What Will the Senate Impeachment Trial Look Like? & Will It Happen? (Real Law Review)

[@LegalEagle]

⚖️Will the Senate convict? 👔 Once you get a custom Indochino suit, you’ll never go back bit.ly/2IeeB8W

[@over7532]

I don't indochiKnow how they couldn't.

[@penguinsareForever]

Pelosi is withholding the articles. She's not sending it to the senate.

[@gmg9010]

LegalEagle no the senate won’t convict him because this impeachment as I saw is strictly a party thing the Democrats will vote for or present while the republicans will vote against

[@gabrieldevoogel6225]

LegalEagle the proceedings of this case is really exiting because if he gets removed I’ll be surprised not cause I like trump but the senate really likes him

[@WadeAlma]

LegalEagle No.

[@robedin6626]

“It’s time to think like a lawyer.” Ok, I’m billing you $500 an hour to watch this video. 😂

[@ArnisGoldberg]

You wouldn't get anything because the video is only 21 and a half minutes. Nice try.

[@raizenkuroyomi5960]

@@ArnisGoldberg most lawyers bill for every two hours. Even if they only do 20 minutes of work, they bill for 2 hours. Your comment is taken as if you know nothing about lawyers. Even Court Reporters and Videographers bill on the same standard because it makes billing simple and easy to calculate.

[@Richard_Nickerson]

@@ArnisGoldberg So, someone making say $15/hour doesn't get ANY money for a fraction of an hour if they work like 5.5 hours? Use your brain...

[@Richard_Nickerson]

@@raizenkuroyomi5960 Not only that, but the lowest billing cycle time amount is 15 minutes, and once it goes over 15 minutes (even if it doesn't reach 30 minutes) you get charged for 15 more minutes. Charge $500/hour to watch a 21 minute video, get paid $250.

[@lousedder806]

“It’s time to think like a lawyer.” - The impeachment process is inherently political and not a judicial proceeding. Maybe the lawyers can take our lunch order.

[@imeatingicecreamrn]

I AM the Senate!

[@iamperson9816]

The Senate man? THR SENATE MAAAAAAAANN!!

[@sinsoftheswamp8346]

The muffin man will reign supreme

[@joebobby1412]

Do you know the senate? The senate, the senate, Do you know the senate?

[@caveresch]

No sir you're just the muffin man.

[@liquidsleepgames3661]

Unlimited powa

[@IAmNumber4000]

Did he just say “Judge Judy and executioner”? Is that like a lawyer joke? Lol

[@tompain2751]

He certainly did!

[@Intabih]

I heard it too. xD

[@alphaleonis986]

I heard that too. I'm sure it was a slip of the tongue, but a very funny one.

[@blindedjourneyman]

Perfect.

[@paradoxmo]

Alpha Leonis it’s a quote from Hot Fuzz and/or the Simpsons.

[@IANcel]

I hope he does the legal realism of Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer.

[@tarod6699]

Depending on the state, the deer is likely protected by stand your ground laws. Otherwise, the deer is guilty of a lethal hit and run. Only convict reindeer are forced to work for Santa.

[@That80sGuy1972]

@@tarod6699 You grabbed that and ran with it. **great timing high five**

[@floridamancode_e2673]

Do you mean the song or the cartoon where Santa gets sued?

[@spyrofrost9158]

@@tarod6699 Grandma wasn't threatening the deer in any way!

[@thehorseformerlywithoutana2522]

Well Santa could definitely be charged with Manslaughter. His cruising altitude is supposed to be above the rooftops for precisely this reason. The problem would be finding an unbiased jury that would convict. The christians think Santa is a saint, and the jews and muslims are all still bitter that he never visited. Probably would have trouble finding a prosecuting attorney, too. Grandma deserves justice, but do you really want to go down in history as The Lawyer that Ruined Christmas?

[@RealHypeFox]

Have to ask this early, not knowing if it’s discussed: What are your thoughts on Graham and McConnell saying flat out they don’t intend to be “fair jurors”?

