Lawyer Examines Impeachment Defenses (Real Law Review)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лис 2019
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
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 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
www.thenation.com/article/gop...
I also recommend Orin Kerr: / 1194320853929848832
And definitely read Neal Katyal: / 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: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: 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 / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta: / stellathelegalbeagle
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv
⚖️ What do you think of the republican defenses?
📚 Check out Neal Katyal’s great book Impeachment on Audible for half off: audible.com/legaleagle
Objection: Please review movie Fracture, it is the best legal movie ever made, and very clever use of Double Jeopardy.
Legal eagle do you think trump will be impeached
and if he was impeached will he be removed from office
Thank you so much for your nuanced and thoughtful analyses without over the top posturing. It's refreshing to see someone who doesn't need shock titles and insults to make a point.
I'm no kind of legal expert, but so far, the defenses seem very weak and often potato, if you know what I mean.
I do love that one of their defenses was "But he's too bad at crime for it to count!"
That's the mark of a stable genius, you see.
If the “I didn’t know” defense actually worked, there would be a lot less white collar criminals. 😂
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"
That has been the policy of most organized governments since...time immemorial. Seems everything is just like normal. Someone’s lying and it’s everyone.
@@reverendrico5631 We should fight for higher taxes and larger government so we can get more of that.
@@reverendrico5631 No, it isnt.
you clearly didn't watch the video, which uses this quote, so are you a Russian bot or ...?
@@reverendrico5631 Ahh, when you can't offer a defense, just assert that *everyone* is wrong so it's unnecessary to hold anyone like yourself accountable.
"If a president started selling pardons" this aged well 😂
Came here to say exactly this.
Also, the situation in Ukraine has become more... Interesting in the last year.
“The facts are fluid”
You cannot POSSIBLY understand how much this upsets my mathematical mind.
Physically, something doesn´t measure 1m, it measures 1m +/- a certain percentage. In law, that percentage could be 100%.
A scientist will create a hypothesis/theory to explain their observations, only calling it a fact once it has been exhaustively tested.
The “facts” legaleagle refers to are personal accounts/testimonies of what happened. I just don’t think they should be called “facts” until the judge has seen enough consistency in an exhaustive number of them.
Perhaps they aren’t actually called facts in court, and he just misspoke. In any case, the inconsistency in the definition of the word “fact” between fields is what really annoyed me.
And yes, measurements and conclusions in the sciences will have a limitation based on context or an error of margin based on the accuracy of instruments, and these will always be stated alongside the measurement/conclusion.
@@MMIIRRKKOO that is why 1.00m or 100cm is a thing, you know for sure the diference is below one centimeter with the proper ammount of digits
Let me help you...facts are indeterminate while Truth is absolute :D
@@briangeer1024 well when this sham of a president is voted out in 2020 we will be able to see what the results are because I fully expect criminal charges to be placed against him for his behavior after he leaves office ( as Muller, not Barr as i have seen improperly referenced in this comment thread, implied in his report) We have not seen the ruling of a judge on this matter. Remember Impeachment is not a legal action it is a political one.
Please talk about COPPA in a future video I think alot people on UA-cam would love to hear your advice and opinion on it
this would be interesting, yes!
I agree.
Bump it up!
Yes please.
I think the window on doing a COPPA video is closing quite quickly. If he's got a lot of other videos he wants to get done first a video about COPPA might not be relevant anymore. It might be better for DJ to focus on something that is more evergreen (such as a another popular media legal review) or something that has a bit more mainstream traction (such as this video).
They promised to release the aid in exchange for a plate of fried calamari. A classic case of squid pro quo.
@Frank Smith Because calamari are just that good
@Frank Smith American Military Aid comes with a quite serious attachment: the government gives the aid on the condition that the aid money is used to buy weaponary from the America manufacturers. So it is a neat way of dropping public funds into the pocket of the Military Industiral Complex.......
Also supporting a country in need will grant you as a nation status within the community of countries (soft power). Someone you gave aid money to will be more open to be on your side in later negotiations. So aid money is a country´s way of buying influence in the future. In theory this should strengthen the relationship between the countries. An example of such a group of countries securing their relations with aid mones is the EU. The wealthier countries put more money into the system which is used to support specific projects or industrial sectors (agriculture being one of the most subsidized sectors). Less wealthy countries get more money out of the EU. They also gain things besides money: because the EU uses the Euro as a common currency the stability of the Euro depends on the overall economic power of the EU and not the economic power of each seperate country. The wealthier countries on the other hand gain power in negotiations because while a single country might only represent a small amount of people and economic power (e.g. France represents about 50M people and the 7th largest nominal GDP) the EU as a whole represents a far larger number of people and a far larger economic power (about 500M people and the 2nd largest economy). The EU´s system is not perfect and needs reforms but the idea is a good one.
@Frank Smith in this instance I would presume it is in US interests to stymy an aggressive Russia.
Went to a high class restaurant with a friend once, and I traded my calamari for his caviar.
A classic case of squid pro roe.
@@joern122 So Quid Pro Quo? We give you X amount of dollars. And then you "Must" use Said money to buy things from us.........
I'm not from the US but I do love this channel. It's fascinating. I wish there was a UK version too.
Hello fellow UK resident watching a video about US law and politics
Agreed!
Our three ring circus of a government is probably very entertaining for outside observers, until you think about the fact that these chimps have the nuclear launch codes. Yikes.
No, Australia
@@ananthropomorphictalkinggo6641i, as an outside observer, agree
You forgot the biggest defense, having a majority in the senate that wont impeach.
Ah, politics...
" a factual matter for you to decide" is the most lawyer thing youve ever said on here.
I feel like that would have to be something with bad Latin, surely?
A factual matter for you to decide also translates to, you can shove your head up your ass and believe whatever you want.
Sounds like a Lionel Hutz defense
the legal argument does seem to be "i reject your reality and substitute my own" on both sides. regardless which if any reality is real.
@@bosstowndynamics5488 I hope the facts change back to the answers that were factual while I was doing my homework when my professor grades it. If not, I can always just argue that the answers are fluid and constantly changing, the facts are matters for each of us to decide.
"2 dumb 2 crime" sounds like a sequel title
That's Don Jr's autobiography title.
dumb crime: collusion
2dumb2crime: solicitation
"2 dumb 2 crime" , Impeachment number two, electric boogaloo.
Yeah, can we not have a sequel to this one.
Bribin' 2: Electric Boogaloo
I don't understand why our politicians, who don't understand their own law, are the ones questioning and making the rulings.
So you predicted the pardon selling scandal... Wow. Any other predictions for the last few weeks of 45s term?
you are the first person, although using a second-hand quote, to explain to me, a young person from the UK, what the Watergate scandal actually was as opposed to just saying Watergate or buglers in a hotel then leaping to the president standing down. Now I understand the link between those two events. Thank you
There's more to it, but basically, yes. He had his own thugs break in and bug the hell out of his opponent's offices.
Steelman?
I'm shocked that the opposite of Strawman isn't already "Iron Man".
LOL!
If we went in accordance with the Wizard of Oz, it should've been Tin Man.
lol
Also known as a Man of Steel argument.
