The Tragedy of Trump’s Second Impeachment

[@LegalEagle]

Hopefully my last Trump video for a while! 🦅 Support the channel on Patreon (and Discord)! legaleagle.link/patreon​ 🚀 Extended & ad-free versions on Nebula/CuriosityStream! legaleagle.link/extras

[@ipyramid]

Objection! We will never get enough of your Trump videos!

[@ElSelcho77]

Time to let him slip into obscurity. Or prison.

[@bfunkt4313]

Objection! Can you do a short on Georgia vs Hamilton? Thx!

[@brimeetsbooks]

Let’s hope!!

[@brandc1977]

We get it, you don't like Trump.. move on Already

[@grillmadeofrecycledgrenade3197]

The only trial in history where the jurors can openly admit on national television that they are incapable of remaining impartial and still be allowed to participate.

[@nicholasfarrell5981]

They did it the first time, too.

[@octopusmime]

so where do we go from here?

[@LdyVder]

@@octopusmime Stop voting for them, full stop. Too bad, people won't stop voting for bad people.

[@0Clewi0]

Sadly if they weren't allowed you will have the problem of not having the 67 jurors

[@lc9245]

@@LdyVder like Biden? Who suggested China dealing with the Uighur “different cultural norms”? “Bad”, is relative. You only call the ones blocking your political career “bad”. If everybody, including establishment supporters and Trump’s supporters, actually have more sympathy, we wouldn’t have this situation.

[@shevek2954]

Weird trial: the court was the scene of the crime and the jury was filled with witnesses, victims and co-conspirators.

[@connormcconnell7881]

Sounds like something out of a Phoenix Wright game

[@TodayLifeIsGoood]

@@connormcconnell7881 Damn right it does XD

[@billbradley4878]

We call it a trial but a more accurate description would be a congressional procedure.

[@Pestilencemage]

Or MORE accurate still: "kangaroo court where dems attempt to subvert democracy with massive hypocrisy, for the purpose of virtue signaling in a political stunt."

[@18booma]

@@Pestilencemage What's virtue signaling?

[@getbn6547]

"Who said anything about murder? I just help my competition to retire". -Al Capone. Mass Murderer.

[@JargonMadjin]

It's funny because Al was arrested for tax evasion in the end

[@wannabecar8733]

Oversimplified

[@jakublizon6375]

@@wannabecar8733 Then elaborate... If you are able that is...

[@titotheninja]

@@jakublizon6375 its a youtube channel. its where the quote that pongo used comes from. wannabe wasnt saying the capone thing was oversimplified. oh and by the way, the oversimplified channel is excellent. i highly recommend it.

[@janvanv]

@PongoThomas neither does tRump.

[@macanaeh]

A real lawyer openly talking about jury nullification? We are truly in the end times

[@lucialamprey2690]

No. The end times are when the donkey can no longer kick insurgents in the teeth.

[@marknugent9851]

“What’s a high crime? It doesn’t even have to be a crime. It’s just when you start using your office and you’re acting in a way that hurts people, you’ve committed a high crime.” -Lyndsey Graham, 1999

[@marlinbundo2409]

@@sandboxproductions_youtube "If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it" - Lady G

[@tacokoneko]

Lindsey Graham is our version of the Tiberius Claudius Nero (b. 85 BC, d. 33 BC) from the (very) late Roman Republic (not to be confused with Emperor Nero 100 years later). They both always choose whichever side looks like it's winning, bend down and lick the boots and grovel and fawn over whoever is in charge, and then as soon as it looks like someone else is becoming more powerful they immediately turn complete traitor, run to that person's side and do it all over again

[@nickycharles9699]

Lindsay Graham is one of the slimiest politicians 🤢

[@______608]

I swear....that guy is an absolute hypocrite

[@grayaj23]

@@tacokoneko 100% on point. He's even flopped twice since the election -- from taking a "now we'll be rid of the asshole, he's gone too far" back to "yes, this is his water that I'm carrying. I hope he notices me and smiles at me."

[@stairmasternem]

I’ve never seen a trial held where the jury was made up of victims and friends to the one on trial, but here we are.

[@stairmasternem]

@ItsYoBoy Kris Fields Doesn’t help impeachment has more common with Whose Line Is It anyways then it does a real trial.

[@hazukichanx408]

Well, if we don't let the powerful cover each other's asses, we'd force them to behave with a tiny bit of accountability, maybe perform competently at their duties to avoid being removed from office! _Can't have THAT in the good ol' USA!!_

[@HeartFeathers]

It's like if a jury was stacked with abused spouses and stockholm syndrome victims of the accused.

[@stairmasternem]

@@HeartFeathers to quote Robert Evans, it’s like stacking the jury with the family of the victim of a horrific murder and the people who sold the bone saws used.

[@geraltrivia6148]

@ItsYoBoy Kris Fields Whose Line Is It Anyway is an improv show where the rules are made up and the points don't matter.

[@patricks_music]

McConnell: *holds off vote until Trump is out of office* McConnell: Doesn't vote for Trump's conviction. McConnell: "I would have voted to impeach him if he was in office." America:

[@MustPassTruck]

Pelosi withheld sending the impeachment to the senate too. Cocaine Mitch is a scum bag who is probably under pelosi's thumb.

[@simonwinn8757]

Kentucky: McConnell we are censuring you, don't take actions against Trump.

[@jeffburns3240]

The House sent the Articles of Impeachment after the inaugeration. No matter what McConnell said (about which is fair to criticize him not calling an emergency session), his statement had no impact on when the articles were delivered. That was on Pelosi and the House managers.

[@josephrogers6537]

@@MustPassTruck No. The House voted for impeachment on Jan 13th. McConnell refused to convene the Senate before the 19th. Pelosi couldn't send impeachment to the Senate that was not in order.

[@MustPassTruck]

@@josephrogers6537 Oh well, it was all a sham anyways.

[@claireleblanc5471]

Two thirds majority? Thats what is needed? We can't get the current senate to come up with a two thirds majority to agree that peanutbutter exists!

[@Arldavis]

yeah a simple majority is a pretty low bar. If you're in a 50/50 gridlock, getting one more person on your side isn't too hard. But to convince the vast majority of people of something, takes much more effort, thus making a 2/3 majority a high bar.

[@Tzizenorec]

Impeachment is supposed to be hard, not just a partisan "we have a slight advantage, do it quick!" thing.

[@mireillelebeau2513]

Republican have nothing to do with politics and every thing to do with don't give nothing to the people of US

[@Tzizenorec]

@@mireillelebeau2513 You say this when Donald Trump sent out stimulus checks within the last year. _Libertarians_ are the party that won't ever give the people freebies, because unlike the Republicans or Democrats they put economics ahead of politics every single time.

[@LC-sc3en]

@@Tzizenorec if libertarians were economics over politics, they would have given much more in stimulus money. It is an economic fact that such payments in a time of recession speed up economic recovery.

[@SarcasticData]

I can't think of a more poetic display of our political system than having a trial where the "jury" were also co-conspirators and had already announce how they would vote before it even began. I'm starting to think this whole "check and balances" thing isn't working as intended.

[@boxingexpert5427]

I agree with everything, it's a shame.

[@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea8932]

So the fact that the prosecution *fabricated evidence* isn't what bothers you? The fact that people disagreed with this clown show of an impeachment is what bothers you?

[@andrewmeyer8783]

@@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea8932 If you could send me a credible source explaining which evidence was fabricated I'd appreciate that

[@adamknott7830]

@@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea8932 well it was a clown show, we just failed to convict that guilty clown

[@boxingexpert5427]

@@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea8932 Everything is a perfect, everything is fabricated, everything is fake news, I'm surprised you can even type at this point.

[@Were_Cookie]

not to be confused with the second first impeachment

[@Robert_McGarry_Poems]

At least third... Clinton, and A. Johnson.

[@jmanius1]

@@Robert_McGarry_Poems i dont think that was what they were saying at all lol

[@QemeH]

The second first impeachment overall was Judge John Pickering (for _Drunkenness and unlawful rulings_ in 1803), the second first impeachment of a US president was Bill Clinton (no explanation needed, I think).

[@mouseprotector5081]

@@QemeH Johnson was Impeached. Cause he was a traitor

[@BrianHolmes]

Johnson, Clinton, and twice for Trump. All were acquitted by the Senate. 4 presidential Impeachments have successfully occurred in the US House of representatives, 4 times the parties sided politically and acquitted. Trump is the first to have members of his own party join in the charge to convict.

[@ωις-λ3π]

Judge: "Candidate number 32, are you able to be impartial or have any objections if selected to serve on the jury for this trial." Jury Candidate: "Yeah I can be impartial. The defendant and I go way back and I know he couldn't have done it." Judge: "Okay be back for the trial in two hours."

[@jonathandnicholson]

The judge and juror also made clear that he was not going to be impartial.

[@TheRAINMan059]

The Senate is a political body, no Senators are impartial. They're not a real jury and not a single one of them would get through a legitimate jury selection.

[@jonathandnicholson]

@@TheRAINMan059 Right. I just found Leahy being judge and juror uniquely absurd - a judge voting against/for their own ruling. There were other problems with the impeachment and, for me, this has exposed other problems with the process generally.

[@aaronbozigian4310]

@@jonathandnicholson yeah it seems sort of ridiculous when you put it like that, shouldn’t this be a process enacted by the Supreme Court along with quite a large jury of actually impartial jurers?

[@jonathandnicholson]

@@aaronbozigian4310 An interesting proposition. One I have thought about for a couple of days, too. A constitutional change would be required which I have no problem with a change per se because The Constitution does outline the process for constitutional change. Any bias should be towards the rule of law meaning the law as is not the way one would like the law to be. However, people are (be they judges, jurors or politicians) fallible and as a result some people will make mistakes as politicians are supposed to wield political power and have other considerations than just the rule of law. A total lack of bias from political interpretation or opportunism is not possible. That said one should still genuinely try to follow the good, just and right. I only disagree in practice than theory.

[@fabrisseterbrugghe8567]

Eugene Goodman is DC born and bred and is still a District resident. In other words, he offered up his life for a political body where he has no representation. Truly a hero.

[@aaronbozigian4310]

I suppose it could be construed that way. But I personally disagree.

[@Tvillian]

As a North Carolinian this may be the first time I've heard "Richard Burr" and "Reasonable" in the same sentence

[@ju1cycrackfa1ry]

Richard Burr is not reasonable.

[@williammiller3277]

Cunning and calculating may be closer to the truth.

[@Tvillian]

@@democrrrracymanifest okay that one works

[@k.roserette]

As a fellow North Carolinian I’m at 100% certain that the only reason Burr voted to convict is because he’s about to retire and no longer has to betray basic sense to appeal to his base

[@waynehanley72]

He's not my senator. I wouldn't have voted for him, BUT ... he's one of the few Republicans who actually fulfilled his or her constitutional obligation, so he has my respect for that. And his written explanation is bang on what it should have been for the majority if they had actually been non-partial jurors like they swore they would be. The majority of the Senate determined they had jurisdiction and that the impeachment was constitutional and the evidence was pretty convincing!

[@TheSecondVersion]

This guy is gong down in history as "The Unprecedented President That Was Never Un-President'ed" (by impeachment at least)

[@ApproximatelyBees]

Pack it up Lin Manuel Miranda

[@Bagofnowt]

@@ApproximatelyBees I wanna see a version of Hamilton saying 'Donald Trump' instead. But you can just stop at 'How does a bastard'

[@lshe97]

Top 10 Headlines by Leslie Knope for Shauna Malwae-Tweep.

[@rekrn12345]

Most acquitted president in history. Most innocent president in history.

[@johndemeritt3460]

@@rekrn12345, I think you're a bit confused. "Acquitted" is not the same as "innocent". Trump is the President who has the record for failure to convict in impeachment trials, but given his record of publicly agitating his base to believe that no election outcome other than a Trump victory could possibly be fair, the assertion that he's the "most innocent" President ever is laughable. Remember: Trump was telling his supporters that he would win a fair election and that any other outcome would be the result of fraud before his original campaign in 2016. And he's been repeating that line ever since.

[@theunpretentiousvegan8593]

I've never been so hyped to listen to a lawyer talk about Constitutional Law.

[@Don-C.L.]

It's quite "unpresidented" lol. A lot of precedents has been set-- both good and bad. The future can only tell what will be in store for us.

[@godlessblessings7020]

I LUV it too, very engaging !! Does he teach a *MASTER CLASS* ??

[@angeliaparker-savage5401]

Yeah, he'd be a great instructor, wouldn't he?

[@godlessblessings7020]

@@angeliaparker-savage5401 THX, YEP! you bet!!

[@paahl1572]

You and me both!

[@Delta47_11B]

5:55 "Senators can do whatever they want based on whatever reason they want". That is where the government is stepping out of line.

[@gregdaweson4657]

the house doesn't even technically need a reason to impeach someone, just a simple majority party-line vote.

[@bfkbfk1]

Thats quite literally stated in the constitution my guy

[@themilkman7664]

That is so out of context, like that was not what he meant when he said that

[@gengarzilla1685]

Then their constitution is deeply flawed. Shocker.

[@russcarter9983]

"B team of lawyers"? You are being awfully generous.

[@andromidius]

For sure. This was literal bottom of the barrel. Trump has gone through more lawyers then anyone in history.

[@nonyabizness.original]

@fair view IF they're so bad? ypu clearly did not watch the trial. they did not beat the house managers. the votes were pre-publicized for sll if us to see. my dog could have represented trump and he would have still been voted not guilty.

[@tophers3756]

@fair view they "beat" them because the GOP are spineless cowards who have admitted privately to reporters they're scared of violence from Trump supporters.

[@nonyabizness.original]

@fair view oh hun, try to keep up. we're discussing the latest impeachment trial here.

[@j.e.g.9513]

@fair view What kind of a coward are you? All you can do is think of revenge because of how spineless you are. IF what you said is true, then they should be impeached, if they were president. two wrongs DON'T make a right.

[@adamgreene187]

It's hard to have any faith whatsoever in the law after all of this.

[@JoshSweetvale]

This isn't just the law. It's politics It'd be like blaming car travel if a containership plowed through a bridge. Ok, the law is flawed, but this disaster isn't primarily caused by the law's flaws.

[@ricky18redblack31]

Really, I've gained more faith. Got little hope now that Trump been acquitted. Really stupid how Nancy has a hate boner.

[@redhot2976]

@@ricky18redblack31 Why do you have more hope? That acquittal was so full of shit, it had manure bursting from the seams.

[@bob89377]

great. Hold your representatives accountable. They are the reason this happened the way it did. They have much more power to enact laws than the president as well. Don’t lose faith, use the tools we have to fix it.

[@skeetsmcgrew3282]

Laws have always been a joke, especially laws regarding politicians. You think any black man got a fair trial for the first, oh 50 years after the civil war? And in the south, 100 years? What about the fact that money buys you better lawyers who are more able to get you out of jail? Justice is a vague, arbitrary concept created to keep people as passive sheep. If you make people believe there is a fair and balanced system, you can turn everyone who gets out of jail a saint and everyone who goes to prison a monster. Us vs. them

[@jackf1003]

McConnell while Trump was president: "You should not impeach a sitting president" McConnell after trump left office: "It's not the senate's responsibility to convict him"

[@kks3886]

Mad?

[@samuelblackthorne9122]

I dont think he ever said any of those things. The original argument being that Trump was being imoeached for reversing action by the Obama administration via his authority over foreign aid. This was putting the cart before the horse of impeaching as Eagle says in the first few seconds "Former President Donald Trump". If he did commit a crime he is subject to the judicial not legislative branch.

[@jackf1003]

​@@samuelblackthorne9122 McConnell did say what I quoted. The first impeachment came and went. he was acquitted. however, the purpose of the second was to prevent him from running from office again. Impeachment is not just removing from office, it's also for prevention. McConnell kept this at his desk until long after Trump was out of office. The case was already sent to the senate. He waited more than 2 weeks. He even said he wanted to delay opening arguments. It has nothing to do with the judicial branch. If he is charged with crimes now, yes it is in the hand of the judicial branch. The senate had the articles, so the case was already there. It was just a delayed vote. just because he is out of office, doesn't mean the part preventing him from office is dropped. that's what the vote was on because he was no longer president. The impeachment was not a criminal case. this was strictly in the legislative branch's hands.

[@irrelevant_noob]

@@kks3886 anyone SHOULD be. If you're not, it just shows how prejudiced you are.

[@TiagoJoaoSilva]

Samuel Blackthorne Since John Quincy Adams that it's understood that any action done while in office can be impeached at any time, even years later. Well, it was understood, I should say.

[@TheRhetoricGamer]

Jury nullification particularly bugs me. "I know we democratically voted on the rules for trying this case, but I don't agree with the rules, so I'm going to ignore them and vote however I want."

[@thebolas000]

"Screw the rules! I have opinions!"

[@CaseyDplays]

It's a way to allow a vote against rules that should have never been in place in the first place and has been used to strike down laws that were either unfairly applied or simply unconstitutional while at the same time preventing a person from suffering the consequences of unjust laws at the last possible moment for them. It also requires a jury to agree by a majority at least that this is what should be done. I believe it has its place as a proper legal tool. However, it was certainly not applied correctly in the impeachment trial as it's pretty clear the framers meant impeachment to apply after one left office and their is no good reason to argue that shouldn't be the case. At lower levels though, their are many laws that were designed to punish one group and not another for the same actions. That's were jury nullification is needed.

[@NyxHunter]

One reason I've heard for what it is necessary is in cases of spousal abuse where the victim snaps and murders their abuser but in an act of cold blood not as legal self defense. So shooting your husband in the head while he's asleep vs shooting him as he's beating you on the ground. The law does not protect the victim from being charged with murder so without jury nullification a person could go to jail for murder when they were simply doing what was necessary for their safety (and potentially the safety of the victim and abuser's children who could also be victims.) Getting out and leaving those kinds of situations can be very difficult and dangerous for victims so the death on the abuser is some times the only way to be free and safe. So a jury who has heard all of the horrific acts of abuse the victim went through can chose to nullify.

