Lawyer Examines Impeachment Defenses (Real Law Review)
Articles,  Blog

Lawyer Examines Impeachment Defenses (Real Law Review)


100 Comments

  • LegalEagle

    ⚖️ 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

  • Robert Kavaler

    The best defense is no defense since you must not only have an accusation of a crime but also must have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. At this point you have neither. Hearsay is not a defense it is an objection. No witness has indicated a crime of any sort and a crime is a hypothesis not a conclusion, guilty or not guilty are the conclusions. But nice try.

  • Pebkio Nomare

    They can't claim a rogue operation without also implicating Rudy Giuliani, and he has… interestingly… claimed that he has insurance for that. Which is why, I think, they're going these less rational routes first. The best defense Trump could have is to claim rogue operation: "I didn't know the aid money was still being withheld. I thought I took care of this in May. They nearly let that money expire and I am very upset." Etc… but something is keeping him from throwing Giuliani under the bus.

  • Chrisg841

    It's funny how we never see all these "legal experts" critiquing LegalEagle's work on YouTube… unless he puts a vid that could be used to scrutinize Trump. Then all the "experts" show up to defend their dear leader with vastly inconsistent misunderstandings of the law.

  • Joseph Harris

    I’m sorry but hearsay is very flimsy, especially in politics where everyone has a motive. I feel like hearing that from a lawyer is a scourge to their credibility… I was a court clerk.. people often act or testify on second hand information that’s blatantly false.

    Hearsay is great for investigation and terrible for litigation.

  • Canis Latrans

    How can you render an opinion when there is still secret testimony that has not been released as of the day you opened your pie hole about the hearing?

  • TheLife96

    Who cares about Ukraine? The country's doing great, the economy's booming, and no one cares if a corrupt nation doesn't get money. Trump 2020

  • Cleora Asaran

    Even if they came to the conclusion that this is an impeachable offense, they would not remove him from office. None of the Republicans would vote on it, and 2 democrats voted against starting the investigation. Not only that, most of the candidates running now are not getting questions asked about impeachment. No one really cares except some major news outlets and Stephen Colbert.

    Also, when you mentioned this idea of knowing the mental state of a person it reminded me of the afluenza case. I would love for you to do a video about this kid who supposedly was diagnosed with afluena in order to get out of killing three people or so. I know it is a really old case, but I haven't started watching you until last month.

  • Nikos Assimakopoulos

    OBJECTION! Could you pleaseeeeeee do Season 3 Episode 5 of Better Call Saul, Chicanery. Saul is put on trial for forging a document his brother, also a lawyer, needed for a trial. His brother is trying to get him disbarred, and its extremely intense to watch. I dont know how accurate it is though, and I feel it's a view into the legal field we never get

  • Nikos Assimakopoulos

    OBJECTION! Could you pleaseeeeeee do Season 3 Episode 5 of Better Call Saul, Chicanery. Saul is put on trial for forging a document his brother, also a lawyer, needed for a trial. His brother is trying to get him disbarred, and its extremely intense to watch. I dont know how accurate it is though, and I feel it's a view into the legal field we never get

  • PegCity Bandit

    Most important point at 15:45. 'You dont have to be competent enough to complete the crime to be accused for it, so long as you attempted'

  • Patrick Hinson

    Tell me 'Lawyer' ? Why is it that the Ukraine had NO idea that the AID was tied to Investigations? The President of Ukraine has stated 4 times publically and the most recent being last week that he was NEVER told the money was tied to investigations. Seems to me like the Democrat party is desperate to cover up something HUGE and they need Trump out of office to ensure that whatever that is remains covered up.

  • Ben Miller

    Everything you’ve said here is wrong. Proof: he will not be impeached. The Dems will call it off.

    If you were right, they’d push forward all the way.

  • Xilas Jenkins

    I'd just to commend every last person in this comment section. It's absolutely shocking to see the comment section not devolve into a political shouting match between opposing views. As a right-leaner myself it's really nice to see actual discussion that don't resort to the left crying bigot and the right crying commie to one another. I'd like to hope there wasn't any shady doings by Trump, but if there has been then he should be punished accordingly. Political zealotry doesn't help anyone, nor the country.

  • Elkator955

    It doesn't really matter. The republican senate will not impeach him. He could murder children in broad daylight with 70 witnesses and 20 videos and they would declare him innocent because they have nobody else to replace him.

  • Matt Wood

    This video is irrelevant. The testimony from all witnesses is that there was no quid pro quo. You are neglecting to show that.

    Gordon Sondland clarified that he was instructed to avoid quid pro quo, but that it was his personal assumption that there was still a quid pro quo despite having had no discussion with anyone he could recall or reference where that was expressed nor any material evidence that demonstrated it existed. Furthermore, he testified that quid pro quo he assumed existed was for a meeting at the White House and had no relation to a hold on aid (He even made that distinction in the clip you used).

    George Kent testified it was the determination of the State Department independent of the White House that the hold on aid was both legal and standard practice the insure against misappropriation by forces of corruption.

    Former ambassador Marie Yovonovitch testified she was specifically briefed by President Obama's DOJ on the conflict of interest presented by Hunter Bidens position on the board of Burisma. She also testified that she only became aware of the company's extensive history of corruption in the course of the impeachment inquiry proceedings. She maintains that she doesn't know a great deal about Ukrainian corruption, she doesn't know why she was transferred to a less critical position at Georgetown University, and that that internal effort to "discredit and smear" her was unprecedented and unfounded.

    Lt Colonel Bill Vindman testified that transcript of the call was accurate and that there are no omissions that fundamentally alter the interpretation of the call.

    Again, all witnesses asserted repeatedly in their testimony that there was no quid pro quo, bribery, or extortion. They all stated repeatedly in their testimony that they had no evidence of any crime, that in their opinion no crime occurred, and none of their coworkers or superiors had evidence or suspicion of a crime.

    Their chief complaint was that the President was not heeding their advice and they felt this meant President Donald Trump was violating US foreign policy. This doesn't make any sense, they all agree that they serve at the pleasure of the President, and that the Constitution specifies that it is the sole responsibility of the President to set US foreign policy.

    There is no argument here for Impeachment.

  • Haven Skye

    You forgot one defense… The "we don't care if our infallible God Trump shoots a baby in the face; we will not abandon him!" defense.

  • YeeSoest

    Talking about mens rea: Note that all of these republicans making misleading or knowingly false statements KNOW what they're doing and that they're lying to the american public about "hear say evidence doesn't do anything" and these matters ! They are fully aware of the truths and realities in this case yet they CHOOSE to defend the President at all costs. As much as you have to envy their party line loyalty…you have to despise their shamelessness

  • T Hunt

    Defences? ya your not an unbiased lawyer are you? Trump doesnt have to defend, they have to prove. Why dont you look at their claims and point out how they havent proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • DerOldHerr

    Trump will not be impeached, will win in a landslide in 2020 and Biden is the corrupt one here. He bragged even about that on video…

  • haxton88

    I've watched several "lawyers" speak on this and none of them seem to agree on anything. They speak of this law yet the other one says this law that counters that law.

  • colinfun

    I am not sure there is a defense in this instance of "it is bad, but not impeachable". The article specifically says "The President…shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." You made it clear that he did in fact attempt to bribe, so he did an impeachable offense.

  • beedolphin1

    OMG, this is way I'm not a lawyer. You are, by far, the best to listen to in order to get a understanding on how things are going. I never completely understand why things happen in court and why some things don't happen so it's a great learning stage when you bring Legal Eagle into what is going on in a legal stand point.

  • cupguin

    Objection! You missed the best defence so far. Trump withheld vitally needed aid that was approved by Congress because a couple people had said mean things about him. Yes that was damaging to America's interests but Trump does a lot of things because he feels slighted. Or the Trump is petty af defence. It got bundled in with some "yes these are things Trump said but look at all the things he's misled or lied to people about! you can't take him at his word". At it's heart though it was that Trump did all of this entirely out of spite and we have lots of examples to show that's exactly how petty he is.

  • Barbara Maj

    I wouldn't want this guy as my lawyer (especially if he can't recognize the "separation of powers"…)
    Why are we excusing the corruption of the left? The Bidens are guilty and we have receipts – why deny it and play the russia-hoax game all over?

    Hang it up and get a real job. Sorry but IMHO you'd be doing society a better job by emptying septic tanks – properly

  • Charles Mongillo

    LegalEagle, do me a favor friend me on facebook.

    Did I just bribe you? I want a facebook friend request out for personal reasons and my grandmother gave me some money to send to your paypal, but I didn't send it yet. I didn't suggest you would get the money if you do it, even though all my friends think I'm waiting until you send the request before I send you the money.

    Maybe do a video to explain the difference between a favor, a bribe and a negotiation. That might help me better understand how to apply bribery to the actions of the president. If it's just a matter of POTUS doing something in the countries interest as well as his own interest, then it would be silly to think he had no personal interest over the 2016 election or the Bidens. So, bribery? If so, will we ever have a president that can do his/her job without committing bribery? People have personal interests, and sometimes that aligns with the job.

    31 US Code 1512 is interesting to me, but so far you are the only person I heard mention this. It seems like that should be one of the focuses of the impeachment inquiry if you explained it correctly. ( An apportionment or a reapportionment shall be reviewed at least 4 times a year … ) – not sure if that means you can go longer than 45 days.

  • NightingaleSpica

    To say favor does not mean bribe. A favor is a form of request that is open ended. Trump not once say that he was withholding the funds because of this request. The president has every right to request anything to any country. A country has every right to say no or yes. I can make any requests or ask favors from anyone. The duties I have to do is still require of me by law will still continue. The delay and releases of any agreement can be purely out of my control. I can believe it is possible that government officials can move very slow. For example I was given notice finally that I was being considered for a job I have applied to over 8 months ago.

  • ILikeMe 123

    The crazy thing is these are government officials, many who write legislation and many are lawyers and they’re really trying the Sideshow Bob defense? Ffs

  • YeeSoest

    2 Major Takeaways: Why wasn't the Investigation requested in 2016 or 2017 but only when Biden became frontrunner for the DNC?
    Why did you not talk about corruption but Biden in that phone call that we know word for word by now?

  • Kyle Frere

    You have one of the best lighting set ups I've seen on youtube. It really makes the colors in those indochino suits shine :). If you don't mind sharing, what lights are you using and where are you placing them? It looks like maybe a soft source overhead and then I can't tell if you have one or two lights to catch your hair in the back. For what looks to be such a small space, you seem to be able to do a lot. Thanks!

  • BarefootDrummer

    Sondland was on the phone with Trump and the Ukraine Pres. Those other witnesses are going off hear-say, which is not evidence. Sondland himself, when being questioned by Schiff, said there was no link made between the financial aid and the investigation, he said, and I quote, "No, President Trump, when I asked him the open-ended question, as I testified previously, 'What do you want from Ukraine?' His answer was 'I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, tell Zelensky to do the right thing.' That's all I got from President Trump."
    That being the case, I can only interpret your drawn-out explanation of why bribery is a legal conclusion and quid pro quo is the assertion of the act is merely an attempt to breath some form of life into the already DOA argument that Trump tried to withhold legal aid until Zelensky investigated Biden.

    Of course, Biden is on camera having bragged about doing this exact thing, he withheld aid to Ukraine until a certain prosecutor got fired. And it worked, and he bragged about it, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS3cD5cU-9M
    So sorry LegalEagle, but you're just another in a long line of leftist lawyers who'd rather be mired in a debate about the definition of the word "is" than get to the truth about what happened. Ultimately, that says a lot about your character and commitment (or lack thereof) to truth. But, I guess you know your audience.

  • C Rayl

    Sondland said that he had no direct information of a Quid Pro Quo. He had only assumptions. He also said that when he asked the President what he wanted from Ukraine he said Nothing! I think he said that twice if my memory serves me well. You kind of left that part out.

  • Phreeque

    Thank you for your in depth review of the hearings. I love your videos. I have noticed one thing, though. You have a tendency to get quiet near the end of your sentences, making it hard to hear what you're saying. It'd really help if your volume was a little more level. Thank you! Have a great day.

  • Craig Justice

    The thing that I didn't understand is why Democrats didn't harp on how the "No Quid Pro Quo" phone call was after all of this was out in the open. It means absolutely nothing. It's like telling your mom you didn't eat a cookie before dinner when you have cookie crumbs on your chin.

  • Andrew Blanchard

    ——————-

    TRUMP'S CRIMES :

    COLLUSION
    =
    REMOVAL FROM OFFICE
    HEAVY FINES
    25 YEARS IMPRISONMENT

    WITNESS TAMPERING

    WITNESS INTIMIDATION

    ATTEMPTING TO SUBORN
    PERJURY
    THROUGH
    WITNESS INTIMIDATION

    ESPIONAGE
    =
    REMOVAL FROM OFFICE
    LIFE IMPRISONMENT
    EXECUTION

    TREASON
    =
    REMOVAL FROM OFFICE
    LIFE IMPRISONMENT
    EXECUTION

    OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
    =
    20 YEARS IN PRISON
    FOR EACH OFFENSE

    TRUMP'S
    COMMITTED AT LEAST
    1000 ACTS OF
    OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
    =
    20,000 years in PRISON

    ———————–

  • Andrew Blanchard

    ————————

    THE VOTES FOR

    TRUMP'S

    IMPEACHMENT
    REMOVAL FROM POWER – OFFICE
    IMPRISONMENT

    THE DEMOCRATS

    CONGRESS
    100%
    HOUSE
    100%
    SENATE
    100%
    SUPREME COURT
    100%

    THE REPUBLICANS

    CONGRESS
    50%
    HOUSE
    50%
    SENATE
    50%
    SUPREME COURT :
    50%

    ————————-

  • 12FU

    I see why you prefer youtube over court because your logical fallacies including straw man arguments are easy to see through. You depend too much on people's confirmation bias and underestimate how informed average viewers are.

  • Thomas Headley

    Failure to look at past behavior, unlike a jury trial, is relevant. "Perfect call" a result of yes man reinforcement. Behavior.

  • Jason Vinson

    I can’t tell if you’re genuinely trying to argue from the conservative point of view and your bias just seeps through or you are being disingenuous. I’d like to think the second because that’d mean you are truly badass at creating believable propaganda.

  • SCE2AUX

    The fact remains that nothing Trump did is illegal.
    Even if the Democrats vote to impeach, the Senate will not vote to convict – if they even deign to conduct a trial in the first place.

  • Harden Steele

    How can you call yourself a lawyer? Hearsay is NOT accepted in any true court of law. And the ones that were on the call said nothing impeachable! Case over.

  • C Rayl

    Get serious! Biden and his son sold the power of the government and he even bragged about it on video. If the President is not allowed to point out an obvious criminal act regardless of who is the accused then we are lost. Hunter Biden profited from his fathers position of that there is no doubt as even he said that he got his position because of his father in so many words.

  • DementedPrankster

    So even if what/everything a president does is legal via the Constitution and within his/her right to do so, they can still be impeached none-the-less? Then what's the point of the inquiry if, even if the president was doing everything correctly and just, Congress can just impeach him/her out of power based on interpretation/opinion? This basically gives the majority party in Congress ultimate authority over if a president is impeached or not regardless of wrongdoing, including for purely partisan motives. This argument basically states that no matter what a president does, it is an impeachable offense dependent on whom controls Congress at the time, making any argument against impeachment, no matter the president, null and void as any instance can be perceived as impeachable.

  • Saber Tooth Duck

    Your a legal beagle but do you understand the difference between presidential prerogative and legal authority of the normal man.