I thought the opposite of a strawman was a strawwoman. Welp. The more you know.
They couldn't say Iron Man without violating the trademark.
The presidents private lawyer should not be involved with foreign affairs matters.
Then Dems shouldn't be involved in his.
I’m curious if Giuliani has any sort of security clearance. Probably not.
I will never understand the obsessive worship of the Founders. Thomas Jefferson thought the constitution should be re-made every 19 years, because he thought it was oppressive for one generation to impose it's principles and beliefs upon the next. So I could just as easily say "Hey, Melancholy Soldier, you are disrespecting the founding fathers intentions by *not* rewriting the constitution"
It's such a stupid argument to make. The founding fathers didn't think of themselves as infallible Gods, so why do you?
Honestly wish it was all just some sick dream
@@Erikaaaaaaaaaaaaa sure but the intention and laws stated by the constitution were clear. It's beyond mild disagreements and outright treason for a lot of their actions and abuse of our freedoms.
The comments are quite tame. I'm impressed by your following. -passerby
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 "
Also they remove ignorant inflammatory comments, so that's one way to have a clean comment section. Remove the filth.
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.
Do you assume my rage?! REEEEEEEE!
Because Trump supporters absolutely REFUSE to look at anything that involves logic or truth. Trust me I've tried showing my parents truth and facts about this president and they either bury their head in the sand or just dismiss it as fake news... It reminds me Hitlers quote: "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, it will be believed." Sadly it is so true...
I'm glad you did this video, because every time they said "hearsay" all I could think of was this channel.
@Nicholas Mullen Trump already released the transcripts. If there was anything damning he would have already lost.
@@HaHa-vy9ct The 'transcript' that was released was more of a summary/memo of the call. The full transcript is still sitting in a server at the white house. Which does make you wonder, why not release the full transcript if it wasn't that bad.
@@HaHa-vy9ct the phone call was about half an hour. The transcript covers about 5 mins...
@@LunethAkumajo The transcript has been confirmed to be very accurate by witnesses, both friend and foes of the president.
@Nicholas Mullen Are you referring to the Schiff made up phone call.
That was hilarious.
Objection: The counselor clearly states that he’ll “read just one more article” and goes on to read three.
That should be overruled. He read zero articles and instead read 3 headlines.
Your logic is a nonstarter
@@retrospectre2658 agreed!
Sustained: isn't this how we all start down the rabbit hole anyhow?
He just read one more article. Three times...
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 Must Root Out Corruption"
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.
The only Quid Pro Quo I seen is from the direct admission of guilt from Corrupt Biden and the DemonRats
MVP
Thanks!
Also Hillary went to his island 6 official times and bill.... Well you know how bill is.... Just go look at what all his protection has been saying.....
There's 2 key points for me. 1, the timing for the need for an investigation. Trump didn't care about it until Biden became the main potential candidate (and in time, he became THE democratic candidate). Trump had been in power for around 3 years and Biden's son had been working with Burisma since 2014. So the timing is daming. 2, Trump didn't care about an investigation, he cared about an announcement. Something to beat his rival (Biden) with during the upcoming elections.
Anyways, we all knew before all this started that it was a lost case. The GOP didn't care about what you can prove, they didn't care about arguments, facts or laws. They just picked any lame excuse to protect the President and they went all the way with it. The only thing that could've tipped the balance was how the whole thing would've affected them individually.
But as divided as the country is, most of them are pretty safe in their seats. Trump could shoot someone in 5th avenue for no reason in front of the cameras and the result would be the same.
I think there are a lot of difficult questions for the US in relation to links between political parties and the justice system. The Alex Gibney documentary Client 9 speaks to a Republican DA using the case notes to remove a Democrat from office while possibly protecting some of the other clients. I'm not sure it's an argument that the public has much of an appetite for, but as a neutral observer (a foreign citizen), it's seems like a system where conflicts of interest are baked in
3 years later, you are still correct.
This is honestly the tier of journalism the people deserve. Thank you for presenting the facts and bringing the legal knowledge, all communicated in a way non-lawyers can understand. Excellent work.
(I am a European Immigration Lawyer however I know "just a bit" about US law as well - I'm outside the US political system and therefore don't have a side to pick) - I totally agree
Its not the journalism the american people deserve, but it's the journalism they need.
We vote with our dollars and with our time
KEKW "Journalism" KEKW
@@p4r3s idk man I feel like all people deserve to be told the truth and be honestly educated. Makes the world as a whole a lot smarter.
I'm sure all of the comments on this vid will be level-headed and rational.
Onyx1916 they usually are honestly. People actively watching a half hour video of a lawyer breaking down congressional hearings are usually pretty rational types.
@@astrominister Not everyone is watching it though.
Deeeeeeep staaaaaaaaaaate!!!!!
@@jasonb9562 YOU FORGOT CAPS LOCK AND MISSSPELLING! YOU AMATURE !
The Sideshow Bob defense used in the real world!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Here are like 3 times he makes a small smile when talking about bombshells. He knows this is gonna be a mess 😂😭
Did you know: Ben Shapiro's full name is Bencil Sharpeniro
I swear I saw this in a three arrows video
did u know a amoeba was a one cell creature ? whats your point?
timothy vanginkel weak
I thought it was Bencil Sharpener
@@deeksha1141 and his shortened name is Benny Shapes
I have to say this was the quickest 38 minute video I've ever seen. You don't waste a single second of the time and it flowed nicely.
It is a 40 minute shortcut to being misinformed. Unless you have watched the hearings in full, or know legal speak yourself, you are likely to walk away from this less informed than had you not watched. This lawyer is both slippery and highly partisan.
Why such strong words, you might ask?
It does not seem that this UA-camr watched the hearings. He claimed that Bolton testified. Bolton did not. Pretty astounding blunder for someone to make in the name of a *real legal analysis*.
Worse: He mischaracterized hearsay as something that is often good evidence. This is false on its face. He failed to explain that under formal Rules of Evidence hearsay is almost always stricken from testimony / evidence.
Why is hearsay inadmissible? Many reasons, of which 3 years in law school is not really necessary to verify. For the right of due process, a defendant has the right to face their accuser and to cross examine witnesses. Hearsay generally removes this right. (additionally it has a higher probablility of being faulty - even eye-witness memory is prone to errors - 3rd party hearsay compound this effect).
Thus judges nearly always toss out hearsay. Yes, the UA-camr did mentions exception for admission of hearsay. Those exceptions would not apply to these witnesses.
These witnesses all (without exception) admitted under oath that they observed no crimes directly taking place as it related to the withholding of monies. They said they speculated and made "presumptions". Presumptions is not the sort of hearsay that courts would make an exception for with regard to hearsay.
Why do you think a UA-cam lawyer would fail to mention something so blatantly obvious as the above?
*Hearsay witnesses need to be credible* -- without ulterior motive. Fired employees and disgruntled employees are not typically considered objective or credible. Especially when testifying that their firing "devastated" them. This is just another reason why a court of law would not make hearsay exceptions for these witnesses.
Mens Rae was a complete conflation and is not applicable, especially since there is no identified crime. Remember, this hearing is all about trying to FIND a crime. This is not about truth seeking (UA-camr suit forgot to mention that also).
