he was much of a politician xD
Huh? How do you get from "Trump didn't consent to being recorded" to "the recording can't be used as evidence!" Also...there is no "court" here...Also unless the person DOING the illegal recording was an agent of the police and acting in an effort to to further their goals as an agent of the police it doesn't MATTER if the recording was legal...Also there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in official calls by the president, the LAW says they must all be saved and documented forever, that's why Hillary's private server was an issue, she was a government representative who HAD privacy in official matters, that's a crime...your knowledge of the law which your country runs on is...disturbingly limited.
better to agree with ben shapiro (a lawyer) than alex jones(a satirical bat shit crazy loon)
"I would like you to do me a favor though. I know because my neighborhood has been through a lot and the west end knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole shooting situation with the west end, they say enforcers... I guess you have your reppin people... the thugs, they say the west end has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people." Does the sentance 'I would like you to do me a favor though' mean BRIBERY? Full context needs to be given. Asking a favor isn't exclusive to a bribery statement. I ask my friends for favors all the time, and they ask me in turn. It doesn't mean they're holding something over me, or will reward me monetarily or anything. Cherry picking small bits out of a full conversation is deceitful, and quite frankly shameful. And it's the main reason Trump is on social media so much, rather than letting the news handle all of his stories, because they pick and choose things to twist the story to their narrative. The left call the right nazi's while attempting to hang free speech, and spout socialist and communist propaganda, not knowing that their very actions mirror what Nazi's did more closely than any republican.
God Emperor Trump cannot be stumped. The lion will roar at 2 AM EST again.
I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible. Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. he was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
taken directly from the transcript.
Dems star witness and proof of here say is a good thing .. its not btw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnEWYilDgcg
Very glad you are doing this, Mr. Stone. Especially appreciate that you haven't ducked the contentious political issue of our time.
I think that it would be pretty disappointing if Donald Trump isn't impeached by the end of the term, I'm not a lawyer, but several times I have thought to myself, "will this be the one he gets impeached over?" I don't think he will be removed from office due to impeachment (unless he wins the 2020 election), but I feel like there should be enough evidence to start the process, and if there is, it would be the duty of Congress to do so.
We have NO evidence but believe you did something bad. Now imagine we did have evidence... (Nut Jobs Crying in the Streets) Yeah Fry him, Impeach that bastard, my imagination's right, who need proof when you have hateful feelings.....
Thank you this helps move the dirt around.
I love these videos so much. Really great to see a lawyers take on everything. Unrelated, I have a mighty need to see you do a video on the musical chicago.
Can you please look into this https://youtu.be/tHviln2x810
Why is it that your explanation has not been used by anyone in Congress? Why can they not stand up and say exactly what you said. All of the rebuttals of the Republican defenses that you gave, should be given in Congress and in the House. If they pose these rebuttals, stating exactly how the president broke actual laws, the Republicans would have no defense. I don't understand why they cannot just state exactly which rules he has broken and how he broke them.
⚡UKRAINE SCANDAL EXPLAINED⚡⚡:Joe Biden’s son’s firm linked to ⚡Chinese government: New book - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0VGXy_AJjs ⚡Biden sidesteps questions about son's foreign work - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH_sdTC7Anw ⚡Failed Attack Marks Beginning Of Major Biden Public Probe!!!*** - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQq ⚡UKRASSMILITARY UPDATE. .Updated Aug 19 2014 - MH17 - We know with 99% certainty who shot down MH17 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czqmeMhWyFo MP Derkach unveils facts of pressure of U.S. Embassy on Ukraine's law enforcement bodies, possible corrupt actions of the Bidens - https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/617820.html Burisma paid Joe Biden $900,000 for lobbying – Ukrainian MP - https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/press-conference/617936.html UKRASS. ПОРОШЕНКО ВЗБЕСИЛСЯ, ЕМУ НУЖЕН НОС // Алексей Казаков.- https://youtu.be/2_bYKJyg8u0 ⚡ Euro pean royals kil ling n a ked children for fun at hu man hunting parties - https://youtu.be/tMpstjmX99g ПОРОШЕНКО И ШАПКА. ЗВОНИТЕ ПСИХИАТРУ // Алексей Казаков. - https://youtu.be/YEU9W4Mi21A
Lots of ppl here that are commenting did not watch the whole video and it shows.
you have not talked on house-republican defense. the witnesses brought for have all been 2nd-hand (Hearsay). How does the defense stand when all testimony is hearsay? Your hearsay defense need at least corroborating 1st hand witness.
warren kelley it would be nice if Trump would allow some of those witnesses to talk. Hmm.
Trailer Park Boys, the episode where Ricky demands to be able to smoke and swear in court
thanks. i am in you debt
5:02
This guy is a good Lawyer, talks in circles with no real conclusions.
We have a Malignant Psychopath sitting in the Oval Office.
Barbara Brinkmeyer, how did you get in there ? I’m calling the Secret Service.
I hate to bring up DUE PROCESS, but it’s the Dems who have the BURDEN OF PROOF and Trump is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Of course, this isn’t a legal process, but a political one. SO the question about Rep defenses holding “legal water” IS IRRELEVANT. Btw, socialism sucks! And so does this attorney.
Croco You’re telling what I need to do? LOL Take your collectivism and shove it. Perhaps you need to respect the individual. TRUMP 2020!
You need to stop treating Trump like he's you're dad who fights for you and loves you. Trump pretends to speak for you, but it's all LIES. I know you want to be loyal, you want to show you're a patriot, but loyalty doesn't belong to the MAN, it belongs to the COUNTRY. And the majority of this country is certain that Trump is selling us out to Russia, and is willing to weaken us on the world stage to horde power for himself. Remember the Kurds, the ones who helped fight ISIS? We let them get steamrolled, and now we look like cowards to the entire world. If you care about America, you'd leave Trump.
can you work together with Tim poll / Timcast on an episode one this? would be interesting to hear what you figure-out together on the case
Why? LegalEagle is a moron. He gets nothing correct.
How nice of you to only attack the side you don't agree with.
@Fredy Rosales exactly. It's quite clear in this video.
Neal Wilkinson you’re saying he is partisan and not honest.
@Fredy Rosales didn't attack. Merely pointed out how blatantly one sided he was, twisting things to fit his personal point of view. But I guess he's a lawyer, that's his job
Neal Wilkinson way to attack this guy for not agree with you
Giving your explanation of the reality of multiple intentions in a given act: does that implicate Biden with his own 'quid pro quo' with withholding funds from Ukraine to fire a guy who was investigating a company his Son was on the board with.
It is telling how the GOP, who keep pushing these false defences, are all lawyers and haven't figured all this out.
These arent really steelman arguements. Just as a scientists and engineer, and a democrat I might add, I objectively think this is quite far from what many Republicans are saying much less their best arguments. This does sorta seem like just the stock arguements people in the media are throwing around. And he misquoted people several times. This was an all around poorly constructed video and argument. Though I can see he tried, not his fault he went to ucla, that's basically like bribery for people to pretend you're smart ;p
@Fredy Rosales I didnt waste my life attempting to play the role of pseudo aristocrat in America's broken bureaucratic system. I'm a scientist and engineer, I studied real shit that actually makes a difference in uni, not pretend justice. However, simply put, he misquoted several individuals including matt Mulvaney and nikki haley in this video. So clearly listening and/ or reading comprehension (if he read a transcript) isnt something mr eagle excels at. Let me be concise, a strawman spraypainted silver may look like hes made of "steel" however it's still full of fluff just like this video.
Mike Roch and where did you go to law school “Mike roch”?
#LegalEagle Reason: I hear and see individuals being smeared online all the time; When the responsible party posts the victims personal information online, including but not limited to, their cellphone number, city of residence, past closed criminal cases (I think is illegal if used for defamatory purpose); Because of this action, the victim recieves hundreds of threatening messages and phone calls (online or cellphone). Its if THERE IS NOTHING these victims can do if they are low income. ONLY THE RICH can fight online defamation. What is your take on this and what would you do? Thank you. I myself am a HUGE FAN of your channel and support your channel all the way. Keep up the great work Legal Eagle!!! Considering Law as an occupation.
#LegalEagle Is this a form of "Defamation" about The President? (ie. Libel, malice, interstate communication, false criminal misconduct, etc)
Nicky Haley is disingenuous
Another big, fat nothing burger.
PS. OF COURSE all the witnesses lied.
11:30 - I love this one because it's like trying to explain to someone caught with their pants down that simply trying to pull them back up doesn't undo the fact that they were caught. 17:00 Jim Jordan is a complete embarrassment of a person. If it had been called a bribe then there's be complaints that it's slander of the President, an attack on his character, partisan politics, how dare you, etc etc. You call it a Illegal Quid Pro Quo they insist that even though the attempt had failed, that the administration had been caught in the act, that their hand had been forced, and that Ukraine ended up getting the bribe without having to produce an investigation means it "it must not be Quid Pro Quo"
The dems have zero facts. You're about as biased as they come. Sure you're a lawyer? Maybe you need to watch again.
@Croco Projecting won't change anything. Good day.
Um, if bias is a problem for you, you should try being less biased. Lead by example, you know?
JULIAN ASSANGE FOR 2020. BOTH PARTY'S HAVE PROVEN BEYOND ALL DOUBT THAT WE CANNOT TRUST THEM WITH OUR FUTURE!!!
The swamp has spoken and you take their side. Who writes the laws, LAWYERS. Who interprets laws judges, prior LAWYERS. They do not go after anything that would remove them from office. You have to admit that you are one sided.
of course we all know Jim Jordan is a loud mouth idiot. Hell, John Boehner even thought so!
my opinion is because the words used is "I would like you to" do this though, means it not automatically a bribe. it is only a bribe if it was more like, sure but only if you do this for me. wanting something and demanding would be the difference right. or is there legal preference that says wanting something for something is a bribe. at this point it would depend on what was said before and tone of voice. we would then need to hear it.
Quick question, what type of lawyer are you?
@Chris Decokere it is completely biased because it doesn't match trumps opnion. Don't you know trump is the only true souce of facts and new? What are you a socialist, millennial, bilingual, communist, pacifist, fashist, boomer, scientist, snowflake, autumn leave, spring shower, may flower never trumper? If you dare dispute me or the chosen one in anyway I shall mock you a second time! THBBBBBPPPPTTT!
how are they? he's litteraly giving you the option about how to think about the allegations, he mentions some things can be seen both ways. How is this biased? You can read the laws yourself too. These are the defenses R's are using.
I hope you're trolling, but in case you aren't, what you quoted it's reasonable to infer that the intent was to rob a bank. "...before you get to the bank..." implies the destination, the bank. "...arrested before..." implies the police discovered at least the suspected intent of a crime or a crime itself and an arrest was made. In your example, there was no intent to rob the bank, but if there was, then it was not discovered by the police. Therefore, no prior arrest. Again I don't know if you're just fooling around, but some people might read your comment and think it's true and accurate, when it clearly isn't. There is no need for clarification. After this, I hope you no longer believe there is a bias. Although I don't understand why you assumed bias in the first place.
@11bdragon P.S. Adam Schiff committed high treason when violated privacy rights of a U.S. Citizen and is a clear abuse of power which is exactly what they accuse the President of doing.
@11bdragon Beliefs and Opinions is not evidence in court. This is Fact vs Feelings and you can not convict on a feeling. But this is a moot point. Republicans hold the majority in the Senate so when it does go for a vote President Trump will get a Not guilty Verdict. All Impeachment did was hand reins of Congress, Senate and Presidential elections to the Republicans next year. Many Democract Congress and Senate will be voted out by the population next year and replaced with Republicans and Trump will be elected again. Majority of the Democrats lived up to the term of "Do nothing Democrats". They have been focusing on far left ideals and impeachment rather than policy and law. And the Moderate Democrats ( which is the majority) will vote for Trump or Bernie, but not the Democrat candidate. So the Democrat base is split where the Republican base is together. Can't wait for a Republican run government. It is has been far too long. Maybe now we can stop focusing on feelings and focus on fact to build our country back up to the Superpower that we used to be. See you in 2020. I will be ready with my Popcorn to watch the left lose their minds.
@Inferno Reg Your fake news is hilarious :p
@Banned lol, your ignorance is bluss
@I Will "The majority of the country is right or right leaning centrists." Well...not according to any poll that exists but honestly I want you to be right too much to argue lol "Trump isn't perfect, but he's put his ass on the line to attempt to avoid a total collapse of America, NOT the U.S.A. "CORPORATION", America! You better be praying he succeeds or we're all doomed!!!" That's kind of the issue though, I don't think Trump is the only one who can fix the issue and Trump seems more obsessed with getting in petty flame wars than he is in DOING anything. If Trump but even half the effort he puts into jumping at liberal troll bait into actually FIXING things he'd be one of the best presidents we've ever had. As it is he tends to inspire less and less confidence. I live in an area the relies on farming for example and Trump's stay in office has been pretty awful for us, we take in more in subsidies at this point than actually EARN and who wants that? To be told "well rely on handouts from the government or go out of business, China hurt Mr. Trump's feelings so welcome to welfare!". We went from a majority Trump supporting area to an area that would vote for almost any Dem besides Shillary or Creepy Joe. If Trump wants support he kind of needs to actually get something done. Same goes for a LOT of folks in the steel industry. People get tired of do nothing politicians with big plans and no ability to follow through.
@Banned The majority of the country is right or right leaning centrists. I'm not sure how Trump is "liberal", unless you're using the word "Liberal" in it's actual context!? Trump seems to be working to defang the FedReserve. I'm not sure how up to snuff you are on your economics, but it appears that President Trump is working on implementing a parallel economic system, that will hopefully transpose our financial system out of this socialist, Keynesian nightmare that we've been slowly decaying under since Nixon was in office!? Our biggest threat right now is the crash of the petrol-dollar & Trump knows it! JFK did too!! It's time to get the treasury to adopt the gold standard, or RE-Adopt it. Trump isn't perfect, but he's put his ass on the line to attempt to avoid a total collapse of America, NOT the U.S.A. "CORPORATION", America! You better be praying he succeeds or we're all doomed!!!
@I Will Cool, but he wasn't quoting the "narrative" he was quoting the law and the exact words of republicans...so...all good. Also it seems the majority of Americans are actually liberal which....ya know, sucks. Not sure why you'd be down for the masses to have control of anything when it'd just bankrupt this country. Kinda like Trump's liberal BS is doing.
@B Dan "Mueller's summary was was completely different" "Don't think for yourself though" OH the irony! xD
@Banned Mueller's summary was was completely different from this guy's assessment. Don't think for yourself though. Just continue to blindly follow his every word. That's what smart people do.
Immature
This channel: is cutting farts again !!!!
If the TELEPHONE CONVERSATION does not fit YOU MUST AQUIT !!!!!
You know I liked you but your biases are showing and you provide strawman arguments and misrepresent what people were talking about. Cheers.
Get your facts right bud
Would Trump's alleged actions be better react as bribery or extortion?
35 million of the 391 million aid was never disbursed. So yeah, Ukraine did lose out on 14% of the aid for not announcing a investigation into Biden.
27:03 Unfortunately the Republicans doubled down on the "Too Dumb/Pro but no Quo" defense and I fear that the Senate will not even try to have a fair or proper trial. Trump is probably gonna get away with it... Until his ego pushes him to even bolder crimes where there is no doubt... Disgusting times we live in.
The conclusion I DRAW, is that the witnesses who testified are SO FREAKIN' CORRUPT, and have been swimming in a corrupt swamp SO LONG, that they hear and see illegality EVERYWHERE, so as Sonduland SAYS, he PRESUMED....
It's all just politics,maybe halfway into his 2nd term impeachment will be achieved
Nancy Pelosi has workedl. in government her whole life and has a net worth of 200 million. If you are going after Trump for "soft" corruption, you have to do the same to democrats. Comparing this to Watergate... Come on now...
Okay, so, regardless of what President Trump did or did not do, there must be some strong evidence that the Bidens did something illegal in the Ukraine. Otherwise, why do all this, right? So, my question is what will happen with this investigation on the Bidens after all is said and done?
Amazing breakdown and clarification of the arguments, even more amazing transition into paid promotion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tEHivnt5Yw&feature=youtu.be
Why did you delete my comment legal Eagle? Oh wait, you are a liberal and like to suppress freedom of speech if it doesn't agree with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srWS4oXKk7Y
What's the difference between a porcupine and a BMW with a lawyer in it?
The porcupine has the pricks on the outside.
Hey, so can we get your opinion on the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Death Wish", it's about asylum proceedings and self-euthanasia?
Victor India Victor Alpha *space* Foxtrot Romeo Echo India *space* provides information more reflective of the letter and spirit of the law without as much evident external and internal influences beyond that of a purely legal nature. Additionally, this channel can be mentioned in comments on that channel, but, for some reason, any comments with that channel's name on this channel are not visible to others. Don't know if it is a glitch or... not. If mentioning that channel on this channel is not allowed, please let me know. I wouldn't want to circumvent your *space* Charlie Echo November Sierra Oscar Romeo *space* Legal Eagle.
OBJECTION! WHAT THE HELL CRIME DID TRUMP DO! ITS NEVER BEEN SAID! Trump made a phone call. A PHONE CALL! First off. Why was this 'whistleblower' LISTENING to a private presidential call! Second! What proof besides their merit and word did these 'Witnesses' give that proved Trump did what they say! It's all hear say and a game of Telephone! The DEMON-RATS have admitted they've been planning impeachment for over 24 months! Since he was elected! That is obstruction of the peoples rights! They are basically flipping the bird to all America on our choice for President. You sir may know legal bull shit like the back of your hand. But your logic is lacking. Thank you for your time.
You Sound like a totally unbiased lawyer
You know, I was a little on the bench about watching this video. But you have my respect and subscription for keeping this professional and speaking only in facts. Look forward to seeing more of what you post.
You should check out *space* Victor India Victor Alpha *space* Foxtrot Romeo Echo India *space* . I think he is better and provides information more reflective of the letter and spirit of the law without as much evident external and internal influences beyond that of a purely legal nature. You might like him. I found him through Legal Eagle awhile ago.
I think trumps guilty as shit, and did everything he could to hide or cover it up. But mostly he had his personal lier look like the fool. Hell no he was not going to say the crime straight out. Just hint it. Republicans drank the koolaid and they will get a wake up call next election you can count on it. Look at ohio how the districts are setup.
Sidebar: Do you think Mitch McConnell comments on fox news about being in "total coordination" with the White House will violate his oath under Article I, section 3, clause 6 of the constitution required to be taken at the impeachment trial ? Oath:”I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.” Could any Republican be forced to recuse themselves via this article? Could this possible inability to render "impartial justice" be used by the Dems to invalidate Republican votes on impeachment? or to bring articles of impeachment against the Senators for violations of their duty?
C'mon Man, you've had a few hours to get the 'what does this mean?' video up after charges are approved by House committee. Where is it? C'mon, I"m waiting!
Ur a lier. Heresay isn't admissible as "evidence" in criminal offense. You can't convict someone based on heresay alone, and can't impeach a president purely on heresay either. Period. All of what Ur saying are pathetic attempts to argue against the "defenses" which have all been proven true. The defenses you speak of and of which you pretend aren't proven yet, are all very easily confirmed as true. The witnesses showed zero direct evidence reflecting the accusations, and the only people with direct first hand knowledge (actual admissible evidence) said there was no quid pro quo, no bribery, and no pressure. Period. Argument over. Any prosecutor would know this is over and done. Your explanations here are pathetic.
How is it a "hard argument to make" that all of those so called "witnesses" are liers? They all have a proven history of hatred toward trump since the day he was elected. They are bias, then on top of that, they had ZERO first hand knowledge of the claims they made and were called out on this. You can watch as every one of them are asked if they have ANY first hand knowledge of the claims the dems made, and none of them have actually given first hand knowledge of what they were saying. The only people who had actual knowledge of the facts involved said there was no quid pro quo, no bribery, and no "pressure". This case barely requires a "defense" because there are no high crimes involved, no quid pro quo, no factual evidence pointing to the claims. Nothing. It's done, now let it die. "heresay" is NOT admissible as "evidence" in the matter of criminal defense. You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Allowing heresay to be admitted to "evidence" is dishonest because evidence is supposed to be something that displays relavent facts. All of those witnesses offered their "opinion" and said someone told them what they claimed.
Anyone who is anti trump is a pedophile. The end. You have to be that sick In the head to hate trump.
This didn't age well since the Dems didn't think any actual crimes were worth adding to the impeachment.
As they argue among 186 Reps and 57 Senators with law degrees. Do Lawyers wonder why people hate them?
10:44 yes but if you got arrested for speech the police officer also gets arrested by that logic. so how in the world does that work out?
9:56 yeah ive always hated this logic. this should be changed. thank you for actualy pointing out the u.s. code and sections for us. most people dont say these so its hard to learn without. well. ya know not working or taking extra schooling.
Um email video and testimony of the accused that would be actual evidence. Not hearsay. If you are a lawyer you would know this all what you mentioned for strong hearsay, would be corroborating evidence
How can you say strong hearsay evidence is email video testimony of the accused. You are definitely not lawyer if you don't know that is actual evidence and not hearsay. That or you're the worst lawyer there is.
wait a minute... isn't trump within his rights (like it or not) to keep members of his staff from testifying, and to ignore congressional subpoenas?
Wow, what an outstanding review of the arguments! However, it sounds as if the Senate doesn't have to rely on any standard of evidence, but can just deliver whatever conclusion they've already reached. That fits well with Mitch McConnell's purported plan for the trial to take two weeks, and call no witnesses.
Its funny how when you get rid of the audience, the politicking, etc and just look at the black and white law its super easy to see a crime was committed and people are betting on their life long careers that most of the nation won't care even though historically he had the lowest popular vote in history.
I've liked some of your past videos, but your bias shows quite well in this one making it seriously misleading. You're talking about the defense from the prosecutions pushed perspective which leaves out most of the key details. As a lawyer, how about some examination into the consistent for both Shiffs and Nadlers complete lack of following their own voted upon "rules" that already tied the hands of the defense from the start. Maybe for a re-cap video, you could also touch upon how the IG report actually shoes how the whole Russian collusion at the start was a complete farce thanks to a doctored email. What we have here is just part of a 3 year smear campaign as we've seen constantly proven lies being recited non-stop to gain emotional support for the baseless accusations. You did it too by leaving out the true quote from the transcript that reads, " I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your weal thy people... The server, they say Ukraine has.it. There-are a lot. of things that went on, the·:whole situation .. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I .would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to ·get to the bottom of it. " In full context, this shows it was about getting to the bottom of what happened with the 2016 election meddling, whereas the the current Impeachment circus is being made out about digging up dirt on the Bidens for a favor. There was only one good question that I heard from the Dem panel in terms of why did do you think Trump waited until now on asking about the Bidens (when asking one of the lawyer witnesses)? Of course that answer is simple too, even though nobody mentioned it. It was Biden himself bragging about forcing out a prosecutor with his own Quid pro quo in public that brought it to light. It doesn't matter how well a case is articulated if it leaves out the basic facts that are apparent for everyone to see. The best example of this was Swalwell going after Collins with his pretend self-righteousness about how people died from the aid being withheld. Collins came back perfectly though with not only re-stating that it was "perspective money" that was still sent before the deadline, but that even Swalwells own article that he submitted stated that the aid and the deaths couldn't be tied together. This whole sham of an inquiry has no facts, basis, or truth on it's side. It has only gone on and will pass solely on the fact that they have the majority in the House.
Thank you for the analogy and the possible legal statues to look for in the future. Great Job ...of course we know the act of impeachment is purely political and the eventual outcome will follow party lines. An exception being ...a ten year old brain in a seventy year old man will soon incriminate himself beyond the republicans control to absolve him.
You kind of look like a Pixar character.
So: The GOP are the ones pounding the table, and the Dems pretty much have an open and shut case. Based off of time line, his mentality from the transcript that he only cared about Biden and when he released the funds after holding onto them for seven months, Trump attempted to bribe the Ukrainian government to announce an investigation into Bide and his son because Bide was a political rival who was betting him in nearly every poll. He also withheld key people from speaking to Congress. It really is Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.
My friends: Trump didn't do anything because he didn't actually do Quid Pro Quo and get untrue information on Joe Biden while he is running for President in 2020, he only tried to do it so no crime was committed. Me: (Facepalm)
So bidden is guilty then? There is a lack of evidence for Trump, but bidden is def suspect.
Now do Biden for extortion of Ukraine
Dirty Money: Episode 6 Confidence Man, is an hour long documentary on Trump's life long habit of shorting or not paying contractors, of lying about his net worth, of his bullying, of his total lack of ethics, and pf his constant need to be center of attention. He hasn't suddenly changed or become an honorable man since he became POTUS, and given his past behavior, there is no doubt of his mental state and his intent to cheat in the upcoming elections. His twitter feed alone is evidence of his intentions.
He used Sondland’s testimony as evidence that the entire state department knew, but doesn’t address the fact that when Sondland is questioned about it he repeatedly claims he did not know that for sure and even uses the word “assumed”. Also, he loosely goes over how hearsay can be strong evidence AND that there are exceptions to the hearsay rule, but doesn’t explain that hearsay is ONLY evidence when an exception applies. The very reason for that is because without an applicable exception, that by its nature renders the hearsay credible, hearsay is hearsay because it’s deemed not to be solid evidence. I could go on, but I’m interested to know how others who have worked in law, especially criminal law as I have, feel about the way he structures his arguments here. It is at best biased, and at worst purposefully misleading, in my opinion. A witness whose testimony is hearsay can not be used to corroborate the very hearsay he/she presents. That’s a matter of logic and law.
You don't need a defense when there is nearly no offense. The articles of impeachment are poo and not a criminal basis but a political one. I doubt the senate will even give a look at this impeachment ordeal and the impeachment will fail. They should have tried censure. Good try!
an argument you make can be restated in another context. we have a law. citizens agree to obey the law. the cops agree to enforce the law. the cops ask hey are you still obeying that law? the citizens say yes but your forcing us to. is this extortion? or is it just status quo?
To be fair, they also probably didn't watch the hearings, read the transcript of the call, read the Mueller report, etc., but they will all still act and speak as if they did. The loudest voices are rarely the most intelligent.
@Robert Foster It's bad when Mr. It's nuanced/complicated (regarding almost everything) can offer more substance.
@X A that k you. I will check it out "Victor India Victor Alpha" + "Foxtrot Romeo Echo India" Which video of aforementioned channel touch bases on interstate communication law and defamation of criminal misconduct?
You might enjoy *space* Victor India Victor Alpha *space* Foxtrot Romeo Echo India *space* channel. He provides information more reflective of the letter and spirit of the law without as much evident external and internal influences beyond that of a purely legal nature and in some of his videos he goes over defamation, libel, etc., regarding and coming from political figures. You might like it. The reason for the phonetic spelling is that this channel can be mentioned in comments on that channel, but, for some reason, any comments with that channel's name on this channel are not visible to others. Don't know if it is a glitch or... not. Legal Eagle, if it is not a glitch and mentioning that channel on this channel is not allowed, please let me know. I wouldn't want to circumvent your *space* Charlie Echo November Sierra Oscar Romeo *space* .
Nyneva Kyte There is a joint agreement between Ukraine and the United States to investigate possible corruption. It’s a Anti-corruption effort that’s been in place, how else do you think investigations happen?
@Re-Vera but the Democrats have been saying since the election results that we have to impeach him. For 3 years I've been told that my choice is wrong and that I'm an idiot. Honestly that's the greatest insult from these supposed public servants.
You have the right, but if you exercise that right you go to prison(or get impeached). That seems contradictory. If you have the right but exercise it poorly the price you pay is in public opinion, not criminal charges. If that's the case it implies you didn't have the right to begin with. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
HEARSAY IS HEARSAY. . AND IT'S WEAK DEFENCE. YOUR WRONG.. YOU CANNOT PERSECUTE A PERSON WITH HEARSAY. 06:41
I WANT NOTHING, I WANT NOTHING, I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO!! Potus 45
I don't give af whether or not Ukraine got 1 red cent. You don't impeach a US president over this bs. The Bidens are shady as sin and now that Crazy Joe is running for president makes him immune to being investigated? GTFO! The Dems have been after Trump since the day he was elected. Trump will be re-elected.
The jest of it is that the Republicans think that since Ukraine got the funds that there was no crime. That is idiotic. If you robbed a bank and the bank staff called the cops. Then you leave and forget the money. Does that absolve you of a crime? No. Attempted bank robbery is a crime, too. The only reason that Ukraine got their funds is because Trump got caught.
Have you done a video on that 'm8 ur dugs a nazi' video? It's pretty interesting.
Thanks for leaving the verdict to us. As for ME....that illegitimate clown criminal IS GUILTY AS THE HELL HE HAS PUT THIS COUNTRY THRU AND WHERE HE'LL END UP BURNING
I hope LegalEagle does a follow up to this now that we know that Republicans appear to be settling on the Hunter-Biden-is-Satan defense. What's the legal precedent for this and will it work?
This seems unbiased. Glad I found it
Thank you counselor, Ryan Reynolds.
Wiat a minute.. if the victim can not tell if someone are trying to bribe them.. then who can?
Objection! Explain what you mean by consequences of exercising free speech. We have complete freedom of speech in the United States. The only speech that is not protected is call to action. Otherwise the 1st Amendment does protect all other speech. There is not even such thing as hate speech punishable by law, unless the speech is a call to action to hurt an individual or group of individuals.
This will be my first objection on one of these videos. You may have been exaggerating, but I will say this anyway. If you are wearing ski masks with supposed intent to rob a bank and you are nowhere even near said bank, then you are basically only being arrested for wearing ski masks, which is not a crime. At worst, you would be getting charged with conspiracy to commit bank robbery, but that is only if it can be proven in court that such a thing was the intention. Otherwise, again, you're just arresting guys in ski masks who have not done and as far as you know won't do anything. I am pretty sure that even if you were arrested outside the bank and haven't touched said bank, you could only be charged maximum with loitering or conspiracy. I don't think it is illegal to be outside a bank while wearing a ski mask.
This should probably be about the Democrat's offense since it's the most controversial.
As a Euro i still dont understand why nobody is going after Biden. He said on video that he bribed Ukraine to fire one of their prosecutors, and said they wouldn't get aid if they didn't. Is it another Russia thing, where its fine if the US interferes in foreign elections but as soon as somebody does it to them its bloody murder?
Because the Democrats are crooked career criminals who have deeply infiltrated America
I wouldn't want you to defend me in regards to anything in court. You are a looney lefty.
All the people who say Trump is guilty have testified under oath. All the people who claim his innocence have refused to testify under oath. What does that tell you? Coincidence?
I guess to you the show predicts the outcome over actual facts? Suck a sheep mentality you have there. Who is the so called "whistleblower"? An illegal wiretap ;)
It's simple: Trump didn't do anything wrong, there's no evidence of wrongdoing by him and the Democrats are entirely corrupt and this entire thing is a farce... A farce that won't go anywhere -the Senate will immediately slap this nonsense down.
As he said in the video motive matters. I think it is clear at this point that the President did not (in this case) commit an actual crime but may have committed an abuse of power. The question re: Motive here is, is he being impeached for an abuse of power or is he being impeached because the Democrats hate him. IMHO the latter is true. I believe this is the case because Democrats have been crying for impeachment since before he even took the oath of office. They then spent 2 years on the Meuller investigation and after that did not work they moved on to this thing. It is more than obvious at this point that Democrats decided first that they were going to impeach a duly elected president of the United states and then started figuring out what excuses they could use to do so. This is again, IMHO a far worse abuse of power. Americans are not stupid. This is going to back fire in an epoch way. This is coming from someone who does not even like Trump. #votetulsigabbard.
What's the proper ALWD citation to cite to this video for my white collar crime final?
Ok selective editing In open statement yes yes there was quid pro quo. In direct questioning is this what he said to you.? Sondland answers no it's what I assumed. Cant call that fact. I watched the whole thing. It truly is all hear day and assumption floated between witnesses. No one not one of them said this is what the president said. So cant call it anything other than gossip.
Overall, really good review of the various defenses. However, 30:30, comparing the motivation to investigate potential corruption vs motivation to rob a bank is not a good comparison. Nothing wrong with investigating corruption (depending on motive), always wrong to rob a bank (regardless of motive).
Be brave. Talk to the Canadian Lawyer (we can't seem to say his name or channel name)
That fool quit his job in attempt to live off youtube money. It takes a lot of time and hard work to grow a channel, but there are people like the canadian that want to take shortcuts and use popular youtubers to climb the ladder quickly. Legal eagle is smart to avoid him, hes a user.
Okay but zelensky did not know the aide was on hold till the Politco article. He asked zelensky to look into corruption in his own country with the bidens. If zelensky didnt know about the hold on aide, what did trump bribe him with?
The democrats have always put forth made up evidence. I think they should lean on that as the defense. That this has always been about the democrats losing the electoral vote and have always tried to demean the presidency in one way or another. Just prove the “facts” are fake and I think that’s enough evidence. Or just let the democrats hang themselves.
We really do need to kill all the lawyers.
So what evidence was given for Quid Pro Quo or Bribery? To impeach a president shouldn't you have more than "well I thought...."; you also have to prove there was a motivation specifically that Trump feared Biden winning. There is none. The President....ANY President should push anti-corruption...ESPECIALLY if we are giving them boat loads of money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J19NhzlQJwA the only one with any direct evidence says there was no "quid pro quo".
“Obstruction of Justice”?!? Are you serious? How can you obstruct something you can’t even see or touch?! Fake news witch hunters who can’t build a wall! ......
Cite a strawman fallacy that he uses, and how it is a straw man
Thanks for admitting Trump is getting reelected. He won't be impeached because he didn't commit a crime...
It's on video........
@Dillon Young my comment has suddenly reappeared... Surprise surprise......
What did you say
A woman claims she's raped in her house, by a man who broke in, who she never met before. There is blood on the broken glass, and there is sperm on a towel in the room where the alleged rape happened. Based on the description, the police arrests a man
I think that would depend on the content of the email or video testimony and who wrote the email/who was in the video.
No. However, he can have someone attend representing him; like an attorney or lawyer. The President is NOT above the law, period. No one is. Trump isn't a king. A king could do what you are saying, but that is still basically a dictator. You don't want that. It is basically unchecked power to the extent of the people having an uprising and beheading the king. That's actually why the guillotine was even invented. The French royalty at the time acted the same way as Trump and ended up with their heads in a wicker basket. Technically, the Congress could be a lot meaner to those refusing a Congressional Subpoena. It's punishable by death, technically. As it is considered and specifically mentioned as treason in the Constitutions.
Sigh. I know you think you're making sense, but you're not, and you're a prime example of how limited the intelligence is for your party.
@Tiger58 which means nothing cuz they were doing it regardless of truth
Well right, but the whole point of my comment was that the process needed to be started, and it was
@Tiger58 which have to be voted on.
I have news for you, two articles impeachment were passed by the house judiciary committee
3 years and they found nothing, its not going to change.
Lmao shut up
They deflect and actually say, they did not want the money to go to Ukraine anyway! Like that was a good time to change thier minds. The have no defense largely due to the fact that, Trump admin is clearly above the law!
So let me get this straight mr LegalEagle If i was accused of bribing you by threatening to withhold your fee for some favor but i then pay cette fee without any pressure and or favor from you that's tantamount to attempted murder? Oh and you are very selective in the clips you play arent you? Steelmanning you say?
Well there was quid pro quo with the Ukraine, just Joe Biden did it.
The president has a duty to fight enemies foreign and domestic, the bidens are corrupt as confessed by joe biden himself. So how exactly is the president asking another country to root out corruption a crime? Just because the criminal is running for president against him?
I hate law, but this is brilliantly explained!!
You are a bravery man then I for covering this, and you have my sympathy for any verbal attacks you are getting for this.
I'm still not on your side but this video is far and away less biased than your prior political videos. Good job!
I'm sorry but this entire impeachment case reeks of sedition and treason on the part of the Democratic party
So, where is this quid-pro-quo? Is it evidenced in the call record? What is the nature of this quid-pro-quo? And aren't all negotiations some form of quid-pro-quo? I mean isn't negotiating favorable agreement the job of a President? Provided that the agreements aren't selfish/treasonous or immoral. A favor to root out corruption (even if politically expedient) is no crime.
When is an actual crime not a crime in today's society? When you have a vagina!
Listen to these Dembot CNN puppets double down on defending heresay evidence against President Trump and shelter quid po quo Joe. Joe and CNN are hiding each other's dirty underwear and we're about to see their Fruit of the Looms in the Senate. These Dembots are working extra hard to legitimize their platform for 2020. Trump is working for America and these beurocrats have no power over Americans when we're prospering without being bottle fed by their handouts. KAG 2020!
you know... i think america NEEDED this video.. political opinions aside..breaking this all down while i expected it.. its far more thorough which i ALSO appreciate because its broken down so eloquently in bit sized nuggets of information, its just a good deed in general since its been so long since the last widely known impeachment it wasnt in alot of new voters (i included) lives to start. with the mechanics of it and guidelines, that impeachment slots into, it was mostly foreign to me i knew the basics but.. this helps alot more
I completely agree with LegalEagle, Trump is completely innocent and the Democrats should be fired.
Here are like 3 times he makes a small smile when talking about bombshells. He knows this is gonna be a mess
the Democrats and their media have NOTHING.
You are a slick and misleading person. I listened and noticed the words you say and how smoothly you do it. Bidens name is NOT in the transcript, is it.
Don’t you need a witness instead of just here say to prosecute a person & put them in jail no matter how high profile?!? They could just be making up anything & they are! I truly group be there’s no witness!
Also "Too dumb to crime" should be the title of a goofy comedy about the entire Trump administration.
what about the biden more than obvious and publicly confessed crimes?
Sideshow Bob~~ lol. Thanks for the great video.
Yeah, but who the hell wants President Pence?
Part of the argument that might allow hearsay seems to be that POTUS has blocked testimony from those who could present non-hearsay evidence. True, he has claimed executive privilege. This is not absolute, but in the past congress has gone to the SCOTUS to enforce their subpoenas. In some cases SCOTUS has backed POTUS; in others the issuer of the subpoena. Has the House of Representatives done? Instead of taking the action that has resolved such things in the past, they have presented the obstruction charge. Had SCOTUS ruled against POTUS and he still refused to allow the testimony, this charge would surely apply, but absent that, I would think that his privilege is unchallenged. Unless his privilege is successfully challenged in court, I would think that POTUS should be able to assume that privilege applies. There is of course a fallacy in this whole discussion. Scholars almost universally agree that impeachment is not a judicial act. It is a political act. That which applies in court has not seemed to apply to the hearings in the house.
So what i'm getting here is that: Joe Biden is GUILTY for his part in the Ukraine! I m soo happy Liberals are going through with this! They are going to lose so many seats!! Trump 2020!
Your definition of hearsay is so weird to me. I was so puzzled the first time you brought it up. In Canadian law, at least when pleading in French, hearsay is really just when a witness more or less says "X told me that Y said". Basically if you haven't heard it yourself it's not admissible in testimony and a lawyer has a right to object. That's it. Of course it's just a different law system but it seems so odd to hear that a letter is "hearsay" I'm like wuuut. Hahhaah gonna wrap my head around this one day !
a video and an email are hearsay? I'm thinking you are about as legally competent as Reese Whitherspoon!
I think Mr. Mueller let Donald Trump Jr. off easy for being too dumb to understand what he was doing. I don't think the same can be done for a President too dumb.
Can the Senate work with the white house's attorneys? The impeachment process in the Senate is like a grand jury right? So they can't be biased or say out right that they won't vote to impeach.
Anything other than trump being guilty is a wrong answer.
You just give the run around of what we already know.
I don't know why I listened. It's what has been said everywhere by every l;awyer we've seen and the defense is the same....THERE IS NONE!
All of the witnesses said there was never any quid pro quo. Sondland was the only fact witness who specifically said there was only presumption of any quid pro quo to any aid, the actual accusation. He was only saying they wanted to exchange for a Whitehouse meeting with nothing to do with military aid conditions. All other witnesses, including Vindman, lied under oath. He was even put in his place by being reminded by the Congresswoman from New York that the President sets foreign policy, not his aides like the good colonel. The President of Ukraine and all of his people who spoke with Trump officials through the entire process have all called Democrats liars. If hearsay is legitimate, then you're not a lawyer. Because I might have heard someone say their gerbil said so.
Your analogies about bribery seem stupid because it would be like thinking about and even talking about bribing a cop (to use your other analog) with your passenger in your car, but then never actually offering a bribe to the cop. Trump never offered a bribe to Zelensky, as Zelensky himself has personally testified around the world.
The fund release was only triggered by the several ambassadors and officials gave Trump their assurance Zelendsky "was the real deal." Never anything to do with the fraudulent media unless all of those ambassadors were lying.
Attempted bribing, stealing, murder and rape is a crime...... except for the Trump family!
YOU ARE NOT GONNA BELIEVE THAT, MY THEORY SUGGESTS NANCY WASNT TRYING TO IMPEACH HIM, SHE IS A LAWYER HARD TO BELIEVE SHE DOESNT KNOW THE MEANING OF THE WORD EVIDENCE, PERHAPS THERE ARE OTHER MOTIVES AT PLAY, POSSIBLE SEXUAL ATTRACTION, TROUBLE IS A FORM OF ATTENTION AFTER ALL.
8:49 "O_O"
NOT ALL OF IT WAS RELEASED
I don't think withholding military aid to a country is bribery. Given the context of the past few years and how Democrats were saying Trump quite literally committed treason, the fact that Trump now is using his office to investigate where these actions actually occurred means one of two things. 1. A few Democrats actually had a hand in it, and the party is protecting them. 2. Trump is actually aligned with the Nazi moon colony to invade earth after the 2020 election, with Russia's help of course, or maybe Al-Qaeda. As to motive, yup, Trump gains personally and politically from Ukraine, regardless of the findings. But, how can you impeach him on that, when anyone else would do the same thing after being accused of treason. TREASON! Literal treason.
There is an extremely good counter-narrative as to why we would not let random people or events determine who and when we arm with missiles, not money. That is the defense, our President has a foreign policy known to be based on random behavior on his part. No more predictable respond to typical events, no more Pearl Harbor's or 911's. But there is no point in defending against any of these allegations, the sovereign position of the President must not be usurped so easily. The danger I see now is when we really need to impeach a president we will be unable because of this sham.
I want you to get the dirt see, i am only gonna say this 8 times, get me some naked pictures of Trump (Adam Shiff)
Democrats are working for the New World Order.
Didn’t Solon also say the president told him there was no quid pro quo lol directly contradicting him self? The entire line up that Democrats have put forward is just sad. And the American people can see they are trying to cover up Biden and save their party.
so why aren't there any fact witnesses in this case?
LOL this did not age well! In the end your "legal opinion" was garbage. Most of us knew this, but it was fun seeing your BS exposed. Next time try to not be a lawyer and actually be analytical. First rule of any crime, both parties have to be involved in it.
