Lawyer Examines Impeachment Defenses (Real Law Review)


100 thoughts on “Lawyer Examines Impeachment Defenses (Real Law Review)

  1. ⚖️ What do you think of the republican defenses?
    📚 Check out Neal Katyal’s great book Impeachment on Audible for half off: https://audible.com/legaleagle

  2. just to clarify a point if you and your friends are driving on the road wearing ski masks and have guns properly stored in the trunk of your car and have large cloth bags with dollar signs on them and a cop pulls you over for a tail light that is out you cannot then be charged with attempted bank robbery just because it is assumed that the paraphernalia in your vehicle would allow for a robbery

  3. So if you want to bribe another country for a billion dollars (paid for by US tax payers), all you have to do is use your son to sign all the paperwork and then run for president and claim quid pro quo in case you get investigated for bragging on camera of such a bribe.

  4. 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
    All those "Witnesses" I'm not a fact among them only proved if there was no quid pro quo or wrongdoing
    😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

  5. Wait is this the guy that Canadian lawyer be destroying
    🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
    😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

  6. So if the Democrats say "You must provide abortion services for foreign aid" isn't quid pro quo? But asking for corruption investigations to make sure the money goes to the right people is? This whole thing is just stupid.

  7. It's nice to view these complicated proceedings though the lens of the law. Sometimes it takes away the bias of political parties.

  8. Tim Pool just put out a video about the Ukrainian President coming out today and stating unequivocally that there was absolutely no quid pro quo. #WalkAway also put out a video reenacting the entire phone call transcript, so judge for yourself.

  9. I love your channel, but can you please grow some balls? You keep saying you'll "leave it up to us to decide", but that's extremely cowardly. Tell us what the law says, and what your professional opinion is. If I wanted to hear what a bunch of partisan nitwits think, I'd be watching the Fox channel. Sure, the Trumpist trolls will attack you, but they're already going to do that, merely because you're presenting facts instead of alt-right talking points. Stop trying to appease people who will never be appeased.

  10. here is what is going to happen if trump does not get elected ::::::::::::: OPEN BOARDERS ,,,,,,,,,,,NATO DOES NOT PAY THEIR FARE SHARE,,,,THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS LOST,,,,,,,FREEDOM OF SPEACH IS LOST,,,,,,WHITE PEOPLE WILL BE ATTACKED IN THE STREET,,,,,,,,,THE COMMUNIST PARTY STARTS TAKING OVER,,,,,,,PEOPLE WILL LOSE THEIR PROPERTY,,,,,,,CHINA STARTS TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE WORLD,,,,,,,,,,,,MUSLIMS START KILLING CHRISTIANS,,,,,,,,,THE TRANSPACIFIC PROJECT WILL BE REINSTATED,,,,,,,,,,M13 MEXICAN GANGS WILL FILL THE STREETS,,,,,,,,,,,DRUGS WILL RUN THE STREETS.,,,,,,,,,GAS PRICES WILL GO SKY HIGH,,,,,,,,,,UNEMPLOYMENT WILL SKY ROCKET,,,,,,,,,,,IF YOU LIKE THIS VOTE DEMOCRAT.

  11. Just a quick question, "Isn't the ultimate Political goal to use bribery or blackmail legally to achieve a goal desirable for American Interests? because all of this seems absolutely nonsense to me as they all seem to use it, but its more a hot potato theory.

    Attempt is an interesting term in legality and I love how it is a strawman legal term, an Ex-DA that was our teacher asked us in a CJ class, "How do you plan to protect an Armored Car?" and of course in the scenario we were given, 2 friends and I, thought well lets rob and come up with as many interesting plans on paper we could, TBF, it completely looked like 7 of us were planning to rob an armored car as in the library we had everything out on the table like a movie scene, however the best way to protect it would have been to find as many vulnerabilities as we could and thus create countermeasures.

