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

⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
How do the Trump articles of impeachment compare to Nixon, Clinton, and Johnson? Legal Eagles get 2 months of unlimited learning on Skillshare for FREE: legaleagle.link/skillshare
From the New York Times:
A fiercely divided House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Friday, setting up a historic vote before the full House that would make him only the third president to be impeached. The impeachment articles, passed over sharp Republican protests, accused the president of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress. The votes and a fractious two-day debate preceding them reflected the realities of the hyperpartisan divisions in American politics that have grown wider during Mr. Trump’s three years in office.
With back-to-back votes shortly after 10 a.m., the Democratic-controlled committee recommended that the House ratify the articles of impeachment against the 45th president, over howls of Republican protest. Each passed, 23 to 17, along strictly partisan lines. The full House is expected to vote on Wednesday to impeach Mr. Trump, and he would stand trial in the Senate in the new year.
(Thanks to Skillshare 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 a 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 contact 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: [e-mail]

[@LegalEagle]

⚖️What do you think about the Articles of Impeachment? ✏️ Get Skillshare to learn “creative writing”! skl.sh/legaleagle21

[@jeffslote9671]

They know they are up Schiff creek without a paddle. Impeachment has backfired on the Democrats.

[@Zomby_Woof]

@@jeffslote9671 Please state the effects that you have noted that might be considered evidence of a 'backfire.'

[@jeffslote9671]

@Robert Rodgers Trump is easily going to be reelected

[@bristolbb2055]

LegalEagle, Articles of impeachment are garbage. No fact witnesses, hearsay and speculation. Partisan vote based solely on party bias. Love or hate the president, this is a sham. It endangers every future president whose party doesn’t control the house. First time ever no crime committed and impeachment still passes. Dark days in our political system. Sets horrible precedent.

[@paulylewis8512]

I, personally would have rather seen all this time dedicated to health care reform, education updates, and budget repairs than waste our money on this farce.

[@erikxu3472]

Richard Nixon Master of the 'You can't fire me, I quit' philosophy

[@alvallac2171]

And then what? Switch to another major?

[@3fingerheater]

@@alvallac2171 good grammar joke ngl

[@FakeAssHandsomeMcGee_]

@@alvallac2171 Probably dance or lesbian studies.

[@16ktsgamma]

Dude was going to get impeached. So he just gave up.

[@colliric]

Nixon quit because by quitting he preserved his Presidential privileges including his pension and title. Also Donald Trump is certain to fight back unlike Nixon. He has a Republican senate to support him.

[@ItsZorroDood]

This still didn't explain what the peaches have to do with all of this.

[@Number1Irishlad]

Its a non public event, but after a person is impeached, and before the trial, all the members of the house that voted to impeach sneak up on the president and pelt them with peaches

[@jorgeguijosatellez509]

There a goodbye gift for the presidents

[@rydoyle9903]

Number1Irishlad i really want to see that, god bless Ireland

[@Number1Irishlad]

@@rydoyle9903 and the peaches have writings on them like those terrible heart candies u get on valentine's day. Except its everything youve been accused and found guilty of 😂

[@curlyfries1251]

God I love this thread

[@CockroachStomper]

I can't believe they're putting him in a peach. This is inhumane.

[@annoloki]

It's actually a really nice peach, very spacious, lovely view, he just has to pretend it's a bad thing, otherwise everyone will want one

[@jaborsey_joseph]

I wouldn't want to be him, I hate peaches.

[@ghandimauler]

1. He's already got citrus in his DNA... (That hair...) 2. I feel sorrier for the peach. 3. He'll still tweet out WINNING! and millions will think so without any proof.

[@CockroachStomper]

@@blah8119 Thank you sir.

[@maryjoygelizon4268]

Trump might start ww3 beacause of the drone strike so no this isnt inhumane

[@jamesfaul348]

Can lobbyists paying congress members be considered bribery

[@CruentusMessor]

Logically and practically, yes. Legally, no.

[@TheBoogerJames]

@@CruentusMessor I call it legal bribery. It is bribery, you just can't go to jail for it.

[@shinyumbreon7138]

Corporations "are people" and money "is free speech", so legally no. Ethically and in practice it's bribery, but hey, those politicians deserve those spa breaks! /s

[@jamesfaul348]

Well for example, I forget which company, but a company paid Ted Cruz $3,500 or $35,000 to make a statement, so he posts on Twitter something about how snowflake's are complaining about something trivial. A person went into the public records, noticed there was a "donation", or payout, and then a day later he posted. Isn't that bribery by definition? To pay someone in a political field to do something you wanted them to do?

[@MrShanester117]

James Faul Yes it’s legal bribery but the senators do the exact same thing

[@BradleyBoy]

"Why are we talking about Impeachment right now? No reason seemed like a fun thing to do....." -LegalEagle 2019

[@t3hsourcey]

"Because this boorish bafoon will ruin all our lobbying channels, and the deals we've made through federal power and finance. if he does that, our corruption will be exposed, our families will no longer prosper off the laundered tax payer money we've made. THAT is why we cannot let anything else than a puppet become the President of the United States!" Trump isn't a DC native, he's outside those circles and genuinely wants to give a leg up to the US economy, after all, he's a businessman first, that's how he earns his keep. Unlike the DC entrenched mob that feeds off federal funding to keep going. Now, these people can't keep their narrative straight anymore, they can't keep fooling people through the media they've lined pockets with.

[@oaf-77]

apropos of nothing...

[@Abedeuss]

*whistles lawyerly*

[@psychorooks]

Good eye...lol!

[@ViaAngel1323]

@@t3hsourcey I'm looking around and there's no source that says he showed his tax returns, only him saying he won't show it. What source shows proof and also how sure are you that salaries did rise? I'm just asking.

[@ChemoshKamos]

"All the judges who voted for my client were upstanding citizens", love it, great line.

[@MoneyGist]

Legal Eagle, 2019: "We are living in very interesting times" Legal Eagle, 6 months later: "If only you knew, kid"

[@calummcconnell7313]

Don't worry! It gets better.

[@majormoolah5056]

And better :)

[@lordblazer]

Lol man this aged amazingly well or horribly.

[@seanshameless0]

You 5 months later

[@aporifera]

LOL better yet

[@ernestbeggle1981]

It's all too easy for people to confuse impeachment with removal from office.

[@shadowmod3]

at this point the entire world is. still having a hard time explaining it to journalists in my country. people are wondering why is Trump still in office now that he is impeached.

[@ernestbeggle1981]

It's easiest to think of impeachment as being charged with an impeachable offense. Removal from office only occurs after a trial in the Senate and a finding of guilt. We have had three Presidents impeached so far, and none removed from office (yet).

[@karsonkammerzell6955]

@@ernestbeggle1981 That's it. The confusion comes from the purpose of impeachment as being the removal and the expectation that comes with saying 'successfully impeached' equating to 'successful outcome' aka 'successfully removed'. As you put it 'successfully impeached' is when it is agreed that you are to be held accountable for behaviors in office; removal happens if you are found guilty of those behaviors. The House is the prosecution: they agree on whether the behaviors are impeachable. If they agree that the behaviors are impeachable, the defendant is 'impeached' and they take their evidence to the Senate. The Senate is the judge/jury: they decide if the defendant (person being impeached) is guilty based on the evidence and information brought forward by the prosecution (the House).

[@datuputi777]

@@karsonkammerzell6955 In short it's impossible to impeach anyone unless their hated by everyone so much so that they can not bribe them. Really senators? Eitherway this is good the more time a senator or anyone in the government spends with affairs that doesn't involve the people the more the people can thrive. Let's hope he be impeached again in his second term.

[@covfefe1787]

datuputi777 you realize that the republicans would then impeach the next democratic president and a cycle of pointless political witch-hunt will begin eventually removing impeachment from the constitution all together. A president is elected every 4 years let the people be the judge.

[@archdukefranzferdinand567]

-sees title -grabs riot shield and scrolls down comment section Edit: 12-18-19: The riot shield is no longer enough, I have placed an order for an M1 Abrams.

[@pathevermore3683]

don't do it, if they get you, it might start a world war!!!

[@QemeH]

@@pathevermore3683 Now, don't be unreasonable. It will certainly suffice if the users who got him would present themselves and all other users of this channel would cease any attacks on his family and country within 48 hours, yes?

[@pathevermore3683]

huh?

[@QemeH]

@@pathevermore3683 The... austrian empire demanded the killers be apprehended and anti-monarchist propaganda be seized within 48 hours... which is what led to... ah, forget it. Was funnier in my head.

[@direwolf9569]

Putting up your Duke(s)?

[@ezm6749]

"And all of the judges that I have been infront of, especially the ones who voted for my client, are upstanding citizens" Haha 7.5/10 for lawyer humour

[@alvallac2171]

*in front

[@SJsAdv]

5/10 for bias.

[@tristanweide]

@@SJsAdv I don't think you got his joke, he just got done saying that some judges were biased, then made a joke sucking up to them. Not bias, a joke.

[@SJsAdv]

@@tristanweide no, I got it. That's why I said bias.

[@TheReal_ist]

Me like

[@toddrickmetzger1097]

Petty theft is fun ~legal eagle 2019

[@GiRR007]

it is though :D

[@Tomha]

Eehh, it can be xD

[@TruthNerds]

And how can fun be illegal in a free country…

[@wowomg1032]

I love the "All the judges who were in favor of my clients were all outstanding citizens" comment

[@omikronweapon]

the subtle humor in that makes me wonder if he was sarcastic about never being in front of a drunk judge.

[@JasonSchielke7180]

My lawyer got held in contempt and put in county when he pointed out to the judge that he issued an illegal ex-parte order not allowing me to see my children while I was in the hospital recovering from a stroke. Judges are the best.

[@FriedrichHerschel]

In my country, there is a saying "Recht _haben_ und Recht _kriegen_ sind zwei verschiedene Dinge." It roughly means that while it's nice to have the law on your side, you still need to find a judge on your side.

[@capistev]

In my country, there is a retired judge who said: "Para un amigo, el culo. Para un enemigo, por el culo. Para un indiferente, la ley vigente.". It roughly means that the legal/political system helps its friends, punishes its perceived enemies, and follows the law for people that it has no interest in.

[@Apoc5k]

Lawyer: Has not been in front of a drunk judge. Presumption: Was not a lawyer in or before the 1970s.

[@DenGuleBalje]

He may be a lawyer, but at least he's not a snitch

[@isaiahdaniels5643]

I'll allow it.

[@maromania7]

I mean he followed that by saying all the judges he'd seen, especially ones on his side, were upstanding. Pretty sure that was sarcasm XD

[@bfbffersen3567]

@@DenGuleBalje Amazing x3

[@Dr.Westside]

Tommy Chong did a fantastic take on that in Up In Smoke . " Thats not water , thats vodka man ! " lol

[@johnjames4593]

Andrew Johnson in sith voice, “I am the senate!”

[@frank144p4]

African Americans and their Leader Mace Winduel Jackson: Not yet

[@pandakekok7319]

Frank144p It's -treason- acquittal then

[@charliebaker1427]

andrew jackson is more like palpatine then johnson

[@karstenschoenberg9736]

Especially since Jackson founded the Democratic party

[@jebronlames4559]

people who wrote the impeachment laws: eh lets do that later, just write down something really vague

[@darkhyrulelord]

Misdemeanors: "All the fun things" Something tells me you prefer to do trials based off of these.

[@DickEnchilada]

"Your Honor, my client may have - holy shit - drank a handle of tequila, snorted a near lethal amount of cocaine, and fornicated in public with at least 3 prostitutes, but he did NOT rob that 7/11."

[@dr.floridamanphd]

Jartran72, he’s a copyright attorney. He deals more with patent and trademark infringement than anything else. But since he is a licensed attorney he could very well be hired to defend a criminal case should he be so inclined. His partners at his firm might not like it but that’s another story.

[@frostyflames7864]

Your Honor, while my client may have shot the sheriff, he did NOT shoot the deputy.

[@autumnhd]

Florida Man, a civil atorny doesn't only do copyright litigations, but also other things such as corporate espionage, and breach of contracts.

[@SuperFlamethrower]

Is LegalEagle an attorney or is he just a lawyer?

[@cricketcalin]

New rule: before any family debates all parties involved must watch all relevant Legal Eagle videos

[@AbsoluteSkycaptain]

Seconded

[@The-Big-Boss]

@@AbsoluteSkycaptain third

[@IrelandVonVicious]

Need that bias first huh?

[@MakotoKamui]

I think I'll be sending them to my congressfolks as well...

[@Crick1952]

Everything is illegal Nothing is permitted

[@IsaacSTS98]

"Unclear if any Senate Republicans will vote to convict President Trump" Thank you, Mitt Romney

[@thomaspalmer2828]

"Without a clear definition we have to look at precedent" Johnson: Well F me I guess

[@jigarat]

A detailed video on watergate would be very interesting!

[@chrisclaridge2521]

Vj Kannen listen to season 1 of the Slow Burn podcast.

[@benjaminscott8198]

Seconded!

[@Grunchy005]

I’d also like to hear of those other 17 non-presidential cases. I agree with the opposing viewpoint: high office requires high moral and ethical standards. In my view, therefore, impeachment is grossly underused. These people are our employees, they need to live up to minimum standards or else be fired!

[@michaelvigil3436]

@@Grunchy005 Then who would we elect? I dont think that there is a single person even interested in politics that has high moral or ethical standard and if there is I dont think they can live up to those standards. Now all this is just my opinion but I honestly believe if we started mass impeachments we would progressively get worse and worse people elected to the position. This is America, honestly Trump is a good reflection of general american morals and ethics nowadays and maybe that is the problem.

[@ravaen769]

Vj Kannen I agree that would be amazing . Or a whole series based on important or just interesting law history

[@ddamianforeman8803]

"...especially the ones that voted for my clients were upstanding citizens." I've only been awake for thirty minutes, and I think that's the funnies shit I'll hear all day.

[@orchidquack]

*Funniest

[@MrSen4lifE]

@@orchidquack Thanks, Captain Obvious.

[@Ded5833]

It was said so dryly. So good.

[@Timbone07]

Time stamp?

[@daerdevvyl4314]

JoJos HoHo I’ve been promoted. I’m Major Obvious.

[@badgerlordpatrick6493]

Wow. This has to be the most objective, unbiased video I have ever seen on this topic. This lawyer has great verbal agility and eloquence, such that he is able to dodge around what he thinks about Trump. And you are never quite sure what he thinks about the whole thing. Well done. I don't think impeachment was meant to be used when one party clearly thinks the other to be immoral and insane.

[@jshricks]

Holy crap, abuse of power? That leaves nearly every governmental employee open for impeachment.

[@dkoda840]

Josh Ricks well nearly every government official is possible to be put in a peach bam lets put the speaker of the house in a peach 👌

[@alwaysabiggerfish9564]

Why don't we give every politician a peach and make them do a battle royale on epsteins island.

[@dkoda840]

AlwaysABiggerFish that sounds like a fantastic idea let’s do this

[@davham27]

@@alwaysabiggerfish9564 that would be unfair because a lot of them would have home field advantage.

[@MrLightMatter]

"All of the judges I've been in front of, especially the ones that voted for my client, were upstanding citizens" This was easily my favorite joke in the video

[@Timbone07]

Time stamp?

[@morganistdiefrage3310]

How ironic🤣🤣

[@Timbone07]

@@morganistdiefrage3310 Can you link me to the time in the video that it was said?

[@jltaco85]

@@Timbone07 long after 6 min mark

[@brassmoxiemedia3678]

jltaco85 6:50

[@PrettyProChannel]

"Petty theft, possession of marijuana, public intoxication, you know all the fun things." STELLA HAS LEFT THE CHAT

[@shavashchannel]

You, sir; won in this controversial debate!

[@spanishpizzagirl4126]

That sounds like a college kid’s Friday night

[@GreenmanDave]

"I was drunk in a bar. They threw me into public. I don't wanna be drunk in public. I wanna be drunk in a &*! !@#^ bar, which is perfectly legal. Arrest them." ~Ron White

[@jacobthefiend]

Your Honor, I submit a motion to remove Mr. L. Eagle from defensive counsel on the grounds of conflicts of interest.

[@bishop31656]

@@GreenmanDave you caught me you caught the "TATER" call off the searches.

[@McScuffed]

Fun thought: Whether or not the reason for impeachment is valid or whether or not a conviction is valid, the morals of the law and interpretations of the articles do not matter in impeachment. What matters is whether republicans or democrats control positions. These parties will not vote for right or wrong, but what benefits them most. This does not progress what we consider to be case law but manipulates it to fit the benefit of the few voting on the matter at that very moment. End of a fun thought

[@robinmiller1989]

well that wasn't fun at all

[@user-dg9mp9pq1v]

More like depressing thought.

[@guerra_dos_bichos]

Also known as the façade of democracu

[@robinmiller1989]

@@guerra_dos_bichos If a government can't provide for its poorest citizens it's hardly a government worth keeping.

[@blowc1612]

The fact that we’ve had only 4 impeachment of a president after 200+ years it is a processed that has not been political abused at all, and the House went through the process of declaration, while it is now the Senate’s job to trial... if any suspicion of any wrong doing was done, the proper process needs to be done. Whether Trump is guiltily or not isn’t why we need an impeachment but the fact that he could be guilty or not, that an impeachment should happen...

[@azzarox6661]

All this just tells me we need to better define what are considered high crimes and misdemeanours, tbh.

[@kooldudematt1]

Thus opens the age-old argument of whether you are an _originalist_ or not!

[@blowc1612]

Not really as we cannot foresee what these could be for any future generations, it’s a great wording by the founding fathers as it allows flexibility as different crimes can change in the future and limiting it would allow some future crimes we do not even can imagine be not be impeached.... as every generations, should be the voice of how an impeachment should be proceed for their own people in office, and as you can see impeachment hasn’t been abused as after 45 presidents, there has only been 4 so far.

[@donovanwilson840]

Part of the reason it’s so hard to understand is because they did that on purpose because they wanted to effectively prevent any sort of king from rising up

[@Talespins]

defining exactly what is impeachment limits it. you cant try to limit the scope of the law to cater to people claiming it is politically bias

[@_ben_miller]

no. democrats are above written law. just listen to how their arguments were not based on concrete facts of written constitution but inferences about the "framers" intention behind written laws. one is concrete. the other is not.

[@MarkTordai]

I'm a historian, not of law but I thought the research and writing on this episode was really comprehensive. The history of Impeachment in america is becoming a topic of interest for many historians as of late. Great video!

[@LackeysLack]

"The history of Impeachment in america is becoming a topic of interest for many historians as of late." Can't imagine why.

[@Runb4ithitsu]

Every time you say "Hey legal eagles" my Google Home picks it up and starts playing The Eagles on spotify.

[@geekymetalhead5112]

Now I'm imagining the Legal Eagle singing hotel California. Thank you

[@satakrionkryptomortis]

@@geekymetalhead5112 imagine a ton off google homes picking it up one by one..in an empty warehouse.

[@WarhavenSC]

And that is why, upon entering anybody's house, I say, "Alexa, order two tons of canned cream corn. Alexa, confirm order."

[@pinkpaws1870]

LOVE IT.

[@mossbogger8366]

and into the trash u go google home

[@godinsurance4434]

I just still can’t believe they’re putting Trump inside a peach

[@Syphaxis]

It would make more sense than what's currently going on.

[@Melodyofthesea78]

The are putting him in a peach and rolling him over a hill. Lol XD

[@thecatfather857]

*Rimshot*

[@anthonylesley982]

Hey there but him and his mom back together

[@henrykwhernandez4071]

Trump and The Giant Peach

[@williamjeffersonclinton69]

My defense I told my legal team when I was brought up on impeachment, "Blowjobs are better then no jobs."

[@strickenbaseballseries6894]

He would know it is "than" not "then".

[@billgatesisanerd]

I love how you give a foundation of impeachment, examples, etc. before talking about President Trumps Impeachment process. Good job!

[@minarima]

@Mikołaj Wysocki What about the centrists, aren't you interested in what they have to say?