Thank you for the presentation.
#saveJesus
... he yelled, as police cars, sirens wailing, screeched to a stop outside. This was retrieving the hold-up note from the teller and eating it.
But at least his leg hair turns blonde in the sun.. does yours? No.
@Brian C
People like you are the problem. People who can't take a loss.. What are you trying to achieve? Civil war? If its that bad people will vote diff next time.. but they wont because they prefer Trump over the rest of the circus. You think nobody was unhappy with the previous presidents? They just had to live with it aswell learn to do the same its fools like you who get him the votes people are tired of outrage culture is it that hard to notice that? The left backed up by the media demonizes every rightwing party and politician its the same here in Europe and people are really tired of it here aswe
@Zilentification riiite .. and I suppose someone saw John do that?
Many victims of assault allege that their attacker was attempting to kill them. That doesn't mean that their attacker was. As a witness you report facts as you see them, but that doesn't mean the court/judge cant say "you are wrong and those actions were x y z." If I saw John pass money under the table to Fred, all I could say was I saw a seemingly shady transfer of money between John and Fred. If asked whether or not it was bribery my only truthful response would be "I don't know". All I am witness to was a transfer of money. Now if John was trying to give me money, and he has large sweeping powers as a VIP in a major company. He could offer me money to do a task, and I may assume that it's all legit. Depending on the nature of the task and the method of payment, I could work under the assumption that this is all above board. Later it could be revealed that he was bribing me, but the point is I actually may not have realized! OFC, most of the time this isn't the case, but if anyone could add false sense of legitimacy to anything, a President would be it. In addition, many people who receive bribes have a vested interest in not admitting that they were bribed.
the "victim" had a gun to his head, he still does! It is clear that Trumps Admin and kids are above the law!
Dont know if it would be useful but it d sure as hell be fun. I m with you.
@Chris Stone it's an out of court statement, is it not? that meets the definition of hearsay. You'd be surprised at what is considered to be hearsay https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay
@Jonah Livingston since when is a confession hearsay?
Can you make an arrest based on a recorded confession? That's hearsay
The comments are quite tame. I'm impressed by your following. -passerby
Will any of this matter if the senate is controlled by Republicans? when Nixon resigned the house and senate were controlled by Democrats. The system currently feels like a stacked jury. I'd rather have my friends and family be my jury than strangers.
Really no matter the outcome they just don't have enough votes and it will go nowhere in the senate. That's it. It will all end up a big waste of taxpayer money.
Where is the concrete evidence? It strongly smells of gaslighting. Potus is corrupt as are the people going after him.
not even 20 seconds in and I need some tea
"Amateur" is misspelled in the intertitle.
Can't we just forget all this and jump straight to POTUS Jared Kushner, proving once and for all that democracy is an ancient Greek practical joke that got way out of hand?
All I can say is if Trump gets impeached and the democrats push in their own candidate, I hope he winds up like JFK
They're all spreading a rumor, started by sondland. He testified the quid pro quo was his assumption, and trump explicitly said not to do quid pro quo....
You forgot the biggest defense, having a majority in the senate that wont impeach.
Did you advise the DNC to move on the articles ? You mentioned he was attempting to start an investigation into the Bidens, when in reality he was asking why the investigation was stopped in the first place considering his son was the suspect in said investigation and his daddy killed in the form of a bribe using military aid ?!? I guess like all left leaning people you side with the ridiculous ramblings of your politburo members pretty sad. Propering yourself up as a legal scholar and taking a hard nose dive into left propaganda.
This lawyer started nice and wise but deteriorated to being a partisan talking head.
"I don't like facts & deduction skills"
Holy propaganda batman! Hearsay is powerful evidence? Then compared apple's to oranges in hearsay examples. Convenient video snippets showing pieces of questions. Is this better call Sal's son?
The defenses used are designed to fit the accusations made in the articles of impeachment. A much more interesting question is what does high crimes and misdemeanors mean. The US Supreme Court says They mean what the writers of the Constitution understood the to mean at the time of the writing of the constitution. Sounds like circular reasoning until you realize the phrase comes from British law, and applies to all civil office holders. The first such office holder to be tried by the Senate and removed from office a federal judge John Pickering. The House voted to impeach Pickering on March 2, 1803 on charges of drunkenness and unlawful rulings. ... The Senate convicted Pickering of all charges by a vote of 19 to 7 on March 12, 1804, thereby immediately removing him from office. He broke no laws. If you research impeachments of British civil servants you will find no laws need to be broken. Office holders were impeached and removed from office for being incompetent, to not being a nice person, or having a poor demeanor. The founder of the Constitution being ex British citizens knew all of these things and decided to use the terminology in our Constitution. Trump can be removed for not acting like a President, if the Senate decides to do that. The opinions of experts are to give Senators cover for whatever they decide to do. I think Trump is sneaky and underhanded, a habitual liar, and all round jerk. I think I would let the electorate decide in 2020. It really doesn't matter who is in office, unless we go to war.
1 paragraph in a 40 page transcript that they could blow up, wrap themselves in the flag and try to kick trump out before he made inroads into the liberal agenda of undermining every aspect of our culture/ country. i think trump is slick but bumbling, but his agenda is not. it must be done to save the country. a lot of what he says is loose lips ... but i can't see any politician standing up to pelosi, shumer, and the media without making compromises to them the way trump does. he's an egomaniac among egomaniacs.
I'm actually curious to see if any Republican supporters, or even Democrats actually think Trump is innocent in all this. From everything I've seen it seems pretty damning. Just curious to see if outside of political motives(republican/Democrat politicians) do people actually think Trump is innocent. But lets not argue, just your part(Republican/democrat) and "guilty" or "not guilty." Nothing more, nothing less, I don't want to see arguments.
Omg. That made my head spin.
Boy you must really be impressed with yourself!
Why is Congress giving my tax money to the Ukraine in the first place?
one perhaps biased reporter said aide goes to the ukraine so they can contribute ( through ukraine -usa citizens and their businesses ---same thing they accused trump of doing with russia) to politicians who will vote to continue giving them even more aide. it is a swamp full of swamp sharks.
https://www.instagram.com/tv/B5xrX5ypYyo/?igshid=a3eqwguf2qis
“We didn’t do anything” Jim Jordan needs to be investigated, that guy is in on the entire scam.
That Novus Law School Ad with the elevator jazz needs a makeover. I can smell the stale convention center coffee through the screen.
But murder and bribery are 2 different categories of crime and they have different needed proofs to be condemned guilty
no lawyer, but i watch a lot of matlock and heresay evidence is NOT ever allowed for old ben. either YOU hear it or whoever did has to be saved by benor conrad before they can testify.legaleagle seems to disagree with both bens, matlock and shapiro and my ears are pricking up when i listen to him.
@TalonVirus virus it is. genius it's not. if your going to reply say something smart. forrest gump had better lines.
Are you on crack
Democrats fake quote of President Trump: "I would like you to do me a favor." Actual quote from President Trump: “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it,” This quote is the basis for why the Democrats started the impeachment, and over and over they deliberately changed the words and its context to frame President Trump. President Trump 2020! Keep America Great! “NEITHER of the two articles abuse of power and obstruction of Congress presented by the DemocRats “satisfies the express constitutional criteria for impeachment,” as BOTH ARE NOT CRIMES or even mentioned in the Constitution.” Liberal democrat and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz
This is not heresay. This channel is 100% funded & promoted by Democrats. So before you take some random gut with a law degree on youtube seriously, always remember to ask yourself who theu are paid & owned by & what angle they want to push. There was literally zero illegal actions with Trump. Yet Biden is literally on video saying on mic that he would hold money unless they ruined a mans life for trying to look into the bribes he made for his worthless son Hunter Biden. So Trump in response simply asking Ukraine to look into that was 100% within his rights as President, period... "lawyer".
Ok so other than this being clearly from the position of President is guilty, how is it that people keep saying that hearsay is more admissible than hard evidence... he said I heard he robbed this place has more legal standing than the video showing the person doing the crime.... ok lol what a joke
Unless the house goes to the judicial branch which they have not. Trump doesn't have to give anything to the doesn't have to give them anything. The executive is a equal branch not under or over the legislative branch.
Trump has a history of these kinds of behaviors predating his presidencty by many years if not decades. The question I have is what do people gain from this, especially given how many people who provide this front for Trump tend to wind up in legal trouble?
29:14 If it is the main duty of the president to root out corruption both domestic and abroad,.... the first thing this president must do is resign. that makes a great stride in rooting out corruption.
As to presidential pardons, it is my understanding that the president cannot grant pardons in relation to an impeachment. Is this correct?
I learned the meaning of "mens rea" from Legally Blonde. True story.
Please talk about this in a video? Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. ARTICLE I, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 7
More legalspeak, more confusion. WHY did the house not send this to the courts? I have heard that there is a judicial body adept at solving these conundrums.
Facts are fluid?
He said the White house has not provided evidence that they did not bribe? This is a way of making a case greater by adding up the sum of its parts. This is the same kind of logic that proves an arrow will never hit its target, as it is mathematically impossible. infinite divisions will never equal 0.
Would you like to be prosecuted with hearsay evidence, with no reasonable ability to defend yourself, for political purposes, on the PRESUMPTION that you wanted to commit a crime without commiting a crime. Jim Jordan is 10x the lawyer you are. Hack. Those that cant do teach. Those that cant teach, youtube.
HASHTAG #NOTLEGALADVICE was funny as f----! oh no officer, you misunderstand that attempted bribe wasnt my intention. EDIT: and the chewbacca defense just......... hilarious!
Democrats have nothing on impeachment and they know it
We finna get some Jreg zero state solution up in here. Extremes unite!
Should Joe Biden be investigated? Yes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCSF3reVr10
"Both can be true at the same time"... YES! I can't tell you how many of my Trump supporter friends think if the Bidens are corrupt then Trump isn't, and how many democratic friends think that it's a lie from Trump. Look, we have no evidence (that I know of) to link the Bidens to corruption... but we can definitely infer that they probably outsource cronyism based on that information and still be logically consistent.
@MB7709 GB of course, that's what I mean to say. Both can be true. The Biden's can be corrupt while Trumps actions are still wrong, one does not negate the other.
Regardless of what Biden did or didn't do, you still can't bribe or ask a foreign power to help you in your election. You can't withhold funds already promised (rules changed by Congress).
Also there was no bribe cause the dems didnt push bribery in impeachment articles. So there just pulling shit out of there ass to impeach him now
Democrat's greatest fear is not reelection but a President Trump statue in New York harbor.
So let me get this straight mr LegalEagle If i was accused of bribing you by threatening to withhold your fee for some favor but i then pay cette fee without any pressure and or favor from you that's tantamount to attempted bribery? If you ask me that would be more like you blowing smoke. Oh and you are very selective in the clips you play arent you? Steelmanning you say? Did you get your law degree from watching the simpsons?
Well there was quid pro quo with the Ukraine, just Joe Biden did it. Let's also remember the people trying to impeach a lawfully elected POTUS, because they don't like him, support the murder of babies. Their arguments mean absolutely nothing.
Not if they self implode first from this political stunt. They're literally handing over 2020 because of this charade.
I always found it remarkable that people can make a joke about Trump being "Dumb" or not bright or whatever yet somehow still not accept the fact that Trump beat them in 2016, Trump is doing a great job for America, Trump is uniting Americans and Immigrants like myself together, Trump is also a VERY strong contender for 2020 and honestly, in my humble opinion, I don't think anyone has the ability to defeat Trump and Democrats know it, that's why they're going so hard on Impeachment when they have about a quarter leg to stand on lol
me
It's because you can't prove that the person wrote it. Same with video, you can't prove beyond all doubt that it has never been edited and that every frame was perfectly caught.
@GetAnotherWordSon nope that's you being a dumb trumptard.
That mentality is what's gonna make the Dems lose 2020. Dems never did learn from the RussiaGate hoax, and everyone's leaving in droves, even Congressman Jeff Andrews is turning Republican from the clown fiesta.
Surely there's some middle ground between "The democrats did it" and "Trump is with the Nazi moon colony". Withholding any kind of aid in exchange for personal favors literally is bribery, isn't it? And Trump may want to help fight corruption, but he crossed the line when he didn't use the formal channels, using the weasel Giuliani instead, and when he named Biden personally, per the transcript. The law should be all that matters and bribery, abuse of power and obstruction of justice are illegal factually. Calling someone treasonous is not.
... Quite the statement you have there
Because trump won't allow them to testify or release docs. Obstruction of justice
_blod I think he's pointing out that right s are limited and have some bounds. Take yelling fire in a crowded theater for example. Whether or not there is a fire you can still make the claim there is, but if there is no fire you'll likely face both criminal charges for the act itself and potential civil actions for any damages accrued. Claiming it's your first amendment right to do so doesn't, in that situation, offer an adequate defense for elliciting panic and you can be held culpable and/or liable for your action and potentially actions taken by others that can be shown to be directly influenced by your own. Under the law while rights provide generally broad protections they do have their limits and as such are not 'absolute'. I apologize if I didn't adequately explain it out but I'm on a crappy phone and don't a my law notes or books on hand. Also note that simply because you have the right to do or say something doesn't mean that doing so in a dissgreeable or unethical manner may result in social sanctioning and exclusion even if it doesn't rise to the level of violating a legal exemption or statutes laid out for the right in question.