[@KnakuanaRka]

As others have mentioned, the intended use of jury nullification is to act against laws that are unfairly written, unconstitutional or unreasonable (like disproportionate punishment for minor drug crimes), or to protect someone whose behavior is sympathetic and considered moral for reasons not considered by law (like someone who kills an abusive spouse to escape them in a situation not covered by self defense). Compared to how someone else put it, it’s more “Screw the rules, I’m doing what’s right/they don’t deserve it!”. But I do agree that its application here is harmful and inappropriate.

[@EpicScizor]

It's also totally legal, especially in impeachment, since the law puts no requirements on the jury to follow law in their decision-making; in fact that is the jury's purpose, since otherwise the judge and lawyers are perfectly capable of handling the legal dimensions by themselves. In impeachment, the requirements are even looser, since at the end of the day it's just a 2/3rds majority vote. All the other stuff is legal theatre and a way to ensure that Congress is informed of the facts of the case.

[@seanshameless0]

My kids are gonna use this video to study for their history test in 20 years

[@thegdpwhytea439]

Maybe a bit further away than that!

[@grizzlybears]

@@thegdpwhytea439 if further than it would prob be their grandkids

[@halkun7191]

Yeah for real though. This case is gonna be on a future DBQ in AP gov/AP History. Lol

[@SlothinAintEasy]

Aw. You think were going to last another 20 years. Wish i had that optimism.

[@1313fina]

@@halkun7191 *chills in remembered horror*

[@fiddley]

Short answer: Rules don't matter, politicians gonna do what they want.

[@vuvuvu6291]

"Grab her by the _democracy_ . You can do anything you want..."

[@arcadeinvader8086]

hide yo laws

[@kx7500]

Gotta love capitalism, baby!

[@cubeman9766]

By that logic we should impeach biden And that will go though since its not based of propaganda

[@kx7500]

@@cubeman9766 lol stay triggered fascist.

[@NelCelestine]

Never fails to amaze me that 14 more people voted for guilty than not but the less votes won. "The majority of people think this is wrong!" "Yes well, the minority think this is ok." American Government- "I guess it's ok then." -head desk-

[@Abedeuss]

I mean, fewer people voted for him in 2016 than his opponent and yet he still won... sort of a theme going on here.

[@boxingexpert5427]

@@Abedeuss pretty much

[@ZackofSpades]

I mean, that's how Trump got into power in the first place. "Screw the majority, we have a system to exploit" is pretty much the staple of Republican politics and business.

[@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea8932]

Do you understand how a normal criminal trial works? A normal criminal trial requires the jury to reach a *ONE HUNDRED PERCENT* consensus before voting someone guilty. You could have ~8.3% of the jury prevent a conviction despite the will of the other ~91.7%, because voting someone as guilty is something that we as a society believe should be done with absolute certainty. So why should an impeachment conviction require a simple majority? You seem to have absolutely ZERO clue how EASY it would be to abuse impeachment if it only required a simple majority. Every single time the Senate majority party was different from the party of the President, even if their majority was extremely slim, you would end up with the President getting impeached. Do you think for a second that Republicans would have hesitated to kick Obama out of office if an impeachment conviction just required a simple majority? And then they'd kick out Biden, and so on and so forth, until they got someone they liked. It would make impeachment into even more of a ridiculous political tool than Pelosi already has.

[@thingswhynot]

@@nmotschidontwannagivemyrea8932 false equivalence

[@skulldinosaur1792]

I couldn’t help but laugh when the personal injury lawyer said “PhillY-delphia. Hard pronunciation of “ee” sound 😂😂😂

[@briannamcfarland5974]

I assume he was starting to say "Philly", then realized that was too informal for a trial, but it was too late and it ended up sounding silly as heck

[@RoxxyKaosGG]

As a Philadelphian, I'm pretty sure he's just dumb as a brick.

[@katrand5357]

And also that he was completely confused about how his understanding of the law cannot be applied in an impeachment process. Yep, Trump always hires the best people

[@nameless5646]

"Nobody is above the law" has been said many times for the last few years but at this point it is pretty clear that this is not the case in America.

[@GamingMasterAnthony]

If you’re famous, innocent until proven guilty unless you’re a famous male that doesn’t fall in line with the establishment. Then it’s guilty until proven innocent and even then guilty still. This goes for both sides of the isle. (Not saying trump wasn’t guilty, not saying he is. Just pointing out a fact)

[@diegosena891]

@Moe Myers Oh? Have some evidence to back up that claim? Also your golden boy payed more taxes to China then the US. www.businessinsider.com/trump-has-bank-account-china-paid-taxes-there-nyt-2020-10

[@WhiterLiar]

Every single “undocumented immigrant” is obviously above the law. And yet the Democrat party keeps saying “nobody is above the law” while they systematically allow millions of people to break our immigration laws with no consequences. In fact - they are often rewarded for breaking our immigration laws. So there’s that.

[@PRubin-rh4sr]

No one really is, the law enforcers however...

[@aaronbozigian4310]

Every person in that room is above the law in this country, if they know the right people ofc.

[@sal52112]

"Futile gestures are worth doing because it's the right thing to do." That's great. 👍

[@PjotrV1971]

To quote a movie: "Sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand."

[@billrumbley]

The essence of character is doing what is right when nobody is looking, there are no consequences for failing to do what is right, and there is no reward for doing what is right.

[@sameash3153]

Unfortunately, thats the argument Hawley and Cruz made. They knew their vote on the 6th wouldn't do anything, they went on CNN and said basically "look, it's all I can do"

[@michaelt4007]

Democrats: So he’s guilty? Mitch McConnell: Yup. Democrats: And so he should be taken as guilty? Mitch McConnell: Yup. Democrats: So if you think he’s guilty, and he should be taken as guilty, you will vote guilty? Mitch McConnell: That makes sense to me. Democrats: Then vote guilty. Mitch McConnell: He’s not guilty.

[@stolenname94]

Correct he was not guilty

[@thenamedoesnotmatter]

@@stolenname94 his patsies made sure of that. Hopefully local criminal charges can lock him away, or his $3M or more dollar debtors will come to collect all of his bone marrow.

[@crimsoninferno9056]

Sounds like Dems. were talking to a politician.

[@t.estable3856]

@@stolenname94 No, he's guilty. He wasn't let off because he was innocent, but because he was "No longer in office", because partisan politicians voted to delay the trial until after he had left office, then voted against impeachment because he was no longer in office.

[@stolenname94]

@@t.estable3856 ok so where is your evidence he incited violence? Doctored footage won't help you here sorry about that. How about we talk about billions of dollars in damges including federal property caused by the likes of antifa and blm both openly supported by the Democrats. The after if we have some time lets talk about Democrats making death threats to trump and his voters and other Conservatives. I've got time to 🔥 so come at me.

[@TesserId]

When McConnel argued for postponing the trial, we knew damn well what he intended to do.

[@thatAC130]

When I think about it, its amazing how secure the White House is advertised to be, with windows stopping rounds from most conventional munitions, platoons of Secret Service and other government troops defending the building, and escape routes and bunkers to help defend the president. However, it seems none of that is present when it comes to defending the Congressional Building.

[@godlessblessings7020]

THANK YOU, I thought I was the only one that noticed!!

[@cericat]

Buildings, there's 3 office buildings attached to Congress just for senators plus others. So yeah the defenses are kind of lacking even given the size of the area they need to secure. CHOB was one of those that needed to be evacuated due to bomb threats.

[@bradmiles1984]

They could of had many times the officers they had but the captain of the DC police said it would of been bad optics. The Sgt at Arms for the house also shot down declaring an emergency to get the guard ahead of time because of optics. They made it into a political thing instead of doing the right and safe thing. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sund-riot-national-guard/2021/01/10/fc2ce7d4-5384-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html

[@gregdaweson4657]

it was fudged by the cops for a political photo-op.

[@mcalsip]

@Bold Oh come on, you don't actually think a drone strike was ever an option.

[@Pretzil43]

Mitch (spineless) McConnel: "We can't have the trial now, let's wait for him to be out of office" "We can't impeach him now he's out of office, it's now a criminal matter and I 100% think he's guilty" Next: "We can't convict him in a criminal court, he was already found not guilty by the senate"

[@kerbe3]

I wouldn’t be surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised.

[@12jswilson]

Criminal court has a different standard of proof that it would probably be hard to convict him on (for this)

[@ActivelyVacant]

@@12jswilson But it also has an established set of rules that the jury isn't making up on the spot.

[@bsrcat1]

The Senate is NOT a court. Therefore double jeopardy is not applicable and he can go to trial in both civil and criminal courts in multiple states.

[@Karajorma]

Mitch wants Trump gone as badly as the Democrats do. But he doesn't want to take the blame for it cause it will cost him votes. So he's hoping that Trump will get convicted while he can claim that it's unfair.

[@christophertaylor87]

The whole time I was watching the impeachment trial I was thinking “I can’t wait for the LegalEagle video on this”

[@jimmyhuckabay4120]

Agreed 👍.

[@moparfan2015]

I just thought I will skip watching it and wait for the LE video on it haha

[@yodaflyz]

I watched what I could on the first day live when they where still debating if they could conduct the trial but sadly most of the actual trial happened while I had to be at work so I couldn't fallow everything. Legal Eagle did a good job of helping me get cought up with what I missed, especially as I don't trust the mainstream news.