[@GeometryDashKenaz]

@Theodore what ate you trying to say? That he's a Russian bot? He couldn't be a Russian immigrant? You racist against Russians now?

[@evolicious]

@Mikołaj Wysocki lol Russian bot, account is new.

[@MajorMlgNoob]

@Ryan Napier wym by centrists the both sides are the problem people or moderate Democrats?

[@heidikarinen563]

@@evolicious lol bot, account is new, mikolaj nowhere to be seen. Actually, russians would name their bots russian. It could be a trollian bot.

[@whiskeyandagyro3135]

It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[@zekezzekekan2144]

you can just look up the definition there's not many so I don't know what you means when you say it depends what the definition is, we know the definition. It's not like there's multiple to choose from.

[@whiskeyandagyro3135]

@@zekezzekekan2144 this is a quote from a past political figure 🤦

[@zekezzekekan2144]

@@whiskeyandagyro3135 oh okay, do you happen to know who the quote "is" from? Sincerely thank you for the education.

[@whiskeyandagyro3135]

@@zekezzekekan2144 highlight the text and google it.

[@zekezzekekan2144]

@@whiskeyandagyro3135 good looking out bro, it's appreciated. Lol, was that during the infamous trial? I'm mr. President is it true that you received a BJ in the oval office? Well now that just depends on what the definition of is, is. That's great I really do appreciate it now. No I do understand that it's like interchangeable with depends. In the key in that situation changes so maybe the questions to broad. Hey I learned something new today I can go to bed.

[@bazingaburg8264]

"I've certainly never been in front of any judges who acted like that at all, and all the judges that i have been in front of, especially the ones that have voted for my client, were upstanding citizens." Covering your ass while driving your point home, THAT'S a frickin' LAWYER ! ^^

[@JRT5573]

I linked this video on my FB page. I made the following comment on the post: "At the present time, our political climate is like nitro-glycerin: any sudden jar could set off an explosion with consequences far more destructive than any present problem warrants. Information such as this man provides could go a long way toward cooling things down." I have little doubt that the lawyer and I have differing opinions about Trump. But, what I like about his presentation is that it appears to be fact and history-based rather then politically-based. I don't trust anyone in the news or commentary business (from either side of the political spectrum) to give an even reasonably un-biased description of the constitutional principal of impeachment and/or its applicability to the present circumstances. This video appears to present an unbiased description of what impeachment is and how it has been used so far. And the listener (watcher?) is pretty much left to come to his own conclusions as to whether Trump is guilty of the offenses with which he has been charged or, even if he is guilty, whether his actions rise to the level for which removal from office is the correct course to take. Good job!

[@blinky530]

Had he been charged with a real crime...

[@RVGrace]

@@blinky530 One of the points of the video is that exposure to impeachment does not require that one break a criminal law.

[@timothyhaug2060]

@@RVGrace actually it does. Treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. You HAVE to actually have committed a crime.

[@AllyMonsters]

@Timothy Haug There is no list of misdemeanors that are defined. If you go by definition, a misdemeanor could be just failing to fill out a form correctly.

[@hisroyalfatness8430]

Instead of "listener" or "watcher", I believe the term you meant to use was "viewer".

[@roguedogx]

I'm glad you gave the general overview of the johnson impeachment. I kept hearing that in passing, but no one ever seems to go into detail on it.

[@JimmyR42]

Proper use of Tautology : here's my like!

[@keithplayzstuff2424]

wait what’s the improper use

[@betabenja]

@@keithplayzstuff2424 Tautology != Tautology

[@smaakjeks]

tautology is as tautology does.

[@derekmcdaniel6029]

@@keithplayzstuff2424 I study tension in ropes. You could say I am a tautologist.

[@uss_04]

The first rule of Tautology Club is the First Rule of Tautology Club

[@xSSxTejas]

He is the first president not to be impeached for statutory crimes, which is fairly relevant in my opinion

[@Kumquat_Lord]

Correct. They don't have a specific charge, just the nebulous 'abuse of power'. Also, there have been SEVEN sets of articles drafted against him since his inauguration. The Democrats have been flinging articles of impeachment at the wall like their own feces and hoping it sticks

[@Kumquat_Lord]

@Timothy Affram yes, but that is because he has something called Executive privilege, which means he is legally allowed to not hand over information that make the executive branch unable to operate properly. It's in the courts now, and the supreme court is almost certain to rule in Trump's favor

[@maxcrss2845]

Timothy Affram he doesn’t have to comply with congress. His office offers Trump “executive privilege”. As a check of Congresses power, the executive office can refuse to comply with congress as long as the judicial branch does not side with congress.

[@ChristophBrinkmann]

@Timothy Affram Uh, yeah - Trump is the one and only president who has tried to coerce another country to do him a personal favor and holding hostage critical financial aid if the other country didn't deliver. I would say that senator is the stupidest person talking about the impeachment, but the fact that you're blindly following him means you take home that honor. Congratulations. Your mom must be proud of you.

[@cameronsheffield9560]

@@AriaTheAria "We. are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from ·_ the United· States for defense purposes ...__ The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. " Copy pasted from the transcript released by the President, but ok buddy.

[@akotoolubayi1580]

"Especially the ones that voted for my client"...*cashes in contingency fees*

[@renschuon4992]

When I saw this title my first thought was “oh no, this is going to be messy!” But no, you addressed this on the factual basis of what impeachment is, is supposed to be (per law and intention of law writers) and has been. You used precedent and the letter of the law to explain the situation and you also addressed the political nature of the situation without presenting polarizing opinions. You stuck to tangible evidence and created a wonderful piece to understand what is going on without manipulating our emotions. And I love that so much!

[@cocobiz2000]

the process of impeachment is really not that difficult of a task to, I think that we as humans will almost always want to streamline a party-line vote, we are very stubborn people when it comes to what one may consider as defending our personal feelings and beliefs. but the truth is, for example, members who have to face this task must remember that they swore to an oath "To uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all bad actors foreign and domestic because that body of rules and language are without a doubt the laws in which we are to conduct and upkeep the power of a free nation in which we practice the democratic process of Self Governance!

[@leechowning2712]

I am glad you managed to keep this one fairly balanced... Too many times I see biased issues on this. As an independent voter... Not any happier with one than the other... I get tired of party line actions. https storiesonline net s/15604/the-reset-manifesto is closest to how many of us feel.

[@superadam2112]

It would be a disservice to anyone who watches or subscribes to him. Not only is it entertaining to follow current events, but to also educate themselves on law.

[@billysquabble3618]

@TurboCMinusMinus At least they do occasionally use facts. Perhaps one day the rightists will catch up, and we'll live in a glorious era of unrestrained occasional truth-telling. smh

[@Darkphoenix3450]

@@billysquabble3618 That would be most of the time. The right is far more likely not to play dirty politics, and play it by the facts. This has been shown based on the evidence we have of history it self for example.

[@-DarkKnight-]

"Just seemed like a fun thing to do"...

[@ruthii7752]

I searched his face for a hint of meaning whne he said that

[@ChVckBlAck]

Can we get a lawyer reacts to grandma got run over by a reindeer for Christmas

[@johnj.spurgin7037]

I'm more concerned by the fact that Pelosi is holding back on giving the Senate the articles to- amongst other reasons- acquire additional evidence. Shouldn't that have been done before the impeachment articles were drafted?

[@drsch]

Like he said in the video. They can impeach for whatever the heck they want regardless of evidence.

[@LinuxMaster9]

Dontcha know? You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it?!! Just like with ObamaCare. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.......except thats not what the bill said. But you wont know it doesnt say that unless you vote to approve it so we can see what it says....instead of oh i don't know, read the bill BEFORE passing it.

[@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat]

@@LinuxMaster9 *cough* 2017 tax bill *cough*

[@JohnArmwood]

As a retired Constitutional Law professor I must concur with your analysis and I love how well you presented it within it’s historical context. Great job.

[@dr.floridamanphd]

When dealing with constitutional law you almost have to use historical context for much of it to make sense. Otherwise it’s shooting in the dark.

[@user_____M]

So in your opinion, and the guy making this video, it's OK to circumvent democracy and rule of law because of political reasons. Nice, comrade.

[@BlackEpyon]

@@user_____M IF it was the democratic process that put him there. Curious how he kept complaining that the system was rigged.. until he won.

[@gJonii]

@@user_____M what gave you that idea?

[@gJonii]

@Steve Jones There's so much wrong there I really don't know where to even begin, but I guess I'd start with bad statistics you do there. That's not how percentages work, at all.

[@rayraysphone]

Today I learned that marijuana possession is not a high crime.

[@BeetleBuns]

Possession without smoking, however, is a crime against high.

[@zekezzekekan2144]

@@BeetleBuns comment was funny but a crime against grammar.

[@zekezzekekan2144]

@@BeetleBuns it's okay, I was just being an a******. Love the way you handled it.

[@BeetleBuns]

@@zekezzekekan2144 totally get it lol, I do that stuff all the time

[@zekezzekekan2144]

@@BeetleBuns cool bro thanks for not freaking out on me. Hey I just saw you got a channel I followed you.

[@GauravGRocks]

The smoothest transition into a sponsor I've ever seen.

[@brookles6177]

A lot of the people who partner with curiosity stream, skillshare, and nebula seem to all have really seamless and clever transitions. I also find their videos the most interesting and informative.

[@Alexander-xr8tr]

As an Australian with little knowledge on American politics, this is extremely helpful for understanding thankyou

[@minetruly]

"Why are we talking about impeachment right now? Eh, no reason."

[@Fringe31422au]

wooosh

[@SteveSmith-fh6br]

​@Bobby Smith I'm a moderate who has always voted Democrat prior to 2016 and did not vote for Trump. He's absolutely right. It was the intention of the Democrats from day one to impeach him. They've been talking about this for years.

[@janm.4496]

@@SteveSmith-fh6br anyone with a brain saw he was completely unfit for the presidency from the get go. Has there been a month let alone a week without a scandal surrounding him?

[@brokenfiction999]

Steve Spam But Why Though? Trump certainly isn’t the only Republican president we’ve ever had so why weren’t the Democrats so bent out of shape about impeaching Reagan or Bush jr Any other Republican president since Nixon?

[@irrationalreality8276]

Jan Matyáš can you name a few I’m actually really curious

[@carmenmfscmf]

As a lawyer myself, I must say I thoroughly enjoy your videos! I wish you had been one my law professors because you make everything legal sound fun and easy to learn.

[@yesman7898]

Biased professors are everywhere.

[@zekezzekekan2144]

@@yesman7898 no crap just look at the colleges in the US. It's a hate crime to say it's okay to be white. Colleges are required to have safe spaces.teachers failing students for not apologizing to a different race for what their ancestors did true story. If your students know who your going to vote for your a bad teacher.

[@jamesgoudreau1940]

Our Congress is the toilet of the Federal Government, however, a toilet is actually more useful.

[@pchurch4973]

I still don’t get how they plan to actually put him into a peach, not enough information, disliked.

[@martinm6368]

It's IMpeachment, not INpeachment. The prefix im- indicates a negation of the word it is attached to. So odds are they actually want to extract the peach from the president. My best guess is this entire impeachment ordeal is an intervention by the house to change whatever tanning-product Potus uses. However this attempt is likely to fail because Big Dermatologica has got the senate in the pocket.

[@redriver6541]

@@martinm6368 could be IM too..... Impregnate..... Just saying.

[@fthomason93]

Well there was that giant one a guy named James had, not sure what he's doing with it now.

[@troliskimosko]

@@fthomason93 nice

[@paulylewis8512]

Also, that was one of the best sponsor tie ins I have ever seen. Beautifully done sir.

[@AtomicAJ74]

He's the master of that. I get a kick out of it because he's so good at it.

[@JeffKing310]

Pauly Lewis He is a rock star at the plugs - simply amazing. I’m guessing he is a skilled litigator for the way he weaves together thoughts.

[@TheSionnis]

I come for the legal analysis, but stay for the sponsor segues.

[@kullerva5738]

It is an art, and Legal Eagle has mastered it.

[@brandondavidson4085]

He's a trial lawyer, Devin's the best at segues.

[@zaczane]

“you know...All the Fun things” Legal Eagle 2019

[@isaiahwelch8066]

So...impeachment is based on a popularity contest. Gotcha.

[@pedroherrera3787]

@Andrew Brent it's a good we have a republic

[@stevenjustice4699]

This might honestly be my favorite video on youtube right now. This helped me feel like I have a little bit of a grasp on this whole situation and what it means and is required for impeachment. Thank you so much for this video! I love all your content but this was top notch! Suggested it to everyone I know!

[@bunniey3290]

The subtle shade he constantly throws to everyone is one of the best things about this channel.

[@TimTruscott]

I agree

[@Sirpopeington]

We’d call that bias and is usually not the best thing when discussing legal issues that should be objective.

[@arthurdent9281]

@@Sirpopeington The things that other people say can be objectively false or misleading. It's not bias to note that.

[@NemeanJG]

@@Sirpopeington Curious on how facts are bias LOL

[@ericallinger7479]

It would be but he was so sure of bribery and would you look at that, there's no proof. He should have put more effort into this one. And his one about trump's defenses where he was so positive quid purp quo happened...

[@davidmeehan4486]

I've been listening to a ton of impeachment podcasts, yet Legal Eagle told me things I didn't know. Keep up the good work!

[@supercommie]

There is a Chinese curse that states: "may you live in interesting times".

[@alannadoyle7008]

@idoj654123 Chief what in God's name are you talking about

[@StevenZephyc]

(FYI: The sentence has nothing to do with Chinese.)

[@aa-to6ws]

@idoj654123 But why doesn't the US creates a plan to make China infertile?

[@alannadoyle7008]

@idoj654123 I'm familiar with the opium war, I'm incredibly confused why you went on a tirade about it on this video... do you need a cup of tea or something?

[@fredfreddy8684]

Putin gave us interesting times.

[@ShadwSonic]

Funny thing, the charges seem to fall under three categories this time: the "We say he did this though we have no actual proof he did this" type, the "This sounds like it should be illegal at first glance even if it's not (or even part of his job)" type, or the "We're pinning this bad thing on him even though it was really us" type. All of these will not only fail to get him removed, but result in their own punishments for not only the last category, but also the whole "wasting taxpayer dollars to try removing the wildly popular president". Because... yeah, presidents simply don't GET over 50% approval ratings this far into their terms, and yet that's what Trump has at the moment.

[@matthewfermin8893]

OMG, I'm shaking and crying the plumbers would never do that. They were too busy fighting vilgax.

[@Raising_Anchor]

Matthew Noneyourbusiness nice Ben 10 reference. Tbh I thought the same thing right away

[@stonedgeekcentral3925]

I see you are a man a culture as well

[@r3v0l]

"I don't always watch plugs at the end of videos ... ... but when I do, I prefer LegalEagle's. Think like a lawyer, my friends."

[@jessesmith4757]

"This will be bad for Trump" Also record high approval rating for Trump, while the most recent Gallop poll shows hes gone up 6 percent since the start of the impeachment.

[@bbshelbie2825]

Yup, this whole impeachment things has been a brutal PR fail for the dems, but like Wile-E-Coyote, they just cannot stop chasing the roadrunner. But this roadrunner is the CEO of Acme. He WANTED them to try to impeach him. Clearing out the swamp is not an easy business.

[@coryzilligen790]

According to 538, it's not record high for him, though it is one of his highest peaks in popularity. It's also interesting to note that, after the first two weeks of being in office, he has not once had his approval rating higher than his disapproval rating -- based on 538's historical popularity poll data, that is _unique_ among all presidents since popularity polling became a routine thing, not only in how strongly and consistently disliked he is, but also in how quickly he became disliked. If you change the display to be comparing disapproval rates, it looks like some sort of ocean depth displays with how large the disparities often are.

[@jessesmith4757]

@@coryzilligen790 Not really, hes also the president who has the most vitriol thrown at him from most media outlets. There are obvious attempts to make him out to be much worse than he actually is and thats what this impeachment is as well. The democrats know that impeachment won't work and are doing it anyway to hurt his public image for 2020. Honestly most people would agree that trump is crude and arguably doesn't have a good disposition for a world leader, however its undeniable that he has done well for the US economy and I would say has completed many of his campaign promises, which isn't something you usually see from a president lol. PLUS he makes the news entertaining as hell, so im into it.

[@Zomby_Woof]

@@jessesmith4757 You have essentially argued that he is a shitty president, then concluded that he's a good one. Well, that's better than some Trumpists. But I need you to do me a favor... Next time you're watching Hannity or Fox and Friends, when the show is over and the actual Fox News programming comes on, watch it instead of switching it off in disgust. Their actual news programming still has a bias, but it's not the unfiltered lies of their 'personalities.' If my presumption does not apply to you, I apologize in advance. Its behavior I have observed way too many times.

[@Danielle33384]

Ajvanho yep!! They are the worst thing to happen to this country!

[@valiantparagonvideos2383]

The idea that "obstruction of Congress" is 'solid ground' puts your entire analysis into question. Obstruction of Justice would be arguable, but the Executive and Legislative branches are equal and inherently entitled to interfere with the others. If Congress wanted his cooperation they should have gone before the third branch of the government and gotten them to agree with the subpeonas they were issuing. THEN, at least, they'd have solid legal ground, even if you think it falls short. But as is Article 2 should be dismissed as improper immediately Have a trial on the first one, fine. But the second has nothing to stand on.

[@TheMarsCydonia]

Republican senator and Trump defender Lindsey Graham on the matter: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kKiVi3t6md2Ji80

[@bloodyneptune]

That was one of the best segues into an ad plug Ive ever seen.

[@markfisher9414]

Thanks for the spelling tip. I used voice to talk, and it spelled it segways.

[@dallaselgin2636]

It really wasn't though

[@crackpipejoe3508]

🍆

[@ajvonline]

Right you are, Sarah.

[@mikimaus001]

It surprises me that you didn’t bring up the references and explanations of impeachment from the Federalist Papers. Hamilton has been referenced a lot and it would be interesting to get your take on that.

[@TalathRhunen]

"creative non-fiction" ... This was the best skillshare ad transition I have seen yet

[@NovemberAlphaTango]

Objection: Obstruction of Congress is not a thing. The executive and legislative branches are coequal branches of government. The president and his administration have no constitutional obligation to comply with congress absent the support of the Judicial branch. That is why Obstruction of Justice is the real charge that is required. There's a reason why the Democrats didn't go for that charge. They didn't do the due diligence that was required.

[@starvalkyrie]

"Bringing ridicule to the office..." *pulls collar*

[@rawovunlapin8201]

No, that doesn't sound like anyone we know of... right?

[@starvalkyrie]

@@rawovunlapin8201 I'M SURE I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

[@ParodyKnaveBob]

Not a President since the 80's comes to mind, no-siree-Bob.

[@thehoodedteddy1335]

Huh, so can we technically say that the first impeachment in the USA was of King George?

[@axiomhi8549]

No. King George was not an elected official under United States law. He was not a representative of the American people. Not sure Impeachment was even a good word there. More like secession. The founding fathers seceded from England as a matter of starting their own government. The declaration of indepence was their Letter of Secession.

[@xandro2445]

No, the monarch isn't impeachable.

[@fredbretz7703]

He said there were some agents and employees of the crown impeached during the colonial period. He also said the royals were unimpeachable. And it was before the creation of the USA anyway.

[@rebeccaconlon9743]

Did you watch the video? It was only against the representatives of the Crown...

[@jaimetheone9150]

This lawyer still acts as if there was no manuscript.

[@AnalyticalChick]

He's clearly a leftist.

[@sabin97]

this is precious.

[@TheN00b623]

@Soda Pop well no to be fair tim pool was never on this impeachment bandwagon and he acknowledges that the evidence is against the democrats.

[@metallicarchaea1820]

@@TheN00b623 tim pool's schtick is to be the leftist/liberal/progressive/snowflake who is always one step away from being redpilled to the right. His persona plays on that. That's why he says alot of pro-Trump things and states that he doesn't like the guy. His channel and content are very political. This lawyer on the other hand has a broader appeal and cannot be so bold. Lawyers are slimy because they are paid legal mercenaries with no scruples and will defend Lucifer himself if paid enough. I say that because this lawyer is playing the part of an impartial person in turn playing to a wide audience that unfortunately has been conditioned to hate Trump. So he plays along in the most subtle of ways with this. I actually don't blame the guy.

