Quid Pro Quo? Taylor and Vindman testify (Real Law Review)

⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
Was there a quid pro quo? What is a quid pro quo? What’s the big deal.
Legal Eagles get 2 months of unlimited learning on Skillshare for FREE: legaleagle.link/skillshare
Ambassador William Taylor and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified in front of the House. Their testimony is damning.
(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 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: [e-mail]

[@LegalEagle]

I’m unreasonably proud of the fake caption on Taylor’s instagram photo. Learn how to become an Instagram expert at Skillshare! skl.sh/legaleagle20

[@reveranttangent1771]

New lawyer joke; the American Bar Association is composed of liberals. According to some senator about the ABA declaring a person unfit to be a federal judge.

[@brendancarlton7326]

I'm reasonably proud to watch your videos within moments of you posting them.

[@InsaneManiac]

You sir are a master at your craft. Much respect to a very honest and objective third part analysis.

[@Napster60]

So if one of the many reasons to investigate corruption happens to be of personal political benefit to trump does that mean we should not investigate the crime? When other presidents aid countries it can certainly be a political boost to their re election.. Expanding freedoms to other countries as part of a deal for assistance was one of your examples and would defiantly be a good boost to the re-election of J.W. Bush.. That's a personal benefit along with the many other non personal ones.. I fail to see how investigating a crime is impeachable simply because ONE of the benefits of the investigation would be personally beneficial. These kind of videos are what give lawyers a bad name. They are clearly one sided and looking at all the ways impeachment sounds like the correct course of action when there is a lot more to consider.

[@Koooo4]

@@Napster60 Your comment is what gives youtube comments a bad name. It so moronic it's almost amazing. *"I fail to see how investigating a crime is impeachable simply because ONE of the benefits of the investigation would be personally beneficial."* You certainly do fail. The impeachable thing is NOT the investigation of a crime, it's the withholding of millions in military-aid to start such an investigation for personal gain.

[@walteracevedo5105]

LegalEagle: "Everyone learned Latin in school, right?" School System: "Good question."

[@HippopotamusPencil]

That tickled me way more than it should.

[@kylep.9395]

I learned more Latin in Choir than in a normal class

[@user-ei9ns9hq6b]

Clearly the liberal controlled school system would rather teach bogus classes like gender studies than something useful like Latin.

[@user-ei9ns9hq6b]

Another thing the school system doesn't teach: how to properly use a firearm. President Trump must be happy about that because he just banned bump stocks and is helping the demoKKKrats with their gun confiscation agenda. Trump is turning out to be every libtard's wet dream.

[@kylep.9395]

@@user-ei9ns9hq6b I learned hunter safety when I was in middle school it was an after school class but it was taught in the school. I'm lucky my school didn't have any of those waste of funding classes. I actually had a Government class, Economics, Personal Finance, world history. My school was lucky we still had shop classes some home econ classes. But this was all in a Red state with a conservative community. I honestly feel bad for northern California who are forced to learn what they are told to by the leftist state government

[@aaronhauptman7833]

Just came upon your KZbin channel by sheer luck. As a retired litigator, former Assistant District Attorney in NYC and law clerk to two NY State judges, I am very impressed with both the content and presentation of your videos. I am looking forward to catching up on your past videos and keeping up with your future ones.

[@johnbai4715]

If you were a lawyer, a good one anyway, you would not be praising another lawyer for using a leaked transcript of an opening statement. Especially when he uses it to misrepresent the witness's entire testimony. You're either not a lawyer... or your bias is just as bad as Legal Eagle's.

[@tommiatkins3443]

@@johnbai4715 Article in the public domain. And now that done, hows your orange god doing? Like his crimes?

[@coolk714]

@@johnbai4715 go back to school

[@Timmy1979]

@@tommiatkins3443 .... Legal Eagle uses a leak from an opening statement and calls it his "Testimony" this is misleading and is what John Bai said.

[@tommiatkins3443]

@@Timmy1979 So the criminal act they tried to cover up was unsuccessfully covered up. Witnesses talked. Good people did their duty exposing the criminals. Seriously Redhat. Don't worry. The senate court has paid off judges. Your foul mafia boss is safe to carry on commiting any crime he likes, and you to cheer him on.

[@JargonMadjin]

Governments: Running around in cicles either deflecting or ignoring the question A lawyer on KZbin: Actually answers the question Bless you dude

[@swickens930]

Legal Eagles analysis is possibly the most biased one we've seen yet lol. He straight makes like ten statements of fact and comes to multiple conclusions off an opening statement... The videos trash

[@JargonMadjin]

@@swickens930 Are you a lawyer?

[@dwolfg]

@@JargonMadjin That is irrelevant. An argument/opinion is good or bad on its own merits, regardless of who says it. If a mathematician says 2+2=5 and a homeless bum says 2+2=4, are you going to believe the mathematician or the bum?

[@swickens930]

@@JargonMadjin lol you know someone else said that same thing. Don't make yourself look like an idiot. In all court cases, all charges are decided by a Jury, people who generally don't have any degree at all. They decide who they think is biased and who's guilty. Every time. And most of them aren't lawyers. Also, you don't need to be a lawyer to see that someone is clearly biased. Also, I can link you actual KZbin videos of other lawyers calling Legal Eagle out for being biased. Also, yes, I study law and work in a field where I talk to attorneys every day. I'm a lawyer? Do I have a bar certificate? No. But who gives a shit HAHA. Doesn't matter.

[@JargonMadjin]

@@dwolfg I was just asking a question dude

[@thelegendofxander]

I'd really like a breakdown of the new testimony from Gordon Sondland about this. I normally don't request things from channels but it might be useful to people who don't get it and want to understand.

[@Senscion]

How about a break down of the FIona HIll testimony?

[@jeremylarson6267]

Would be a pretty quick video: the reported bombshell claim is that Sondland's opening statement and testimony indicated there was a quid pro quo. That testimony was then clarified under republican questioning as the only direct instruction from Trump to Sondland was that Trump explicitly said he did not want a quid pro quo and wanted the Ukrainian president to do the right thing. Sondland then further testified that the only reason he claimed a quid pro quo was based on his (Sondland) own presumption, not from any direction or instruction by anyone. Missing from all of this is that the only reason any of the investigations trump wanted are public is because democrats made them public. If the investigations are motivated to influence elections, one has to ask why the democrats made it public. Since it was the democrats who made it public, and influenced the election, why are they not abusing their power? Why do democrats want to influence the election away from Biden?

[@davidrapalyea7727]

Impeachment is vote based. So is removal.

[@KennyTew2]

Jeremy Larson wasn’t the instruction to not do a quid pro quo after he’d already been caught doing the quid pro quo?

[@Wyrrlicci]

that was, HANDS DOWN, the Smoothest transition into a sponsor anyone has ever pulled off in the history of youtube

[@s.m.2523]

Nah. He's done so much smoother in the past. If anything by this channel standard it was a pretty clunky one.

[@christianthayer-yates9736]

You must be new here

[@MortisObscura]

Then you haven't seen my sponsor transition with coca-cola, you can watch it while enjoying a refreshing coca-cola while planning an american pastime like baseball or shooting up schools.

[@SM-BSW]

B

[@applejackzo]

Just like a lawyer. Gift of gab

[@keiyakins]

In short: the problem isn't "this for that", it's "this from the United States in exchange for that for me alone."

[@LiveLXStudios]

With importance to note that the request itself was criminal (soliciting foreign election interference). Quid pro quo just makes it worse

[@Tumeq]

@@LiveLXStudios Yeah, that's often not even mentioned, but absolutely. It's the very same crime Muller didn't find enough evidence for.

[@vyngeance1128]

Let’s just forget that the person he’s inquiring about is a previous Vice President and possible future president.. the question of his own corruption and quid pro quo that started all this is just conveniently skated over

[@LiveLXStudios]

Josh Clark Because it’s irrelevant to whether Trump committed a crime or not

[@vyngeance1128]

Theo If trump committed a crime so did Biden, he should be investigated too.

[@sgtsnokeem1139]

Every time I hear quid pro quo I think... "Quid pro quo Clarisse" lol

[@MrUndersolo]

Thought I was the only one thinking about that film. Have some Chianti... 🍷

[@ryanhubbard1885]

Hannibal’s exact quote was “quid pro quo, yes or no? Yes or no, Clarice?

[@TorquemadaTwist]

"Oh, and Senator just one more thing....Love your suit."

[@sgtsnokeem1139]

"Okey dokey" 😉

[@TorquemadaTwist]

@@sgtsnokeem1139 Hannibal Lecter: Tell me, Senator: did you nurse Catherine yourself? Senator Ruth Martin: What? Hannibal Lecter: Did you breast-feed her? Sen. Martin's Aide: Now wait a minute... Senator Ruth Martin: Yes, I did. Hannibal Lecter: Toughened your nipples, didn't it? Why aren't more senators questioned on their nipple resilience? I'm looking at you, Mitch McConnell.

[@johnwebster3d]

"It's great for former top diplomats who suddenly have a lot of time on their hands." I'm dying. LOL

[@ezminj]

OBJECTION: I was never supposed to be *this* interested in law. Motion to strike my sudden obsession with your channel from the record?

[@GerryBolger]

SUSTAINED

[@xXRealXx]

With the right person, anything can be made interesting.

[@Hypotetiskt]

I support this motion. I'm swedish and you've made me interested in american law.

[@missoula2213]

Denied.

[@nobodyrogers]

Sustained

[@beasleydad]

You do a public service when you analyze and explain things like this on KZbin. Because of the nature of the internet and the nature of American politics I'm sure you face equal parts support and detraction in comments, private messages and on social media. Please continue to do so. You're entertaining and educational. And the fact that you're open to disagreements and are willing to tackle them in the comments is also admirable.

[@elrojogrande744]

He straight up deletes comments pointing out where hes wrong. He doesn't answer disent in the slightest. He just censors it to appear so.

[@tiredoftiredness7787]

@@elrojogrande744 Wheres the evidence though. That right there is slander.

[@elrojogrande744]

@@tiredoftiredness7787 personal experience. Ive written several long well thought out criticisms of legal eagal that have been removed. Also, if you believe something is true it doesnt qualify as slander. You have to knowingly spread false information. Nice try though.

[@Jacob-fe1we]

@@elrojogrande744 Without evidence, you are technically spreading misinformation lol. If I say you murdered someone, even if I truly believe it's true, I still have to provide evidence that you did something. Or else I'm spreading slander about you that you're a murderer.

[@TheJingles007]

@@elrojogrande744 you're accusing a man of being dishonest when you can't even spell his youtube name right. c'mon bro

[@Gretlou10]

Please please please continue to do these videos throughout the impeachment proceedings! They are so incredibly helpful as we are bombarded with interviews with politicians claiming this process is a sham and that the president is being denied due process. I certainly would appreciate even a daily video breaking down each person’s testimony and your opinion of the accusations of unfairness from the GOP. Thank you for sharing your legal expertise with us!

[@matari_ganan]

Sir, your segue into your sponsors section is flawless ^_^

[@beren082]

so smooth it's like butter

[@ExasBits]

Julien Solomita would be proud.

[@Zampther]

Did you hear that the band u2 fired their lawyer? Turns out he was not pro bono.....

[@Sleeping_Insomiac]

Umpf Täh Täh! (german for badum ts)

[@Adjuni]

@@Sleeping_Insomiac Germans really do have a word for everything, don't they? Greetings from across the water. o/

[@unematrix]

get out!

[@JaggerDaBombs]

I object and ask the Judge to strike this pun from the comments.

[@Sleeping_Insomiac]

@@Adjuni That would be "Wortschöpfungsfähigkeit" 😂😂😂 But you're right, we just need to have a precise word for everything... it's our pet peeve.

[@Kap00rwith2os]

I like how this guy just slips in an ad at the end. He's a master of the segway.

[@Taurusus]

Objection! Segway is a trademarked product; the electric podium-based personal transportation device. You're looking for "segue".

[@Quonzer]

Segue* actually. I know, it's a weird spelling. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@JGirDesu]

Yup, it's Segue

[@kennethcrenshaw317]

Autocorrect changed my segue into segway. So, it may have been that

[@ConfusedNyan]

When you transition from walking to one of these motorized two-wheeled vehicles, you are engaging in a "Segway segue".

[@wtfpwnz0red]

LMAO that segue into the ad was so smooth it took me almost a minute to notice that it wasn't part of the program. I had to back up the video to see the fake Instagram caption

[@jeffc5974]

"Stunned everyone that's paying attention." Therein lies the problem. We have way too many people who are actively avoiding seeing what is pretty clear if they would only look.

[@rz4109]

Jeff C no

[@OneManCast]

No, I'm the only one properly paying attention. Am I the only one who knows the Constitution anymore? The Executive Branch has every right to refuse funding if there is a suspicion of personnel treason. You might want to pay attention to what Trump's investigating into. Even further, Congress has done the same thing as Trump in regards to the Russian Hoax. There's no difference and therefore unless all Congressmen and women are being put on trial for Quid Pro Quo, there's no cause for impeachment.

[@jeffc5974]

@@OneManCast There was corruption, Biden was trying to stop the corruption, and was fairly successful on at least part of it, and Trump is flipping the script. It's swift boating all over again - take someones strongest trait and make it bad. If Trump is investigating anything, and it would change the narrative, he might want to let people know what it is.

[@beardedrogue4282]

@@jeffc5974 Do you seriously think Biden is trying to stop corruption? He's a lifelong politician, he is corruption.

[@trinova9581]

Bearded Rogue The Ukrainian minister that Biden was urging to have fired (on behalf of a coalition of many other governments doing the same) was notoriously corrupt, and was purposely stonewalling investigations into corruption, including Burisma. In fact, Biden’s son wasn’t even hired on to Burisma until several months after the investigation into Burisma was halted. You can’t say Biden was trying to halt an investigation into his son when that investigation was halted long before his son even came aboard and that removing the offending minister would have actually resumed the investigation into Burisma. The timeline for Trump’s conspiracy flat out doesn’t work.

[@TazorNissen]

Could you do a video on how the Congress subpoenas work and what legal options Congress has when witnesses refuse to testify? Thank you!

[@KevinSmith-qi5yn]

Only one, they ask the Attorney General to start an investigation. The problem here is quite simple and can be explained by congress asking Eric Holder to investigate Eric Holder in contempt of congress. Refusal to testify is usually a stalling strategy. There can be a number of reasons why a person refuses to testify, and a grand jury may side with the defendant as is often the case. For instance Nadler requesting documents that would be illegal to provide. There can be jail time when convicted of contempt of congress, but more than likely if found guilty the person will need to provide sufficient testimony or documents. Jail time in this case is more in line with attempting to bribe congress also covered in contempt of congress.

[@inorite4553]

Not true and LegalEagle kinda already addressed this. Congress can refer the individual to the Justice Dept & they would press charges (fat chance with Barr there), they could levy civil fees until that individual testifies or they can deputize an individual and task them with tracking down that individual and bring them to custody to testify. The last one has already happened once so there's precedent

[@danpowell806]

Congress can also use their normal authority. For example, they could put a clause in the appropriations bill preventing any government money going to a person or to any company that they have an ownership interest in. That kind of heavy-handed attack would force compliance very quickly.

[@sparkysun43]

They can file a lawsuit to compel testimony. Then Congress and the defendant would either work something out or the defendant could be held in contempt of Congress.

[@dwolfg]

Legally, nothing. Congress can do nothing legally when someone refuses to testify. Illegally the sky is the limit.

[@elementadimension1956]

I’d love to see LegalEagle have a collaboration with Doctor Mike because a doctor and a lawyer getting together to talk about the political vs the the doctors interest in the healthcare system would be very interesting as well as see the different points of view on that topic.

[@PsionicNoMad]

Yes please.

[@user-eg2yj5bn4m]

I concur

[@a3zth3tikz]

Especially now that John Oliver recently talked about Medical Biases. Oh, how I would love to watch that discussion.

[@user-eg2yj5bn4m]

@@a3zth3tikz Dr. Mije did a video on that one great one to watch.

[@JamesWilson-vr3ql]

Why, yes, I did take Latin in high school. As I recall, 'Quid pro quo' means either this for that, what for whom, or about six other meanings depending on context.

[@SRosenberg203]

Ah, Latin. What a wonderful language lmao.

[@Somerandomguy524]

Can you do a piece on the case of the family whose house was destroyed by police?

[@umbra1016]

Didn't know about this but just read up on it. That's horrible! Definitely deserves more attention and call to how crazy it was they didn't get reimbursed other than $5,000 for the insurance deductible and temp rental assistance. All because an armed Walmart shoplifter decided to hole up in their place. Even if that's a legally correct verdict, it's still pretty messed up how they didn't get anything in the end.

[@Matt_Fields_29]

Which ONE?

[@umbra1016]

@John Smith That doesn't fit anyone's agenda. We all know that happens from time to time because it comes with the job and isn't as shocking. It's just how popular media works. Besides, the overall outcome of a citizen unfairly compensated for damages through no fault of their own is much more ridiculous than a police officer willingly putting their life on the line in the first place, wouldn't you say?

[@umbra1016]

​@John Smith Sure! People might care about tragedy, but sadly they only care about unique events in the media. We all know police officers are gunned down constantly and it is certainly sad. But we hear about it all the time and it's technically boring (whether it's fair or not how much coverage that gets, this is how society is). Like I said in my first comment I shocked how unjust the OP was. It's so unique since the residents were not at fault and there was such a lack of compassion from the legal system. That legal system should have clearly helped them out more than they did since they have the moral obligation to do so (which is why it's relevant to this channel). A great majority of the time police officers and their families do get fair legal compensation and media coverage (albeit maybe less than you personally might like). That's why police officers dying is not necessarily relevant to this channel.

[@umbra1016]

@John Smith Cool! Glad I could clarify! People hate long explanations so I tried to shorten my point in the first comment as much as I could (unsuccessfully I suppose). lol

[@christopherjustice6411]

I'm very concerned about the future of my country.

[@DaleFrewaldt]

I'm not. The worst case scenario is that Donald Trump wins reelection and serves an additional 4 years. He's got a hard limit on how long he can administer policy. In the meantime, it's not entirely likely that the Democrats will lose the House, so legislatively, his Presidency has been dead since 2018.

[@Thrifty032781]

It's really not a big deal. If you actually put aside Trump's overwhelming stupidity and obnoxiousness, he's really not doing anything that affects the average American. Because, by design, a president can't do much. That's why no president can be some Grand Savior or Dark Lord.

[@MrOrthoclase]

@@DaleFrewaldt Presidents, even lame ducks, still appoint judges, still command the bully pulpit, still sign executive orders, still hold the tie breaking vote in the Senate...

[@saphired02]

@@MrOrthoclase yeah but is the VP any better. The VP is just a quiter more tame version of Trump. We should try to impeach if possible but also focus on a candidate for 2020. And then after Trump is out of office we should throw him in jail.

[@PoggoMcDawggo]

@@Thrifty032781 Some of Trumps actions, like him shutting down the government repeatedly, have negatively affected me and my family. For a time the government funding I receive to go to college was stalled during the shutdowns and I was almost forced to drop all the classes I was taking. Additionally my family's business, a gym, couldn't recieve any funding to be built as the company funding the building project had no money due to the government shutting down.

[@ProfessorDextive]

I always laugh and shake my head whenever your flawlessly transition into an advertisement. It’s so well done I’m not annoyed by listening to the promotion 😂

[@KendrixTermina]

I love how you don't shy away from incendiary topics but still keep it rational and methodical

[@johnbai4715]

Using an opening statement to falsely present an entire testimony... wow... such rational... much methodical

[@blackromulan]

LegalEagle: "You all took Latin back in High School, right?... No?" Also LegalEagle: "Chargé d'affaires" We get it, Noam Chomsky; you got linguistic skills.

[@bradypostma5167]

That's just plain funny! Have an upvote.

[@porsche911sbs]

We may have not taken high school Latin but I'm sure we all took high school French

[@rawovunlapin8201]

@@porsche911sbs I mean, I was _there,_ I just didn't participate. Oh, and sometimes I wasn't there either

[@fredhenry101]

@@porsche911sbs I took Spanish. Much more useful in my region of the country

[@porsche911sbs]

@@fredhenry101 I was just kidding

[@malenotyalc]

Bill Taylor could also use Indochino so he looks good for the cameras while testifying in the public impeachment hearings.

[@alexandernikolaus3451]

So you don't think the billions of dollars they've lost through Barisama is in our national interest? Or are you saying that even though they had already started the investigation before the phone call it's still bad to ask about it?

[@Simon-ow6td]

Crazy we live in a time where this is still up for debate. This is actually, hands down, impeachable stuff. I wish enough Republican politicians had the balls to put their country first and recognize this.

[@ashkebora7262]

Please for the love of all things sane, _keep covering real world events, too!!_ You always bring a lot of data to the table, and break it down as it actually may apply in court and not just how it plays out in the news. I wish I could say there was a news source as informative as _a lawyer on KZbin,_ but ... well... this is the world we live in, I guess...

[@andyfumo8931]

"this is the world we live in, I guess" man that's so sad so true

[@reylasharp6349]

It's pretty obvious that they both have legal and political bias'. They both have a presentation of the facts as they see and interpret. I recommend verifying the following: 1) Are you dismissing it because it's not what you WANT to hear? 2) Have you personally verified at least three fact-based sources for the information being presented? 3) Have you confirmed that the content isn't being taken out of context? I'm sure there are other ways to avoid letting your opinion be affected by bias(which is always present), but those seem to be the most effective for me.

[@eschwarz1003]

YESSSSS!

[@adamb3918]

@@reylasharp6349 - I might add to your list. Decide on the standard and line, or type of evidence you will accept BEFOREHAND. Example: If the investigation shows the person is guilty, will i believe it? If yes then by extension you are implying you trust that source and thus should trust the source if they say not guilty.

[@wylierichardson6519]

Have you tried Philip DeFranco? He runs an amazing news progream. He does share his opinion and view but makes very clear where his opinions are and where the facts are

[@estel-randir]

objection, the plural is quae pro quibus. if we're gonna do our pedantry, we're going to do our pedantry right.

[@sirmoonslosthismind]

the phrase may be of latin origin, but its use in english is governed by english grammar, not latin grammar.

[@annalisasteinnes]

In any case, the use of an apostrophe was incorrect.

[@RJStockton]

Romani eunt Domus.

[@mehwhyausername1]

if we want to play semantic linguistic games, then we should also expect ourselves to conversationally use the diction octopodes as the plural for octopus. since when have we ever heard a layperson use the plural word "oktōpodes" correctly? never. the general public is not so detail-oriented.

[@RabblesTheBinx]

@@sirmoonslosthismind see, but the problem is that English rules are inconsistent with words of foreign origin. Sometimes we add an "s" or "es" (agendas, walruses), sometimes we use the source language's plural (alumni, larvae), sometimes we use the wrong language to create the plural form (octopi, platypi) or the wrong form within the right language (cacti). English is just friggin weird.

[@SMATF5]

The problem with staffing an administration solely with loyalists and henchmen is that those kinds of people generally aren't very good at anything other than being goons - appointing them as advisors, ambassadors, etc. is likely to not work out very well, as they will quickly show themselves to be clumsily incompetent.

[@georgeschweiss3164]

But the US did elect Chitolini. So we have that going...yay!

[@georgeschweiss3164]

@David McConville All true, but, you are assuming the power vacuum was caused by a popular uprising. This was a peaceful transfer of power, Do the same rules apply?

[@_XR40_]

"...appointing them as advisors, ambassadors, etc. is likely to not work out very well..." Actually likely to work put every bit as well as the last 70 years of "professionals" have done. Seriously, the so-called "experts" don't exactly have a great track-record...

[@otmanh]

I swear this channel has the most fluid and invisible segues into commercial content. I get caught in confusion every damn time Lol.

[@nickblinko5677]

"We do that all the time" ....o....k...a...y...

[@petemagnuson7357]

On a national level, isn't that how diplomacy works? "We'll help your nation in exchange for you helping our nation" The (alleged) problem in this case being that is was for personal benefit, not national benefit. The quote was trying to say that the Ukraine thing was exactly the same as normal diplomacy, not necessarily admit that they do this sort of corruption every day.

[@Arkantos117]

@@petemagnuson7357 If Biden hasn't done anything wrong then there's no problem. If he has then the nation deserves to know, don't they? Isn't that national benefit?

[@rush1185]

@@Arkantos117 right so you see absolutely no issue in asking foreign governments to investigate your political opponents?

[@ilimitadouc]

@@petemagnuson7357 Well, knocking down a potencial corrupt slimeball was a national benefit

[@nicholaslist3110]

@@ilimitadouc Halting aid on the stipulation of investigating a political opponent is not an easy sell for being in Americas best interest. If the President had reason to believe that a US citizen was committing crimes in a foreign nation why didn’t he contact any one of the almost limitless investigative, diplomatic, and law enforcement assets of the United States or international community? Why would anyone reporting what should be such an obvious transgression do it in this fashion?

[@aaronrobinson2121]

Objection: This format doesn't make it easy to make requests! Request: Can you do an explanatory video on how media spins legal issues? Exhibit A: "GOP must find out if whistleblower is a deep state operative" by Sean Hannity He makes specific arguments in there about coaching witnesses on which I'd like to hear your take.

[@Bligh-the-Third]

If it leads to a video explaining anything about coaching or preparing witnesses, it would be very interesting.

[@swickens930]

I mean, a perfect example of political spinning would be: everything legal eagle did in this video. If you want to learn how to jump to conclusions based off little evidence, just watch this video again lol.

[@taliathestrange2265]

I love that sly Simpsons reference about Rudy tweeting the "quiet part loud."

[@mjohnson5030]

Legal Eagle, have you considered doing "12 Angry Men"? Some say the greatest "jury movie" ever made?

[@TheUndeadslayer221]

He did a little thing on 12 angry men, although I had to search his channel for it.

[@mjohnson5030]

@@TheUndeadslayer221 Yes, I know he did one snippet of a small part of one scene. It was good. But 12 A.M. is a classic legal drama easily worthy of an entire episode.

[@WitchVulgar]

Question: Because Giuliani was running his own diplomacy operation, could that be considered a breach of the Logan Act? Would the President and related cabinet members/ambassadors have committed Conspiracy to violate the Logan Act by being involved in this?

[@fugitiveunknown7806]

Probably not, because it was pretty clear he was working on the administration's behalf.

[@Zay9xx]

He is the personal lawyer for the president and not a government official and those are separate as he is not employed by a government agency. I do think he violated it but I doubt he will be prosecuted for it.

[@fabrisseterbrugghe8567]

I thought the Logan Act only applied to Wolverine. 😉

[@AtomicAJ74]

Maybe, but unlikely. He would have to be persuing an agenda that was contrary to or interfering with the interests of the United States. And if they didn't charge Michael Flynn with violations of the Logan Act, I doubt they'll charge Guiliani.

[@AbsolXGuardian]

You're the channel I'm using for updates for this situation. You explain all the legal stuff in a clear, easy to understand, and detailed way. Most mainstream news assumes that the average reader has a much greater basic understanding of the law than most people actually have, resulting in the articles being misleading. Thank you!

[@Benwilli1]

I think the Skillshare plug at the end was my favorite part. And that's saying a lot cause I really love these VOD's. So well done.

[@giovannilaurenti5066]

I'm really glad you explained this in such detail.

[@what-it-is]

I really want you to do the "binding arbitration" episode of Silicon Valley, I have a feeling it's very legally accurate, but I'm no lawyer.

[@danielchae1452]

I'm not a lawyer, but most employment contracts I've signed include some language to the effect of "if one clause of the contract is deemed invalid, that doesn't mean the whole contract is invalid". So my guess is that, at the very least, the outcome of that episode's trial is very unlikely to happen in real life.

[@Stayner]

Please, do this

[@BedroomPianist]

Silicon Vally has several pertinent episodes/scenes for law review

[@marciusnhasty]

Episode went with the premise that the state in question has a specific legislation that prohibits the existence of the specific type of clause and punishes the employer by proclaiming the entire contract null and void. It could happen in the real life, provided that the state makes such legislation. Contract cannot override existing law. I do not know does such legislation exists anywhere in the US in real life, but there are multiple developed democratic countries with such legislation in the EU. This is why gaming industry will never have their game development studios in certain countries which have extensive worker protection legislation and/or right to unionize.

[@MattB90]

ugh miss that show!

[@melody_florum]

You should do the Gravity Falls “Fantasy vs Reality” court scene

[@JackBlackadder]

That Taylor segue at the end was just... perfection. 10/10 -IGN

[@EarlWallaceNYC]

This guy is brilliant at the transition to the commercial. I am well in to the commercial before I realize its a commercial.

[@TheRealGuywithoutaMustache]

I only learned what "quid pro quo" meant when I Googled it a week ago.

[@ShadowMuppetX]

I learned what quid pro quo was because I watched Silence of the Lambs probably like ten times when I was 9.

[@khit007]

I just googled it before this video.... its amazing to me that anyone would say trump wasn't asking for "something for something" The most amazing thing to me is that rudi Giuliani was mayor of new york? What the hell is wrong with the people of new york....

[@deadgaming20]

@@khit007 There's a reason he gets boo'd there LOL

[@GerryBolger]

@@ShadowMuppetX Yep, same here.

[@dotdot7270]

Ever notice that usually trump talks at a 4th grade level, but when news it negative towards him he starts using big words that his followers dont understand, "no quid pro quid pro" "our relationship with ukraine is reciprocal"

[@eltic3]

Two weeks ago you did a law review on an episode of spongebob. To day you are analyzing an impeachment scandal.... i love this channel

[@graey24601]

This is one channel where I intentionally listen to the sponsor promotion at the end out of respect for the skillful way it's integrated. Kudos.

[@Sirransborg]

How have I not found this channel before, every video is brilliant.

[@christopherporras1234]

Imagine being a lawyer and a lawyer youtuber on the side. Such a nice niche. I love this channel! *goes to med school, becomes part time doctor youtuber*

[@crazy9932]

@@AscendingAce I was going to say..umm might want to pick another field..but u kinda beat me to it lol

[@martianunlimited]

@@crazy9932 Don't forget Dr Hope's Sick Notes kzbin.info/door/MtZt5KQmhCLXiQVRhIgzTg especially if you enjoyed Legal Eagle's breakdown of the law in movies and pop culture. Dr Hope does the same for medical scenes.

[@redrhinos55]

@@martianunlimited There's also Doctor Mike, here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iHOlgIakjqmBo5o

[@tamhuy10]

dont listen to them, various sources are always good, you can become a doctor youtuber if you want to

[@redrhinos55]

@@tamhuy10 My pointing out of Doctor Mike's channel wasn't meant to be a deterrent, only an inspiration.

[@nicholasdean3467]

Still think of Always Sunny in Philadelphia when he says "justice will prevail" 16:10

[@stradius]

Pickles will prevail!

[@Nyx_Pyralis]

That smooth as all hell sponsorship transition just earned u a new sub lol I was listening while working and it made me smile when I realized (a bit later than I'd like to admit) what you were doing.

[@thevirtualjim]

I'd love for you to do a video on why some US citizens (like those working for the current WH administration) are allowed to ignore subpoenas, while other US citizens (like you and me) can not ignore them. because I really don't understand how that is possible.

[@johnbai4715]

How much intel do you have that affects national security?

[@PainCausingSamurai]

Why does the law matter if you can just ignore it with no consequences?

[@TheArtistKnownAsNooblet]

Well it doesn't. Which is why our Republican Congressmen need to get their shit together and realize rule of law is more important than their partisanship

[@michaeloxlong]

Well, all the witnesses, questions for those witnesses, evidence either way (prosecution or defense), and just about any other part of the process has to go through a man who's spent 3 years lying on national TV about "secret knowledge" of a collusion conspiracy that turned out to not exist; who belongs to a party which has been screaming about impeachment before the man even took office (a party that's also tried to impeach every president on the other side since Eisenhower btw)...ya...sounds like they already know the outcome...they just need to banana republic up the show trial. If this goes forward...civil war is a serious possibility...it actually reminds me of an old quote: "“Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”" - Lavrentiy Beria, head of Joseph Stalin’s secret police Maybe the Dems are finally embracing the fact that they're a bunch of authoritarian communists who wish to crush anyone who disagrees with their "tolerant" ways?

[@JP-zx7mx]

Cause the law doesn't matter for them. Republican or Democrat, you can get away with anything if you have money

[@MikeKing001]

We only have the opening statement. If you only had the opening statement in a trial would you immediately allow the jury to make a verdict or would you want them to listen to the full testimony?

[@Justanotherconsumer]

Which is why impeachment is necessary to get to that full trial, which is held in the Senate. There is enough information here to reasonably suggest that a crime occurred and a trial is justified. That’s all impeachment is - a statement that there’s even a chance he could be guilty, not a conclusion that he is.

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

There are more than just an opening statement and this Is why an impeachment is necessary

[@elrojogrande744]

@@Justanotherconsumer he was pointing out that legaleagle keeps referencing a testimony we dont actually have. We only have the opening statements and hes using them to draw conclusions, which is akin to allowing the jury to reach a verdict on only the opening statements.

[@elrojogrande744]

@@Mariomario-gt4oy theres actually not currently. Only the opening statements were selectively leaked to the press. Its literally all we have.

[@Mariomario-gt4oy]

@@elrojogrande744 uh except there are other testimonies and letters and text messages and testimony from other officials and whistleblowers. So no it isnt literally everything and given what already there is, it is most definitely impeachable and an investigation should continue to the end

[@moonstrikelilly5329]

I have to say I really enjoy how you make the ads relevant at the end lol

[@EdFiggs]

That segue though. Very smooth, very smooth indeed.

[@mikehartz2430]

I've been waiting for another of these! I appreciate the insight!

[@johnhardeskey289]

So much has been happening I figured the impeachment vote would force him to make another. The GOP's argument for 'fruit of the poisonous tree' is ridiculous.

[@PoggoMcDawggo]

@@johnhardeskey289 Is that the new defence?! Jesus I stop watching the news for a week and shit gets even worse.

[@thetiktaalik775]

Rustycode89 yeah, shit has been hitting the fan.

[@WDub963]

I finally found the liberal channel. How bias can one man be? Smh emphasizing 5 hours? Like 5 hours between midnight and 5am I wonder why he didn’t text back? Could he have been sleeping? Nope couldn’t be

[@mikehartz2430]

​@@WDub963 I don't think Legal Eagle is trying to take a partisan stance on the issue, but more treat this like he would a typical case. And in any such case, those types of details would be called into question by a prosecutor worth his/her salt. Plus I find it nice to have a channel like this dedicated to explaining some of the fundamentals of how the law works and the processes involved. We'll see how things play out from here, but I don't think its unreasonable that people have formed opinions on the issue.

[@epsilonfighters3563]

Hey LegalEagle I work at a gas station, and one of my customers told me about this case where a guy smashed his car's window in. He got it repaired, filed the police report and even showed up to court to file charges on the guy. However he claims that when he got to court, the guy was acting very crazy, threatening and intimidating towards him to get him to back down. Unfortunately in this situation he decided to back down but I was curious if something like this has happened to you, and is there something the person could have done to alert people of the man's behavior?

[@Zay9xx]

They could have told the officers at the court about that interaction. What that guy did was use intimidation and threats to get your customer to back down and if the he had gone through with the charges instead that dude would have been in jail for a good long while.

[@slitor]

That's a really interesting question actually. Both in what you should do "you probably don't bring a lawyer to small claims" and what is being violated. I would guess intimidating a plaintiff is just as bad as intimidating a witness, at least it should be. And as such it's not just a personal violation but a violation to the court itself, so the state can bring up its own charges without the guy.

[@D64nz]

Also his backing down can easily be revered since he did so under duress. Anything done under duress is pretty much null and void, even including signing contracts or committing crimes, say at gun point.

[@AtomicAJ74]

What you describe is actually a slew of potential criminal charges including assault (you don't have to physically touch someone for assault, that's in another video) against the guy who smashed the windshield. I encourage you to tell the person to file a police report and let them take it. It's very likely hell face charges and serve jail time. And if the guy did it to your customer, he's probably doing it to others as well.

[@pingwuan_works]

That transition into the skill share add though very crisp my dude.

[@myflippinggoodness8821]

That was one smooth transition into the ad pitch at the end 😎

[@saosiskissaki464]

Just want to be clear that this isn't about "digging up" dirt but manufacturing dirt.

[@tamhuy10]

either way it is illegal

[@Wereskeleton]

@@ric2504 Trump specifically wanted a unilateral public statement out of Zelinsky that did not mention the agreement with the United States so that it looked like a natural scandal for Biden coming out of Ukraine. Based in truth or not, that is manufacturing a hit piece. All good lies are based on truth.

[@KevinSmith-qi5yn]

According to a rampant leaker with ties to Democratic Leadership and was part of the Russian Collusion Hoax. He heard 2nd hand that Trump quid pro quo'd Ukraine to continue investigating a corruption scandal that actually involved quid pro quo by a Democratic Presidential Candidate. He was going to with-hold money that the Ukrainians didn't know about until after the whistleblower brought it up. But you can infer this by ellipting 500+ words from a transcript.

[@Wereskeleton]

@@KevinSmith-qi5yn Are you referring to the whistleblower? Because even if your character assassination is justified, we have the transcripts. The call is first hand information, released by the White House. The motivations of the whistleblower and their credibility are irrelevant. But you're too busy being a shill to realize you're attacking your own argument's foundation.

[@stevealford230]

The transctipts show there was no Quid Pro Quo, nothing improper from Trump.

[@JoshBearheart]

I tune in for the legal analysis, and stay for the Skillshare promos!

[@haldosprime3896]

Thank you for continuing to cover these topics, issues, and events. I really appreciate your insight on these matters.

[@johnnyd1678]

Ok this is weird, but you have the best ads on KZbin, lol

[@PutingPinoy]

_DEVIN! I am just about to edit our little collaboration!_ did ya tell your Filipino friend “Ang Pogi Mo” yet? Thanks for these cool videos!

[@TheDude_SSBU]

I am DEVIN...

[@PutingPinoy]

Devin Bielejec 🤣 oh, hi, Devin!

[@TheDude_SSBU]

​@@PutingPinoy🤣 Just had to.

[@crazy9932]

None of the crooks are pogi bud lol

[@PutingPinoy]

adam latham haha, Legal Eagle has a Filipino friend. And in a collaboration I did of Big KZbinrs speaking Tagalog he asked me how to tell his friend: “Ang Pogi Mo.”

[@TheJuggtron]

I wish that the US government would stop using the phrase "National Security" when they mean "US Business interests"

[@Contevent]

Financial security is also security.

[@TheJuggtron]

@@Contevent but it's hardly "If we fail in this task, our country will fall". Let's be clear - the existence of the USA is not predicated on the government that controls the territory of Ukraine.

[@Contevent]

@@TheJuggtron National Security is a continual effort, it's not one big heroic action. Terrorist watch is national security, but the US won't fall just because it gets bombed.

[@TheJuggtron]

@@Contevent National security is THE SECURITY OF THE NATION My problem is with its Orwellian usage as a term, not its existence as a concept.

[@Contevent]

@@TheJuggtron And I don't understand why you don't include financial security into the security of a nation.

[@civilunrested272]

what i learned from this video is i need to redesign my bedroom with help from skillshare

[@matthewbrown3878]

Objection!!!! IF Congress votes to impeach, and IF the Senate fails to convict; then what happens? Is that the same as a "not guilty" verdict? Does it mean that he can't be tried again for the crime of abuse of power (after he's out of office)?

[@chickensdone1]

You are a master of transitioning into advertising for your sponsors. I love the subtle humor you add to all your videos like this. Keep up the great work! You're easily one of my favorite channels today!

[@elfishawol4506]

I just want to thank you for demystifying all the legal jargon that is thrown around at this time. I feel like I understand what is going on now

[@hblaub]

Now brought to you by Favorshare - "Do you mind doing us a favor?"

[@sean6621]

I respect that you saved the adware for the end of the video. I’m subscribing for that alone.

[@bluefirefox5343]

For Christmas can you do Grandma got run over by a reindeer?

[@MyHeadHz]

Great idea!

[@Joshua_Shadow_Manriguez]

I second this.

[@tonyvindett87]

"Abuse of power is not a crime."......unless it involves emails, I guess?

[@matincatrat]

That Skillshare transition was so smooth I slipped on it like melted butter

[@ThesageofSBT]

I love his voice. He makes me feel safe

[@mjfanish]

Has LegalEagle ever considered making a podcast about legal issues and legal cases? I am starving for more legal analysis heavy podcasts and would love for LegalEagle to be a video channel as well as a podcast channel.

[@KanPrince]

While not LegalEagle More Perfect is really awesome www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect

[@Nomad6763]

OBJECTION! In the bill_taylor_usa parody instagram post you use the phrase "looking cute" when the correct phrase is "feeling cute"

[@annalisasteinnes]

That's why Taylor needs to take a Skillshare class, so he can know these things.

[@amovieguy]

I Think your channel came about at the right time. In time to help many of us not so educated is such proceedings through what they mean and how they may impact us.

[@MekonenMeteor123]

You should break down each testimony! Thanks so much for these , brings a ton of clarity

[@rhymeswithteeth]

Hey. LegalEagle, is your arrangement with SkillShare a quid pro quo?

[@Zheeraffa1]

I have one objection: 6:12 I believe it is factually incorrect to say 13,000 Ukrainians were killed by Russian soldiers. 13,000 Ukrainian casualties is a total for both sides of the conflict and civilians. Most of them were killed by other Ukrainians. There are Russian "volunteers" on the rebel side, which itself is covertly backed by Russia, though, and Putin's political scheming (helped by then president Yanukovich) is largely to blame for the whole conflict.