@Tony Jones The President can ask for cooperation into the corruption of U.S. Officials with Foreign Governments. Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998, and with an Exchange of Notes signed on September 30, 1999, which provides for its provisional application. https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text
@Tony Jones Adam Schiff sent his staff to try and collect 'classified materials for the FBI' from Russian pranksters who told him Putin has NAKED blackmail pictures of Trump Adam Schiff, the ranking Democratic member of the House Intel Committee was recorded speaking to Russian pranksters who spun elaborate 'kompromat' tale He told Vocan and Lexus, two radio pranksters who have also hit Nikki Haley, that he would pass their claims to the FBI in a call made last year The duo posed as a fake Ukrainian politician to say Trump had sex with Russian glamour model Olga Buzova after a Miss Universe pageant in 2013 In the call they said Putin had been passed naked pictures of Trump and now-president had used secret codes for talks with Russians Duo gave emails to DailyMail.com which showed Schiff's staff trying to arrange to collect 'classified' documents from Ukraine's embassy in D.C. Schiff's office claimed he was not fooled by the call and reported it to 'authorities' but did not explain why his staff kept up correspondence Call posted in April 2017 surfaced as Schiff waits to see if Trump will declassify his Democratic version of the Devin Nunes memo which shamed the FBI Russian Comedians TRICK Adam Schiff Into Thinking Putin Has Naked Pictures of Trump https://youtu.be/kWZe3lglQ3Y
@Tony Jones Quid pro quo Joe….Fire the investigator investigating my son Hunter Biden or you don’t get the money! Joe Biden said…..”I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a BlTCH. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.” This below video is what a quid pro quo looks like…...C-SPAN: Joe Biden Confesses to Bribery, January 23, 2018 Why does Vice President Joe Biden get to run for President when he flat out demanded a quid Pro quo from the Ukraine ON NATIONAL TV? HE GETS TO RUN FOR President and it is totally OKAY with you stupid hypocritical libtards? Trump provided the transcript of the phone call that shows NO QUID PRO QUO and you want him thrown out because of quid pro quo????? https://youtu.be/vCSF3reVr10?t=97
@Tony Jones There was NOTHING WRONG with President Trump asking for help from the new Ukrainian President for evidence of Biden and the 2016 election collusion...
@Tony Jones The President has an obligation to root out Corruption. He is not interfering with any Elections code. Anyone who runs for that office is not immune (or above the law) from being exposed or investigated anywhere it occurs. Any "value" in such exposure will be for the benefit of the USA not the President. Trump promised to “drain the swamp" and it appears that they, and their propaganda boosters, are trying to continue to cover it up.
@Tony Jones The President of the United States is the Executive branch of the federal Government and is the chief law enforcement officer. Is responsible for implementing and enforcing the laws… head of the DOJ. I've no problem with Trump asking the Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden whether he's running or not if there is corruption to be found. Dems had no issues spending the last three years trying to dig up dirt on Trump. I wonder, if it were a Republican or a democRat candidate running against Trump in the primary and they asked the new Ukrainian President for “favor/evidence” to use AGAINST President Trump would you be as outraged? Nope. You're an ideologue.
@Tony Jones Democrats fake quote of President Trump: "I would like you to do me a favor." Actual quote from President Trump: “I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it,” This quote is the basis for why the Democrats started the impeachment, and over and over they deliberately changed the words and its context to frame President Trump. President Trump 2020! Keep America Great!
@Tony Jones DemocRats
@Dylan Dixon Well the house in half America says it . Plus if we can impeach over an affair then we sure can impeach for asking a foreign government to investigate a political rival
@Tony Jones A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath).[1] As an example, suppose that a person committed a crime for which they were never prosecuted, but the statute of limitations on that crime has expired. A prosecutor could set a perjury trap for them by calling them as a witness before a grand jury in a case about a different crime, and ask them about the expired crime. If the witness lies about the expired crime, that would be perjury—a new crime, which could then be prosecuted.[2] Prosecution for perjury elicited in this manner violates due process of law, since the investigatory powers of the grand jury are exploited to reach beyond their legal limits.[1] It has been argued by legal scholars whether it constitutes a form of entrapment.[2] Claims of a perjury trap are common when perjury charges result from testimony before a grand jury, but are rarely proven.[3] No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap.[2] The defense is extremely difficult, because the question that elicited the perjured testimony must be immaterial to the case in which it was asked, and courts construe very broadly what questions count as material to a case.[2]
@Tony Jones Google the term "perjury trap" FYI if you forget something and or fail to answer a question the same way as you answered it before while under oath you can be charged with "perjury." AGAIN this is why defense attorneys virtually NEVER LET THEIR CLIENT TESTIFY! This is a bunch of BS! And President Trump will NEVER be removed from office because of this impeachment nonsense! I am sorry you are way too stupid to realize this fact!
@Dylan Dixon it only perjury if you lie. So if you say perjury trap you acknowledging Trump will lie. If this a hoax i need Trump to tell America why this a hoax. Don't tell us thru tweets or on fox news.
@Tony Jones Monica had a Blue dress with his sperm on it! That is called “evidence” DemocRATS HAVE no evidence a crime has been committed by President Trump! All they have is false allegations!
@Tony Jones It would be nice if President didn't have to defend himself under oath for a bunch of made up BS that the democRats fabricated to impeach him! They have been saying "IMPEACH 45" since 1/20/17 You say....."t be nice to have President Trump defend himself under oath.' Why? So he can fall into a perjury trap? In the USA we have a 5th amendment constitutional right of NON self incrimination! ANY good lawyer would NEVER let his client take the stand! Especially since the democRats have NOTHING to convict him with!
@Tony Jones “NEITHER of the two articles abuse of power and obstruction of Congress presented by the DemocRats “satisfies the express constitutional criteria for impeachment,” as BOTH ARE NOT CRIMES or even mentioned in the Constitution.” Liberal democrat and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz
@Dylan Dixon it be nice to have President Trump defend himself under oath. Like the Clinton's did!!!
@Cynthia Kline This is what digging up dirt on political opponents looks like and what clouding with the Russians looks like! Russian comedians prank phone call US representative Adam Schiff FULL HD https://youtu.be/m3Rut64GDgA
@leo sky This is what a quid pro quo looks like…...C-SPAN: Joe Biden Confesses to Bribery, January 23, 2018 https://youtu.be/vCSF3reVr10?t=97
@Cynthia Kline This is what lying looks like…..Schiff slammed for 'parody' of Trump call transcript. He lied, then got caught. Then turned around and claimed it was a parody. He did this because he never thought in a million years President Trump would release the transcript of the phone call…WOOPS! https://youtu.be/MRh3-1TlUwg
Beraštis , I accept that my comment plays on some closed minds.... but this channel is excellent and I really enjoy the higher quality commenters and usually ignore the rest. Be well.
@gem anscombe DemocRats
@Beraštis President Trump is getting impeached because God is using impeachment of an innocent President Trump to completely DESTROY the democRat party! I LOVE IT! Sounds like the leftists are taking a page from O.J. Simpsons lawyer saying, “If you can’t compete, you much impeach!” They KNOW they can’t beat President Trump in ANY election. The Democrats would like to welcome all of their believer’s of FAKE NEWS “Trump crimes” to “fantasy island” DemocRats
quote by person who definitely didnt just find out what they did is a Quid Pro Quo
@Cynthia Kline dont try to enlighten these idiots, it's hopeless.
Trumps ‘ I want no Quid Pro Quo’ call with Sondland was made AFTER the whistle blower publicly outed Trumps bribery of Ukraine. So it’s no defense ....not even in a weak sense.
You mean the Count Dankula Case? That's Scottish law. He's only BARed in 5 American states.
they'll trot out their excuses whatever and then shut it down. the curtain will come down on a fixed game that should never have started. the dims gambled and they'll lose. impeachment was going from 0 to 60. if they had gone for censure they may have gotten that , but trump would still be president and would have been reelected and put more judges on the scotus and lower courts and reclaimed a conservative judicial system from a liberal one. there is a big picture here. better believe it, it's chess not checkers.
@leo sky I really dont know what to make of it. Its a crime with where the alleged victim is not aware of supposedly dug up through some phone records that do not support it.. what can I say? Desperate attempt to prevent your political opponent from being elected again in office thats what
@Carnivorus ya really ran out of steam early with these replies uh?
@leo sky riiite
as was testified by several people, Zelensky is under immense pressure to please the US just in general, and considering that Trump tried to extort him, he would be a fool to antagonize him. Also, evidence trumps someone's opinion
Because there wasn't a bribe? lol
@DK Workwise okkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
Analyze Democrat weaponization of intelligence agencies, using the fake dossier and lying to FISA courts to spy on Trump's campaign and administration.
@Cowboy Crab Your name is satire.
@whiteknight Uhh no. Republicans will not impeach because they know it's a SHAM by the Democrats.
So my question in regards to the " state department went rouge" defense would be , what motive would Sondlend and the other two have to preface an investigation into Biden in exchange for aid
Hi LegalEagle. Big fan, great content. Question out of left field. As a kid, did you go by the name Jimmy Neutron? Not an insult, just like you Jimmy is very smart and very entertaining. Not sure who Jimmy Neutron is? Google his image. Again, big fan and thank you for your time in delivering to us such great content
Sir... giving us explicit legal advice and then saying #notlegaladvice doesn't make it... not legal advice. ;D
You need to find another profession... your biased... and its blatantly obvious.... and hearsay is the worst form of evidance and 12 witnesses save 1 is a true fact witness.. yet only once was the 7.2 billion dollars ever mentioned (as a foot note) that is missing in Ukraine... humm Biden... Barisma.. hummm.. dirt or corruption... in addition the assumtion by the Democrats that Biden is an opponent of teump is laughable.. the Democrats havent chosen their nominee for president... thus Trump cant be effecting the election but doing his job ferreting corruption...
I understand the Defenses used but, if Congress controls the funds and the funds weren't released until after this conversation with the President. How likely is this to be staged the whistleblower the impeachment ? You stated the President can stop funds for 45 days max, did he issue and order to stop funds? Did he do any Executive functions to interrupt those funds before the phone call? Did I miss that evidence in your video or was it the Chief of Staff, but as you said he cannot hold up funding over 45 days? Then you mentioned the OMB but wouldn't Congress control the OMB and order the release of funds or am I mistaken? If this was in fact delayed a year, for what reason why is that not the issue? Or am I reaching for something not there?
I feel like calling this "Stupid Watergate" is now more descriptive of the defense, and less the actual scandal. Which isn't a bad thing, mind you. I still love calling this "Stupid Watergate", no matter what happens.
He is right it is a political device not proof beyond a reasonable doubt but lowering the standard and doing it with no partisan support but bi partisan support against impeachment is a damning dangerous precedent republicans can argue to impeach democrat presidents saying democrats did the same thing.
Couple things wrong, Sonland later conceded it was his presumption. Secondly the victim has said no pressure. I don’t have to believe witnesses are lying to believe their presumptions are wrong that’s two different things. Than you have the victim saying no pressure and Vice President recently coming out defending what trump told him reasons aid was withheld. For you to argue there’s reasons that the victim lied you would have to use assumptions and speculations but that’s not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
To counterpoint the "State Dept. Went Rogue" Defense, the claim that the President didn't actually want the quid pro quo and it was really Mulvaney/Sondland/Volker who gave those orders, is ruined by the fact that Trump shouted at the Press on the South Lawn that he thought it was a good idea if China investigated the Bidens too, so clearly that was his desire.
I'm confused. Both sides are being accused of using the 'Chewbacca Defense?' Why would the prosecution need a defense?
Speaking of Shapiro, I think it'd be cool if you went and discussed your disagreements with him on his Sunday special. I'm sure he'd have you if you reached out.
this is a super important video. I didn't understand what was going on originally, and now, thanks to your videos, it's super good. This and your video on december 15th are super helpful and kinda hard to find in this supercharged political climate. This is super unbiased and is a fair interpretation of law and defenses and stuff. I'm not entirely sure what a judge does, but if it's like judges in law and order, you'd make a good one.
I’m not a lawyer and I’m not as smart as you when it comes to all this. But you didn’t mention that under cross examination, every single witness had to push back and admit that it was their assumption. They presumed there was a quid pro quo. Every single witness under cross examination admitted they had no direct knowledge of a quid pro quo. Not a single witness under cross examination corroborated.
My main question is how the words "do a favor" translate into bribery.
"I want you to do me a favor and investigate this guy I don't like." "Then maybe I can do you a favor and make sure you get that money you want." That's how.
Now I'm late to the party, and my mind surely has already been made, in which case attempting to persuade me one way or another is impossible. I did spend time watching your videos related to impeachment and noticed that while you appear, or attempt to not appear to be biased, you are in fact biased. I know this based on the types of videos you've made. If indeed your goal was merely to make a video educating the public on the different sides of this, you'd make a video defending and attacking the both sides of this. So far, all your videos as it relates to impeachment only goes in the direction of attacking the Republicans and defending the Dems. Like I said, my mind is made up. And I happen to agree with your arguments. I just hate the ingenuity of presenting a biased perspective on things and disguising it as unbiased.
So, incompetent thieves are not guilty? I can get behind that...more than once.
anyone ever imagine patrick star saying the Legal Eeagle.
I feel that this analysis was very informational and best of all impartial. Thank you for a job well done!
I "would" like you to do "us" a favor. Isn't it normal for allies to request info from each other isnt that part of what being allies is all about?
9:42 - What if a $50 is sitting in a cupholder or something and you get accused of bribery? In my opinion, it hasn't been established that the White House wanted a quid pro quo, especially considering that the Ukranians *didn't even know the money was being withheld.* There are many reasons to withhold or delay a transfer in money, and it's been done by every administration that has given foreign aide.
You know Trump is doing his job when the corrupt politicians feel attack.
@Howdy ummmm, he hasn't defended himself. He's playing public opinion. You defend yourself against your accusers, which is pretty difficult when you prohibit anyone that might defend you from testifying. If you're preventing people around you from complying with legal subpoenas, it's probably because a)they can't defend you, or b) they'll perjure themselves.
@Howdy Yeah defending himself 80 times a day, get out of the cult before its too late.
@indviduation so defending yourself mean you are guilty got it
Ya know when Trump is endlessly tweeting, trump knows he got caught
i really like what you tried to do here. but you consistently platform bad faith actors like Ben Shapiro. which seems to dog whistle a larger collection of ideas that i can't support. unsubscribed, and ill hide your recommendations from here on out.
It's definitely interesting how the law means little, depending on how those with relevant power choose to enforce things. One wonders whether things would be better or worse if laws were followed more strictly.
Do you think we should impeach him, also? This does sound like "this for that." https://youtu.be/keXx0zxTarE
What's your take on this? Quid pro quo or no? Should he be eligible to serve as President of USA? https://youtu.be/vCSF3reVr10
And, you call yourself a lawyer?? Bwahaha the suit doesn't make you a lawyer.
So that Ukraine can defend itself against Russia, because Russia trying to seize bits of Europe is considered by Congress to be a Bad Thing.
According to the rules of court, the video showing the robbery is ALSO hearsay. It's just stronger, better hearsay.
Hes a biased intelligent idiot
omg, you obviously either didn't watch the video or can't comprehend the simplicity of his hearsay explanation. Hearsay is often admissible evidence.
@DunkinNugget //people can make a joke about Trump being "Dumb"// this is where your comment should stop. Everything else is just you being angry and throwing a fit over a comment that has nothing to do with the cause of your anger. For all you know, the person you're angrily replying to isn't even American, much less a democrat.