[@pitadude9836]

I'm surprised you think the witnesses called provided relevant testimony when a majority of their assertions were based on their own assumptions/presumptions, but not express direction from the President

[@Zomby_Woof]

There is plenty to tie it all together. And its fair to assume testimony of obstructed witnesses as damning. In an actual trial, jurors would be instructed by the bench to do so.

[@drsch]

He's the only legal professional I've heard to this point who has taken most of what the witnesses said seriously. Every other one I've heard has noted that most of the testimony would be useless in an actual court because it's mainly hearsay.

[@pitadude9836]

@@sabin97, it's good to see you're not biased I your assessment, because Sondland said it was his PRESUMPTION, that was Trump's intent, not what Trump explicitly srate

[@sabin97]

@@pitadude9836 i invite you to watch the hearings. you can find the videos everywhere. sondland was clear that there was a quid pro quo. and the one he described was the illegal kind. you dont need to use the words "quit pro quo" in order for something to be a quid pro quo. specially an illegal one. i'm not talking about "intent". i'm talking about actions. the illegal quid pro quo was very clear. the patterns of behaviour described by first-hand witnesses were also very clear. and not at all surprising given drumpfs whole life of being a conman.

[@FinalStooge]

sabin97 imagine being so biased and hateful against Republicans that you honestly think that if a Republican saw their candidate rape a child they’d still vote for that candidate. You are so obsessed with Trump that you go out of your way to misspell his name. You’re literally the definition of an oxygen pirate 😁

[@MemoriesAndJersey]

That seamless transition into the promo at the end was a god-tier level of smooth.

[@mohammadessawy8879]

honestly that was the best skillshare ad Ive ever seen they better have paid him good

[@shamanik1320]

It was solely what transformed my upvote on the video to a downvote. If we are going to mention Ukraine, then it should also be explained how it is illegal and also how illegal was Joe Biden's son with the Ukraine. It is a subject I'm trying to learn more about myself and hate to see it glossed over since it is at the crux of the argument against the President.

[@coryzilligen790]

@@shamanik1320 Perhaps you misread the title, but this video is about presidential impeachments, not about Ukrainian scandals. While the Ukrainian scandal involving Trump earns a short mention by virtue of being explicitly cited in the articles of impeachment against Trump, the one involving Biden is completely irrelevant to the topic as Biden is neither a current nor former president, nor have there been any impeachment proceedings against him. Kindly stop with the whataboutism. It's getting rather tiresome after four years of nonstop usage.

[@konobuzoggu239]

rivals the smoothness of transition of Thoughty2

[@shamanik1320]

@@coryzilligen790 Because of the fact there is no declared law that was broken, the entire reason(s) for Trump being impeached are superficial and based on heresay and opinion, otherwise I would agree it is slightly arbitrary but it seems the only real talking point the democrats have so I would find it beneficial to be completely delved into and explored from the beginning.

[@manuelschneider1105]

Objection: Judges didn't vote for your clients, they ruled in favor of your clients!

[@stylis666]

You're probably right, but you can never be sure :p

[@ToabyToastbrot]

@@stylis666 you mean he could have had a client that run for office and the judge voted for him?

[@stylis666]

@@ToabyToastbrot Do you know that he never had such a client?

[@ToabyToastbrot]

@@stylis666 You're right till proven wrong.

[@urielmartinez2161]

Unfortunately, some people don't care about what the founding fathers thought.

[@mauryhatcher]

This is the reason I'm subbed: you make straightforward, clear and interesting videos about some complicated legal issues (and are always dressed sharply to boot). We're about the same age ... but if you'd somehow been my Civics teacher in high school I imagine I would have enjoyed that subject a lot more!

[@fnglert]

"Especially the ones that voted for my client" - I see what you did there. Nice.

[@ASEKen]

yea, he is bias to the ones that ruled in his favor... once again showing legal eagle is bias.....

[@Timbone07]

Time stamp?

[@baranorak4080]

That transition was so smooth that I didn't even realize I was watching an ad until like a solid minute

[@pingasatchi9247]

I see more comments about preparing for fights in the comment section than actual fights in the comment section

[@kooldudematt1]

There is a saying that comes to mind--well, really parts of a poem: "Night will fall and the dark will rise when _[sic]_ good men go to war;" arguing on the Internet is interesting but highly ineffective, in general. Those in support of our President prefer to let their physical weaponry speak for them.

[@omikronweapon]

welcome to planet Earth nowadays.

[@eckmann88]

This is your best political video! No bias and solid legal foundation. I appreciate it!

[@jasonochoa7876]

there was a lot of bias against trump he just didn't insult him

[@cleath1290]

@@jasonochoa7876 truth. he did pretty good until the end. i haven't seen anyone claim their is a snowballs chance he gets convicted in the senate. he didn't even get all dems to vote to impeach (unknown at the time of this video) and some even swapped to republicans. really where i think he fell off of his no political bias cart is when he started making the senate impeachment sound way more believable than it was.

[@drsch]

It contained some fairly clear bias.

[@toppermusic]

I just realized how much he opens his hands and puts them back together now I can’t unsee it lol

[@darrelbarrel1617]

That’s a trait a lot of good lawyers have. Making your hands visible while looking people in the eye when you’re talking to them makes you seem more confident, as if you have nothing to hide. The show Better Call Saul does a good job of showing this along with other things lawyers do. Look up some clips if you want to see what I mean.

[@MuttFitness]

Moving your hands is supposed to help increase KZbin views. And lawyer reasons.

[@qdllc]

Tie his hands and he’ll never talk again.

[@whydoesyoutubehaveahandlenow]

Oh god wtf

[@vegasrider7287]

If you speed it up enough he is clapping

[@lulaowens96]

Would the new governor of va be classified as abusing his power and threatening the VA citizen with the use of the national guard if they don't fall in line.This is just out of curiosity.

[@strykertron232]

Probably. It is unconstitutional on both a state and federal level. Whether it will go to a courtroom is too early to tell.

[@account2871]

Time for big luau

[@asperbergers7136]

Probably not a smart thing.. Lot of body stackers live in the Hampton Roads area... Haha. Lotta crabs and tridents there. It'd be a slaughter.

[@LisaMurielBrandt]

This theoretical? Just curious since I’m in VA as well

[@tangoplays2547]

Keeping it simple, fucking-A right that's abuse of power. He's also violating his oath of office (Treason) much less the Constitution. If a citizen is killed by a state official post this threat, a good attorney can judo that shit to link this together, and that would certainly affect the governor's position.

[@benedictifye]

I'm really glad your channel exists when this is going on. Thanks for doing these.