Blatantly misleading (or outright lying), regarding transcript: this UA-camr said that "Biden" was mentioned 3 times, but that "corruption" was not. *THINK HERE*.... do you have to use the verbatim word "corruption" to talk about illegal activity?
The 2 presidents discussed crowdstrike, 2016 elections and the wrongful termination of the "good prosector". This is an ongoing DOJ investigation. Why didn't this UA-camr tell his audience that it is within the purview of a president to discuss these things. There is nothing even remotely illegal about this.
@@michelem7786 You sound like another Trumper who is convinced there was no crime. There was a crime, just because the impeachment inquiry is investigating the crime doesn't mean it's a Schrodinger's cat situation. A crime took place, the inquiry is a legal step towards proving there was a crime.
@@jedi1josh I'm just someone who lived with a judge for 20 years and happened to watch the hearings in full. What does reality have to do with whether or not someone supported the president?
Show me where Bolton testified as this UA-camr claims...?
Sounds like you hurl insults when you hear facts you don't like.
@@michelem7786 He probably had a minor slip up including Bolton in that list. If I say "grass is green, the earth is a sphere, and Halloween is Oct 30th" just because I got one of those wrong doesn't make the other things I said wrong too.
@@jedi1josh Do you think that speculation (presumptions) should be entered into a court of law as evidence of a crime? Why would he talk about mens rea but not the pitfalls of speculation?
I am trying to understand what direct evidence was put on the record through testimony that indicated someone observed a crime.
There are hours of testimony, but no one to say they watched a crime in progress. They merely attributed motive and presumed guilty motives. Is it okay to charge people with crimes based on presumptions and speculation and attribution of motives?
"It's time to think like a lawyer"
*thinks like a lawyer*
"This video looks like 1 billable hour.
Except lawyers don't think like him. He is partisan. Why is he misleading people to believe that hearsay is frequently admitted into evidence? Rules of Evidence generally warrant that hearsay is not admissible. It is an (unusual) exception and not the rule. Why didn't this UA-camr explain this?
Why didn't he address the right to cross examine a witness? The right to face an accuser? You can't do this with hearsay witnesses. Any lawyer worth their salt would address this fundamental right.
Why didn't he address the delay of aid when a DOJ investigation is in process? In these cases there are loopholes to withholding aid, but you wouldn't know that listening to this amateur.
Do you think that fired and disgruntled employees who ADMIT they are making presumptions would be the sort of hearsay evidence a judge would admit as reliable evidence?
Why did he think that Bolton testified, when he did not? Did he even watch the hearing?
@@michelem7786 I don't think you understand what hearsay evidence is. I'd suggest you watch his previous video describing hearsay evidence. The law is pretty clear about hearsay evidence.
@@valdimer11 Lol. How many times have you gotten hearsay evidence admitted into trial? I suggest you talk to lawyers and justice officials to get a grasp on hearsay. This UA-camr is explicitly misleading.
Do you have a problem with this statement too?:
"Hearsay is defined under Rules of Evidence as "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted." More simply stated, hearsay occurs when a witness testifies in court about what someone else said, as evidence of a particular fact.
Generally speaking, hearsay is inadmissible at trial. The reason for this is to assure the opportunity to cross examine a witness. "
@@michelem7786 Don't waste your time, this is partisan issue, despite Legal Eagle runs a long history with partisanship, his biased video is infrequent enough to not trigger any response. Whether hearsay/not/applicable as evidence hold very little meaning when you need support of the senator to impeach a president instead of support of a court.
Not a lawyer, but I'll dive in here with some direct sources.
Federal rules of evidence an be found from government servers here: www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Rules%20of%20Evidence. (Also, they appear to expose the path on a shared filesystem which seems like a security hole...)
' ‘‘Hearsay’’ means a statement that:
(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and
(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
asserted in the statement. '
So yes, lots of hearsay. If you read rule 802, it states
Hearsay is not admissible unless any of the following provides
otherwise:
• a federal statute;
• these rules; or
• other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court.
Moving on to rule 803:
"Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay-Regardless of
Whether the Declarant Is Available as a Witness
The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:
(1) Present Sense Impression. ...
(2) Excited Utterance. ...
(3) Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition. ...
(4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. ...
(5) Recorded Recollection. ...
(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. ...
(7) Absence of a Record of a Regularly Conducted Activity. ...
...
(24) [Other Exceptions.] [Transferred to Rule 807.] ...
"
Rule 804 has more exceptions, though they aren't relevant here.
Rule 805 states hearsay within hearsay is acceptable if all components of hearsay are admissable.
Going on to rule 807 mentioned by rule 803(24)...
"(a) IN GENERAL. Under the following circumstances, a hearsay
statement is not excluded by the rule against hearsay even if the
statement is not specifically covered by a hearsay exception in Rule 803 or 804:
(1) the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees
of trustworthiness;
(2) it is offered as evidence of a material fact;
(3) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered
than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain
through reasonable efforts; and
(4) admitting it will best serve the purposes of these rules
and the interests of justice. "
These are the facts I've cited. Admitting hearsay into evidence is possible via a wide number of exceptions. I haven't looked into Supreme Court rules, which could identify even more exceptions. I argue that your characterization of exceptions to exclusions of hearsay evidence being unusual is not well founded, given the exceptions explicitly defined by the DoJ.
As far as I know, you can cross-examine a hearsay witness. Regarding the right to face an accuser, I'm not knowledgeable in this area in cases where the witness needs protection, as Schiff has claimed based on apparent threats made by Trump on Twitter. However, your point stands that it should be addressed. He should do a video on it.
Great point on the delay of aid, but I've run out of time for researching more things.
You claim Mr. Stone is an amateur, or "a person who engages in a pursuit ... on an unpaid rather than a professional basis." Mr. Stone is listed as active by the California Bar, as a search will show.
The "disgruntled employees" as you've described them can provide admissable hearsay evidence in the form of what they have and haven't said to the defendant, as expressed in the exceptions above. This is necessary for establishing mes rea, as the defendant's knowledge is part of what goes into establishing intent. Establishing the fact timeline of what information as flowed where and when is critical for that.
Yeah, I don't know what's up with Bolton. That's weird.
Lastly, given your lack of understanding about the exceptions to hearsay being inadmissable, I'd argue that maybe you haven't gotten hearsay admitted into trial many times. It almost sounds like you lack a grasp of law but are trying to sound like a lawyer...
We don't know what was discussed in that "perfect call" - they have never released a full transcript of the call. "Perfect call" is grifter speak code for "I'm a grifter who is hiding something, probably something illegal. Oh, look over there Squirrel!"
The transcript has been released for quite some time now. The people on the call agree that what was said matches the transcript as well as the the people that transcribed the transcript. You can find it online.
Cory trust me it's coming
@@coryCuc good, so then we know there was quid pro quo
@@QuikVidGuy There's gotta be a "quo" for a quid pro quo. I don't think you understand how this works lol. And this was months ago. Keep up.
"What do you want from the store?"
"I DON'T WANT YOU TO STEAL FROM THE STORE!"
Totally innocent and natural conversation right there.
@majk wasd Investigation of the Democrats is one thing. Investigation of your primary political rival before an election is something entirely else. There is no way that you can do that and not be suspected of corruption. Hence why the Trump administration didn't make a single peep about their efforts to get Ukraine to investigate Biden until *AFTER* they got caught.
More like: "What do you want from the store" - "I don't want you to steal from the store, but remember to DO THE RIGHT THING when you are there"
You mean "perfect" conversation?
@@caseyb1346 yep, you must hate the Democrats for Obama's pre election investigations into Trump's campaign....
To take make your example fair and reflective of the statement.
"What do you want from the store?"
"I DON'T WANT ANYTHING FROM THE STORE!"
Quid pro quo is something for something...which is the opposite of theft.
Theft is something for nothing against someones will.
If Ukraine was a store, here is what happened....Trump walked in...paid $400.000,000 and got no groceries. Quite the opposite of theft.
We've gotten to a point where the "Sideshow Bob Defense" is a thing. That's where we are now.
Gunman610 There were plenty of demonstrations of the Chewbacca defense during the hearings. Pretty much every time Jim Jordan opened his mouth, for example.
As much as I hate to say this, but none of the points raised in this video actually matter. What does matter is whether half of the Republican-held senate will side with the Democrats and vote to convict, which they will only do if they think there's a better candidate than Trump to win 2020.
In my opinion, that will not happen. Republican voters don't really care about the impeachment. In fact, I think most won't even agree what Trump did was bad. Biden is his opponent, so why shouldn't Trump try to dig up dirt on him? If the Ukrainians stopped their investigation to appease the Democrats, then perhaps they should be forced to restart it. Kicking Trump out of office will alienate grass roots support for Republicans. He is much more popular than the rest of the Republicans. Losing him at this time pretty much guarantees Republicans a loss in 2020.
Q0ET9U, half of the Republican Senators won’t side with Democrats to convict. The more likely scenario is that at least 4 GOP Senators will defect and vote with the Democrats. All they need is 51 votes to bar him from holding future office.
@@dr.floridamanphd Sorry, could you clarify which law are you citing? Impeachment convictions require 2/3rds majority in the Senate.
@@djinn666
"Why shouldn't Trump try to dig up dirt on him."
It's not about digging up dirt, but using the government to dig up dirt via a foreign government.
Here in Germany politicians who are in government get into trouble if they write something bad about a political opponent on their government website or government twitter account as it breaks the separation of being a government official and being a politician.
Trump and Giuliani can dig up as much dirt as they want, but here it was the US government trying to dig up dirt and that is banana republic kind of problematic.
The more this trial keeps going, the more it sounds like people stepping on rakes.
I love that analogy!
It's not a trial, it's an investigation. Even when the vote to confirm impeachment happens in the Senate, it's not a criminal trial, it's a political process. This means that one does not need to prove the accusations "beyond a reasonable doubt" or other traditional legal standards for finding guilt or lack thereof. Rather, all that needs to happen is to produce a convincing enough case that 2/3 of the Senate agrees to vote to impeach.
Criminal prosecutions can happen after an impeachment, and not be considered double jeopardy because an impeachment trial is not part of the criminal process. In other words, just because your employer is the US government does not mean that it firing you absolves you from criminal liability.
Just remember. If, after all this, no impeachment process occurs, all of the analysts you watched who spoke about how stupid the right's defence was were completely wrong. Then you will need to turn to conspiracy theories again.
Ah the Tom and Jerry defense
@@Imbalanxd
No that doesn't follow. Recall the case of "the Jinx", where someone accused of murder but then was cleared admitted to the crime out loud while his mic was hot. His accusers in the past weren't wrong, they were unsuccessful.
In truth Trump will likely not be impeached by the Senate, hoping to flip 20 Republicans is hoping for too much I believe. Their standing in their own party depends on their ability to demonstrate authoritarianism and thus subservience to those above them in power, like Trump.
But by then the damage to his campaign and the Republicans will be already done, and the chances for electoral victory for Democrats across the country is vastly boosted.
What is the true determining factor in all of this is how conservative media, like Fox News, will react. Will they try to spin this into a call for action (which is likely imo) or will they try to sacrifice Trump for the sake of the rest of the party?
I learned the meaning of "mens rea" from Legally Blonde. True story.
Glad I wasn't the only one.
I just heard of legally blonde because of the term mens rea. Cool world.
same for me with Malum Prohibitum and Malum in se
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.
The laws are strict, just not on those in power.
@@TheNathanchavez96 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.
@@TheNathanchavez96 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.
Such is the important of the process, if is means little and nothing come of this. Then you know the system is totally broken. So you may proceed to the next step... if you have a next step.
@Shane Carlon Actually no, in the most general sense of left and right... the left haven't had much 'influences' in the US for more then 40 years. The whole 'they control the majority of mainstream media' is itself a conservative narrative. Conservatives has set the narratives for a better part of a century. It is so even viewing from outside the US and the same sentiment echos from US progressive. By definition mainstream media are corporate even by your own words, Corporation by it's own nature are centrist to center-wing, they are only ever center-left on any issue if 2 factors occur 1) not being so would create a scandal, 2) someone with power actually developed a conscious about an issue, few and far between.
For goodness sake, the biggest thing for the last administration was Obamacare, which is a slight altered version a GOP plan, from a conservative think tank. If you think the left has sufficient power, you haven't been paying attention, or are lying to yourself.
Would be funny if an official accidentally solicited a bribe, something like:
“I don’t think your construction company would be the best choice for this job, but there are ways you can change my mind”
“I’ll pay you one million dollars”
“Not like that you idiot! Show me the quality of your company’s work and your employees’ work ethic!”
Saying "Not like that ...!" would remove all ambiguity, pronto, so you'd be off the hook. A considered pause, however ... 'ahem' ... would speak volumes. But would there be first-hand knowledge? Depends on how blind and deaf one wanted to be.
@@gemanscombe4985 it would be a shame if someone... removed the context. 😐
@@crabmannyjoe2 Or if someone adds a false or purely hypothetical contextual milieu, like "Ukraine hacked the DNC emails, not Russia" or dismisses informed witnesses as "Deep State". It's a cheap trick which, by accepting absurd collateral consequences, defies refutation. With those challenged, the context grows to accommodate. Voila! It's most revealing how some otherwise distinguished people actually find comfort and satisfaction in this intellectual shell game.
I would love a good comedy centered around something like that, like an accidental crime spree lol
That’s an idiotic argument. You sound like a politician.
Kudos for mentioning the "Sideshow Bob Defense".
(cops put him in cuffs) "What? what are yo- Oh right, all that stuff i did"
In a criminal trial, when a juror tells you before the trial that they will refuse to vote to convict no matter what evidence is submitted, what happens to that juror?
In a criminal trial, when multiple jurors admit after the trial that they believed the evidence and that the prosecutor proved his case, but still refused to vote to convict, what would happen?
Kinda like the prosecution (Democrats) said they were going to impeach the day he announced he was running for office? Kinda like that?
@@coryCucNon sequitur
Furthermore, the House, Democratic or otherwise, does not have the same codes of conduct the Senet has, Republican or otherwise. I'm not aware of any Dem saying the day Trump was sworn in they vowed to impeach him; that sounds like a Trump whataboutism. Here's the thing-- nothing another administration may have done wrong gives Trump the right to commit crime. None of the laws broken by the Senet Republicans sans Mitt Romney are justified by anything, in any way. They could choose not to convict him on strawman accusations, but they have a Constitutional obligation to remove a President that uses US resources to commits bribery, which they admitted they believed he did.
In a criminal trial, there is a "pool" of possible jurors that will eventually go on to form the proverbial 12 angry men. As such, part of a lawyer's job is figuring out which jurors are capable of being impartial arbiters and which ones are not. While we could go down a rabbit hole of the prosecution and the defence both trying to pick certain jurors that would think more favourably of their case, we can summarize by saying that if any potential juror admitted that they would refuse to convict no matter what, they'd be removed from consideration in a heartbeat.
In regards to the second part, the short answer is: nothing. There is no legal recourse to this, as it would be a clear violation of double jeopardy, a concept that states that no one may be tried for the same crime twice.
What you have described actually has an official name, known as jury nullification, and is the bane of trial lawyers everywhere. Since you can't hold a second trial if the first one doesn't go your way, and jurors can't be punished for a "wrong" decision, the not guilty verdict would stand. Incidentally, nullification can go both ways, meaning that a jury can just as easily convict someone they believe is innocent, although since guilty verdicts can be appealed, this isn't nearly as much of an issue.
Worth mentioning though, is that as part of the initial screening to be a juror, you will be asked a question basically saying "Is there any reason you would not decide based solely on the merits of the case?" Needless to say, you need to answer "no" to become a juror. If a potential juror lied during this question, he or she would have just committed perjury-that in your scenario they've just admitted to.
So there you go, legally, the defendant would go free and could not be retried for the same crime, but the jurors who got him off would almost certainly be convicted of perjury if they were stupid enough to admit it to someone.
I recommend watching CGP Grey's video on the subject if you're interested:
ua-cam.com/video/uqH_Y1TupoQ/v-deo.html
@@johnspence7216 So the Senet Rupublicans who admitted before the trial that they would not vote to convict no matter what would have been relieved of their duty, except in this case, the US Constitution says the jury is the Senet and there is no pool of other jurors from which to drawn from. The US Constitution has a line requiring the Senet to be impartial when sitting for an Impeachment trial, and stipulates that, for crimes of bribery, the President must be removed.
In this case, we had blatant corruption from the Senet Republicans, except for Mitt Romney, who voted his conscious based on the evidence provided. The audacity of Republicans voting not to allow evidence nor witnesses, admitting that the Dems 'proved their case six ways, and there's no need to prove it seven' because they were unconstitutionally voting partisan, regardless of evidence.
Flash forward to 2020; under Trump's lack of leadership and refusal to take responsibility, we have over 180,000 US citizens dead from Coronavirus.
I would think that's what they term a "corrupted jury" which leads to a mistrial? Since the trial hasn't even occurred yet, the jury would be completely purged and replaced with new jurors.
There's always a defensive stance to take. Not necessarily good or strong ones, but there's always a defense one can take.
I don't understand where the peaches come into play in all of this.
Really?
New Tradition: if impeached, we all celebrate by baking peach pies, making peach tea, and so on. It will be a huge boon for the Peach Industry, who will then have it in their best interest to scrutinize presidents instead of trying to work with them for graft like other industries do.
Well I laughed at least.
The peaches are like the apples that nobody knows how they like them...
"Millions of peaches, peaches for me" - Presidents of the USA
'Nuff said.
"It's not what you know, it's what you can prove"
Actually it's not what I believe.... a few good men quote? Or did you mean training day?
P.s. yea I looked it up
@@kirche7 nice! Totally missed that. Thanks for clearly that up! I guess that line or some form of it is used quite often.
That's the same thing. If you "know" it's based on a fact or evidence. If the fact or evidence exists that's the same thing.
Or suspect or presume or assume or think or guess.....
The Democrats and mainstream media are pretty much the opposite of that.
Sondland even admitted in testimony that he had no evidence, but just presupposed that there was some secret deal.
"I'm not trying to be a fair juror here." Lindsay Graham.
"... and John Friggin' Bolton..." 😂
Fun fact: John Bolton’s legal middle name is Frigging
cavestory77 toxic melee fan I think he’s joking.
@@swank8508
Seems pretty obviously a joke to me...
cavestory77 toxic melee fan OP is referencing the video 3:44
@@swank8508 are you on the ASD spectrum? Not meaning that as an insult, it's just that the joke is very obvious and one of the common signs of autism is an inability or reduced ability to recognize jokes.
cavestory77 toxic melee fan
The joke ------>
.
.
.
.
.
.
Your head ------>
It's nice to view these complicated proceedings though the lens of the law. Sometimes it takes away the bias of political parties.
legal eagle is biased and full of shit for most of what he says. ua-cam.com/video/KQWojyJoupc/v-deo.html is a more accurate analysis
nobody ever makes a choice based on political parties...some things are common sense only trump and his tards lie and say only dems have a issue which is a lie
@@brittanybonnie1478 Many people make choices based on political party and people of both parties do it.
@@brittanybonnie1478 Yeah, everyone's a saint except for Trump and his supporters? Give me a break.
@@dwolfg no surprise your link was full of shit
The Judiciary Committee should just enter this video into the record, without objection. Great job! 😄
Because not everybody is a gullible simpleton like you.
Hey what's your main evidence??? Is it a thing that the DNC paid for which is 100% confirmed??? Then you really are a idiot!
I love how you figured they'd back off on the "not impeachable" argument. They stuck to it, stupidly, and got it to work, also stupidly.
Can your next episode be on COPPA? I'm interested in hearing what a lawyer has to say about all of this.
Ian Corzine made a couple vids about it. He's a social media lawyer
I would love to hear Legal Eagle's take on COPPA, FTC, and the potential death of the UA-cam community.
@@janehoe. Thanks I'll check them out.
Seconded.
Tru that! The only opinions we hear on are from lawbreakers (creators and government officials)
Objection: 3:45 Lieutenant Colonel Vindman
I just got Nunes'ed
LegalEagle 😂
@@LegalEagle Now all you have to do is travel to Vienna and you can become his clone
@@LegalEagle Devin'ed
nah, referring to someone by only their last name is very common in the military. nobody in uniform could take offense to the way that roster was read back. vindman objected only to how he was being addressed, and that was a valid objection.
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!
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 can’t wait for another “Animated court” episode!!!
My favorite!!!!
Me too
I would like another Phoenix Wright episode
He didn’t see any of the investigation
He didn’t see Edgeworth
Maya
Or von Karma
Partial Bullet the Edgeworth case would be awesome
This guy needs to do a crossover with the rick and morty guys who did the court transcript
I've watched all the testimony these past few weeks (at work, mind you) and from the very beginning I kept saying "I really want to know LegalEagle's thoughts on this." Thank you for spending the time to educate on this matter!
should say "thank you for giving me a DC democrat lawyer's thought on this".
While he's spending videos after videos trying to fool you guys, the democrats have just said that they will "talk to their consituents" about impeaching the President cause they aint got ANYTHING on him thats impeachable.