@lindus jones The Evantaliban
Whatever happened to Huma Abedin btw?
Did Sonland not say he “presumed” there was a Quid Pro Quoe?
I know it's late since changes have happened but if you actually listen to their entire testimony, Sondland claimed there being quid pro quo was just his assumption, him saying that "yes, there was quid pro quo" is his opinion on the matter by his own words.
It is nice that you try to present yourself as unbiased and objective, even if you failed at it. On one hand, it would be good if everyone would at least try to do the same as well, because it shows professionalism and discipline. On the other hand, trying to hide your bias is a deceit and people do not view deceit in positive light. Proffesional, but deceitful... Well, isn't that the definition of lawyer?
25:57 with your failure to understand the concept of a right leads me to advise you to stick to reviewing children’s movies and leave the real world stuff for the adults.
I don't agree with your ski mask example. If i plan to rob a bank and i have a ski mask on and im nowhere close to the bank why would i be arrested its not a crime to wear a ski mask weather or not my intentions were to rob a bank.
Trump should be removed from office for helping Saudi Arabia commit genocide in Yemen
you can corruptly try to uncover corruption but only the one who corruptly uncovered corruption is punished
Rep schiff has a weird face like sucker berg
The facts aren’t changing the information we have are changing
That transition into selling Audible
Are conversations President Trump and foreign presidents classified? What was the whistle whistle blower's need-to-know?
Wow you are a useless hack. I have no idea why youtube would suggest your political hackery as balanced informative information following a heavily right wing biased comedian. Quit your job and stop shilling for the political elite trying to take our rights away
Meh
LegalEagle: You used the term "transcript" at 2:17, yet what the white house released was indeed not the full transcript, but an edited version of the original (with ellipses and such). Would you please either set me straight or add an annotation to your video correcting the error? What is the correct term to describe an edited transcript where some text was removed and replaced with elipses, but the remaining text is (presumably) unaltered? Thanks!
Your arguments must be unassailable for Trump affiliates to be advertising with loud bombastic ads before your impeachment videos. I love it.
Are you purposely misrepresenting the testimonies and other facts to support your opinion?
13:27 Watching the debate, even state it being held for 55 days. Why isn't this brought up immediately?
its hilarious how bad it all looks for trump, speaking from a legal and logical standpoint, but in the end he wont be impeached cuz of partisanship...
25:50 does the fact that its for a favor not for the benefit of the country but its a personal favor matter?
the main reason i even watched this video was to hear your opinion "legal eagle" would you vote in favor of the presidents innocence or would you vote to impeach if you were a decider in this???? love ur channel btw either way i just wanna know wut u think
Gotta love getting the stand with trump ads on these videos
Do people really want to live in a world where hearsay is always 100% admissible? There would be bribes and sexual harassment all day. And as long as i don’t leave a mark, i could never be tried for assault. Sounds like a lovely world to live in
Just discovered the "Monkey selfie copyright dispute", thought this might be a fun idea to share and review.
John Oliver knows how to nickname government stupidity.
it's mentioned in this video that you can't complain about witnesses if you're not allowing some people to take the witness stand.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I presume if one says: "Pay me the money or Ill give you involuntary knee-cap surgery", one would be right to presume there is a solicitation there.
There’s also the White House meeting. An official act of a meeting at the Oval Office if you do what we ask for.
I am honestly trying to find my own opinion on this whole thing and right now, I think that Trump should be impeached (and he has as of today), but that he should not be removed from office. I agree with your analysis that although this video was helpful, it had an underlying goal of highlighting the ridiculousness of the Republican's argument rather than explaining any of the nuance and possible explanations as to why or how these defenses were made.
@DuhBeers Z yup, because in this video for example, he seemed to be making the Democrats case for them. Exposes where he comes down on in this debate.
mobile_warrior yea...a man sitting in a chair reading actual laws and repeating what people actually said is biased
@DuhBeers Z I'm not trying to represent myself as neutral and unbiased, hence that phrase being in my first sentence.
mobile_warrior “my mind surely has already been made” “MY MIND SURELY HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE” You...calling someone biased?
yes
@boldCactus if its your most likely political opponent for the next election it indeed is connected with personal gain...
I forgot investigating people for corruption was personal gain
yes, in fact on political level most international deals are quid pro quos, but none are for the personal gain of the president...
Like someone else said in the comments, "People actively watching a half hour video of a lawyer breaking down congressional hearings are usually pretty rational "
@Dem Shikigorii witnesses that heard it from the guy who started the rumor, out of nowhere, which he admitted.
@Snake Was Right Yep, a baseless idea. Corroborated by many witnesses.
@Nightwatching - right, they're lying about what Trump wanted. When pressed, they admit Trump explicitly said no quid pro quo, and that the idea that it was quid pro quo was entirely his presumption. He also appears to be lying when he says he didnt know why the adi was being held up, because earlier in the same testimony, he is swearing that he knows the aid was being held up for quid pro quo reasons, which, again, he also admitted was just a baseless assumption, at best.
Snake Was Right Because no official ever lied
Have you seen the law schools lately?
impeachment is a political tool, not a criminal case. do try to keep up
Glad I wasn't the only one.
LegalEagle As you clearly stated it is whatever congress says it is , and given that congress is primarily democrat ruled in Congress has an agenda and the agenda is constant thereby ruling out any form of an unbiased opinion. I therefore put it to you let the members of Congress who are Democrat are conspiring against the president.
This case would set a precedent so no president could ever have expectations for a foreign leader receiving aid. That's literally his job.
He never asked for a thing in trade for the money. He simply asked for a favor. A favor being an act of kindness beyond what is due. If he never asked for a bribe i don't see how it matters what he said to anyone else.
I can already imagine that if you were to show this video to a Trump supporter (if they even make it passed the 1st 5 minutes), they will probably say that his points are all lies and that he is a fake lawyer, undercover extreme radical leftist working with the fake media to blind the real American "patriots" that Trump did something wrong.
Any grown man who says he likes when black children stroke his leg hairs in the pool deserves to be investigated.
I can haz video on the bidens? Pretty please
Then your seeking to rely upon Sonderlands testimony being truthful, even though he may have a demonstrated pattern of behaviour
Further to that the Democrat lead Congress does have a demonstrated pattern of behaviour, and as you pointed out this is political theatre, thereby demonstrating mens rea or guilty mind As it’s cold here in Australia and yes I am a student of the law
Should have been labeled "Shitty Poser Lawyer Examines Impeachment Defenses." Have your psychiatrist prescribe you something for your TDS.
I don’t see how you can say you see a bribe there. Pretty obvious there is no evidence that a crime was committed.
To oh seem really bias
Will you explain what the effects are of the Democrats delaying giving the impeachment articles to the Senate?
So what's the difference between a bribe and a proposed exchange of resources? If he had offered anything else for any other favor without an official agreement would it still be a bribe? How do you prove it was a bribe without any agreement or acknowledgement of conditions for trade. When verbal exchanges are ambivalent, motive is suspect at best, and the act is well within perview of position duties (even if handled poorly) then what basis is there for an accusation of bribery? This is all just politically motivated legal fuckery.
Saying he doesn't mention corruption in the call is misleading. He didn't use the word explicitly, but he kept referencing very bad people, who acted unfair, and that he wanted justice. Which was echoed by president zelelenskyy. No he didn't accuse anyone of being corrupt, he stated that he wanted an investigation to determine if the rumors of their foul play were true.
I just think it's super weird that he was asking about corruption and he's getting legally attacked for being corrupt. This whole thing is weird and I don't see why Dems don't just let the votes beat out Trump.
Hasn't even reached the stage of defense yet... but, of course, you knew that right?? The US constitution gives the house the power to accuse (Article I, section 2, clause 5) and the senate the power to judge (Article I, Section 3 Clause 6). The trial - where a defense comes into play - comes AFTER the house accuses and hands the articles to the Senate for judgement.
Have you ever thought about doing a video on Edward Snowden.
Not a single witness has first hand information, most don't even have 2nd hand information. Hell most of them have obvious political motivations to perjure themselves.
he went around established federal channels, which is a major question unanswered.
with the defence on the executive power over foreign policy, I think you missed two arguments; 1. exec power over foreign policy falls short of holding financial aid since it (the aid) is budgetary power of the congress. In this sense, the executive can withhold any relations with Ukraine, but not withhold the aid, since it is a budgetary decision of the congress. Correct me if I am wrong. 2. The main problem in using the executive power in this context for me is the personal gain side since it is in fact an issue of Abuse of Power; the unquestionable power isn't meant to be used to further personal interests, similar to those examples of impeachment of non presidential offices in the past, or the selling pardons example you gave.
Like if this man made your brain hurt lol, Though to be fair the law seems to be so complex that even if you did or didn't do it then you didn't or did do it. Between loopholes and personal values i wouldn't be surprised if something in 2020 or in the future screwed everyone over to the point of government collapse, or something else really bad lol.
What facts?... All he said she said hearsay....weak.
Can we change the lack of punctuation?
@Dwayne Windham it's funny how you use speculations as if they're factual conclusions. BTW... I heard they're also hiding bigfoot in the Whitehouse. They just won't tell anyone....Fact!
@Ziosuna 2 - it could be proven if the White House wasn't hiding all the damn evidence and first-hand witnesses! Just like was said on the video, you don't get to bitch about "dubious and unprovable" when you are hiding the people and items that could provide PROOF!
It's not about partisanship, it's because the accusation is dubious and unprovable. These are the death throes of the extreme left politicians. And just like the #metoo bs, it's gonna cause more problems in the future just because they couldn't stop acting like children for 5 seconds.
He said, she said hearsay is weak. Especially when all who are claiming to have heard or have seen something hate you and are conspiring against you. E-mails, text messages, recorded phone calls, videos etc are strong evidence. How much of this impeachment involves actual strong evidence versus simple word of mouth hearsay? And how damaging is the strong evidence?
I would say though, that just because you agree with an idea happening, does not mean you were in support or also suggested a means of forcing it to happen. Perfect example is. I am ok with proven pedophiles being put to death. I support this openly. Then one of my employees gets proof of a pedophile in his neighborhood and kills him. My open support does not mean I was ok with the ways that pedophile was dealt with.
mobile_warrior you win man.
@DuhBeers Z I know in law ridiculous is subjective. I've heard stupid arguments in court before, and those arguments won. *I should clarify that I don't practice law, I just listen to a lot of oral arguments*
mobile_warrior he’s going over Republican defenses. That’s the title of the video. If it sounds like republicans are ridiculous...legally. I mean...what are we even debating? Nevermind
@Nathan Chavez both the left and right have a sufficient amount of power. The right in this case just happen to currently hold more governmental power, while the left hold more influential power because they control the majority of the mainstream media, which in turn usually dictates how the voters think. Well, at least the gullible ones who still trust the corporate monopolized media.
The laws are strict, just not on those in power.
Also they remove ignorant inflammatory comments, so that's one way to have a clean comment section. Remove the filth.
@Haglin Mcdougleberg it's just sad how there are *some* extreme left view liberal professors and they basically brainwash their weak willed students into their viewpoints
Dmitri Ivanov no but assuming like in most videos showing college campuses these days there probably the exact same as the rioters when a conservative speaker is present they just do it in a slightly more civil manner
I agree with your analysis, LegalEagle. Listen, you’re doing a great job waking us up to the whole thing. Thanks, LegalEagle. I’m gonna look up Audible right now after the shower and laundry.
So I never heard on what the US got back. And there was a Anti corruption agreement signed with Ukraine to look in any corruption . If my memory serves correct Quid pro Joe wasn't 2016 presidential nominee . Is there a law that shields a person when you run for office when you commit various such as bribery like for instance your son on a board for Energy company and he doesn't have any experience on the company is getting looked into for bribery and money laundering ?
Dear sir, as a Dutch person I am not an expert in US law. I was wondering to what extent those giving testimony would be subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law. I know those who so far have not given testimony have been subpoenaed and thus a court has ruled that no reason exists for them to be excused of giving testimony. However, could it be that these people risk incriminating themselves? And how would one fight this subpoena if this would be the case, without risking your arguments for not giving testimony to be used in the political theatre? I refrain from taking a stand for either side as I did not follow the the impeachment proceedings closely enough and like I said I am no expert in US law. My question is mainly out of curiosity.
quid pro quo should not be confused with a quid pro quo attack.
Post this video to EVERY trump supporter you know. We need this shameless con artist out of the Whitehouse.
People may complain about Trump's "Tweets" but no other President has ever communicated with the public more. Most Presidents just give out some crock of shit statement but at least when Trump speaks, he is really saying what's on his mind.
I agree with your analysis very, so, so much, LegalEagle. Great job. It completely and totally woke me up! Thanks, LegalEagle! I’m going on Audible someday while the impeachment persists!
why are you not showing the part where sondlend saying there is no quid pro quo with regards to military aid.I thought this channel is neutral.There goes another one.
Ukrainians already said that they did not know aid was being withheld. President Zelensky said he did not feel pressured. Big fat nothing burger.
26k people agree with you sir
This explains why innocent people go to jail, and guilty people go free. Lawyers talk in circles.
Please, react to the Trial of Tim Heidecker! https://youtu.be/8YWJcqISKJQ It's the greatest piece of courtroom comedy ever created.
How about trolling/joking about quid pro quo? As we know Trump can be a big troll and could have said it jokingly. Maybe law is always strictly literal, even when it shouldn't be. Especially in these new times
Because people vote by party lines and not by candidates. The nation as a whole is more liberally centrist, but many of those individuals don't go and vote. This is made worse *for the majority* by the gerrymandering of party lines, which if you look at the last election, Hilary got more votes, but lost because the way they were accounted for. But I digress. I think if more democratic candidates just eased up on the trump topic, they could genuinely get the votes. I also think parties should not criticise who people vote for. It makes people not want to vote.
@shane carlson They're ignoring subpoenas, that means they're intentionally not sharing information and damaging the investigation for both sides. If trump is innocent why would they ignore them? Surely they'd want to prove his innocence? The people ignoring them aren't just random people around the office either, the secretary of defense, chief of staff, trumps own attorney, secretary of state, director of office management and budget, US ambassador to the EU, secretary of energy and people close to giuliani who were caught trying to leave america the day when their subpoenas were issued.