[@samuelblackthorne9122]

Me too, So I can watch a 40 min video of a Lawyer making arguments for a criminal proceeding at the impeachment of a private citizen. Trumps make several huge mistakes post election but trying to leverage toothless legislative proceeding against him after he is no longer president is a waste of the legislators time.

[@andrewbogard2411]

@@samuelblackthorne9122 the main point of the impeachment was to make it where he couldn't run for office again, because if he does and losses again he might try this crap again, i do hope he gets criminal charge brough up against him but i doubt it because he has so many fervent supporters

[@gushiperson]

Devon is on the verge of losing his s*** at the 30 minute mark. I hear you man.

[@erikkennedy8725]

Gop literally ignored the first day of the trial. Only reason the defense was there was to provide an excuse.

[@johndoe-ek1qs]

Not even, the Republicans were quite capable of making up their own before the trial began.

[@HeadCannonPrime]

The defense could have been a bugs bunny cartoon and they wouldn't have voted any differently.

[@johndoe-ek1qs]

When asked for his defense, Donald could have: flipped a double bird and yelled: F-YOU! with the votes going exactly the same way.

[@samuelblackthorne9122]

Because Trumps defence lawyers where actusly hired to work against Trump during the election lawsuits, by McConnell and the Govenor of Georgia. Trumos been fairly quiet on tje whole deal under the threat that McConnell amd his gang will vote against him. But Trump is also secure against them because they know if they openly oppose Trump it will fully split the party.

[@darianistead2239]

Trial was decided before it started regardless of fact

[@MarcillaSmith]

Especially when you consider how ready Democratic leadership was to throw in the towel

[@SchmCycles]

Actually, we won't know the verdict for at least two years because the real jury is the voters and we will see if the trial has any impact on the 2022 election. The senators who voted against conviction probably are gambling on the outcome of the independent commission or being able to block there being one.

[@darianistead2239]

@@SchmCycles Well actually we do. It's evident voters are bias, regardless of fact too lol..

[@AricHaldan0782]

@@SchmCycles by that logic we would know the people's verdict from the 2020 presidential elections. Trump lost that one, but still had major support.

[@ishoottheyscore8970]

Even if it wasn't, even if some republicans felt that the prosecution didn't adequately show how the language Trump used was incitement and not just rhetoric (and intended as such), there is no way to get around the impression that the votes were decided more by allegiances than by fact

[@mabadeer1094]

"Eugene Goodman, American Hero". It just feels right.

[@lukedetering4490]

He was a GOOD MAN

[@alphanum001]

@@lukedetering4490 Yup, his name checks out

[@fatdamon4167]

Mitt Romney is destroying this country. If Eugene led the rioters directly to Mitt Romney, I'd consider him a hero for saving our country from the future damage Romney will cause.

[@stevenyukabacera160]

Bit on the nose to literally call him Goodman, but it's not even in the top ten of weirdest events in 2021 I guess

[@gwillis01]

I totally agree Mr. Goodman was a hero who was cool under pressure

[@thomasholden500]

I got dismissed from a criminal trial jury for making eye contact with the defendant during a smoke break.

[@yesiamyes9657]

Ur lying

[@ferdinandiofbulgaria9485]

@@yesiamyes9657 actually a case can be made if the eye contact was malicious, such as a glare or some other emotional face. It could show how biased the juror already is to said case, but the defendant would need one hell of a good lawyer for that to work. It is extremely unlikely to have happened, but not impossible.

[@aaronbozigian4310]

@@ferdinandiofbulgaria9485 or if the eye contact was particularly seductive in nature …

[@omatofi]

@@aaronbozigian4310 gave 'em a 😏 and got dismissed for being too saucy in the courtroom

[@pandamandimax]

Criminal defendants do not get to go smoke with the public? Would never be put together w/ a jury member

[@wamsang7818]

Al Capone: "Who said anything about murder? I just drive my opponents "underground"" Press: "So murder" Al Capone: "WOOOAAAAAHHHH" ~Oversimplified (obviously)

[@matthewfinnerty6747]

A man of culture i see

[@thaghost909]

I've watched that video like 20 times now.. It just won't leave my autoplay list.

[@que3817]

Great example of trumpspeak.

[@therivernile.]

Please post the link to that video if you have got it. :) and thanks in advance

[@nitroflareyt4276]

@@que3817 this is from a KZbin video about prohibition meaning it has nothing to do with Trump

[@BLOODKINGbro]

Business CEO still goes to prison for crimes they commit whether they are the current CEO or they have resigned. I see no reason why it should be different for the president.

[@kamdenmadan3289]

Proabably since they are charged in criminal cases, not political cases like the impeachment trials are.

[@shanez1215]

Do they though?

[@bauefrenchmen3126]

Neither will repubs now that a dems in office, remember the majority voted thry can impeach after they leave office so expect republicans too just to raise a middle finger for losing and to make a mockery of the rule of laws since to them they only apply to political enemys and the poor.

[@SerenityGene]

One set of rules for the ruled and another set for the rulers.

[@dimasakbar7668]

As Carl Schmidt say, (paraphrased) rulers are sovereign not because the ability to make rules, but because of ability to make exception to such rules (i. E. Ability to tanscend the law)

[@deusexaethera]

Rules only apply to people who can't afford different rules.

[@DrPonner]

@@deusexaethera isn’t capitalism great?

[@merbst]

This precise situation has a name: "The Crime of Apartheid" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_apartheid

[@philippak7726]

It's why we have the quote "if this place was in anarchy, then it wouldn't just be poor people dying"

[@ktlynn177]

"When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules." ... "Unless it's me."

[@losmanzani6849]

His defense team could have just said he did it and the vote would probably not have changed.

[@Frisbieinstein]

"Yah he did it. So what? Like I care or something...."

[@hycolm5899]

Michael Van Der Veen's way of saying "philadelphia" is the most pathetic attempt at intimidation/persuasion i've ever seen.

[@Ghost11235813]

I like to think he's a secret brony. As Phillydelphia is a MLP city.

[@Spiker985Studios]

"filly del fee uh" I hate it. I hate all of it.

[@thatsweetlilthing2]

I seriously wished someone would have asked him "Do you consider your office to be more prestigious than the floor of congress?"

[@zomasm8907]

"A miscarriage of justice" still managed to feel like an understatement somehow.

[@kx7500]

Yeah because it was completely open and intentional

[@inefffable]

GASLIGHT OBSTRUCT PROJECT

[@spykeking1989]

I feel like the term miscarriage implies an accident. This was an abortion of justice. Which is ironic, given the conservative view of those... Yeesh

[@bobbakian7369]

@@spykeking1989 was thinking the same

[@Vohlfied]

@@spykeking1989 Lines right up with their views on abortion. Not "Pro-Life", but "Anti-Woman".

[@HatTheFatCat]

Imagine if you showed the first 5 seconds of this video to someone in early 2016. They'd probably think it was some dystopian alternate history.

[@carlrobison6065]

The Constitution was written during a time when Honor and a person's Word were much more important than today. Words like "Impeach" and "Misdemeanor" had different meanings. To have a person impeached would mean his word was no longer good, a misdemeanor would be a bad act...

[@JinKee]

Makes you wonder if any of the crazy stuff that is happening now would have happend in the days of Alexander Hamilton?

[@danielp3289]

@@JinKee the law was used to keep human beings as slaves and Hamilton got killed dueling with pistols... their time too had crazy stuff.

[@thatsweetlilthing2]

That was not the meaning of those words. People have lied and acted in bad faith for as long as humans have been around. Acting like there was ever honor is a dream, not reality.

[@carlrobison6065]

@@thatsweetlilthing2 Absolutely! Human nature is after all, human. But before there was such a thing as a FICO score (or an ability to check it for that matter) a person's reputation was important. Even today if you, for example, had a reputation of not paying your lawyers, A-team lawyers would drop/deny you representation. The fact that people have acted in bad faith is the reason people of 250 years ago needed terms like Misdemeanor.

[@JinKee]

@@thatsweetlilthing2 "Honor is not dead so long as he lives in the hears of men"

[@richardzippler3330]

So this is a crime boss being judged by his own gang members .oh Justice in America.

[@samuelblackthorne9122]

Exactly which is why its the Judicial Branch and not the legislative branch that punishes criminals. Eagles argument would be great in a court but even if they unamously voted to convict him trump as Eagle states in the first few seconds is no longer the president and thus the imeachment is void.

[@NateROCKS112]

@@samuelblackthorne9122 did you even watch the video? The Constitution allows for impeachment of ex-officials.

[@Xarai]

@@samuelblackthorne9122 thats not how impeachment works it would prevent him from running office it would mean he no longer gets secret service no longer have 1 million travel annually no longer receives 200k annually from us either

[@dracoargentum9783]

@@samuelblackthorne9122 His Loser WAS impeached while he was still president, it was the acquittal/conviction that happened afterward, his loss of office has no baring on his acquittal/conviction. Due to the number of statements made WITHIN THIS VIDEO that you argue against, in favor of His Loser, whether or not you watched the video, you are just trying to absolve His Loser.

[@bradmiles1984]

With the case being represented by a rival gang.

[@CJsbro1]

Also before i watch this i just want to say it's so horrifying how we let this stand. And how Mitch can come out and agree 100%, but still stand on an already decided argument. It's like if Congress passed a tax law, but those who opposed the law wouldn't pay because they disagreed with it.

[@gabadaba5436]

Jury nullification is basically: "yeah they did it, but its not worthy of conviction" Thats basically what happened here

[@matthewshedlock70]

or we don't think, or can't prove they did it, but we're saying they did it anyway. Which does make me yearn for the option of 'Not Proven' like in scots law, which is the same thing as you described but actually written in law and accepted as an alternative to Guilty and Not Guilty.

[@UndertakerU2ber]

Jury nullification can also include cases like Derek Chauvin’s, where radical activists lie under oath during the jury selection process to get appointed so they can pursue political agendas by calling a fentanyl overdose a “murder.”

[@GoldenSunAlex]

@@matthewshedlock70 'Not Proven' in Scots law is incredibly problematic and widely panned though. You do NOT want to start going down that rabbit hole. It's history is full of innocent people being penalised despite never being committed of a crime, running essentially on 'trust me bro, I know he did it.'

[@KnakuanaRka]

Yeah, it’s meant to apply to cases where the existing rules are unfair, unconstitutional or unreasonable (like excessive punishments for minor drug crimes) or situations where someone’s behavior is sympathetic for reasons not covered by law (such as someone killing an abusive spouse to get away from them).

[@realPinkfong]

Did what? He told everyone to go home.

[@mrtb7676]

It's like that episode of Red Dwarf in which Rimmer is staring down the barrel of defeat in a game of checkers against a scutter, so he just stalls until the scutter has to go back on duty and therefore forfeit the game.

[@supaloops11]

Man, my husband is gonna think I'm so smart when I regurgitate the points of this video to him later tonight after the kids go to bed.

[@gastonchevalet7342]

I do the same thing to my wife .. but she always ends up sleeping while i am explaining 🤣🤣🤣

[@searcherholic3473]

I hope he shares your politics!

[@Chris.starfleet]

Your husband might find your new-found insight quite exciting. I hope you will be prepared for some frisky advances from his side ... after the kids have fallen asleep ... just be careful to not accidentally wake them up again.

[@SynthApprentice]

Oh snap, I didn't even think about how the trial date was decided! McConnell set the date himself, and then just turns around and uses the lateness of the date as his reason to vote for acquittal? That's just super underhanded.

[@bradmiles1984]

If they wanted a better date maybe they should of transmitted the articles of impeachment faster. Pelosi hung onto them for awhile before sending. The whole process on both sides was all political theater.

[@shadenox8164]

@@bradmiles1984 Nah. They still would have delayed it. Pelosi was trying to get support for witnesses.

[@sijdnsd6460]

Legal Eagle isn’t 100% correct about McConnell. First, both Schumer and McConnell had equal power as Georgia just happened. Next, the senate was already at recess before the impeachment was made. Albeit that McConnell could have brought them back with Schumer’s approval, it still would have not happened since the formalities in Congress would not all the trial to start until 1 hour after Trump was gone even if McConnell brought them back.

[@dorianr4770]

it's what he did with Garland and Coney Barrett

[@aaronbozigian4310]

A politician doing something underhanded!? Blasphemy of the highest order!

[@ignitionfrn2223]

2:40 - Chapter 1 - Does congress have jurisdiction over late impeachments ? 8:35 - Chapter 2 - The text 9:20 - Chapter 3 - How does the constitution describe the accused in an impeachment trial ? 14:10 - Chapter 4 - The house arguments 25:15 - Chapter 5 - Incitement 29:10 - Chapter 6 - Impeachment is a bill of attainder 31:40 - Chapter 7 - The 1st amendment prohibits impeachment for words - Chapter 8 -

[@lee1130fromtwitter]

Nothing mattered. There wasn't an impartial jury. The end

[@21kiwi24]

Correct. Every one who voted the same way as their entire party should be fired. Which was only 1 party.

[@Jay_Frank]

@@21kiwi24 That would be firing 93 senators lol

[@dbdchristopher]

@@Jay_Frank oh you mean every Republican

[@Jay_Frank]

@@dbdchristopher No, using 2/1 kiwi's logic All senators except 7 Republicans would be fired.

[@danielevans7439]

@@Jay_Frank almost, except the other republicans did not vote the same way as their “entire” party. Thus, only the democrats would be fired. In retrospect, I’m surprised there wasn’t a democrat that did a sympathy vote. That’s what they do in reality shows, and I can’t really tell the difference between this and that.

[@roysterc.4612]

Man I know nothing about law, just here to listen to someone who can actually talk.

[@JMulvy]

I love explaining to people that "acquittal" is not the same as "not-guilty"... again and again and again... 🙄

[@xerikl]

And it's also not the same as guilty. What's your point?

[@JMulvy]

@@xerikl in this 2nd impeachment trial it actually does because the majority found him guilty. The acquittal is just a technicality. In a criminal court case, you would be right.

[@Mich-jk2ze]

What is he guilty of?

[@ricky18redblack31]

@@Mich-jk2ze existing Or so some people say "inciting violence on the Capital on Jan 6" Even tho he said peacefully and that people where gonna show up and already there... But of course there are instances where other Government Officials did the same thing but was swept under the rug. Some wants you to harass your fellow citizens if they do not comply with their agenda.

[@JMulvy]

@@Mich-jk2ze Inciting the events of Jan 6th. def. Incite: encourage or stir up violent or unlawful behavior.

[@slicingonions4398]

His cultists still say he argued for a peaceful protest despite all the evidence to the contrary including his very own words.

[@TheKrakenfist]

"Sometimes even futile gestures are worth doing because it's the right thing to do." Time to smash that like button.

[@mileator]

Honestly. I was raised with this value, and when that time arose, I did my due dilligence, and the real world knocked me on my ass... I'm not sure this value holds water anymore.

[@chelseanoble263]

@@mileator There will always be people who value the moral high road. Please continue to be one of them; many are forgotten in their own times, but history remembers them as the truly great.

[@SunYat-sen]

This was not the right thing to do. Trump is old news. Must I remind you that Joe Biden promised us that he would put an end to systemic racism, destroy the coronavirus, solve global warming, distribute the vaccines, regain America’s credibility on the world stage, stop school shootings, and everything else. We have so many problems right now but all these clowns want to do is play pussy foot with each other. Impeaching Trump served no purpose other than as a middle finger to the Republican Party.

[@axel7445]

The right thing to do is focus on the country not on old news. I think it's better to stop trying to stroke your own ego and start getting solutions to current issues.

[@mikoto7693]

@@SunYat-sen It should have been a stopgap to prevent T***p from running again or holding any office. Useless politics couldn't even get that right.

[@jincyquones]

If the GOP was on the other side of this issue, they'd be arguing that you could impeach people before they're even born. They don't care one bit about Constitutionality.

[@tophers3756]

Well, an embryo IS a person. /s

[@Tzizenorec]

How do you vote both major parties out of office, though? Seems like we're kind of stuck because our voting system creates a strong 2-party system.

[@Khronogi]

@@smashingthreeplates2171 Thats not something the democrats would do, stfu.

[@Mich-jk2ze]

Lol, no, you can’t assume that at all. No previous evidence says they would do that.

[@Tzizenorec]

@@smashingthreeplates2171 Not really a solution, because there's no plausible way the voting system gets changed at the federal level while the 2 parties are still in power. I've been musing about letting the electors discuss among themselves and change their mind at the last minute, though; that might work to break the 2-party system, since it's something that individual states are able to organize without federal consent. It would still be plurality voting, but it would be ~500 votes with a discussion beforehand rather than ~100 million votes mostly from people who take orders from their favorite media outlet. Much more tractable. (It's almost like the founding fathers wrote the solution to this problem right into the constitution, and we just haven't been using it.) Alternate voting systems could then be implemented at the state level to give the electors detailed instructions as to which outcomes they should prefer to which other outcomes.

[@corwin32]

Ironically, Mike did, in fact, have the courage to do what he needed to do. Shame so few others can say the same.

[@lc9245]

Yeah, the courage to turncoat once your coat lost the election. Come on, you really think the established republicans have integrity? Right after they got hounded on for 8 years under Obama for their nonsense. It’s as if the politicians wasn’t serving different corporate interests and they both want Trump, who’s an uncontrollable beast to be out. I’m astounded that shows like House of Cards don’t wake people up from politics.

[@rosco3]

@@lc9245 don't care for the reasons, actions matter and at least he did what he should/could.

[@corwin32]

@@lc9245 I don’t care if he did it with joy in his heart, a patriotic tear in his eye, or a like a sulky toddler who doesn’t want to go to bed. He did the job that was required of his position. That is all I ask.

[@filipwolffs]

@@lc9245 I'll take the corrupt immoral politician who opposes the wannabe-dictator because he's too dangerous over the corrupt immoral politician who thinks they can use the wannabe-dictator for their own benefit.

[@NewPaulActs17]

@@corwin32 i both pitied and was proud of pence when he said the final count

[@dwaynezilla]

Now that was a dose of sanity that I needed. Funny how many people are afraid to say it.

[@bachpham6862]

GOP: You cannot impeach him right after Jan 6th !!! That is such a hasty impeachment! The time before Biden inauguration is extremely busy for all of us. Let's vote for impeachment after Jan 20th. Also GOP: You cannot impeach a former president! Trump is already out of office, and we cannot make a precedent!

[@SignificantNumberOfBeavers]

Also GOP: let's shove through a SCOTUS nominee even though we said 8 months is too close to the election.

[@academicace]

I honestly don't understand the precedent argument. War Secretary William Belknap was impeached *after* he resigned in 1876. Precedent already exists. The process is not just for presidents.

[@bachpham6862]

@@academicace I think you just answered your own question. To be honest, "fearing precedents" is just a vaguely thin veil of protection so that you don't actually have to have some balls and vote something that can harm your political career

[@bachpham6862]

@James Rooks No. Just hypocritical.

[@Altorin]

That was not a B-Team. That was an F-Team at best and that's being generous

[@XXX3155]

Lawyers should use this as an example whenever someone complains about their billable

[@ulrichbrodowsky5016]

Imagine a trial, where the wife of the killer and the wife of the victim are the judges. That's how I see impeachment

[@PrincessAshley972]

@Decem I think the word you were looking for there was coup, not cup. As in, coup d'etat

[@ulrichbrodowsky5016]

@Decem Just because others remove them for political reason doesn't mean you should not remove them for political reason. I can see one advantage for doing it for political reason: Stability. But at least for me that's not enough. I want politicians to be trustworthy and that only works if they have to take responsible for their deeds

[@DraQuul]

I really enjoy how well you break down complicated issues so that they are more understandable to us laymen!

[@roguedogx]

0:23 I will still never understand how anyone could have someone could be a juror on the trail for someone who tried to have them killed, and vote to let them off the hook. Part of me wants to know if how many senators would change their mind if they had actually died, but the price for the knowledge is too high.

[@GSBrofly]

Btw that cop that they claim was killed with a fire extinguisher, didnt happen. 0 evidence of blunt force trama. Had a stroke

[@roguedogx]

14:03 it truly is an absolute miracle, how little the blood shed was. still not great, but it could have been so much worse.

[@GSBrofly]

If you dig a bit, there are plenty of videos of people handing over people getting out of hand over to the cops, stopping them from smashing windows, etc

[@ClothesCat]

Americans are a funny people.

[@matthewmcgee1434]

@@GSBrofly that wasn’t confirmed, but Ok. Also, if he did die from a stroke, it was almost completely the rioters fault, because they prevented him from getting medical assistance.

[@rizzoid]

The sad part is that the defense lawyers could have stayed at home for the trial and Trump would still have been found not guilty. The decision was made before it even started.

[@Mich-jk2ze]

Your right, it was sooooo easy to explain how trump is not guilty. I could’ve done it. Literally show videos of dems saying the same shit, and boom, job done.

[@lichesbrew]

@@Mich-jk2ze That wouldn't actually prove he's not guilty; it would just prove that you're terrible at logic and being a lawyer.

[@Mich-jk2ze]

@@lichesbrew no, but it means everyone prosecuting him is hypocritical to not prosecute the same charges in their own party. It would mean they are corrupt.

[@FumbleSquid]

@@Mich-jk2ze I'm pretty sure "they did it too!" Isn't a valid defense. All that would mean is then more impeachment trials need to be held for everyone else, and you would've failed at defending them of the charges. It sounds like you'd rather be on the side of procecution in this if you think the offense is actually serious enough for impeachment.

[@GoldenSunAlex]

'Trump didn't do it. Trust me bro.' Republicans: 'Sounds legit.'

[@danielallen3454]

Question: Is there a penalty for a lawyer deliberately lying to Congress in the course of an impeachment?

[@justserv]

Agreed. We're talking about the fabricated Tweets right?

[@TheExplorder]

The lawyers aren't under oath. So, no.

[@fisch37]

I think there is... I'm not a lawyer though

[@danielallen3454]

@Todd Clark No, they didn't. Any discrepancies were due to having to source Trump's tweets after his account was suspended. The content of said tweets was not fundamentally altered in any way.

[@theomegajuice8660]

Is it not just perjury?

[@nutmegdoesstuff1339]

Honestly shout out to the one guy from north carolina for being like "Yeah I came in here planning to vote against due to the timing precident, but the fact that we're here is an agreement that that isn't inherently enough, and the case has been made well enough that I have to vote for."

[@GamerbyDesign]

"So the senate has failed." The first five words is all you need.

[@PhoenixtheII]

It's a synonym?

[@vandalcreed]

Interesting perspective, maybe if the Dems didn't doctor evidence they wouldn't of failed 🤔

[@mathunit1]

@@vandalcreed Republicans would never impeach and convict Trump, no matter the evidence.

[@vandalcreed]

@@mathunit1 so they went with the fraudulent evidence route instead, sounds logical...

[@membou]

IN my office, IN Philly-delphia...🤣 I don’t know why that made me laugh so hard

[@johnladuke6475]

Because it made it clear that he's just a small-town hack ambulance-chaser who thinks he's big-time because he has an *office* and it's in PHILLYdelphia. And then he found himself in the hallowed chamber of an august body of government and still thought he could intimidate US Senators like he does to his secretary.

[@XXX3155]

@@johnladuke6475 I wonder if he makes enough for a secretary

[@JonPITBZN]

"Philly-delphia." That's why. I snorted when I heard it.

[@ZedF86]

You'll be glad to know that the entirety of the senate laughed at that moment as well. He got rather upset and cried something to the effect of, "I've never laughed at you!"

[@lukedetering4490]

Because the way he said Philadelphia was really dumb

[@JLF201]

This is one of those videos where I wish I had more options than just like or dislike. I want to promote this as something others should watch in the fight against misinformation. There are too many people who are ignorant and loud about it, spreading nonsense. Here we have an intelligent man explaining what the impeachment trial really was, including legal insight and the strategies of both sides. Thank you for shining your light into the darkness to enlighten those who are willing to spend a little time learning.

[@veronicacovatch1601]

In no way do I support Trump's words/actions on 1/6/20 BUT now that all that "disinformation" you mentioned has been proven to be truths, I see everything much clearer.

[@lanetorty7529]

Its honestly inspiring to hear about, and see people like eugeen goodman (i apologise for the errors....). It brings this sort of hope in humanity, that there are people out there, in any proffession, not just law enforcement, that truely belive in doing the right thing. Somewhat like a hero almost

[@makkapakkap8627]

he called me a legal eagle im blushing

[@evolution__snow6784]

😳

[@Ekvitarius]

He says that to all the viewers!

[@gymnastoman1]

We’re his eaglets

[@ZrinNZ]

Never knew about that officer. Eugene Goodman is good, man.

[@SpiceIntolerance]

Yeah he really did a lot heroic shit during the riot, it was real nice seeing him get a congressional gold medal during the impeachment trials and walk out with Kamala and her husband at the inauguration.

[@sealogic4552]

The only reason the insurrectionists couldn’t get into the chamber in time is because they were caught in the gravity field of Eugene Goodman’s enormous balls.

[@SpiceIntolerance]

@@sealogic4552 hahahaha Thank you dude, I haven’t laughed that much at a KZbin comment in quite some time yet no true words have ever been said!

[@derekstein6193]

Seems he is what is says on the tin.

[@iadorenewyork1]

That was one of the best highlights of the impeachment week.

[@MonsieurJimjams]

It's sickening that Trump put more effort into inciting an insurrection than he did running the country.

[@johmyh14]

Think of how much of America he could have ruined if he had stayed off Twitter.

[@nicholasfarrell5981]

@@johmyh14 think of how much of America would have been better off if he'd never been President.

[@edwinhuang9244]

How much our world would be better if he did nothing at all other than saying to stay at home and wear a mask during COVID-19(Which is still here)

[@adamknott7830]

He put more effort into the insurrection than he did defending himself afterwards

[@schizoposting]

"make your voices heard peacefully and patriotically" Seems like all the libtards missed that part of the "insurrection" speech

[@JustinBenjaminOnline]

"There is is no interpretation of the Constitution where that can possibly be correct." Maybe on the Bill of Attainder, but on the question of if the Constitution can contradict itself, it can and absolutely does. It is only through the creative ad hoc reconciliation of judges that the illusion of a logically consistent US Constitution is maintained.

[@expertoflizardcorrugation3967]

To be fair. that's the weight the word "Interpretation" is holding there. It's a lot of weight for one word, even one as mighty as he.

[@gemanscombe4985]

Creative ad hoc reconciliation is why SCOTUS has "Supreme" in its name. It's to make it stick. The Court never admits error. It simply reverses prior rulings. "Stare decisis" matters ... until it doesn't. The justices who rule on the Constitution are imperfect beings who wrestle with a document written 240 years ago by other imperfect beings steeped in other traditions. It's sociology in the garb of Euclidean geometry.

[@AndrewWatsonChangingWay]

Agree that Sen. Burr acted with principle. Hope he doesn't suffer too much for it.

[@PG-zv9mf]

He's not running again. I wonder if that made him more willing to do the right thing here...

