Lawyer Examines Impeachment Defenses (Real Law Review)

Share
Embed
  • Loading...
  • Published on:  Tuesday, November 26, 2019
  • What defenses do the Trump Administration defenders have left?
    Get 3 months of Audible for just $6.95 a month (That’s half off!). Just text legaleagle to 500 500 or click https://audible.com/legaleagle

    From the New York Times:
    “Republicans mounted an array of defenses of President Trump at this week’s impeachment hearings — making arguments that at times seemed to conflict with one another logically, but that dovetailed in a key way: All served to undermine Democrats’ allegations that Mr. Trump abused his power. In angry statements from the hearing dais, lines of questioning to witnesses and comments during breaks to reporters, Republicans sought to poke holes in the strength of evidence that Mr. Trump personally put a condition on the government committing official acts — namely, that Ukraine publicize investigations that could benefit him. But at other times, Republicans suggested that Mr. Trump’s pursuit of those investigations was justified — reading into the record related facts and allegations about Ukrainian actions in 2016 and about the Ukrainian gas company Burisma and its decision to give Hunter Biden, the son of Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a lucrative board seat.”

    As I see it, here are the main Republican legal defenses:
    No quid pro quo
    It’s all hearsay
    The aid was released (the Sideshow Bob defense)
    The Ukranians didn’t feel pressure (no harm no foul)
    The Ukranians didn’t have to pay
    No mens rea
    It’s foreign policy
    The state department went rogue
    The President must root out corruption
    It’s bad but not impeachable

    Great article by Elie Mystal, who you should definitely be following
    https://www.thenation.com/article/gop-impeachment-debunk/
    I also recommend Orin Kerr: https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1194320853929848832
    And definitely read Neal Katyal: https://twitter.com/neal_katyal

    (Thanks to Audible for sponsoring this video)

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Welcome to Real Law Review by LegalEagle; a series where I try to tackle the most important legal issues of the day. If you have suggestion for the next topic leave your comment below.

    And if you disagree, be sure to leave your comment in the form of an OBJECTION!

    Remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate. Stella is the LegalBeagle and she wields the gavel of justice. DO NOT MESS WITH STELLA.

    ★More series on LegalEagle★
    Real Lawyer Reacts: https://goo.gl/hw9vcE
    Laws Broken: https://goo.gl/PJw3vK
    Law 101: https://goo.gl/rrzFw3
    Real Law Review: https://goo.gl/NHUoqc

    All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

    Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should conta ct your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!

    ========================================================

    ★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ https://twitter.com/legaleagleDJ
    ★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ /legaleaglereacts
    ★ Stella’s Insta: https://www.instagram.com/stellathelegalbeagle
    ★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here:
Loading...

Comment

  • LegalEagle
    LegalEagle  1 months ago +388

    ⚖️ 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

  • Joshua Reyes
    Joshua Reyes  yesterday

    So yeah, it's January and we still have our duly elected president. This is because even the dems know they fabricated all the evidence and produced false witness testimonies. The impeachment has fallen flat on its face.

  • sameullam
    sameullam  2 days ago

    Man, Americans think the impeachment is the biggest thing ever...then there's the Canadians that took it court...6 times.

    Conclusion: Trudeau is still there and we're tired lol.

    Edit: Politicians are corrupt, left or right. Except in Canada, you don't get Democrats or Republicans, you get the extremes...Liberal or Conservative...and then there's the trolls of Quebec doing their usual separatistm ways.

  • Chaine
    Chaine  2 days ago

    I do like that almost universal the comments are calm and arguments are not cussing matches

  • Jascha Bull
    Jascha Bull  2 days ago

    Interesting to hear how the trial is going. I have to wonder how much this matters though, if, as you said in your other video, it basically all comes down to a reality-show-style vote among the senate, who seemingly can do whatever they want. From what I hear some people say, he could perform explicitly criminal, impeachable acts in front of the whole senate and still get off if enough of the senators are dead-set on not impeaching a Republican.

  • Balls Ninja
    Balls Ninja  3 days ago

    Oh my is that an indochino suit I see

  • Thomas Borisov
    Thomas Borisov  3 days ago +2

    Imagine a world where people made decisions based on logic instead of emotion and congitive bias

  • Garrett W.
    Garrett W.  3 days ago

    thanks for the video and some true perspective to the topics

  • Pablo López-Ortega

    26:30 Wait, pardons can't be sold? Welp, we better do some Catholic Reformation then.