[@LegalEagle]

Not a fan. But probably of no legal effect.

[@reveranttangent1771]

It sounds like jury nullification to me.

[@6038am]

@@LegalEagle Is that not an Impeachelbel offence, if he follows thrugh with it?

[@RealHypeFox]

It seems like a conflict of interest, but I suppose they can’t, or don’t even have to, recuse themselves.

[@Independenceday95]

@@MatthewCJoy I mean, it isn't. The President tried to get a foreign power to investigate a political rival. That's illegal.

[@Kalenz1234]

LegalEagle: The senate decides on all the rules *republican majority* Trump: I am the senate.

[@StudioUAC]

Can't wait to mine the salt on twitter.

[@brianc5581]

The exact same thing that happened with democrats ya.. Oh Trump is impeached! ye... by his opposing party... much wow.

[@mongmanmarkyt2897]

I love democracy

[@andrewlee7755]

Brian C ...use proper sentence structure and grammar next time.

[@viperlife914]

@@__-vu8io who cares?

[@bumblevee123]

As a Canadian I find all this very neat. You hear the stories and the ramblings but hearing about the technical background is fascinating. Also, great suit!

[@dr.floridamanphd]

Try reading our Constitution. It’s pretty short. From the Preamble to the 27th Amendment it can be read in about an hour. You’ll find out a lot about how our government is supposed to work and might see some similarities, or even glaring differences, to your country’s government.

[@annalisasteinnes]

I like your cute flower-egg pic. It makes me happy.

[@bumblevee123]

@@annalisasteinnes thanks!

[@draco84oz]

Would you be willing to do a legal review of Romine v Stanton (other wise known as Digital Homicide vs Jim Sterling?) Would love to hear a lawyer's opinion on the suit, even if it just 10 minutes of you alternating between laughing and saying "what the f***?" whilst reading the documentation.

[@BubbyBoy]

Definitely worth a review too

[@kaelibw34]

I doubt he would just because of how utterly frivolous it is, plus Jim did a pretty good job of covering the whole thing. Lastly, which version? Didn’t that guy submit like 4 different versions of his complaints?

[@chrischeng7552]

That seems like more of Leonard French's thing

[@Null-m8d]

He can do a shot for everytime Digital Homicide acted improperly / he cringes at how rediculous it is

[@maxwaller2055]

@@Null-m8d needs to learn how to spell.

[@Kanelle88]

You know what this teaches me? The senate needs to create a solid trial structure for all future trials. The play-dough approach is insane. Just make it like a normal trail... have an elected defense and a prosecution do the work of both sides and then have the senate debate when it comes to coming up with a verdict. Heck, let them question further during the verdict deliberation.... Voting without even questioning witnesses or going through the evidence? Yeah, that's a complete kangaroo court. It just turns my stomach.

[@MrLuffy9131]

Also it's a kangaroo court when no matter what witnesses you have, almost 100% Dems vote yes and Republicans vote no

[@GonnaDieNever]

Eh, a Kangaroo court for a Kangaroo accusation, most impeachment have been little more than contempt of congress.

[@michaeldiaz4942]

The reason they don't create a binding trial procedure is because they can't. Any process the Senate proposed attempting to govern the conduct of impeachments in the future can easily be changed by a new Senate. The only foreseeable way to do what you propose would be to create a new Amendment to the Constitution which defines the process.

[@TheWutangclan1995]

K funny thing is only a few Democrats voted no. Not a single Republican voted yes which tells you something ain’t right.

[@HyperLuigi37]

TheWutangclan1995 And one of the Dems who voted no was already in the process of switching parties to Republican anyway

[@Shrike-Valeo]

Judge Judy & Executioner? :D

[@MajorStubble]

Good to know @LegalEagle is a fan of "Hot Fuzz".