    Her point was that she had a picture of us in the library and materials associated with robbing an armored car, but none of us ever took steps to actually do it, like buying tools and such to commit the crime, as in many states, planning something isn't sufficient as admissible in many states and steps must be taken beyond a planning stage to show "Attempt of a Crime".

    The Ski masks are a weak argument, bullet proof vest is a stronger argument for the purpose you are using as wearing one while doing a crime is illegal, and wearing one in many places without a permit or cause or notification to a police department can even be a crime. Ski masks in the NE during winter with no other evidence is a 50/50 depending on how stupid they can be leaving materials or such, but unless there are bearing arms or something else is involved the police have little to try holding them on other than it being cold, now if they are wearing pantyhose to obscure facial features, that is something and in and of itself shows Attempt due to how strange and the purpose of such a behavior is blatant.

    Its rather a difficult argument for them to prove that "The Carrot was on the Stick"(Bribe), or that Trump solicited the Carrot to be put there or he put it there. It honestly seems like the Democrats have very little to stand on, in fact they probably pushed this just as an election measure,

    Meaning the Democratic party is using the impeachment as a method to win the next election, as even the implication of the accusation damages the reputation, as a scandal is marked as a negative…………….whether they prove this or not, no matter what they look like good guys and have a leg to stand on as a running argument against Trump.

    So my next Question is, if that is the case and legally they are using the federal governments criminal proceedings as a political weapon aren't they guilty of a crime? because frankly they are wasting taxpayer money and time that could be spent on actually doing what matters, their F^&king job that they refuse to do based on party lines and phillabusters(yeah spelling is intentional). Honestly Modern government is disgusting, when is the Legal branch going to grow a set of balls already and start the checks and balances they should have been doing.

  12. Under questioning Sondland walked back his opening statement stating he assumed. There is not even hearsay evidence of trump admitting what he is accused of. The only evidence that exists of trump saying something was him telling Somland he wanted nothing from Ukraine. And stop trying to break down a call that is not verbatim. This issue is dead and you just prove your bias dragging it on. Liberals are setting a bar they will eventually regret bending and manipulating rules to go after Trump.

  13. It's a little late to impeach him now. It would be easier to just not vote for him.

    Oh right yeah… electoral college…

    Sorry guys. 4 more years 😬.

  14. I love how many cartoons have influenced actual terms used in legal defense! You can probably read more about the influence of cartoons on society on Audible.

  15. Switch out Biden's name for a non-politician and this doesn't make any sense, Trump is gonna mention the biggest name he can think of, if his DOJ told him some shady shit went down that's who he'd mention. Joe Biden is not a legitimate political opponent of Donald Trump. There will be very little news about this, there will be news about Joe Biden.

  16. Democrats are giving up… moderates didn't want impeachment to happen and this is just gonna make Trump stronger. Such a bad move from the dems imo.

  17. i don't care about a "quid pro quo", i care about OUR FLAWED IMMIGRATION LAWS, LOSS OF LIBERTY, ENDLESS WAR AND HIGH TAXES!

  18. Is it possible that a 3-legged skunk could come in my house and sit in my lap as I watch this video. Of course. Then yes it was possible that Trump was deeply concerned about corruption in Ukraine.

  19. trump makes all of his enemies look like arrogant idiots 😉 even though he is an arrogant idiot too. USA is doomer, xie xie gung bao

  20. 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.

  21. 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!

  22. 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?

  23. @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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. Just saw this on a twitter feed:

    "By itself, distinctive knowledge might justify freedom of speech for the excluded, but not equal citizenship."

  29. 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.

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

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

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

  44. 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

  45. 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.

  46. 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

  47. 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".

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

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

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. "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.

  54. Tried & convicted by yet another probable leftist, <yawn.> 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.

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

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

  57. 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.

  58. 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.

  59. 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."

  60. 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!

  61. 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.

  62. 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.

  63. 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.

  64. 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

  65. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *