Impeached for THAT? (Comparing the Trump Articles of Impeachment – Real Law Review)

  1. ⚖️What do you think about the Articles of Impeachment?
    ✏️ Get Skillshare to learn “creative writing”!

  2. Objection: why would they wait? Incumbent president's usually do better in the second term in terms of polling. That would mean more Republicans in the house (and continuing in the Senate as well) possibly.

  3. I love this channel. The insights are incredibly interesting, illuminating, and helpful. As good as the content is (and it is VERY good), few things on YouTube can even come close to laying their overcoat down on a puddle to allow the masterful ad transitions made by LegalEagle, in his videos, to pass over unscathed. Applause.

  4. How would it even help Trump? Joe Biden is already on video admitting to blackmailing a president to get a procecuter fired..
    Also Trump doesn't even need to do anything, the guy is a creep and made a total fool out of himself already.. If you seen him admit to blackmailing and talk about how kids stroke his leg hair in the pool there ain't anything that's gonna change your mind.
    Like getting his son a well paid job gonna be shocking to any of these people.

  5. People on the left should just learn to accept a loss, they already started looking for things on Trump before he even got into office.. You see this from the left all across Europe aswell.
    All the right wing parties get demonized… which even caused a politician who would have been prime minister to be killed in my country..
    Wish people would see that this isn't the way to solve problems..
    You cannot demonize people or try to deplatform or censor them..
    If you cannot win the debate, you gotta accept losing sometimes.
    Then if it turns out to be bad, people will start changing their vote again :/
    This whole impeachment nonsense will only cause more hatred, more extremism, and if you're not careful perhaps even civil wars.

  6. This was so interesting until the attempt at political analysis at the end. I couldn't believe any democrat were delusional enough to think that once they ate the white bread and it goes into full GOP territory, somehow it wouldn't be their turn to be pressured. But here is one. And smart at that. Fascinating!

  7. React to From the Hip starring Judd Nelson. A freshly graduated law student conspired with his friend in the D.A dept to script their responses during a civil trial to make themselves look brilliant to their bosses and clients. Later leads to murder trial.

  8. Oh come on..hahhaha. This all started because they said there was a bribery issue. Ummmmm..yet they dont state Bribery as an article ??? Hahahhaha Game over. Dems have no credibility . Simply all political and hatred based. Duhh

  9. The whistleblower complaint was an illegal wire tap and all the investigations have uncovered more Democrat collusion and investigation interference than they can even allege against our president. Your bias is showing when you lean into their baseless arguments lining them up with unconstitutional decisions made during the civil war.

  10. Johnson was impeached by Republicans for trying to stop the slaves from obtaining equal rights. Damn it's so hard these days to imagine Republicans being the good guys.

  11. Donald Trump has been so transparent in his corruption and unwillingness to serve the roles of his office. If he is not impeached, it will be an abortion of democracy.

  12. What's going to happen in the senate? Absolutely nothing. The fix is in. Moscow Mitch has already publicly announced that far from being Trump's jury, the senate is going to be part of his defense.

    Personally, I don't see how that can be legally allowed when McConnell and others have already publicly announced that they have no intention of being impartial. They've as much as said "This is isn't going to be a trial, we've already voted to acquit him."

  13. I disagree with your final conclusion that this will be bad for Trump. For the past three years Republicans have consistently showed truth and facts don't matter. They will spin a defense for him no matter what serving their rich masters and keeping themselves in power. That is the modern Republican party and how the Senate will acquit the President in record time.

  14. 19:04
    They didn't include bribery, because they know that there is no basis for it, and including something that's so obviously false would hurt their case. Not even sure why you would suggest that.

  15. A partisan political sham, ill based and conceived in the minds of paranoid schizophrenics who can't cope with the fact Americans wanted a Republican as President instead of one of their low quality candidates. The election of 2016 was a hit against their ego that broke them into a mental meltdown. They have lost their grip on reality and are operating and making decisions based on fixed delusions.

  16. 21:00 The fact that this guy is recommending a tutorial on how to "spin the truth" should be a wake up call to everyone watching this.

  17. What a minute, "Not necessarily a crime ITSELF, but a crime against the Presidency", huuummmmm!? Now I get what you are saying, which is why I have to ask, wouldn't that mean, it's a crime? DUDE, there's a reason they say lawyers are snakes, they have forked tongues! Trump broke NO LAWS!!! Try not digging so hard to try'n turn the REAL CRIMINALS into the "Constitutional Avengers!" what a joke. Or hey, why don't YOU go & sit before the Senate, assuming that's where this is heading, & show them all the TRUTH, save America!

  18. I am questioning why Democrats didn't add emollument clause? Nothing would be easier to prove, starting from Trump not divesting his businesses or letting his close family to take care of them, as if he didn't have anything to do with his businesses any more. Or dragging Ivanka into meeting world leaders so she could do business; world leaders and his own administration staying in his property, including soldiers who hardly could afford it, in Scotland forced to stay in Scottish golf course.

  19. Since Joe Biden is leading in the polls for the democrats, i assume a lot of people who wanna impeach Trump wanna vote for Joe Biden.. But now i wonder, how big of a hypocrite you have to be to wanna impeach Trump without evidence, to then vote for someone who admitted to the same damn thing on video? Please clarify Joe Biden supporters!

  20. Oh my!! By definition of constitution, Trump should be 100% impeached and removed from office. The real question is… will he?🤔

  21. Hey LegalEagle, would you be willing or able to talk on the constitutional legality of what is happening in Virginia. It is turning to hell over here and I am interested in learning more about the legality about all this and I can only do so much on my own with 0 legal training.

  22. i have the feeling that they will add bribery in the near future. possible that's the reason they didn't added it right away. i have the feeling that they will discover something and that trump bribed someone to not talk or hide evidence. either that or someone else bribed trump, but that's very unlikely.

  23. Remember, a democrate can rape someone and get away with it.
    A "republican" commits a crime by winning an election.
    What an embarrassing time to be a democrate.

  24. Should be a boon for media outlets, and if Pres. Trump's team has a even half a collective wit between them, he will spin the likely inevitable win in the predominantly Republican Senate, as the Dems not learning anything from their lose to him the first time. i expect they may try again at some point, with either a censure or the same, but with different articles, at some point in the future.

    I smell a new trend developing at large.

  25. What's distinctive about this impeachment is that Trump actually brushed pretty close to treason. Supporting Ukraine in it's war with Russia is part of our National Security Strategy. And he clearly undermined it as long as he could get away with it. And lied about it. And refused to allow any investigation. This is a line that Nixon also approached by illegally expanding the Vietnam war into Cambodia, and lying about it. And refusing to allow any investigation (well some, a lot more than Trump). And of course Trump is an illegitimate President who slipped in based on massive election rigging by all sorts of people including James Comey, unwittingly. But his campaign colluded with Russians the first time (such as sharing polling data) and here he is again, trying to rig this one. I'm waiting for the Chinese to realize it would be easier and cheaper to hack into his taxes and expose him as a fraud billionaire than bother to negotiate with him.

  26. I've read the various Articles of Impeachment and the Constitution. The Trump Articles are very well done by the House. I think it is excellent in strategy compared to the past 3. It seems they have learned from the past and eliminated pitfalls to approach the public and possibly the Senate.

    I think there are 3 reasons why this Resolution and its approach are the best. The House appears to be trying to maximize the chance of a) keeping it simple for the public, b) making the activity fast relative to the upcoming election and c) raising pressure on Republicans in the Senate through a and b. It seems sensible to me that these are the best strategies.

    Each of these reasons has weight but the first is critical – simplicity. National pride is "easy" these days but the attention span of the public is short. Public discussion is being eroded. It behooves the Nation to make matters simple if ANY President is to be found guilty and public pressure is to be garnered. At face value, these items are about "ignoring and injuring" national security and interests. Public attention is necessary, not trivial. The speed of the activity runs a close second in priority [before another election is tainted for any reason]. But simplicity – is the key to today's public.

    Great video. One of your best summaries. It encouraged me to leave my first comment! Love the channel.

  27. I know this video was about MUCH more important things, but can I just say that public drinking should NOT BE A MISDEMEANOR? If someone gets drunk in public and disturbs the peace, then arrest them for disorderly conduct. If they drank and then hurt someone, arrest them for assault. Why should liquor (or its possession/consumption) enter into it?

  28. This guy's spinning fiction. Everything he said was good until he exposed his bias in the end against President Trump.

  29. "pretty obvious that this is not going to be good for Trump"? Legal Eagle, you get an A for knowledge of the law, but I'm flunking you on current events.

  30. Hey america. How did this happen? You have Donald Trump as Corrupt president. Bill Barr as head of DOJ. Moscow Mitch as head of the Senate and a Brett kavannah appointed to a supreme justice seat. This is like how Stalin & Putin took over the government.

  31. so what your saying is that the dems don't have any evidence (which you as a lawyer say, might just need to "prove" any thing) but because they say its bad and hes bad and a "because we feel like it" attatude they can make a vote to impeach. (oh and you where doing so well as to not showing any bias in tell the end there, if i was on a jury having listened to you preach there at the end… can't say that anything that you mentioned earlier proved the so called "facts" you preached in the advert.)

  32. Democrats have already said they are going to impeach trump again in 2020. The man has not even done anything yet and they have already deemed him guilty.

  33. Now that it's clear that Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanours, and then did his best to obstruct the investigation of it, it should not be possible for the republican-controlled Senate to simply circle the wagons and protect their boy by voting against his impeachment. There is something fundamentally wrong about the American Constitution if the crimes of a president can simply be swept under the rug out of party loyalty. This flies in the face of the rule of law.

  34. Objection! How much of a role will the Chief Justice play? What powers over proceedings belong to him vs. the senate? Is there room for that to be litigated?

  35. 3 violations of the campaign finance law. Colluding with 2 foreign governments. 10 counts of obstruction of justice. Violating the Emoluments Clause since day one. Bribery and extortion. There has never a more clear cut case for the immediate impeachment and removal from office than Trump.

  36. From someone who is neither a Democrat nor a Republican… Would have loved to see a rebuttal of the way too often repeated argument that "The accused did not have the opportunity to present witnesses or face their accuser." By the rules you so correctly lay out here, the House responsibility is not a trial, it is gathering of evidence and drafting of the articles. Essentially a Grand Jury. The Conservative argument here is moot and incorrect; the House can allow testimony, but has no obligation to allow for any individual's input outside of their own membership, if I understand correctly. However, just like any other court proceeding, they might suffer significantly from ignoring or suppressing any significant evidence.

  37. What is "a High Crime or Misdemeanor"? Whatever a majority of the House of Representatives and 2/3 of the Senate says it is.

  38. People always seem to read Article 2, Section for as if "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a conjunction of "high Crimes" and "Misdemeanors." But I think that's wrong. (I am not an attorney)

    The capitalization in Article 2, Section 4 seems relevant to me. Instead of parsing the conjunction as "(high Crimes) and (Misdemeanors)", I would read it as "high (Crimes and Misdemeanors)".

    You concede that the typical definition of misdemeanor wouldn't seem to apply here, but what if we're talking about high misdemeanors? High crime doesn't have a clear enough contemporary definition for us to think that it is somehow a standalone thing. What we're actually talking about is crimes and misdemeanors (crimes being acts which are criminal, and misdemeanors being non-criminal wrongdoing) which rise to the level of being "high".

    That makes the passage make far more sense, in my opinion.

  39. If Trump is held under the articles of impeachment and congress sits on the impeachment proceedings during an election, it suspends/nullifies the President's current Presidential term so that He/She can run a third term due to the impeachment technicality of having the first term held in suspension due to investigations. It might be Trump 2020 Trump 2024 if Congress does what I think they might do.