  • Jashua Tilahun

    Please do a report on the legality of the fake school ICE and DHS used as a sting operation to entice visa using immigrants to come to michigan and then take their money and deport them.

  • Argibon A

    As James Comey once said about Hillary, we did not charge her because you cant prove intent yet all the evidence proves otherwise. :] You cant prove intent in Trump's case as well. If you go with if the police pull you over and find a ski mask in your vehicle they can charge you with bank robbery because of the mask you had the intent. Well going with that theory every Canadian or American living in the north would be a criminal lmao. What it all boils down to is this, how corrupt are the lawyers? Go with the chewbacca defense. Personally, I believe Trump and his Intel people set this up to out the real criminals and spies which they did gloriously.:]

  • I love how in every video, LegalEagle does the best a human can do in regards to being completely unbiased and factual. He always emphasizes what is in written law, definitions, etc. and (especially in this context) strays away from the specific people involved and defines the situation generally. Educational and informative. Thank you for your content. ♥

  • Ryan Rosas

    Off topic, but can you review that one episode of Drake and Josh where they try to figure out who put Mrs.Haefer's car in the classroom?

  • Dick Fitswell

    I agree with the Legal Experts from 🇺🇸/🇨🇦 as they are at a consensus that you are not a good lawyer… so Ill Remind myself to never use you as a lawyer. Rookie mistake…you said "in order to not see that there is a reason to impeach, you'd have to believe all the witnesses are lying." Welp. You made the rookie mistake of showing your bias. None of the witnesses had their own knowledge. It was 2nd/3rd/4th hand and opinions. Also you should research them and not use cnn cause you'll find out they actually all contradicted themselves. So. Puttin on a goofy suit & tie doesnt make you a good lawyer. Words do. You failed. Its a consensus amongst legal experts that you shouldn't practice law due to your bias and lack of knowledge on the law. #FactsMatter #Consensus

  • Argibon A

    They knew how corrupt the last administration was and that there were still corrupt people still on the take with the regards to Ukraine. The call was scripted to do what it was designed to do. Ask yourself this, would you make that call unscripted knowing it was being listened to? No. All these calls are scripted, both parties are prepared, it was done for a reason. :]

  • Aussie Shane

    I believe Donald Trump, should TELL the American People "TO GO and GET STUFFED".
    After EVERYTHING he has done for the US Economy ect ect. YOU People would NOT Have a CLUE.
    You TREAT your President like PIG DIRT, even though Donald fulfilled 100% of his Election Promises he was Elected on.
    He should GIVE it All Back to the DEM's. LET America go to the SHITTER in 2 Months and then MOVE TO AUSTRALIA.

  • SAW Gunner

    Objection! Hearsay evidence is not strong evidence, even in student court. It is always overridden by any physical evidence. I get where you're going with this, the idea that not all of the hearsay witnesses could have been lying itself lends credence in the absence of stronger evidence. But that's the thing, there is no stronger evidence save the testimony and evidence Democrats have blocked about government employees actively working to undermine the administration. There's your unclean hands riposte and a blow to the credibility of the witnesses.

    Beyond that, you've got the essential political suicide of anybody who supports Trump. MSM coverage has been 93% negative over the past three years. You want to talk about witness intimidation? Schiff did, using a tweet that a witness wasn't aware of at the time. I'm sure Trump is intimidating and hard to work with, but is he MORE intimidating than a national press that has been out to get him since the day he took office for political reasons? One whose interests are aligned with and supportive of cancel-culture, doxing, de-platforming by any means necessary? I'm gonna say…..no.

    Indeed, you can see the effects in the Democratic nominees right now, going further and further left, well beyond the bounds of Constitutional law. You're a lawyer by trade, you know better than me, but in that context I'm sure you'd agree; the left is being more intimidating than Trump ever could. He can fire people, sure. The left blacklists anyone who doesn't agree as social pariahs.

  • Eric North

    Thank goodness he brought up the federalist papers. The first three were about the dangers of foreign influence in our government. Imagine that!

Leave a Reply

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