Use your brain.
@@adalgisounoqualunque9033 what did he get wrong? Because you're so critical, you must be a lawyer yourself right? What is wrong about what he said? Enlighten us....
@@turnb056 You don't need a law degree to see how someone is biased. I've watched clips from PBS and you get to watch full testimonies. The problem with viewing clips in this context is they can be biased.
@@beardedrogue4282 Another response with no substance? "HES WRONG, BUT I CANT GIVE ANY EXAMPLES OF HOW!!"
@@adalgisounoqualunque9033 Nothing except solicitation of a bribe, obstructing justice, and gross abuses of power. Keep gaslighting, comrade.
8:19 "that in itself is impeachable."
and... it didn't matter one bit, nothing actually happened... because politics.
So here's how to make the best mac and cheese in the world: three equal parts milk, water, and pasta into a boiling pot (1 cup of pasta, 2 cups of liquid consisting of 1 cup milk 1 cup water). Pour out a little bit, leave the bottom with that nice starchy milky pasta water. This will be our substitute for flour so we don't have to make a roux. Butter that bitch up. Like, no measurements, just put some good salted butter in there. Then grab a handful of a store brand 4 cheese Mexican pre shredded package. You could use a better cheese, but this is the kind my mom used and so I will not make it any other way nor will I ever recommend anybody else do it any other way and will in fact be very angry if you tell me you put in "sharp cheddar" alone
Thank you. Please say hi to your brother Ryan Reynolds when you have Christmas together
Calling up the co-conspirator after the fact when you know the call is being recorded and saying, essentially, "We aren't committing a crime. There's no crime!" just CAN'T be a defense.
If it is...then hang on, lots of people are getting out of jail!
ua-cam.com/video/FwlwO2Z2HBk/v-deo.html
It's stupid but still offered as some sort of proof of Trump's innocence. They're really banking on the rank stupidity of some supporters.
Maybe that's up in the 3rd step act. "If you called your girl and said you didn't do it.. you out, man!"
And 4th step act makes attempted murder a misdemeanor because you didn't actually murder anyone.
"We've got lots of hearsay and conjecture. Those are... kinds of evidence!"
Love Lionel Hutz! Best TV laywer ever.
That’s not admissible in court
@@ericwinnick330 did you even watch the video?
Bethorien he did not
No. Money down!
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.
His stuff seems pretty biased. He’s saying stuff trump did is illegal and impeachable and he’s saying stuff he did legally is also impeachable so which one is it... and he’s also saying impeachable offense is also what ever congress says it is.
@Chuck R Facts don't matter to the people who have their mind set in stone, but they do matter to those of us who want the knowledge, if that makes sense.
@@detertapia1347 Stuff that is impeachable doesn't necessarily have to be outright written as a criminal offense. Impeachment hearings are also not the same thing as a criminal trial. For example, improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain are all the basic grounds for impeachment. While all of these extremely frowned upon, most politicians probably wouldn't be criminally charged unless certain offenses meet actual documented laws, which is why you hear "Bribery" being thrown around a lot. Bribery has very specific outlined offense details that have to be proved in order for it to be considered illegal. Here's an article that highlights some of the points that congress has brought up: time.com/5686104/trump-ukraine-call-impeachment-offense/
How can you not see the bias in this video?? It is very clear that there is a spin....
NPC PinkHat I don’t know where you lie politically, but I assume it’s right of center, and that coincidentally any discussion that don’t treat you as the political center is leftist. That is not the case, you don’t get to chose what’s politically neutral. What I can tell you as a centrist myself is that this is as centrist as it gets and every centrist I know can agree that just because it reaches the same conclusion shared by one side of the isle, that in itself is not enough to make it inherently biased to that side. The moderate faction of the republican party even agrees with these facts. That doesn’t make the republican center-right leftist now does it? This is a lawyer speaking about the law. If he reaches a conclusion you don’t agree with, then perhaps, just maybe it’s the law you don’t agree with?
thank you for laying this out more clearly.
I think the rhyme defense will be used at some point: "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."
There was no quid pro quo 'cause the the money did flow.
@@elijahfordsidioticvarietys8770 Yes, after Rump was caught. So completely irrelevant.
Demeter there was no quid pro quo ‘cause the money did flow. There was no quid pro quo ‘cause the money did flow. Evidence doesn’t matter, what matters is what catchy ryhme you can come up with and repeat adnosium. There was no quid pro quo ‘cause the money did flow.
Ad Nauseum, btw.
the only difference is that OJ actually committed a crime
my favorite thing is how everyone goes on about it being a trial....its not a trial yet!
Yes, and the Senate trial will be quite unlike criminal court trials. Jurors will not be excused for even the most obvious bias or conflicts of interest. A 2/3 majority, not unanimity, is the requirement. Present process is like investigation and indictment, and no witness/target can ask questions or call witnesses in those.
Yeah you would think that one of the most important decisions and abilities of congress would try to stick to trial standards as a matter of due process. Lol I would imagine anyone would want a fair shake...
and you have no idea what youre speaking of. there are parts to an investigation. this part is where those who would do the prosecution gather the evidence. trial, and the due process of it, are where the gathered evidence is presented to the those who try the accused. so for the idiots out there THIS IS DUE PROCESS.
@@pulsefel9210 No due process is being able to call your own witnesses in a trial. That was denied by the democrats on the committee. Gathering evidence whilst ignoring exculpatory witnesses and facts is not due process, it is the opposite and severely undermines the credibility of this entire proceeding. There is a reason why prosecutors and the police cannot just 'fish' around in someone's life or dealings because a judge would deem it illegal and a violation of your rights.
THIS IS NOT A TRIAL.
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.
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"
@@sallyjrwjrw6766 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
@@craigmbackel8145 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.
@@sallyjrwjrw6766 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!
@@craigmbackel8145 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.
"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.
it seems he knew this was all a setup and deliberately trapped the democrats. after all, they changed the whistleblower application to allow hearsay
@@patrickderp1044 Woah, a lot to un pack there.
So you're saying Trump purposefully faked committing a crime (which is still a crime) to catch the democrats... in something, knowing that the whistleblower application "recently" allowed hearsay?
So I got a few questions if you'll indulge me.
What was the president trying to trap the democrats for?
Why did the president decide to involve a foreign nation (Ukraine) as bait for this trap?
When was hearsay admitted? (Very curious about this as hearsay is a very old form of evidence)
Why did the president not tell anyone about this trap, such as Sondland and Bill Taylor who would clearly testify this trap as a crime if not informed.
@@ghostderazgriz nancy still hasnt sent the articles over. unpack that
@@patrickderp1044 What about it? It's not illegal if that's what you're getting at. At least, we have no reason to believe it is.
@@ghostderazgriz 6th amendment
"Mens Rea" 🤔 yesss finally my years of rewatching Legally Blond has paid off! 😁
... You should Legal Check Legally Blond!
He has before although just a scene and not a full breakdown
Legally blonde full legal review, let's go
Ha!
I have commented this twice on other videos before and am adding my voice to this one. Public pressure.
Too bad Mens Rea doesn't apply to *Speculative* hearsay. This lawyer is incompetent or intentionally misleading.