  40. I'd imagine the Democrats didn't include Bribery as an explicit, separate article of impeachment because it'd be too hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trump actually bribed anyone (quid-pro-quo was hard enough with all those flip-flopping witnesses).
    I think from the polls that Democrats are starting to regret the decision to impeach at all as it seems to be fracturing their party and alienating the moderates. I know plenty of people on the Left that are just tired of the whole thing and want to get rid of Trump with the ballot box (assuming the Democrats can put up someone that's actually better).
    Anything that links Trump to Ukraine could potentially boomerang back around and hit Biden (currently the Democrat front-runner), and an impeachment trial could be weaponized by the Republicans to pull Senators Warren and Sanders (and second the third runners up) off the campaign trail.
    The Democrats really should have powwowed and done a thorough cost-benefit analysis on this. One the one hand: if they succeed, the Republicans could nominate and maybe even elect another President out of revenge (meaning 4 years of Trump turned into 8-12 years of Republican rule). On the other hand: if they fail they'll look weak, petty and hysterical and moderates may well consider those optics come November.

  41. Ah, but no concern for the GOP attitude or false claims. Hence, you've already tipped your hand. Your arguments are tainted and predetermined. But I'll wait a little to see what else you say….Ok, I'm impressed. The title was more to suck trumpers in. And it was informative and factual without pushing nonsense. Well done. Though the vitriol need be addressed and who is deliberately spouting it…and has been for years.

  42. no the best example of misdemeanor/corrupt representation, is the violations of the human rights, violation of state right and power, violation of judiciary powers and violations of constitution, including corruption of freedom liberty and elections. that includes the illegality of prison, we had militia, treason, and banishment, all revoked for illegal prisons.

  43. These impeachment hearings are a huge joke. Trump's only impeachable offense is beating hillary despite all the odds and rigging.

  44. Legal question. The so called "whistleblower" went to Congress first before the IG. So would be classify as a whistleblower?

  45. I enjoy your content and all, but you appear to be glossing over details concerning that none of the "evidence" brought up so far was any actual proof. Nothing thus far has shown or proven that Trump did anything wrong.

    This whole mess has been a hit job against him, supported by the fact that they keep changing the thing they want to impeach him of. You even show in your video that impeachment is pretty much just a political tool for political gain.

    Impeachment really just sounds like "We say this is so, and we will do what we want because we can. Regardless of if it's actually true."

    Great video, though.

  46. It goes Democrat, Republican, Democrat, Republican. So the next impeachment after this, will be of a Democratic president(?). Interesting. And it hasn't slipped my mind that in thirty years or sooner we'll likely see a blast from the past due to one of the Trump children running for president. (I'm not happy about that, just so we're clear.)

  47. Biden admits bribing, Trump released Transcript, even Ukraine president said there was no quid pro quo. You need to do better research outside of CNN. When the previous vice president admits committing a crime on video, it is the presidents moral duty to have it investigated. That's not a crime, going after the person who points out crime is the real criminal activity, wait till the democrats get hit with indictments for treason. It's coming soon.

  48. Objection! You should have recused yourself. If you were attempting obsfucation of your bias against President Trump, you failed. Furthermore it is evident you didn’t watch the hearing in it’s entirety. And given the polarizing effect this issue has had on the people of the United States, coupled with the respect you have garnered among your subscribers, I am declaring you part of the problem. In the immortal words of Greta Thunberg, “How dare you?” ~In all seriousness to date, I have really enjoyed your videos, but if it gets political, I’ll stop watching. At the time of this writing it looks like about 900 people are not happy with this video. Those are only the ones who pushed the thumbs down button. Some may have just left without saying anything.

  49. Hey Legal Eagle, what could you say about Shoplyfter? How many months could the "shoplifter" potentially and what charges could the security guards possibly get for conducting their "activities".

