Lawyer Examines Impeachment Defenses (Real Law Review)

Related Posts

Finance Committee Meeting 12-04-19

Finance Committee Meeting 12-04-19

Markham here Middleton here Quarles here McGillivray here Powell Miller Long here Kowall here Zack here We have a quorum
Why Smart Brands Command A Premium Price – How To Sell High-Ticket Products & Services Ep. 20
Judiciary Cmte. Member: Impeachment Not About Politics, But The Constitution | The Last Word | MSNBC

87 Replies to “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. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

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

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

  8. 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.

  9. Your sarcasm. 🤣🤣 you seem so tired of the mainstream media articles and shit! But thank you so much for sharing your k knowledge on all of this with us.

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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….

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

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

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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

  27. 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.

  28. 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

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. 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!

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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

  37. "What do you want from the store?"
    "I DON'T WANT YOU TO STEAL FROM THE STORE!"

    Totally innocent and natural conversation right there.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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?

  41. 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.

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

  43. 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…

Leave a Reply

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