Me: Oh my god I have so much work I need to do -- study for torts, finish my contracts outline, polish my resume...
Also me: Hey, another LegalEagle video
qxrbil meee
literally the same and i hate myself
Lol, I haven't quite made it to law school, but I still relate to this way too much because of my business and criminal law classes. Trying to get a head start.
You need time management lessons. And what better way to learn time management than using skillshare?
@@Tastypieinyourmouth nice plug. Brought a smile to my face.
I like how you are a a filthy neutral.
Keep up the good work.
What makes a man turn neutral?
Thank you this helps move the dirt around.
Breaking things down like this so that the everyman can follow is a genuine service.
aside from him using flawed arguments and disproving himself. Sure.
@@vagabondwastrel2361 He isn't really using arguments for or against the case. He is examining the arguments used in the hearings from a legal perspective....because he is a lawyer.
@ide eyes go back and watch the vid again and break it down into segments of summeries of what was said. He conflicts himself from what it is to what the cnn naritive is going with. He uses strawman arguments and ignores conflicting testimony.
My point is he spits out the legal theory then gives out a defense that is bias towards only one side. Instead of points for and against. If he had the time to cut in the parts that agree with the dnc he also had the time to cut in the parts that destroy their proposition as well.
@@vagabondwastrel2361 Like what? Show your work.
@robert davidson well 11:11 for one. It looks damning except nothing came of it and on top of that the funding was already cut on top of that Ukraine didn't know it was cut at the time.
In a different video I saw the rest of the clip of 4:01 it was taken a little bit out of context. But this can be considered bad editing to be generous.
He also lists the entire "witness" list and implies they can't all be lying. But in fact all of them testified that nothing happened and most of them were second, third and even fourth hand "witnesses" This was a dirty tactic in itself.
The whole impeachment inquiry is a show trial for the public. The democrats already had their vote in closed doors and the only reason they are not bringing it to the floor is it would do three things. First it would instantly die in the senate. Second it would open up all of the involved people shiff refused to have questioned. Third it would guarantee Trump for 2020 even though he already has it on lock.
The democrats spent six weeks in their own personal impeachment audition and they couldn't produce any actual evidence of wrongdoing that even taken badly could be considered foreign policy and foreign policy of America is done by the president. You could go even more with the assumption that it is true. There is still the whole start of the russia hoax started by fusion gps and the Ukrainian connection there. Perfectly legitimate to ask their government to look into the situation in their boarders. The problem is nothing changed hands and even if something did it would actually be fine.
To be fair I kinda stopped watching the vid after my third point because legaleagle is a bit dirty. It doesn't help that he sells a "how to pass the bar" type program and never really mentions it even though he has links for it. Only reference is in his about. It used to be in the description of every vid for a while.
I missed Bolton's testimony... and so did everyone else since he didn't testify.
Unbelievable that a government employee is not compelled to testify!!
@@outlawJosieFox these ppl don't seem to work for the govt anymore, they seem to think they work for trumpty-dumpty. & maybe they do...
yeah, that's a very ODD inclusion. bolton is keeping his powder dry for a book deal so i'm a bit skeptical of anything else this "legal eagle" has to opine esp as he keeps using the word 'facts'.
@@babagalacticus don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. His analysis was really clear and extremely well organized
@@outlawJosieFox
"Unbelievable that a government employee is not compelled to testify!!"
More like...
Unbelievable that in America people don't understand due process!!
This is NOT a trial to seek out the truth. This is an inquiry to pin a crime on someone. Do people see the difference?
17:09 ok, the shit-eating grin on Ambassador Sondland’s face is killing me 🤣 “Oh yes, I do know what that is, and I also know it’s not something to base your defense on when testifying. Please continue digging this hole.”
Trailer Park Boys, the episode where Ricky demands to be able to smoke and swear in court 😂
Oh wowwwwwww dood. That would be freaking epic
Still trying to see a real lawyer's reaction to Silicon Valley, binding arbitration or any episode with legal stuff, I bet it's pretty accurate
Yes!
Oooh good one. I totally forgot about that show!
Jackson Carter ie “I support Trump”
Jackson Carter show me some examples Trump man
big shoutout to that nerd city reference with their devil
You did a great job of defining the defenses Trump is relying on and the holes in those defenses... Thank you
They're still all valid though so whatever.
@@LuciusC lol not really, but we all live in our own realities these days.
Thanks for being a simpleton, Roman. You are a beacon of light to all the other simpletons.
"the truth is subjective"-legal eagle...... You're on the small brain time huh?
@@runman85 Why did you direct that comment to me?
THEY ARE ALL LAIRS ~ HOW IS THAT UNBELIEVABLE ???? THERE ARE !!!
Looks like we have to move the goal post again
@xr7fan the actual facts have been revealed
@comfrey kid its hilarious how gullible you are. The Democrats literally did a poll to see what word "sounded better" 😂😂 schiff has consistently stated how he has proof that will take down trump now hes asking his constituents whether he should or not 🙄🙄 not to mention ALL witnesses have CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence 😂😂
@xr7fan Who cares what his bias is? Everyone has a bias. The question is whether your bias blinds you to the truth of a matter. In this case, everything he says checks out legally, and he makes no statements about the actual culpability of the parties. He only highlights the weaknesses of the Republican arguments. Note, he asks you to "make your own judgement", and says "I'll leave it to you to decide". Do you really think you are unbiased enough to be making any judgement? Or is your argument that there can be no such thing as justice, because we're all biased?
@xr7fan Everyone seems like an anarcho-leftist when you are an out of the closet fascist, friend. Did he make any statements that don't add up legally? Which of the Republican defense arguments did you find most compelling? Someone on the extreme left can still be right, if they make a compelling legal argument. So the real question is, did you address the actual points of his argument, or did you just focus your attacks on the man (ad hominem informal logical fallacy). You know the answer to that, so you don't really need to respond.
@xr7fan why is it that bipartisan views are labeled liberal, while right wing views are labeled bipartisan by the right?
15:46 its like what my mother used to say "what matters is you tried"
your poor mother didn't mean it that way, she would not want you to try to rob a bank.
@@LilianTejada As long as I don't actually SUCCEED in robbing the bank, it's A-OK! The president said so!
@@GoddoDoggo ; Bless your heart. Let me know where you go and I will be kind and put some money on your prison commissary.
@@Tippy2forU Well, according to GOP-"logic" anyone can attempt(!) to murder someone, and not go to jail EVER.
That attempting murderer only ever goes to jail if the targeted person actually dies from the attempt.
Yeah, that'll set a GREAT example to what kind of Law the GOP wants to uphold.
@@MistedMind not lookin good for jussie smollett defenders, AKA the democrats of chicago
1:25 - Chapter 1 - No Quid pro quo
5:55 - Chapter 2 - It's all hearsay
9:20 - Chapter 3 - The sideshow bob defense
12:45 - Chapter 4 - The "ukrainians didn't feel pressure" defense
14:55 - Chapter 5 - The "Quid amateur pro quo" defense
16:25 - Chapter 6 - The "ukrainians didn't pay up" defense
19:35 - Chapter 7 - The "Too dumb to crime" defense
24:40 - Chapter 8 - The "president controls foreign policy" defense
27:05 - Chapter 9 - The "state department went rogue' defense
29:15 - Chapter 10 - "The president must root our corruption" defense
35:50 - Chapter 11 - "It's bad but not impeachable" defense
37:20 - End roll ads
Chapter 10, is that right? 🤣
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.