[@LabrnMystic]

I also heard that. Now I am imagining a Judge Dredd, but the badge reads "Judy"

[@frutrace]

I scrolled down looking for this comment. Well done.

[@GorillaCanon]

10:15

[@jamesvaughn7477]

Oh, good. It's not just me.

[@MelancholyCrypto]

I love this free video doing a better job explaining everything than anything else I could find. Super helpful and helping keep us educated. Thank you LegalEagle.

[@tomzimny7408]

"Judge, Judy, and Executioner" Sick "Hot Fuzz" reference.

[@SharpDesign]

"The Senate will decide your fate" ~Mace Windu

[@darthplagueis13]

*I am the Senate* ~Donald J. Trump

[@benpage11]

Darthplagueis13 ironically true

[@carlosrod100]

@@darthplagueis13 Wow, that damn username

[@ahmedamine24]

@@benpage11 This thread is a surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one.

[@Brett_S_420]

Emperor Fondald Trump: 🗣 hhiiisssssss

[@Pharaoh025]

Gonna need good lawyers? But... good lawyers only wear Indochino suits! Where could we POSSIBLY find one of those???

[@LegalEagle]

I know a guy...

[@josecolon7267]

Just do the "Sideshow Bob defence", lol

[@leonscottkennedy6860]

@@LegalEagle and that's you :)

[@SamAronow]

I imagine LE prefers to get paid.

[@andyh4518]

You don't need a good lawyer if the jurors have already decided that you aren't guilty.

[@pyromanic8]

This whole thing is pointless. Judging from how they've acted in the past few years and in the House of Reps, the Republicans aren't gonna vote for conviction. Not in a million years, no matter what comes to light in that trial. If even a single Republican votes to convict, I will be seriously impressed.

[@nota4688]

I think that it just makes the dems look even worse and desperate

[@invictusprima4437]

I think this is going to impact the democrats chance in 2020 by making them look like partisan authoritarians trying to weaponize impeachment (and delaying sending the articles to the senate looks even worse) Once the DNC realizes this is a screw up that’s hurting them in the swing states they need to win there going to throw Pelosi under the bus and blame the whole circus on her [which isn’t entirely untrue since she started the impeachment proceedings without waiting for a proper investigation into the Ukraine call] This is the death of Nancy Pelosi’s career

[@125loopy]

@Raa16 no, it's the Republicans that made it a partisan issue. The man is guilty.

[@anubis8181]

@@125loopy guilty of what shedding light on bidens and the democrats corruption.

[@okbc1864]

The Biden thing was already debunked, by removing a corrupt prosecutor he made the new one look into Biden’s son more, also the crime is using bribery or a “favor” in exchange for releasing the funds. It’s not that hard. That was a crime the same as lying about a BJ was.

[@knightofwrath6845]

As someone who lives outside the United States, I had no idea about the impeachment process (thinking that Impeachment of a sitting leader was the final decision following a lengthy debate), as well as how the following Senate trial would be set up. Thank you for explaining both in an easy to follow matter.

[@sce2aux464]

Suggestion: The legal ramifications of the Santa Clause - " In putting on the suit and entering the sleigh, the wearer waives all previous identities, real or implied, and fully accepts the duties and responsibilities of Santa Claus, in perpetuity to which time the wearer becomes unable to do so, by either accident or design."

[@michaeldesanta977]

So, is everyone just going to ignore the fact that, based on the current Senate makeup, to actually convict Donald Trump you would need every democrat, both independents, and 19 republicans to vote in favour of removal?

[@joemayo1589]

yes.

[@Pasicho]

No. You know that you’re not the first one to bring that up. Everyone is parroting that. The point is that in an unrealistic, unbiased world the senate would vote based on the facts and not purely based on parties.

[@TerryTerius]

I don't know what you mean by everyone ignoring that. Virtually every time I've seen this comes up someone has mentioned that (if not the specific numbers). People seem to be generally aware of that.

[@michaeldesanta977]

@@TerryTerius I was referring to how Legal Eagle seems to be ignoring it.

[@michaeldesanta977]

@@Pasicho Well, that isn't happening and we both know it.

[@Official_GoldVader]

Can you react to grandma got ran over by a reindeer trial (Edit)Omg I did not know this comment would blow up like this

[@reveranttangent1771]

That sounds wonderful

[@prestokrevlar]

Looks like a reindeer trail, leading to and going over grandma.

[@rayfrompalmbay9656]

I second that motion.

[@scottphillips7795]

Oh you are onto something I remember that part 😉

[@125loopy]

Omg yes! I know everyone watches A Christmas Story or whatever but that's my go-to Christmas movie

[@Giraffinator]

That Rehnquist quote is really relatable

[@SoleaGalilei]

Renhquist was referencing the 1882 play Iolanthe. There it's wryly said that the British House of Peers "did nothing in particular and did it very well" during the Napoleonic Wars.

[@mcfearson1391]

I have never heard anything as funny as Nixon saying "I have always tried to do what's best for this nation."

[@jeffslote9671]

The legislation that he signed into law profoundly changed America for the better. From environmental laws to gender equality in education he radically changed the USA. Despite what most think he was very socially liberal

[@exscape]

@@jeffslote9671 What about when he interfered with the Vietnam war peace talks in order to improve his chances of being elected? I don't think that counts as trying to do what's best for the nation.

[@briancrawford8751]

He was only talking about the people who counted in this nation, not those damned hippies.

[@mcfearson1391]

@@jeffslote9671 doing a few good things doesn't quantify as always. Overall, massive dingle.

[@MatthaeusCaesar]

Nixon was actually a really good President, besides the impeachment thing. He did a lot...

[@Acerthorn]

Why aren't there any established Rules of Procedure for impeachment trials? Sure, Presidential impeachments have only happened twice before, but as you mentioned in an earlier video, there have been 17 total impeachments of federal officials overall. So why hasn't the Senate issued some default rules of procedure yet?

[@DBArtsCreators]

If they had a set of rules and a procedure, it would restrict them in what they can and can't do. I doubt they want restrictions on what they can remove people for unfortunately.

[@pedrov7323]

There is... The dems don't like em

[@kabloosh699]

It isn't suppose to be an easy process. Hell you need a 2/3rds vote in favor of removal of the president. The point is to make impeachment very difficult otherwise it could potentially be weaponized by opposing parties to pretty much overthrow what the voters have chosen. So it really has to be something really bad like what Nixon did. He would have likely been the only president to be removed through impeachment. It's obvious though that Trump's impeachment much like Clinton's is partisan and this is likely going to go nowhere.

[@phantomdude9901]

Impeachment in the US was created as a (for all intents and purposes) multi-tool, It's only real lines are high misdomeners, high felonies, or treason but it can also be used on incompetency. We don't restrict it because it was set up as a weapon against the king of the time, we'd impeach his officials to get to him.

[@--Dan-]

They're not likely to issue permanent rules that may subvert their authority later. They can make up basically whatever rules they like on the spot, so why limit themselves? You might argue that this might ensure a fairer trial if and when you're not the party in power, which is probably true, but also eliminates the ability to yell and scream about process, which as we've seen is one of most politicians favourite things to do when they don't get their way.

[@jonathanswavely7259]

10:15 Did you just say "judge, *Judy* , and executioner"?

[@JosephVozzo]

Yep!

[@jeremyrutledge8378]

Possibly a reference to the line from Hot Fuzz?

[@humulos]

Jeremy Rutledge Definitely, a link to the hot fuzz clip appears on the top right when he says that lol

[@dravendfr]

It’s amazing how hard it is to find something that is informative and unbiased these days. Good work as always.

[@-NoneOfYourBusiness]

"unbiased" lollol

[@-NoneOfYourBusiness]

That guy is about as unbiased as Eric Swalwell.

[@Number1Irishlad]

@@-NoneOfYourBusiness how so?

[@andrasszabo1570]

@@Number1Irishlad No reason, he just doesn't beat his chest for us, so that means he must be biased for the other side. Whichever side that is.

[@AdmiralFerret]

I appreciate these videos are getting me through this impeachment process. Also, either it was a genuine slip, or a really great Hot Fuzz reference lol

[@whisperingsage89]

The notification popup should show it was intentional.

[@sobertillnoon]

Dude's not going to need a good lawyer when he knows he's got the jury on lock.

[@DenGuleBalje]

And not being accused of any crimes. Easiest win in history.

[@rjose705]

@@DenGuleBalje Did you... Did you read the articles, or like any objective journalism on it?

[@DenGuleBalje]

@@rjose705Yes. Name the crime he's accused of.

[@andromidius]

@@DenGuleBalje Obstruction of the House and Corruption. We could add insider trading, bribery, forgery, tax evasion, sexual assault and inciting violence to those charges if you like? How could you not know at this point? Or do you consider those Presidential attributes to be admired? At this point I think you'd elect Al Capone if he ran as a Republican.

[@DenGuleBalje]

@@andromidius Wrong. The only two articles of impeachment that the House have voted for are: 1. Abuse of power 2. Obstruction of Congress The Democrats have not put forward any other articles. This makes this the first time a president has been impeached without being accused of any federal crimes.

[@TheNameOfJesus]

Surprisingly unbiased and unsurprisingly informative. However I really don't think you made it adequately clear that all Senate rules, except for the supermajority impeachment vote, are decided by a simple majority vote. And I'm still confused whether the tie breaking vote is cast by the VP or by the CJOTSC.

[@paradoxmo]

There’s no tiebreakers for impeachment. 66 is acquittal, 67 is conviction. The Vice President is not presiding, so he doesn’t get a vote.

[@sirmoonslosthismind]

@@paradoxmo you don't understand. there will be many motions made before the senate actually renders a verdict. those motions will be decided by roberts in the first instance, and by a simple majority of the senate if any senator decides to try to overrule roberts. you are correct that the vice president won't be able to vote on any of these motions, so i suspect that in case of a 50/50 tie the chief justice's ruling will stand.

[@macmcleod1188]

Ironically he just said that in the video as I was browsing through post. Maybe you zoned out for a second and missed it. Or maybe it was too parenthetical and buried in another point.

[@Dreaded88]

@TheAbc45678:: Say, if Nancy Pelosi wants to delay this action, what's the chance that *Whitehouse Counsel* and/or the *Attorney General* could file a Motion for a *Writ of Habeas Corpus* and/or an *Objection* that the President's *8th Amendment Rights* are being violated?

[@breakyourstory]

He did specifically say that it was a simple majority vote in the Senate to overrule Roberts. The only decision he specified to be 2/3 majority was the actual impeachment vote.

[@Dreaded88]

@LegalEagle: Say Devin: if Nancy Pelosi wants to delay this action, what's the chance that *Whitehouse Counsel* and/or the *Attorney General* could file a *Writ of Habeas Corpus* and/or an *Objection* that the President's *6th Amendment Rights* are being violated?

[@richduplessis6054]

If Trump gets impeached, the USA most of us love will end.

[@limerickman8512]

Trump has yet to be impeached, it is a process, as the House refuses to send the house manager to send theCharges of Articles of Impeachment and declare before the Senate body that the "President has been impeached". Only then the Senate with the head of the Supreme court has to come up with rules. The House manager are the procustors. The house cannot decide the rules of the Senate rules. Pelosi cares about Trump rights LOL. She lies. She did not care about a fair trial for the President, when the issue was before the House.

[@Dreaded88]

@@richduplessis6054 : The unfortunate reality: You're probably right! Lookup an old gamebook: *Twilight 2000* [Don't know about you all, but I'm definately going over to *MIL-GOV!* *_>:)_* ]

[@Dreaded88]

@@limerickman8512 : Yes, but the President still has the right of *_'...Quick and Speedy Trial..."_*

[@notquitedead6776]

@@limerickman8512 There are a number of issues in your comment with regards to factual accuracy. The process that takes place in the House in this context is not a trial. It is an investigation. The suspect does not have any right to determine who is questioned within the bounds of an investigation. Investigations follow facts relating to a complaint, and are not required to indulge the whims of those under investigation. Next up, the claim that "Trump has yet to be impeached." According to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 of the US Constitution, "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." You will notice that it does not state that there is any requirement to involve The Senate at any point for an individual to be considered impeached. Now, for action to be taken on the basis of this impeachment, it is necessary to present articles of impeachment to the senate. However, the fact of the matter is that impeachment is a privilege of The House that is not subject to the approval of The Senate.

[@felixdakat734]

"LegalEagle, I don't often use the word hero very often. But you, are the greatest hero in American history.

[@josecolon7267]

All heroes wear Indochino?! Lol

[@felixdakat734]

@@josecolon7267There's the truth..and then there's the "Truth."

[@theexiled3034]

#Simpsons

[@laxrulz7]

Objection: Senatorial rules can't strip the Chief Justice of his constitutional responsibility to "preside" over the hearing. If the rules effectively neuter his role to ceremonial (at best) than they must be viewed as unconstitutional. This is an immovable object (Senate has ultimate control over the impeachment trial) and an unstoppable force (Chief Justice presides) and no solution that ignores one of these (in spirit or in fact) can be considered sufficiently constitutional.

[@peterpain6625]

@Benghali In Platforms Oh. Watch them try ;)

[@peterpain6625]

@ScissorMeTimbers As if that would stop anyone still in the trump "administration" ;)

[@paradoxmo]

The Chief Justice’s role as the presiding officer is limited by the Senate rules because his rulings can be overruled by simple majority. This is because the impeachment happens in the context of a session of the Senate, so the Senate rules apply (they can overrule presiding officers by majority in a normal Senate session as well). The Chief Justice is unlikely to overstep those bounds because he does not want to seem like he’s taking sides. But he could compel witnesses approved by the Senate to appear if they refuse to, for example.

[@laxrulz7]

@@paradoxmo I understand that that's the current understanding but I'm hard pressed to imagine that was the original intent. If it was, there'd be no compelling reason to have the Chief Justice preside. The phrase "the Chief Justice shall preside" has to have SOME meaning. I think we're drawing a lot of inferences from a very sparse data set. Just because Rehnquist chose to be a passive observer doesn't mean that's what the founders envisioned nor does it mean that's all that's necessary or appropriate. I suppose one could make the argument that he's simply there as a replacement tie breaker vote because of the obvious conflict of interest that the VP would have. I find that's awfully limiting and not well supported by historical precedent, however.

[@paradoxmo]

Jeff Hall the idea that the presiding officer is just a tiebreaker is not really the original intent either. Early Vice Presidents went to the Senate every day and ran it as the presiding officer, but at one point one of the VPs, I forget which, started lecturing the Senate too much, and they pressured him to stop coming. Modern VPs don’t participate day to day in the senate anymore, but that doesn’t mean that the Chief Justice’s role is limited to breaking ties. He can also make rulings as long as he thinks they will be uncontested.

[@doncarlin9081]

11:35 wow that seems like ancient history when political parties were this civil to each other and actually tried to work with the other party. It's almost like another world lol.

[@TealWolf26]

They used to go golfing together. Now they're more likely to start fencing.

[@amirulazizol844]

It wasn't always that way though, US parties being rude to each other is nothing new and has been a thing since their existence.

[@ExasBits]

TealWolf26 they still go golfing together, just never in front of a news camera.

[@lorddonut3000]

A man was beaten with a cane in the U.S. senate in the past, they’ve never been very civil.

[@mikeyj312]

Yep. Money and power changes everything over time

[@mohanadelnokali]

Wait so the justice can himself decide to call witnesses (like bolton, mulvaney) and then McConnel would need to call a vote on not to call them?

[@onanthebarbarian9883]

Apparently. :/

[@bridesbiscuit]

Yup. 2/3 majority vote will override Roberts..

[@danielthomas9843]

@@bridesbiscuit Simple majority of 51 votes will override Roberts. The 2/3 is only for conviction.

[@jimwoodard64]

I object! MC Hammer would be proud to wear those pants. LOL

[@LegalEagle]

Damn, I never thought of that!

[@drewdavis2392]

Objection: hearsay. If the court wishes to hear Mr. Burrell's opinion on those pants and the putative superiority of Indochino replacements, then the court can summon him to directly testify in person here in the KZbin comments, rather than rely on someone else's opinion of what his opinion might be.

[@ReiTsukinoVT]

You pretty much hit every nail on the head on why the process itself is a problem. They need to define the process and rules more formally and base it off existing law governing trials in the justice systems. The less it's a political device and more legal, the more unbiased it will be regardless of what party is in control.

[@ReiTsukinoVT]

@Jonathan Parks I think you misunderstand my intent. Being a pure political tool, we're seeing first hand why it's misused. Whichever party is in control, in most instances, will protect their president in todays climate regardless of what may or may not be true. We saw it in Clintons impeachment, we're seeing it now in Trumps. If we standardize it, with the current legal process and standards are a template, it becomes less subject to party biased. As it stands now, both sides are trying to stack the deck in their favor.

[@DavidFerguson68]

It seems like founding fathers had a great system for managing a president that had become corrupt, but no system for dealing with the corruption of an entire political party.

[@mecurian485]

Imagine how bad it would have been had the Dens controlled both chambers I think by law impeachment should require bipartisan support from both the majority and the loyal opposition.

[@TealWolf26]

They were trying to block a single tyrant (king) from accumulating power but didn't anticipate a House war between two oligarchies.

[@AGrumpyPanda]

I'm an Australian so my knowledge of specific things the founding fathers said is somewhat limited, but didn't at least one of them say forming political parties was a bad idea because it would lead to people siding with their party over the country?

[@genghiskhan5701]

@@AGrumpyPanda Washington to be exact said there shouldnt be any political parties

[@DavidFerguson68]

Mecurian it does. The republicans are just being pighesded and not seeing the obvious facts because it might cost them a seat

[@QuantumBlink]

Hey James, I'd be interested in a video that explains what type of attorney you should look for in different cases (copyright, family, etc) and how you should choose one.

[@phoenixdark9]

Objection: Nixon was never actually Impeached. He, in fact, resigned before the House voted to Impeach. Andrew Johnson was the first to be Impeached.

[@temperededge]

10:13 Judge Judy, and executioner?

[@frosterionx-zeroraikenuchi7794]

I still find it odd that there are delays for the senate to try the president. The initial impeachment went on for long enough, and the case is already established with all of the witnesses established. I hope that this all gets over soon.

[@laxrulz7]

"all of the witnesses established" is not at all true here. There were a number of first hand fact witnesses that simply refused to appear before Congress (in fact, that forms the basis for the SECOND article of impeachment). I think there was a desire by the Dems that, once the Senate trial started, they'd be able to call a witness (like a normal trial) and when they refused, Roberts would make a ruling that would benefit them.

[@frosterionx-zeroraikenuchi7794]

@@laxrulz7 true, but the dems did originally say they had a strong case and flatly rejected Republican witnesses, now they ask for a fair procedure. The reason I say established is that they have chosen their key witnesses, while refusing others. Things would have been much simpler if this was all taken to the supreme court though.

[@rvanzo925]

The second article is the most ridiculous. There can’t be obstruction of congress because that simply does not exist. The president has the power to use executive privilege and the democrats could in turn go to court. Blocking the courts would be the actual “crime” of obstruction of justice.