Wait... WHAT
@Ginger Kid He's also knows how to jump to conclusions like a house democrat and has the humor of a dried sun-soaked sponge
So creepy old Biden gets called out because his son is actually colluding with Ukraine and its the president that gets called on it? Epic. With the russia witch hunt and now Ukraine witch, why would he need to get dirt on Biden? The dems already made sure he won lmao
Leda leda leda leee
Dmitri Ivanov some s a bit of an understatement though it's almost a total control California demovracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQWojyJoupc&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1ClUhkfDYOVBXmzpW1Q_lWtMkdLFiAC2eJpD7L2o9kHUnTUQZD3MdFbLI
@Andrew Niccol There are no real crimes in either of the articles of impeachment, the dems have no case. Besides even if they did this impeachment is purely political. Impeached by the dem house and will be acquitted by the Republican Senate
GUITY! hearing all the reasoning and legal lesson in this video, Joe Biden is guilty and should be impeached as VP and send to jail along with his son Hunter Biden. Or, this snake lawyer will twist the facts in the beneficial directions in defend of Joe Biden, saying Joe knew there was corruption and he is right to actually doing the quid pro quo.
Good explanation
Objection I would like to point out that trump could have just been saying hey here’s the the money now on another point could you help out the US in an investigation It’s all based on punctuation of the document(s) the impeachment process is provided
Objection: if we impeached every high ranking government official that engaged in some kind of prid pro quo, we would have to have to impeach a lot of the state department. One can argue the offer of financial gain in exchange for safe passage is a form of bribery. The state department engages in prid pro quo all the time. We give foreign diplomats immunity from prosecution in some cases in return for the same concession from the diplomats government for our diplomats. Please explain to me why this is not a form of bribery?
Objection: Congress doesn't get to decide legitimacy of its own subpoenas. If president Trump challenged the subpoena, or refused to comply, it's kicked to the judicial branch. The judicial branch would decide whether or not to allow Congress to force President Trump to allow witness testimony. Obstruction of Congress requires a subpoena by Congress that has been ruled enforcible by the judicial branch to be violated. This did not happen from the news I've seen.
I dont think LegalEagle knows what a Steal-Man argument is XD Guys full of so much BS
You might wanna check the canadian lawyer, the unbiased one.
Before even watching: the thumbnail with Trump holding a skyrim steel sword... that was funny/awesome lol
Objection, The investigation into the bidens might not be an either or situation, but if trump is investigating biden for corruption, it shouldn't matter that biden is also a political candidate. If i was trump i woulda just straight up said, im gonna withold money till you investigate biden because i think hes corrupt and potentially corrupt people need investigating
When you have no facts, accuse the other side of hearsay.
Hypothetically speaking, if Trump got removed from office, what do you think would happen.
Yet the articles of impeachment never mentioned bribery.
I just want to thank you for doing this series on the impeachment. It really breaks the whole issue down in a way that can be easily digested, and it has inspired me to go from largely ignoring the impeachment trial to reading the transcripts and researching the issue myself so I can form my own conclusions on the matter. Even as a conservative, I can't help but conclude that the Democrats, while certainly influenced by their politics, have a real basis for impeachment, while the Republican objections are largely supported by flimsy arguments, logical fallacies, bad rhetoric, and willfully ignoring the evidence. It's always nice when the verdict has been determined before the trial, isn't it?
[EXAMPLE] You go into the local widget store. When you think no one's looking, you stuff a widget into your pocket. You walk toward the front of the store, past the checkout, and out the door. The store owner stops you, you give up the widget... GUILTY? YES! A crime does NOT have to be successful for there to be a crime! In this case it's the ASK that is wrongful... IMPEACH the bastard (can we hang him?!?!?!).
Common sense is not common practice... on the other hand... common sense is not so common!
Can you say, "Red herring"? I know that you can.
Too funny, you confirmed everything I said later in the vid'.
OK. I can understand how some people might want to spin this as bribery. There seem to be three facts in favour of this: *Presidents Trump and Zelensky had a friendly phone call, in which President Trump asked Zelensky to do something for him regarding rooting out corruption. * Several aides answerable to the President withheld foreign aid that was not the President's to withhold. * Several of these aides made a logical conclusion between the two and presumed bribery. However, there are several points, it seems to me, that make this circumstantial evidence dubious: * The President certainly has very few friends in the House, and many enemies in the Senate. This is evident from, among other things, * Three years of time and energy from the Congress and from the media jonesing for a tie between Russia and Trump, which * Simply lacked evidence for any link between Russia and Trump, as the Mueller Report explicated. So there's a lot of animosity against President Trump, with a tremendous amount of willpower and little reason to show for it, especially in terms of foreign influence. Because of this, and for other reasons, * There could be many reasons the President, or his aides at any rate, wanted to withhold funds already budgeted by the Congress to aid Ukraine. As for investigating Joe Biden in order to get rid of him, * All of the current candidates for the Democratic Party appeal to a fairly small minority who favour socialist policies, or who favour increasing the tax burden, especially those who favour more immigration. And conversely, * Most people want a good economy. They want more of their own money and less of it to go to the government. Most people are individualistic - selfish, if you like - in this country. * Most people believe the Russia investigations and indeed the current impeachment proceedings are a waste of time, and therefore that most Democrats are wasting time voters expected to be used to set policy. I'm pretty sure Trump has a lot of confidence he will win and Democrats will lose on the basis of these three alone. However, to retaliate against the Democrats, who hate him, and perhaps also to hedge his bets, he investigated Senator Biden for corruption and found that: * It seems that Biden _did_ actually engage in some corruption. All of this being considered, I think there is only one more piece of evidence regarding this proceeding as a whole. Make of it what you will: * There is so much animus and polarisation in the government right now that all judgements made by the house and by the Senate will be along party lines, and therefore have nothing at all to do with the facts. This has been a complete waste of time, with each party flexing their political muscles in order to appeal to their bases rather than actually getting something useful done. The past four years will have been a complete waste of time. And the only person who has done anything, good or bad, within that time will have been the President.
In both colloquial Ukrainian and in colloquial Russian, “he pressured me” does not mean merely “I felt pressured.” Instead, it implies you’ve actually been compelled to do something. In Ukrainian politics, “pressure” (tysk) means not just applying pressure; it usually means that the person being pressured cooperated. In Zelensky’s statement to Ukrainian journalists that “no one can pressure me,” he was not commenting on Trump’s action; he was clarifying his own response. If Zelensky had wanted to convey that there truly was no pressure involved, he could have said, “No one tried to pressure me.”
No Channel solution: don’t be a witness when your own hands are dirty. You’re gonna get subpoenaed so you either drop as a witness or give shit up.
That's what they are hoping for. They don't believe they can win 2020, but they are hoping to win the Senate. The only hope they have to remove him is through impeachment. They won't push up the impeachment until after the election in which they hope they have a majority in the Senate so they can push it through the Senate. So yes, they want votes to beat out Trump, but they know it won't be the electoral college votes, they want the Senate votes and must wait until after the election to see if they win a majority in the Senate. Jeeze, this is sad. I hate both Democrats and Republicans. I have a bit more respect for Republicans though even if I abhor their stance on drugs and crime, church and state, abortions, and marriage. But that respect comes at how conniving they aren't. Yes, yes, Trump is one of the most conniving people I've ever seen, but I don't see him as a Republican politician. I see Trump as the anti-PC candidate who could have run under the Republican ticket or Independent. I understand running under Republican though. 2 party system. The average Democratic politician is just too conniving for me..... even if they aren't half as conniving as Trump, they are still more than 2 times as conniving as the average Republican politician.
@By The Campfire / 52K So you think if they stopped attacking Trump then the majority of Americans would be in favor of "free" everything, including for people here illegally? I think you're a bit out of touch with reality.
Read the Federalist Papers and you will get a sense as to whether he believes Trump should be impeached or not.
boardonfire4 don’t put his name in quotes
Nixon did the exact same shit until the judicial branch forced him to turn over the hard evidence and guess what he did to save face. Resigned. If you dont see the slightest bit of similarities then you are blind af
Again the hearsay isnt just some joe schmoe. It is an entire panel of people in different offices with testimony. Sometimes hearsay is a strong source of evidence. And if you want hard evidence, why dont we just subpoena the documents and recording and phone calls? OH WAIT. Executive privilege i guess is good enough of a block on that.
@Nathan Chavez Actually all manner of laws are under shoddy enforcement. It's a very half assed system. From making the laws to implementing them, it's all underdeveloped.
Hey there! I'm a long time legal eagle fan & I really appreciate you taking the time to say something nice & make the comments even better.
Your data is based upon the wilful collusion of Pelosi, Schiff and Schumer and is therefore inadmissible, do better
@Tate Hawk Hehe yeh. So strange how aid apparently needs to be shipped hundreds of miles - just for the sake of it. Meh, could be wrong. I guess they really needed some awesome US tech.
Objection I cannot hear the opposing counsel (sound is quite)
Could someone clear this up for me? If Trump was going to withhold funds that should have been sent in Feb 2019 to the Ukraine until they investigated Biden, why did he wait until the July 2019 phone call with Zalenskyy to tell the Ukraine why he was withholding funds? And why doesn't he mention the withheld funds in the phone call if he was using it as leverage?
When referencing to Sondlands "Was there quid pro quo? Yes" you should also reference to Mike Turner questioning of Sondland. Where Sondland clearly states, that nobody told him about any quid-pro-quo. He only presumed it.
A vice presidents son is put into a position of power = fine. Trying to start an investigation about it = crime. Yeah, this level of sophistry is what will break the US.
This video is pretty much a farce. Every single one of the arguments stands up entirely. Any and every one of the arguments is enough to shut down all of it. Btw, everything you said about hearsay evidence is nonsense.
You must realize something everybody what you saw with Adam shift and Jane Adler was fully controlled by the Democrats it was not a fair hearing. The Democrats did not allow the president his day in court or due process nor was our president allowed to face his accusers namely The Whistleblower he was carefully and manipulates cuddled under the rug. All the witnesses that were brought forward that you saw we're Democrat Witnesses and were behind closed doors coached to say what they said the Republicans were not allowed to bring forward any Witnesses the Republicans really we're not even allowed to question the witnesses the Democrats held a kangaroo court making them in full control of the whole thing even when they broke rules and laws under these regulations.
What the Democratic party is doing is not fair
the host's shoulder shimmy reminds me of my early days when i had social anxiety disorder and was learning how to speak in public, but this is on camera... so i have no excuse for the SAD the host exhibits.
what about collusion with Russian? you know what started this whole thing. democrats have been kicking the can farther from that charge to distract from how this all started. If President Trump violated US code 31 section 1512 as you allege why wasn't that in the articles of impeachment. A clear violation of a us law, that is an impeachment charge that would change minds.
Now that the impeachment is done, the GOP defense seemed to be a surreal barrage of deflection, denial, tangential argument and baseless claims.
Since both sides can't agree if a crime was committed, it all comes down to reading the presidents mind. Weak!
alejandro Preciado I understand this but I feel the left is doing this just to force him out of the election And we have to also consider a variety of things anyways regarding the whole thing anyways
Bravo Company General Nelson I was thinking that too, but the time line of the fund release is still suspicious. He waited until the fiscal year close out to release the funds (Sep 2019), even though they were available for release in Feb 2019.
@RaHH Music Cool, obviously not a English Major though. And clearly didnt use a Steal Man Arguement and stuck to the Straw Man ones.
He's a lawyer with a degree in political science
Mike Larrivee I can agree with that.
@alejandro Preciado well im not quick to cynically analyze people's motives, i prefer just sticking to the facts, and the fact is that trump could have said specifically to Ukraine that he would withhold money until they investigated biden and i think that would probably be fine. Potentially corrupt people should be investigsted and as far as i know trump is within his rights to withold aid.
Mike Larrivee impeachment is political matter, the whole reason they are going through with this is because dems want a leg up, not because trump is a boogie man. Right?
Vise Perez gets control until the election
@NinjaRider777R Idiot, I'm agreeing with you! You are right, and I knew it after hearing Tim Pool, John Stossel, and Crowder all say the same thing: they are socialist. They are pandering to the far-left "Twitterati" by offering them free stuff - suttf normal people know will bankrupt us and make most of us into impoverished serfs. I know all this already!
@Badger Lord Patrick Where did I ever say Trump was afraid of Biden??? Reading Comprehension, you're doing it wrong. Biden killed his own campaign when he admitted to blackmailing the Ukrainians on video. He also put nails in the coffin of his campaign when he said that he would kill hundreds of thousands of blue collar jobs in the Energy Production sector just for some BS climate change bill that's got NOTHING to do with the environment and everything to do with breaking the Economy to force Socialism/Communism on the people.
@NinjaRider777R I only said it is a logical conclusion. I am not saying it is the ONLY logical conclusion, nor the one that fits the overwhelming hatred the House and the Democrats have had for the President. And Trump? Afraid of Biden? Puh-leeze. He's not afraid of Kim Jung Un; I don't think he's afraid of some senile, somewhat racist Pennsylvanian chasing after the progressive cancer.
It's not bribery or QPQ or blackmail because the Ukrainians did NOT KNOW that the money was being held back so there was no threat or leverage against them UNLIKE the way Biden did it. Plus the unredacted transcript proves that Biden's name didn't come up for another 5 minutes AFTER Trump asked Zelensky about Crowdstrike's involvement in the 2016 election, and there was NO request for help on the Biden issue. None of the HEARSAY presented by the Democrats means anything when the hard evidence of the transcript exists.
Michael & Paulette I want to understand this whole ordeal and get educated on it so that when I speak about, I speak truthfully. But this is just making me dizzy.
@alejandro Preciado A pattern of inconsistency in his testimony, more than enough for me to launch a full and through investigation that will result in a very lengthy prison term for him, Schiff, Pelosi, Schumer
Johannes Nielsen what pattern is that?
@alejandro Preciado The right candidates are being thrown out by the Democratic party. I'm a Liberal atheist and I'm watching the only democrats I have even a shred of respect for getting treated like they are racist because they aren't communist enough. They won't get the right candidate in and they won't get the right advertising in either. Their advertising is going to continue to hurl "Racist" and "Sexist" because they haven't learned their lesson that they have used those words so much, they no longer mean anything. If they continue this crap of forcing candidates I hate, and I'm pretty sure they will, I'm going to vote for Trump in 2020 as well as do something I have never done in my entire life. Vote Republican for house / senate. However bad they lost before, it's going to be even worse.
J Fast the race was pretty close four years ago. Dems didn’t loose by a landslide, I’m sure they can manage a win with the right candidate and the right advertising/campaign. It’s just so hard for them to find someone charismatic yet easy to control for their Democratic purposes.