[@NovemberAlphaTango]

"Abuse of power" is highly subjective. Presidents do things that have an ancillary effect of personally benefitting themselves all the time. So does congress. That's why insider trading is allowed for members of congress.

[@LabrnMystic]

Objection: Are there any special rules or steps when judges and lawyers are being sued? Like is there a legal/lawyer version to a doctor's malpractice?

[@LabrnMystic]

Sidebar: if you are going to do another Harvey birdman attorney at law, there is an episode related to this. Harvey's Civvy

[@AtomicAJ74]

I think in all 50 states, lawyers, judges, and other "officers of the court" are protected from prosecution for performing their jobs. So if the District Attorney or State's Attorney prosecutes you for drunk driving (just an example), but you beat the charge, you can't then turn around and sue them for wrongful prosecution or similar. There are mechanisms to have these officers censured and even removed if there is evidence that they either abused their power (such as leveling additional charges to someone's former spouse) or perform negligently. But no, you and I don't get to sue them. Only exception would be if you were able to prove malpractice, got them removed, and then sued them in civil court.

[@jackcarroll6940]

Lawyers can be sued for malpractice (for civil cases, on criminal cases its more complicated but can reverse a conviction if the defense lawyer was incompetent - it's called ineffective assistance of counsel). Law firms spend a lot of money on malpractice insurance and there are lawyers who specialize in legal malpractice cases.

[@Metrion77]

HAHA. Like a sitting judge would ever set a precedent for the masses to retaliate.

[@daltigoth3970]

There is an article on the ABA website that was posted earlier this year about exactly this. It is pretty short and fairly easy to understand. www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/commercial-business/practice/2019/when-does-a-mistake-become-malpractice/

[@SleepyTaylor]

Not gonna lie, that was one smooth ad transition at the end!

[@ignitionfrn2223]

0:55 - Chapter 1 - Where does impeachment come from ? 3:30 - Chapter 2 - What actions can get a federal officer impeached ? 7:30 - Chapter 3 - What is the presidential standard for impeachment ? 10:50 - Chapter 4 - What can we deduce from this particular incident ? 16:50 - Chapter 5 - What's the bottom line ? 17:40 - Chapter 6 - What will happen to president Trump ? 21:00 - End roll ads

[@NoriMori1992]

"POLITICAL WITCH HUNTS!" "YOUR PERFECT CALL!" That startled me but was also really funny 🤣

[@aceofspades1217]

“Especially the ones who found for my client” classic

[@salkjdfhalsdgfkauhg]

Lmao, all politicians now sound like that Producer from South Park. "I AM ABOVE THE LAW!" *insert combover being slicked to the side*

[@aeroripper]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/hZS1pWaPiseBZs0

[@salkjdfhalsdgfkauhg]

@Thad Stevens Unfortunately, no. Corruption falls on both sides of our system. Most of the corrupt democrats just have the smarts to stay small time and play the long game. Where as the corrupt republicans are like Texas, bigger is better.

[@Valarius_J]

@Thad Stevens If you think the Democrats have the moral high ground you're out of your mind. Both the Republicans and Democrats have been an ever growing cancer in this country for almost 200 years. They are both obscenely corrupt and do not care about we the people.

[@semajthomas771]

Never pay too much attention to a lawyer explaining his position. Wait to heat the other side, and yes there is one here.

[@dragonknight1599]

semaj thomas, You’re absolutely right. There are two sides to this. But, the president has been given an opportunity to present his side of the argument, especially in the form of evidence and testimony, and has chosen not to participate. And the Senate seems poised to NOT allow him to present any evidence or testimony or witnesses that would bolster his argument. His participating in the judiciary committee‘s proceedings would’ve been helpful. He’d be able to present his side of the case and if Democrats proceeded with the impeachment regardless it would be much easier to paint it as a partisan process. Right now he just looks like someone stamping their feet and saying “it’s not fair! I don’t like it!“ and it’s harder to take that argument seriously.

[@chooseitwisely98]

Im do glad this channel exists ive just been out here like whats going on im not a constitutional lawyer and the hearings.... happened?

[@MrBuschi531]

They didn't add bribery as a third article since there never was bribery and they don't have any good evidence on that. Then again, neither do they have on the other two articles and they still added them

[@collinswanson920]

Do you even know the articles they drafted against him?

[@DivideByZeroGetCake]

That moment when a lawyer refers to misdemeanors as fun. 😂

[@houstonionthegreat]

Objection: you aren't a real eagle

[@lucyl4587]

You can't blame him for that, he admits he doesn't know bird law.

[@onanthebarbarian9883]

@@lucyl4587 *Cue Harvey Birdman*

[@danilonden3782]

Rejected: you can't assume a person's animal identity

[@whatchu_talkin_john_willis]

Overruled: factually without distinguishing traits of an eagle (beak, feathers, talons, and the ability of flight) the accused cannot be a member of the Accipitridae family

[@beeble2003]

You've misunderstood. He is a legal eagle in the same sense that a corporation is a legal person. That doesn't mean that a corporation is _actually_ a person; it just means that a corporation is afforded the rights and privileges of personhood. Similarly, Devin has all the rights and privileges of eaglehood.

[@MacAdvisor]

Objection: Two, actually. First, the vote is not two-thirds of the Senate, but two-thirds of the Senators present. Two-thirds of the Senate would mean the vote is now at 67, regardless of the number of Senators in the chamber, while, in fact, if there are only 80 of the 100 Senators present, the officer can be removed with the vote of only 54 votes. Second, removal from office is NOT the only penalty that can be imposed. The Senate may also vote to bar the person from ever holding Federal office again. Currently, Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla, is a member of Congress holding Federal office, but he was impeached as a Federal judge some years ago. However, while the Senate removed him as a judge, it did not impose the additional restriction of baring him from Federal office. Hence, he was able to run for and serve in Congress. In the law, details matter.

[@jaypeso4879]

Based on that language could we not bring the entire United States government up on charges of corruption, bribery, war crimes, and hate crimes?

[@uss_04]

0:57 So what your saying, is that impeachment isnt about putting fruit chunks into my favorite yogurt? Impeachment doesnt involve fruit at all? Inb4 orange is a fruit

[@povljr]

Niiiiice

[@technocratcrypto9594]

It also has nothing to to with mead.

[@chuckster255]

Late-night talk show host and comedian Stephen Colbert refers to Trump's impeachment as "Don and the giant impeach".

[@joshhardgrave2410]

You're thinking of Enpeachment. Common mistake.

[@Giraffinator]

Hol up, did a lawyer officially tell us that misdemeanors are fun? Hell yeah, Ima try

[@StaticImage]

I thought the exact same thing

[@acronen]

Misdemeanors are incredibly fun for lawyers. Commit enough of them or certain ones, and you'll need one which means they get paid.

[@alisongreen3841]

this was funny lol.

[@bravojr]

Lookin sharp man keep up the keeping up. Oh and informational too!