Right except in this case the cops were crooked and the "bribe" was a reward for them doing their damn jobs.
Was it trumps money or money allocated by Congress?
Financial aid can be withheld due to corruption in said country. Burisma and Ukraine have turned out to be corrupt.
It's not that Ukraine was promised they'd get something they weren't promised beforehand. They were told they effectively wouldn't get the aid they were already promised in a prior agreement if they didn't help Trump rig the elections.
@@TheNorthHawk Money was coming either way or it was to expire by 2020. They're so many anti corruption policies done by the president and Congress and whoever else involved in the process
The money was officially approved by Congress and Trump's presidency was obligated to give it to Ukraine based on that order. (for context, it's for military funding IIRC)
It was withheld for an abnormally long time and the official explanation goes something along the lines of "???".
I think the transcript speaks for itself personally, but excluding my opinion from this, the narrative is that the transcript has Trump essentially saying _"So you know, I'm sure you'll get that money eventually, buuuut you know it'd be great if you could investigate the Bidens for me, and I've done so much for you... Catch my drift?"_
This is why I say my analogy isn't 1:1. It's to make a generalised point that if you're caught using cash for a corrupt purpose, you can't use it for a legal purpose after getting caught and use that as a defense.
“John- friggin-Bolton” 😂
I love how this has no Ads
ikr adblock is awesome
@@carlostdied1184 no I'm just saying its bs that this doesnt have ad revenue
trust me buddy, getting sponsored gives you far more money than adsense revenue does nowadays.
@@carlostdied1184 why would I take your word for it? Didnt notice any subscriber to your channel
Audible....
Dam legal eagle is really my new guilty pleasure. I love how thorough you are yet easily understandable
Thank you for the presentation.
I also thought of that Sideshow Bob quote when I heard the defense that an unsuccessful attempt isn't a crime.
Its incredible how many people are trying to say this.
WHAT IF YOU ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIME AND ADMITTED IT ON NATIONAL TV LIKE JOE BIDEN ...
You know what's also not a crime? Literally anything Trump has been accused of doing by the Democrat's "star" witnesses, all of whom have nothing to contribute but hearsay, which is inadmissible in court... What is Trump guilty of? Literally nothing.
@@toatahu2003 So your assertion is that Trump has a good defense, but the Republicans are choosing to use bad ones.
@@dibblydooda7604 typing in caps just makes it easier to read how wrong you are. If you don't know the facts of that by now there's no helping you.
Nobody in this supposed store ever used the word "commerce," therefore no commerce has taken place there.
Because people always use specific words for their actions.
Also, nobody in this brothel uses the term "intravaginal penetration," so can we really even call it a brothel?
If nothing of value exchanges hands and it isn't even discussed then,no
You joke, but that first line is exactly the type of thing a "sovereign citizen" would say.
@@jackiechance795 Ah, but it was discussed. It was discussed by rudy, and pompeo, and pence and volker, and all of them discussed it with trump, and trump discussed it with zalensky. Furthermore, rudy and pompeo and volker discussed it with ukranian ambassadors.
So now what?
@@jackiechance795 Ah but you didn't watch the video, did you? So don't comment, comments are for commenting on the video. If you don't know what you're talking about, you might look like a moron.
@@jackiechance795 Rewatch the video, the attempt in itself is an impeachable offense.
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.
John Oliver knows how to nickname government stupidity.
@@gingerkid1048 He's also knows how to jump to conclusions like a house democrat and has the humor of a dried sun-soaked sponge
@@gingerkid1048 He's also knows how to jump to conclusions like a house democrat and has the humor of a dried sun-soaked sponge
I will note for the record, in the end the only defense that mattered was: 59 people who had already decided their answer.
Objection: A double Chewbacca defence is perfectly reasonable in a world where nothing makes sense!
Very little is either/or. Certainly it can be both.
Uh, no, that's not how that works. Here's how that works: you look at the evidence, then acquit or convict based on that. Period.
I have revised the note I'm going to hand the teller at my bank.
I have a gun. Put all the money in this bag. This is not a bank robbery.
It's just a surprise monetary inspection that has to be done at an off site location (pay no attention to the mask)
oh ok, were all good then, clearly this must not be a robbery!
@Fred Flintstone you lost me at "jewish establishment" come up with something original.
25:50 does the fact that its for a favor not for the benefit of the country but its a personal favor matter?
As far as I understand it, bribery, in layman's terms is "if you do this for me, I'll give you this thing," whereas extortion is "do this for me, or else"
And when you don't have a table, pound sand.
and when you don't have sand pound sterling
@@matthewtalbot-paine7977
PHRASING
"You Maniacs! You blew it up!"
@@matthewtalbot-paine7977 And when you don''t have sterling pound the earth.
And when you don’t have send pound the Earth itself in your stupid anger
we talked about this in my international relations class, and my professor says that world leaders withhold aid all the time in exchange for actions taken. however, it depends on whether it is for personal political gain or for institution building and strengthening worldwide democracy/security. he's a pretty nonpartisan guy and left it up to us to decide how we feel about this lol.
Let's say, it's for the nation's interest and not for strengthening democracy outside the US.
not even 20 seconds in and I need some tea
If the president started selling pardons...would never have thought that would happen. 😒
The Watergate break in was a perfect break in. No pressure break in.
I thought Mueller was going to be Watergate? Mm can't wait for the next watergate after Trump wins 2020
@@Staunts k
@@Staunts Frankly it was. But unlike the 70' Trump fans nowadays would follow their dear infallable leader in a fascist coup, instead of... yknow see the signs, know the constitution and act accordingly. It was another time back then, when republicans had a spine, some decency and at least a basic understanding of 'right and wrong'...
@@robertnett9793 Democrats love to use the Constitution as a security blanket while they shred it at the same time. You are the fascist and this is the coup. Don't try to weasel out of it, you are the very thing you accuse us of.
@@TheBeardedFrogSage How little self awareness does it take to think like this? I'll never understand. You have somehow completely misused or misunderstood the definition of fascism and coup, forfeited any actual knowledge of appropriate political proceedings or the Constitution (lol) or Democratic policies and seem to lack any understanding of irony or hypocrisy. I'm actually at a loss because it's impossible for me to grasp how utterly nonsensical this way of thinking is. You've managed to say *less* than nothing rational, which is mind-blowing. I would think it was deliberate disinformation if it weren't fun to think you're just next-level stupid.
35:02 "It was a perfect break-in."
I'm f*cking dying over here 🤣🤣🤣
Lol
@fleetlordavtar please list specific points with regards to Trump's presidency where The Times got it wrong, along with original sources which support your conclusion.
This was very well done. Thanks for helping me wrap my head around the subject.
Hilariously I have to check the date to see which one.
Man I love this stuff, the way a lawyer argues a case is just so eloquent and thorough.
This video is just as unbiased as NPR.
Laws Broken: The Shawshank Redemption.