Missed opportunity with thumbnail to put trump behind a wall. My dissapointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined
Is it accurate to say that Fed statutes like US code 31 section 1512 don't apply to the executive? How should it be described? ... Whether that matters for impeachment being a separate topic.
Heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard from another you been messing around.. Dems are a JOKE. MAGA2020.
I am a paralegal litigator in Ontario Canada (yes we can do our own cases etc. here we do all the exams so I am like a diet Lawyer). I love your channel! Do a video on absurd client requests if you havn't already and I just missed? I get a ton of those from family. Do a video on that! I know you know what I am talking about! ;) again love your vids.
Sir, I wish to respectfully point out that you have ignored Executive privilege completely. I am certain you are also aware that in the event of Executive privilege being invoked there is a well-established remedy: The Judicial Branch. The entire 2nd article is baseless and in direct contradiction with the Constitution and legal set precedence. If this is not tied up, this opens the door for any opposing majority in the Legislative Branch to file articles of impeachment ANY time ANY POTUS invokes privilege. You are far more intelligent than I and far more educated in legal matters ... but this is basic stuff man. I do not wish to draw my own conclusions as to any motive or intent behind your just speeding past this fundamental cornerstone.
I don't get why quid pro quo is even a problem. People make trades and bargains all the time. It's all quid pro quo - I give you this, then you give me that. Aid gets withheld all the time to get another country to comply with something. How is this situation any different than any time that aid has been withheld in the past by anyone? I just don't get why it's an issue whether he wanted something in return for the aid or not. So what? It's not like he asked them to assassinate someone. Aside from that, I have seen no definitive proof that there was anything expected in return for the aid and the Ukrainian president even said that there was no expectation of anything in return. I think that is pretty darn definitive evidence that there was no quid pro quo. The whole thing is just a political move because the democrats are afraid of losing another election. They don't want to put it in our hands to vote again because they think we will make the "wrong" decision. Multiple politicians have said exactly these things. Pretty damn shady, if you ask me.
What@This name is either restricted, too long, or contains too many invalid characters. said
Because what he wanted from them would benefit him personally and politically, including in the upcoming election. The President cannot use or delay public funds, - which had already been appropriated by congress as well - for personal benefit. End of story. Go to bed.
@TheReddaredevil223 trollololol
Trying to start an investigation about it (via unconstitutional means) = abuse of power
Yeah Donald Trump would certainly never put his children into positions of power they aren't qualified for. Lol.
@tmass Yes impeachment is done
Wow really? You think it's done? Abuse of power is not even a crime and is 100% subjective.. ( go look up that word if you don't know what it means.)
You know what I learned watching this video? That Republicans in Senate don't care and will aquit him anyway.
what if the senate votes in his favor? what then? think he'll win 2020? what are the liberal sandy vaginas gonna do then?
I find it really odd that you went through all this stuff, but didn't point out anywhere in the hard evidence, that any of this actually happened. You have the transcripts, but no where did you go by out where quid pro quo, or any other supposed illegal activity even happened. Is that because it doesn't exist, and all the "prosecution" has is hear say that doesn't match the hard evidence. I find it really hard to believe a lawyer of any kind would try to build a case on hear say of an event, when the actual event has hard evidence of exactly what happened. So I want to know why you went through all this when it would of been a 3 minute video showing that "witness says they seen a green car hop a curb" and the camera in the area shows there was no car, much less a green one, anywhere near the crime. This is no different. You can't have "hear say" that a witness "overheard" a conversation that the transcript, that is hard evidence, proves everything they said was a flat lie. Not to mention that the "investigators" has been purposely looking for anything to get a person on a crime. I'm sure if you had an army or FBI going through your life, they would find something you did too. That isn't legal either. You can't investigate hoping to find a crime. You're not very honest and very bias. You leave out the very basic evidence and ignore things that would of proved you wrong.
Almost 4000 trump supporters down-voting this. Sad.
The house dems aren't trying to find the truth, their trying for a political win. They've been gunning for Trump since he was elected. And they keep failing to come up with anything real. Trump isn't the Hero, but Schiff, Nadler, etc., are the villains.
“The facts are fluid” You cannot POSSIBLY understand how much this upsets my mathematical mind.
Going to laugh my butt off when Trump wins in 2020 even after this impeachment. The dems could change this by nominating a decent candidate. But that won't happen.
Wait a minute...if a group of people with ski masks and bags walks near a bank, that's enough to arrest them?
@LegalEagle If a president commits a crime, let's say murdered someone to put it at the top, can you not put him through a proper criminal trial for that crime? And if you can, why can't you put him through a criminal trial for bribery, as that is a criminal offence?
19:35 Guess Trump will always have a defence then XD
Trump has not invoked executive privilege
It prevents Trump from improperly avoiding trial and crowing about being acquitted.
He also doesn't explicitly say quid pro quo but when the Ukraine President brings up the funding, Trump says, "Do me a favor, though"
How's this for a defense: The FBI and DOJ have repeatedly proven during the Trump Administration that they were more than willing to undermine any efforts from the current POTUS for purely political reasons so he could not afford to go through them without the risk of some rogue party sabotaging the investigation efforts. If they don't obey procedures, why should he? All's fair in love and a Cold Civil War.
@Jesus Rocha It's absolute fact that there were elements working in the intelligence community to undermine Trump during his campaign and the early days of the administration. Even Comey now admits that the FISA process was abused in order to get a warrant to spy on Carter Page.
imagine thinking the "deep state" not only exists, but is so all powerful that the FBI and DOJ are just Gestapo style secret police for them. This comment brought to you by the not alex jones gang.
completely un biased commentary, that you so much for helping me thing clearly on this topic...………………………………………………...
Obviously not normally, but if they walk in, threaten the bank and demand money, and leave empty-handed, that still is a crime even though they didn't actually get the money. You can be arrested for that though if you also made clear the intent to rob the bank, for example if they have communications showing you have planned it and are reasonably in the process of heading there with such intent.
And why does Joe Biden get a pass when he has explicitly admitted to threatening to withhold funds that were already appropriated in exchange for something that would benefit him personally?
The argument is that he "implied" that he would withhold the funds by bringing up the investigation immediately after the funds were discussed. The Ukrainian government has been pretty clear that they didn't interpret it that way, and the funds were released even though no investigation was announced, but the libs still claim he "implied" that he would withhold the funds and therefore a quid pro quo existed. The facts don't line up with the reality they desperately want, but they seem to never let that stop them if Trump is involved.
Such a toxic comment section... In my opinion, unless you are a lawyer on this case, or have the ability to directly influence the outcome, you shouldn't try to convince other people on one side or the other because of one important thing: Whatever side you think is right, it really doesn't matter in the end since your voice will never be heard, and joy/anger never felt. That's just the sad truth. Instead, let's just live our lives and improve ourselves as citizens in our communities, where which your voices and actions will be heard. Bettering ourselves should be more important that bickering about what happens in Washington.
@Jesus Rocha Imagine thinking Trump was secretly working for the enrichment of the Russian government even after he armed Ukrainian rebels that were fighting them.
@Eric good for you
Sir, I wish to respectfully point out that you have ignored Executive privilege completely. I am certain you are also aware that in the event of Executive privilege being invoked there is a well-established remedy: The Judicial Branch. The entire 2nd article is baseless and in direct contradiction with the Constitution and legal set precedence. If this is not tied up, this opens the door for any opposing majority in the Legislative Branch to file articles of impeachment ANY time ANY POTUS exercises Executive privilege. You are far more intelligent than I and far more educated in legal matters ... but this is basic stuff man. I do not wish to draw my own conclusions as to any motive or intent behind your just speeding past this fundamental cornerstone.
@Phydeau Do you have a source for that? Everything I found shows executive privilege is something formally invoked and normally resolved without going to court (although it's not unusual for the Supreme Court to resolve executive privilege disputes).
@sallyjrw jrw Neither did the other 44 Presidents before him when they exercised it. Unlike the right to remain silent, the SCOTUS has not ruled that the right to Executive Privilege must be verbally invoked. So, with all due respect (not sarcasm here), your point is utterly irrelevant. Regardless, please accept my gratitude for your pointing out I inaccurately used the word "invoked" instead of "exercised". I had performed the necessary edits for proper clarity of conversational delivery.
@Amy Stillwell It was never addressed because it's not an impeachable offense. And it's damn sure not criminal, so when you say Trump broke the law, it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Even the Dems aren't alleging that a law was broken at this point.
@Eric He doesn't get a pass. Acknowledging the potential wrong doing of another politician doesn't make Trump breaking laws legitimate. They should all be held to the same standard at the time of their crime not when it becomes a convenient throw to our president. The thing is that the Republican party held the majority during Trump's first two years... why was this never addressed then. They had all the necessary power to assess the situation and charge him according if wrong doing was in fact found and proven. Yet that was never done.
The Globalists that control the Democrat Party have had their shot. Now it's Trump's turn to prosecute real crimes. Mr. President, get the dominoes toppling.
Haven't listened to this but #1 - no evidence of any wrong doing. False articles of impeachment. What a joke on the people of the United States.
Wouldn't it be fair to say that "solicitation of a bribe" is essentially "attempted bribery", or rather the corollary to it - in other words qualifies as an "attempted crime" itself despite not being named as such?
@sallyjrw jrw even so the favor was to the citizens of the US not him personally. and i dont think trump was worried about beating sleepy joe in the election. If anyone is guilty of using their own position for a quid pro quo its biden. the knucklehead admitted it publicly and by the democrats standards he should be in cuffs.with all the investigations into the origins of the steele paper, hunter biden, money laundering the democrats are panicking and will walk all over the constitution to stop them. that in itself is cause for alarm. Adam Schiff owns stock interests in barisma, Schiff is a smarmy fellow and liar, Among a myriad of other lies he has spouted is "I have proof trump is colluding with russia" 2years of his incessant lying to the citizens. also him lying about not knowing or having met the alledged "whistleblower". Frankly its outrageous. Here's hoping you have a good and happy new year!
@Craig Backel I apologize, he did say us not me. However, he did say it as soon as Zelensky brought up the funding which implies "a favor" is connected to the funding.
@sallyjrw jrw He actually said :"do US a Favor" not ME. Meaning the people of the United States. Tricky of you. I can only assume it was intentional or you didnt read the printout. shame on you for promulgating more fake news
Objection! 26 minutes. first amendmant should protect you`r free speach AND from all reprecautions of it,
25:30 Objection! Chewbacka defence! it makes no sence, the precident swears an oath to uphold the constitution, so annything he does to uphold the constitution, criminal or not. can not be a crime!
What I'm hearing is you think he's guilty as sin, but if you were hired as his defense attorney, you could find a way to argue the other side.
@ritemoelaw_books83 Yet bribery and solicitation are separate charges, most likely because they run in opposite directions. Does _taking_ a bribe not result in a bribery charge rather than solicitation?
Solicitation is an element of statutory and common law bribery. "Attempted bribery" doesn't exist because federal law doesn't doesn't distinguish between the attempt and the exchange, and considers it all "bribery."
Listen to the video.
@Eric Nice distraction, but still not a defense.
Nope. Not a defense.
As much as you'd like to have her, there is no hope for Tulsi as a demo candidate.
@Craig Backel Maybe looking at the transcript itself, devoid of any background or other evidence, it is not "that bad." However, I'm looking at this as a piece of evidence along with Trump's other actions (withholding the funding and the White House meeting) and the testimony of the witnesses and the text messages and the emails and the phone records and Rudy Giuliani's television interviews and Trump's insistence that nobody should testify. Trump did not like Ukraine and did not want to give them anything and he wanted them to give him something. That is why Taylor's text message says the worst case scenario would be that Zelensky does announce investigations into the Bidens and Trump still does not release the funding. That seem probable to me that Trump would have done that. So if that had happened, I guess then it wouldn't have been a quid pro quo? Would that have been better? But the only reason that Zelensky was planning on announcing the investigations was to get the funding. Because as soon as Trump released the funding, Zelensky cancelled his CNN interview.
Look how many "republican" criminal supporters don't like the video. TOO BAD!! He's a lawyer, and you're probably not!!
What about the idea of a bias jury? Because essentially the democrats have said all along since before the phone call that they were going to impeach him. I don’t think trump is stupid enough to attempt to commit a crime on a phone call where a dozen people are listening.
Typical pseudoself-opinion argument. Classical psicological trap being layed out here. What our LegalEagle 'friend' here does is the following... He goes on the entire video expressing his opinion that the POTUS is guilty and then at key moments when this becomes too obvious he redirects this attention saying something like... 'But I leave it to you to decide if there is guilt'... line. Actually he did not leave it to anyone decide because he has built his case in this video from the beginning to show the POTUS is guilty. He is smart but not that smart. It is obvious that he wants everybody to believe in the guilt of the POTUS and he made this video to orient the viewer as if they are making their own mind about it when in reality he made it for them. SHAME ON YOU SIR!
brilliant analysis!
Hearsay is NEVER "powerful evidence". That's a blatant lie LegalEagle unless you're specifically meaning it is "powerful evidence" while only outside of a legal trial in which you are misleading us intentionally given the nature of your videos. Literally anything can be made into hearsay. Some of the things you say make me seriously doubt your political neutrality and credentials.
@Effect in a trial only what is provable is accepted. Hearsay is not evidence, it's a contradiction.
It's not a lie. As he said, context matters and the strength of hearsay evidence ranges from strong to weak.
If they play the Mens Rea, "too dumb/doesn't know what he's doing" defense.. well. should he still be allowed his position if he doesn't even KNOW what he is doing?!! He is too DUMB to be President!
@Doutor Giordano Teles Ironic.
@Effect Some people can't see the truth.
Some people can't handle the truth.
Well, Trump clearly is that stupid.
It doesn't.
Can you please please please help Mxr plays
All is good, except the 'mainstream fake media' has less than 1 million combined traffic per month... So it is false statement you are suggesting that the same is true for the actual mainstream media, it is a shame to see a respectable legal expert feeding on this anti-mainstream frenzy to ignite viewer bias. My respect for your telling of facts and truth has dwindled.
#helpmxrplays
The thing that bothers me most is that without Russian interference in the campaign we would be talking about President Clinton's actions and interventions in Ukraine. Muellar says there wasn't any coordination, but the fact that Trump threatens to withhold aid to a nation fighting one that helped elect him says quid pro quo except without the coordination.
⚖️ What do you think of the republican defenses?