[@renoutlaw8371]

@@PG-zv9mf It absolutely did, only one of the Republicans wo voted to convict is up for re-election in the next 2 years and several are retiring. People need to stop acting like these people are heroes who risked it all to save America and not just politicians who knew they weren't going to lose a race because of this so they decided to score some brownie points.

[@jacobh674]

He was censured and will not run for re-election.

[@renoutlaw8371]

@@jacobh674 He already wasn't running for re-election, I remember seeing people talking about who should challenge for his seat months ago before the impeachment trial was even a thing.

[@sundarbe]

The whole impeachment things is like asking mafia henchmen to pass judgement on their boss, you don't have to be Sherlock to find what the outcome will be.

[@ZesPak]

Except that Clinton got impeached?

[@sundarbe]

@@ZesPak Impeached by the House has no effect unless the Senate convicts them. Trump was impeached twice by House.

[@oxnyxws]

Arguably a lot of pirate captains got taken out by their crews...

[@bentos117]

agree... a hard hit on USA reputation...

[@ZentaBon]

As soon as I heard it needed 17 GOP votes, I was like "no way that's going to happen."

[@Jay_Frank]

It's ridiculous because a conviction and bar from holding office again would actually help GOP wannabe presidents. As long as Trump can run for office, the GOP nominee spot is filled.

[@sethledford9612]

@@Jay_Frank While technically true, a vote to convict Trump basically guarantees the loss of any support they might get from trump supporters if he doesn't run or after his second term.

[@kabalder]

There was a genuine possibility that after the "Kraken team" disintegrated, the various Trump-PACs were in limbo, and a very large amount of strategists working for the GOP started to openly voice things like "we're the labour party in the US, now", and the whole deflating "nationwide protests against the steal" into three guys in total around the country's statehouses -- that the political usefulness of plugging the Trump-narratives would not seem like such a brilliant idea when considering re-election to the Senate positions. The only wildcards involved would be that senators genuinely are a very stupid bunch of extremely craven politicians. And that local state operatives might actually still be resurrecting and plugging the various Q narratives. Because they just don't know how to be a "labour party", without thinking of their constituents as fundamentally speaking brainless conspiracy-idiots high on patriotism-juice. Which is of course what their competitors are going for as well. And which is why the overall voter participation in the US is so abysmally low, unless there's a question of voting against satan, like in the last election. Where even that ended with Biden getting less votes than the number Trump won with last time. So what we're really seeing is that the Republicans are wary of voting for Trump at a slightly greater margin than Democrats who hold their nose and vote for Biden. But what happened, it seems, is that Trump and Trump's PACs are well on their way to be more visible in local elections in the future than any other presence, specially in the safe Republican states - meaning that unless you're in a contested area, and you need to at least appear a little bit reasonable, what the Senators are actually competing against is some Q-Anon trooper who is going to win in a landslide - because no one in that state, outside the Republicans who are insane, are voting anyway. So there is a politically "sound" explanation for people like Mitch McConnel basically drawing up a transparent excuse to acquit. And it does have to do with the way the first past the post system has ended up becoming in certain states, where there is a very slim amount of actual political engagement. And until that changes - until people start doing the leg-work in those states - you're going to see this kind of idiocy affect everything on the federal level. Which again means that you are liable to see important committee work, foreign policy, wars.. fought over domestic narratives that literally only maybe 8% of all Americans nationwide actually entertain in a serious fashion. But that is still going to be the key to reelection for a number of people in office. Including the president. It's so bad that I know for a fact that there have been, and I'm sure there still is, a number of senators who are afraid of taking power away from the president's office - because it would subject more important functions to the whims of campaigns (perpetual campaigns) like these, rather than the whims of an office where at least there is some kind of constant attention put on it. Which I guess is an argument that collapses now, forcing up this other issue: the problem of Republican seats that vote with a presidential campaign based on total conspiracy-nut narratives, for sheer political convenience -- rather than that they are just campaigning on it, like has been the excuse offered previously. So it was actually as unlikely to get 17 Republican senators to vote for impeachment as it was to get any of them to vote for impeachment. So something has changed in the calculus here. That McConnel also admits there was a responsibility for the event on Trump, is completely unprecedented. This is nightmare-fuel for his campaign-offices in normal circumstances. It's just that the circumstances hasn't changed enough: there is still going to be a genuine uphill battle in the extremely Republican areas when fighting against people who are not complete kooks (as no one else votes, as mentioned). And there is no competition in terms of independents or Democrats who could engage that amount of an audience. Basically: law&order-candidates could do well in these areas if they actually challenge the GOP central strategists. It's just that - so far - no one sees the point with it, or wants to spend any amount of energy on it. There's no satan to oppose, and so the spite-vote just doesn't have enough pull. Indeed, the Democratic strategy also has been to just let the GOP fester, and be pulled down the drain by campaigns like these Q-Anon candidate crazies - hoping that the more moderate areas will have candidates that will be forced to vote against their party to retain their seats. No such thing will happen, as we've seen - but there's always a possibility here that there will be a reasonably large amount of Republican senators who simply declare themselves "less political, as is appropriate for the Senate", and then just openly break with their party line. That has been a completely possibly scenario for almost the whole last four years. And to be entirely honest - I don't see why more Americans, whatever they're voting for - wouldn't be at least a little bit enthusiastic about that kind of thing. Either because they're sick of partisanship, or if they're sick of overreach by the President, and want to scale back federal government involvement in various issues (including, for example, various signaling policies that are literally only there to enthuse the Q-Anon crazies). That possibility is there, if there was even a little bit of public discussion around it.

[@Vohlfied]

@@sethledford9612 His base is so scared of the "D" word they would vote for anyone with an "R" next to their name. It would have been fine.

[@partlycloudy7707]

I am from Utah, where Mitt Romney is a senator. And while I have massive issues with him even being allowed to be out senator (when he was governor of another state for a long time) and my other disagreements with him, I do have to have respect for him actually standing outside the party lines to vote to impeach Trump.

[@colepriceguitar1153]

That make sme disrespect him more. Trump did nothing remotely impeachable.

[@aaronbozigian4310]

Although it’s possible that he did that for purely benevolent and selfless reasons it’s also a possibility that he gained something to do that, perhaps something monetary. In essence, it’s possible that he took a bribe. I wouldn’t discount it, after all aren’t all corporate donations and lobbying really just bribes? It is for this reason that our government has become broken and corrupted to its core, and if we want this country to retain some semblance of unity then we must endeavor to peacefully rectify this situation as soon as possible, before the mass frustrations of the citizenry boil over.

[@joshuaroefs9279]

@@colepriceguitar1153 he tweeted to his supporters/the rioters that he was grateful for their support but to disperss and go home, that's a heinous crime. You know, like when aoc and other dems tweeted and made public statements supporting blm riots and the burning down cities, anti white hate crimes, homicides, burglaries and robberies and never once denounced any violence or even suggested they wanted the violent aspects to stop was perfectly fine and non problematic.

[@QemeH]

5:36 - Objection! You said "this is a political question that is left up to the _judicial_ branch". I think you meant _legislative_ ...

[@georgezimmerman8122]

Republican standards for conviction are so high they're double.

[@zombiedoggie2732]

The bar is set high for the fellow Republicans. Democrats even fart wrong? well "IMPEAACCHH!"

[@briaelewis3706]

Both of these are hilarious and sad how true that are

[@Otzkar]

How does the US have the biggest prison pupulation of the world then?

[@briaelewis3706]

@@Otzkar Unfair rulings of innocent people who are not found innocent until either dead or already lost most of their life in the system. Also, unfair ruling of innocent if one has enough money

[@georgezimmerman8122]

@@Otzkar Prisons are a system designed to treat a symptom and not a cause.

[@miaththered]

The cult closed ranks in lockstep with lightning speed.

[@XanderHill101]

A good description to both sides right now to be honest.

[@ramanpreciado2241]

No evidence, read it and weep.

[@Shrekfromthehitmovieshrek]

@@Pendelton7030 for starters it is legal eagle went over it Second of all they voted on if they could prior

[@leadpaintchips9461]

@@XanderHill101 That is the saddest thing for me. With how the US system is currently, we have to pick one side or the other otherwise you're not playing ball. Each side is ruled by extremists. If there's a big enough group that breaks away from the side that they found least offensive because they find that side still offensive, it just gives the other side more control. The US really does need some reform, but I don't think we're going to get it before it all collapses under its own weight.

[@Shrekfromthehitmovieshrek]

@@Pendelton7030 yeah that’s what I’m saying

[@Goldievoi]

Just gonna give a pat on the back to whoever wrote the script and did the editing. The clip mentioning Hamilton (the real one) before the LMM joke was perfection.

[@TheGilgameshepic]

"It's time to think like an impeachment Lawyer"...which is more than the ex-President's Lawyers managed...

[@xela6349]

Arguably they thought exactly like an impeachment lawyer since they distracted the Senate with completely irrelevant stuff without the other side having a lawyer who could cry "OBJECTION, IRRELEVANCE!" every 10 seconds. And the other side let them get away with it.

[@dielaughing73]

Considering that first dude introduced himself as Ttump's prosecutor before correcting himself...