[@rdumiak]

I agree, sadly 3,339 were civialians. Here's a better breakdown/table of caualties on all sides - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainian_crisis

[@Justanotherconsumer]

The “volunteers” are a joke. Little green men are Russian soldiers, not some sort of magical support team. The US did it with the Flying Tigers in China. The Lafayette Escadrille, likely the same thing. Implausible deniability.

[@Wereskeleton]

@@Justanotherconsumer Agree. Russia didn't annex Crimea through mysterious and convenient benefactors.

[@Zheeraffa1]

The little green men (Russian soldiers and GRU agents) have ostensibly shown themselves only in Crimea, which is just a part of the issue. By far the most casualties are from Doneck and Luhansk Oblast. I'm not denying Russia's illegal involvement. Just contesting a factual error.

[@bradm5118]

This is a very polished channel, and each episode is easy to watch. Well done L.E.

[@BenitKibabu]

Haha, the segue between the ad at the end had me for second. I guess i am not just learning about law here

[@RabblesTheBinx]

Objection! I *did* take Latin in High School.

[@RabblesTheBinx]

@King PeppySalve! And that's about the extent of what I remember. It was 17 years ago, though, so I think I deserve a break.

[@mattmatician]

Thank you Legal Eagle for your nonpartisan, fact focused legal coverage of this situation!

[@stephenshort3600]

Legal Eagle is partisan...look into Vindman's boss and his brother... What, you haven't heard about them? Yep, you're being misled... take the red pill for a more balanced understanding of how you have been brainwashed by the Left.

[@robr4466]

@@stephenshort3600 Do you watch It's Always Sunny? Because your comment reminds me of Charlie with this board, and the red strings trying to make connections LMAO

[@eaglesclaws8]

@@stephenshort3600 Yeah your obviosly biased too. What's your point? That some how you are the one person on planet earth that isn't biased?

[@awollangk]

@@stephenshort3600 What about them? Vindman and his brother immigrated to the US when they were three years old and they are now decorated war heroes. You talk about "taking the red pill" but I have to tell you, the right does at least as much brainwashing as the left. And no matter what Vindman's background was, his testimony was consistent with everybody not directly responsible to Trump. Trump held up four hundred million US dollars of foreign aid to Ukraine until President Zelenskyy agreed to smear the Bidens. Smearing the Bidens has no national benefit and only benefits Trump himself. He damaged US/Ukraine relations in order to advance himself.

[@mattmatician]

@@stephenshort3600 This comment was meant to be straight sarcasm...shhh don't tell anyone

[@7rich79]

Thanks, I hope you continue this series, it's really educational.

[@controlcenternorth3888]

Imagine suspecting a Lt. Col. Of dual Loyalty.

[@xyzain_1827]

Thanks for taking time to explain these things to law noobs

[@Xprimentyl]

This dude is so smooth transitioning to his sponsor pitches at the end.

[@WestGrayFox]

I appreciate the work you put into these videos and Thank you for your dedication to the Rule of Law.

[@FGuilt]

OBJECTION! the defense has not completed discovery. the defense requests a 6 month recess on this video to complete their discovery investigation.

[@FLJuJitsu]

""It's not illegal when the president does it" - Nixon " - Trump

[@jayyyzeee6409]

That worked so well for Nixon. I'm excited to see Trump's farewell ride on Marine One.

[@wackywankavator]

Smooth ad transition man.

[@oaf-77]

I don’t think trump would voluntarily resign.

[@HadToChangeMyName_YoutubeSucks]

"It's not unconstitutional when a democratic majority congress does it" Nancy Pelosi If you think this has anything to do with law, justice, constitution or nation you're just an idiot. This is partisan politics on both sides, pure and simple and solely.

[@override367]

This is literally a claim that Trump's legal team is making. He's so immune from the law that they can't even collect evidence for the prosecution of crimes after his immunity ends and he becomes a private citizen again, nor can they investigate him with the intent of using the information in ongoing investigations of other individuals around him.

[@JT_WARCRIME]

I'm so happy that I found this channel

[@AlejandroMeri]

17:40 I was like "Wait... What? Why instagram?... What?... You got me there...

[@heroloray]

Excellent skill share transition. Super smooth and amusing :D

[@Justanotherconsumer]

Objection! Can counsel discuss the applicability of the term “conversion” in the context of using public resources for private gain?

[@Rikard_Nilsson]

"We all took latin in high school, right?" lol as if dude...it was middle school.

[@JimVanderveen]

At 15:22, “Overcome the constitutional issues of indicting a sitting president”: I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel are not part of the Constitution.

[@DaDunge]

0:50 Both. Ut's routine if you do it for the good of the country and impeachable offence if you do it for personal gain.

[@ramadansteve1715]

@Hallstatt Saxon "Ill give you guys 400 million if you dig up dirt- i mean investigate my political rival" Yeah. That's a gotcha.

[@jacobnunya808]

@@ramadansteve1715 The "damning" stuff is not there in the transcript. It is what people said his motives were. And that's the evidence so far. A couple people saying he had bad motives. So many people are rabid about pursuing trump that until there is some documentation and hard proof of wrongdoing I won't care. Especially now that his reelection is coming up I doubt this whole attempt to have him inpeached. It smells of desperation to me so I don't trust them.

[@ramadansteve1715]

@@jacobnunya808 "Ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears. This was the final, and most important, command of the party" Again. It was Trump's chief of staff who admitted to quid pro quo. Straight up admitted to it at a press conference. In the transcripts we quite literally see him ask for Ukraine to investigate a political rival. Seriously, put two and two together. Sorry but "its close to re-election, must be a hoax" is an absolutely trash argument, especially when the hard evidence is in front of your eyes

[@jacobnunya808]

@@ramadansteve1715 No he said that the bidens played a part in his suspicion of curruption. He did not say that was the sole reason he was holding up the money. If you were concerned about corruption that would make sense. If you are not at all sceptical of an impeachment investigation based on nothing but words right before his reelecection would come up you are more trusting that I am.

[@jacobnunya808]

@@ramadansteve1715 He suggested they look into it. He did not say the money depended on it. That is your thinking not the actual facts. Also it is convient how some people say the president is just dumb and impulsive and then when it looks like trump may have done something wrong all the sudden every word is carefully picked in a mafia type way.