  50. Benedict Arnold (case presuming) went to a foreign country of England against an American people and was sentenced to death for Treason. Donald Trump goes to a foreign country against an American people (Mr. Biden)……..Doesn't look to good for you Trump! Death!

  51. That's not strong manning the argument for the Republicans.

    A strong man argument would assume that things are as purported by them, such as, a true conspiracy to remove a president from office existing throughout the "interagency".

    Assumption that when trump mentions Biden in his "perfect" call it is because he isnt sure about pronunciation of Burisma or because he didnt have the information before him with that company name.

    Assumption that Hunter Biden being in the Burisma board is seen by Trump as completely corrupt and worthy of notice and investigation to the point that it becomes nessicary that any foreign aid be held. And that the corruption must be dealt with or at least until their are signs that this process of dealing with the corruption can be dealt with.

    You assume bad faith by assuming the reason that Trump was only waiting till the public announcement of the investigation was because it was for show and didn't really care about the investigation itself.

    When it could be read as a negotiating position where he assumed they would follow through on the public commitment to do the investigation, so the aid could be released at that point without having to wait for the investigation itself.

    Facts and opinions on the right side of the isle are ignored, such as the fact that there is a huge amount of missing aid money that was given to Ukraine, but never actually got where it was meant to go.
    There is a requirement that the country who gets aid be vetted (referance needed) see Shapiro, and although there are other departments that usually handle this separately, Trump does not believe that these agencies are completely trustworthy.

    The opinion that there are a huge majority of left wing activists in many official capacities willing to purjure themselves if it means they stand a good chance of removing him from office by doing do.

    The idea that Guilini might be still working on clearing Trump in the court of public opinion on charges he was in bed with Russia by finding exculpatory evidence in Ukraine, such as finding evidence that the Mannafort black ledger was a fake, finding connections between those paid by Fusion GPS working as go betweens in getting the black ledger back to the US to be used to reopen a trial where the thing wasn't used as evidence for the prosecution, looking into malfeasance from our ambassador as to whether a conspiracy against the president existed where massive pressure was put on Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was looking into legitimate corruption at Burisma, looking into whether the crowdstrike servers possibly have any information that could shed light on Hillary's missing emails which might have more evidence of the conspiracy against the president… etc etc.

    You aren't strong manning. You are still straw manning, or simply not wading into the best arguments on the right, especially true since most of these arguments are cannon on the right and aren't even said out loud.

  52. Your knowledge and analysis of the history of impeachment was good.

    Your knowledge and analysis of this current impeachment shows that you are nothing but a biased hack.

  53. This nation is ripe for a revolution. I'm ready to die for what I believe in. There is nothing that can make me happier than to see the DNC, the biggest criminal cabal on earth eradicated from existence. Time for the president to impose martial law. My guns are locked and loaded.

  54. Did any of you read the transcript, especially the part when he said, "do US a favor because our country has been through a lot?" He was looking back into the 2016 election and not as the liberals say, "the 2020 election."

  55. Like most lawyers, you're a partisan hack and a delusional, possibly sociopathic individual. He's not getting removed and he's winning 2020. You'll eat crow, mediocre mind individual. Average people are sick of your type.

  56. Read the United States Constitution. If you don't understand it, get help.
    #TrumpIsANationalSecurityThreat and a flaming moronic narcissist.

  57. We dont need to think like lawyers! We need to think like mentaly healthy rational human beings. If we do that, we see that many problems of today, lies, fraud and deception, are created by lawyers- So if you think like one and you use the language they themselves have invented, you are going to lose!!

  58. Thank you for illustrating how absolutely broken or legal and political systems are. What a joke.

    Anarchy for the win. No gods, no masters.

  59. The second article of impeachment is made completely null by the fact that the supreme court sided with the executive branch's decision to not present any witnesses too. Rather shocked you didn't mention it since a court's ruling on those things is very critical and important.

  60. Curious why you apply the British standard to the U.S. when the founding fathers intentionally and specifically envisioned a more narrow view for the U.S.

Leave a Reply

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