  • ExodusCore
    ExodusCore  5 days ago +1

    Legal Beagle says he will leave it to the audience... this after having crusaded against the defense and done everything in his power to diminish it. Take note that Bagel only gives a quick passing softball when he "attacks" the people that try to get the President Impeached, yet every time he deals with the defense claims, he tries to pick it apart. Beagle is a partisan hack, his smarmy attitude and gleeful giggling whenever he wants to show (without using words) that the defense is wrong, is disgusting.

    In the end the verdict is that Legal Eagle is just a propaganda outlet for his political beliefs. You can't take this guy seriously as his analysis is colored by his own views and nit by facts. He is a lawyer, not a very good one, but a lawyer nonetheless. As a lawyer he twists facts to fit his narrative. This is his job. He is trained and schooled to do this.

  • ExodusCore
    ExodusCore  5 days ago +1

    As for no reason as to why the funds were withheld... Legal Eagle is telling lies again. The funds were withheld because the Trump administration wanted to check up on the new Ukrainian president and make sure first that he wasn't corrupt. This sort of action is not strange at all.

    Again, Legal Bagel here is a partisan hack... don't forget that people.

  • ExodusCore
    ExodusCore  5 days ago +2

    Sure the funds were released after that article was published, but the order to release the funds were made before the article was published. Anyone reading this can look into it themselves and see for themselves if they don't believe me.

  • ExodusCore
    ExodusCore  5 days ago +1

    Update. The House didn't try to impeach on "bribery". Legal eagle was stumped and didn't understand why.

    Could it be because there was no bribery? Legal Eagle glosses over this possibility because it doesn't fit his crazy partisan narrative.

  • ExodusCore
    ExodusCore  5 days ago +2

    Yes there was no quid pro quo you two bit lawyer. The only people that could actually testify as first hand witnesses and not simply spread testimonies of what they "believed" (I.E they never witnessed anything) was Bolton and that bald guy. The bald guy said there was no quid pro quo but that of course there was quid pro quo because both parties would get something out it. I.E it was not any form of bribery but simply a case where doing something for the other party would help themselves even if the other party never asked for it. Trump never brought up Biden. Likewise the same with Bolton, never never said ANYTHING about a quid pro quo.

    The other so called witnesses never witnessed anything and only testified on what they believed and on their opinion.

  • Clayton Harris
    Clayton Harris  6 days ago

    This video is framed from the very beginning whether intentionally or not. The statement, "to believe the argument there was no quid pro quo you would have to believe that most of the witness are lieing", is clearly misleading and false. Someone can be factually wrong about something, but that doesn't make them a liar. This seems to be drawing attention away from the actual no quid pro quo argument, which is obviously the argument being made by most Republicans inspite of LegalEgale's claim. The Ukraine's never released information about Biden, which would suggest there was no quid pro quo agreement to begin with, not that a quid pro quo was incomplete. This entire video pretty much hinges upon the reasoning and assumption that a quid pro quo exist. If there is no clear evidence to support the claim of the existence of a quid pro quo then there is no case. That is why the articles of impeachment were written for the accusation of the obstruction of congress not the existence of quid pro quo because if there was any definitive evidence to suggest such an existence it would certainly be easier to impeach than obstructing congress. Pelosi understands this, which is why she delayed sending over the articles in the hopes that more information would come forward.

  • Midan
    Midan  6 days ago

    Impeachment is a nothingburger. 4 more years!

  • Thomas Atkinson
    Thomas Atkinson  7 days ago

    How about you tell your audience about the fact that every major donor made to the law firm you are associated with (Barnes & Thornburg LLP), are democrat government politicians and lobbyists?
    Slightly bias, bigbird??
    Sorry "big bird" but you can't expect people to take you seriously on a political issue such as this when you are clearly bias. A judge with your level of bias on this matter would recuse himself immediately.

  • RaccoonCity
    RaccoonCity  7 days ago

    I want that lamp

  • GodspeedHero
    GodspeedHero  7 days ago

    3.8k People dislike the legal process being executed correctly.

  • Matthias Cerebri
    Matthias Cerebri  7 days ago

    This Video is of course very telling for me as a law Student, and it Unfortunately shows that the republicans act completely illegally. And that the entire political System, especially regarding the ability to find real democrazy. So, dear Americans: Please promise me that you will make a Civil war, if necessary also armed. It might be illegal and might not be the high- Standard of ethics- but actually, Trump even interpretated the second amendment as a possible legal revolution against unwanted presidents. So also he has to experience this. And secondly: How can you save the lives of millions people worldwide in a different way