[@onewayraildex4827]

Having watched some of the trial live and some of it after on Forbes, I have come to the conclusion that the fault was more that the prosecutors were way too eager to get him convicted that they accidently included some really horrible segments of evidence. They tried to recreate some of Trump's tweets and the damning responses because the official account was banned, but whoever made them included: The wrong year, the wrong person, and for some reason decided to photoshop a blue check mark onto some of the tweets. Why did they do this? I'm pretty sure if they asked people for archives of the former president's tweets, they could have done so much better, instead they gave the defense an out by screwing it up. The original audio and video from Trump's "both sides" speech should have been enough, but for some reason, they decided to splice and edit the video and audio to make it sound worse. The defense team was losing really badly on the first day before they pulled this nonsense out. Why did they do this?

[@jacksummers6464]

Oh boy is this going to be a frustrating video to watch... Bless you for making it!

[@EveloGrave]

I hope this acquittal doesn't lead to him running again in 2024. I have a feeling it will.

[@brimeetsbooks]

Spoiler: it will.

[@lordcirth]

I'm not sure he'll be capable of anything in 2024. He is old and in bad health; symptoms of dementia started appearing years ago. More likely he will appoint an heir and try to establish a dynasty.

[@Hans-gb4mv]

It would tear the GOP in two if he did. Also, he would be older than Biden now which according to Trump is too old. But then again, wouldn't be the first time Trump didn't agree with himself.

[@paulbutkovich6103]

I doubt he'd do any better. A lot of Republicans won't vote for him because of the riot.

[@voidblack1706]

Either hes in jail by then, broke cause sued so much, or runs and the same out come we got now will happen. Republican dumb for trying to stick with him when they know the outcome. Just start over with a new person even if you lose some crazy people

[@miaweiner4234]

So basically, since it wasn’t a criminal trial but a political one, defence lawyers only had to persuade and/or confuse the “jury” with any kind of rhetoric and fallacies in order to win. No need for objectivity or logic.

[@bradmiles1984]

It was a criminal trial it wouldn't of made it that far since he wouldn't of met the legal definition for incitement even LE said that in a previous video.

[@epajarjestys9981]

@@bradmiles1984 *wouldn't have. Learn your own language dumb anglo-subhuman. Seriusly, how can a whole nation be collectively so extremely dumb? It's just disgusting.

[@redisthecoolestcolour]

14:08 Every time I see that Q-Guy glance through the door my heart skips. He considers going to see what's down there, but Eugene Goodman makes himself too tantalising a target. When this was live, I was crying hysterically watching that mob follow him. I was so sure I was going to watch them execute him. But no, he survived and deserves every recognition. His instincts are impeccable.

[@jeffreypierson2064]

If you notice, he pushes the Q-Guy to draw attention.

[@erinmcdonald7781]

His actions blew me away. I could tell he was deliberately getting them to follow him, risking his life. Then, to find out he did this immediately after ushering senators in the opposite direction. Such clear headed, tactical thinking in the moment. Absolutely deserves recognition. Although I'm betting he would much rather those events never happened, that his comrades instead were all alive and well.

[@kilibubblecata6266]

The SDNY needs to get on this monster like yesterday. If he takes office again I'm legitimately scared that he will never leave.

[@Mortiis558]

I’m not worried about Trump, I am worried about the guy who runs like Trump did, but is actually smart enough to not let his ego ruin the bad things they are trying to do. If Trump were just a little less narcissistic and a little smarter, I could easily see him winning that second term and then slyly pulling a Putin.

[@OrcusMaximus]

Trump is too old now. He would rather stick to his golf courses.

[@nicomartinez9951]

If covid never happened no one would of seen how truly bad a leader he is and could of possible win it's a scary thought

[@charlesramirez587]

@@nicomartinez9951 to be fair noone reacted well to covid and its still up in the air whether the WHO is reliable. Since they backtracked on shutdowns and masks and now due to ccp influence are humoring that the virus started from the US planting it in China. Now there seems to be a worse strain I guess so let's see if the guy who said that the genocide in China is just a cultural difference is gonna handle this better.

[@ananthropomorphictalkinggo6641]

@@charlesramirez587 yeah, the WHO is not worth being a part of. They had one job, and they demonstrated that they're terrible at it.

[@Walkd3k]

Smh they have no idea of the harm they have caused

[@voidblack1706]

They lost their sain republicans and now have to please the QNR people and cult now

[@shkotayd9749]

The GOP knows. They know because the next time a republican president, who has enough senators on his side who gets power, will not be handing it back.

[@SunnyGoesIn1D]

Never underestimate people’s drive to pursue their self interest or greed wherever the system allows for it. And obviously the corrupt were going to beget more corruptness.

[@SunnyGoesIn1D]

@@hinamanskilm992 you’re a clown

[@tacomonkey222]

Democrats wanted to impeach Trump since day 1 Democrats are always calling trump supporters racist,cultists, nazis, fascist and are mow calling for unity? Im sorry but this is not how we achieve unity we need to accept opposing views in good faith and stop calling the opposing side as the devil

[@jonathanzegers5583]

"Nebraska... is quite a judicial thinking place" Sen. Sasse, Republican from Nebraska, votes to convict. "Not like that!!!"

[@Captain_Flynt]

Being from Nebraska, sasse is an irresponsible jackass, but he gets points for doing the right thing for once

[@kentallard8852]

"when you catch somebody in a fraud you're allowed to go by very different rules" - what rules?

[@billrumbley]

Clearly he meant extra-legal rules since he was referring to fraud laws. In other words, he justified lawlessness, rebellion, revolution. And that was what had been advertised for the 6th.

[@Vohlfied]

He's saying you don't have to follow the law of peaceful protest "in a fraud". It's a not-so-thinly-veiled call to violence.

[@khersy]

House rules lol

[@edwardblair4096]

@@khersy Or in this case, Senate rules.

[@JeyDB]

You know what I like about this channel? You can actually tell that he not only understands law very well, but he really enjoys it and teaching it to people.

[@Danishmastery]

He’s a total boss.

[@BigFootTheRealOne]

He says he understands the law but then you have other lawyers fact checking him and calling him out on it.

[@JeyDB]

@@BigFootTheRealOne Where can I find these other lawyers fact checking him?

[@brodyt3293]

That's what I thought at first but he's very clearly politically biased in his content

[@murk4552]

@@brodyt3293 God forbid a lawyer in politics being biased, so is Congress, it's called political affiliation and it's unavoidable.

[@frontierbrainrobby5449]

Devin! I'd love to see you talk about this: if the Congress were to pass a resolution effectively saying "because of his involvement in the insurrection of January 6th, we are barring Trump from seeking or holding federal office under the 14th Amendment Section 3", would that constitute a Bill of Attainder?

[@spicyice3754]

Yes because Congress cant single individuals out directly in any way shape or form

[@AliceErishech]

@Jayson's House Chances are he's going to manage to cause any cases to drag on so long that he'll die of old age long before they're ever settled. He has an absolutely infuriating habit of managing to get out of the consequences of his actions.

[@Sewblon]

That actually would require the signature of the president or a veto proof majority to be binding. It would not be an impeachment. So yes, that would be a bill of attainder.

[@joshuadehart8601]

I know the answer is probably still “yes”, but why not modify this to say anyone charged with and convicted of offenses related to the Capital Riots of Jan. 6, 2021? Not singling out an individual, but a group, and the charges already exist.

[@frontierbrainrobby5449]

@@joshuadehart8601 that wouldn't be a bill of attainder, but it would rely on the criminal justice system to convict Trump

[@Snagabott]

I don't really know why McConnel made that speech after the impeachment and I honestly wish that he hadn't. He admitted openly that he understands the danger, but decided to ignore that and focus on non-existant legalistic problems and self-inflicted difficulties. He threw some strings on his shoulder and claimed to be tied up. Essentially he said: "I know it's wrong, but I don't care enough - or dare enough - to stop it"

[@IRockThs]

Can you do a deep dive on Andrew Johnson’s impeachment? I would be interested in a legal breakdown of the impeachment cause the version I got in high school was... eh.

[@slicingonions4398]

I'd love to hear that. In high school they had us learn he was impeached but glossed over why

[@beriukay]

Objection! @5:35 you said, "The Supreme Court would 100% never answer it because this is a political question that is left up to the Judicial Branch." I think you meant Legislative Branch.

[@Eira_]

"Check out this playlist of all the legal issues that happened in the trump administration..." *87 videos*

[@Mich-jk2ze]

Do we even want to talk about Clinton?

[@Mich-jk2ze]

Every president commits minor crimes I’ll bet. I mean, if you think you can get away with it, you can how people would try to.

[@deathpoison1018]

Power and corruption are intertwined. Almost all leaders do something immoral or unlawful at least once in their reign.

[@blackhat4206]

@Tally Ho Hmm.. Wasn’t he impeached for perjury and obstruction for that blowjob in the Oval Office? That seems like a lesser misdemeanor than incitement, but I was too young to remember all the details from the Clinton trial. Funny how that used to be enough, but now we all plainly see the double standards the Senate uses.

[@shaynecraven8766]

Check out this other playlist of all the illegal things that happened in the obama administration. At least doubles trump's. Yikes