[@laxrulz7]

@@frosterionx-zeroraikenuchi7794 The problem with that is that it wouldn't have made it through the court process prior to the election. Personally, I was in favor of sending the Sergeant of the House to go bring them in. I think the Congress has ceded far too much authority over the years to the Executive and Trump has simply extended that one logical step. If Congressional oversight means anything, it has to mean that they can call people to testify during an impeachment.

[@laxrulz7]

@@rvanzo925 Just because "Obstruction of Congress" doesn't exist as a statute doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If the President sent the national guard to cordon off the legislature and refuse to let them convene, that would be wrong despite not being "illegal". Executive privilege is a construct we've created through precedent. It's been expanded well beyond the relatively small bounds of what it was originally intended to be. On the other hand, congressional oversight and impeachment are Constitutional constructs and should carry far, far more weight than any concept of executive priviliege. Democrats shouldn't have to go to court here. The Admin should have to go to court. A subpoena was duly issued. They pointedly ignored it. In the real world, if I did that, I would be jailed for obstruction of justice. That's essentially the parallel here. The administration didn't do the legal thing in contesting a subpoena. Take the terminology out of it if you don't like "Obstruction of Congress". Just call it, "Refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas". You may believe they're wrong but, until a court rules they're illegitimate, they should be treated with respect.

[@stevenwallace773]

The Senate rule that it can overrule the presiding Chief Justice with a majority vote is not itself laid out in the Constitution. If the Senate tried to overrule a decision by the Chief Justice and was challenged, wouldn't that constitutional challenge be decided in the Supreme Court?

[@jeffp1377]

Hey Legal Eagle, are Rudy Giuliani and Michael Cohen good lawyers?

[@reveranttangent1771]

I would say no about giuliani.

[@gaiusjuliuspleaser]

Both have engaged in criminal behavior on behalf of their client. What do you think?

[@shimoneliezer2384]

Sacha Daenens Lol... and you are the judge...🤪

[@SRosenberg203]

@@shimoneliezer2384 Well one of them is currently in prison for exactly what Sacha said, and the other one has literally admitted to doing the same thing on TV, and just hasn't been charged yet.

[@Laufbursche4u]

They were/are fixers. That's DT wanted them to be.

[@patrickskramstad1485]

Why can't the motivations of both parties simply be, to find justice? How else can the people know what was done was right?

[@chrischeng7552]

The Constitution assumes the Executive and Congress to be separate bodies accountable to one another. However, political parties, particularly in such a charged political climate, basically negate this assumption. Unfortunately, American politics has devolved into banding behind a particular figurehead, rather than distinct sets of ideological principles. The Republican party would basically collapse if they removed Trump because its basically become the Trump Party. Blame the modern political climate and a flimsy Constitution, clearly drafted without any foresight.

[@tarod6699]

Many drafters advised making an entire new construction every 19 years, give or take. They wouldn’t be happy with being put on pedestals and worshipped. I mean, they would be but they’d also be kind of disappointed.

[@jth_printed_designs]

Because the only way to "find justice" is to be Donald Trump, or be a mind reader. The entire case for impeachment comes down to the Presidents intent for soliciting an investigation from Ukraine. Was it for political purposes or to ensure that corruption in Ukraine did not lead to the misuse of aid funds? Since nobody on earth is a mind reader, and only one person is Donald Trump, you are never going to be able to know his intent unless he tells you. And even if he did, how could you know he was telling the truth? Again, the entire thing comes down to intent, and if you cant prove intent, you have no case.

[@Cupcub71]

They did that during the hearing where everybody admitted they made everything up. Everything else is a sham.

[@Drake5607]

@@jth_printed_designs If that was true, it would never be possible to be accused of 1st degree murder. "Yes, I had the weapon with me, but I've never intended to use it... and you can't prove otherwise!"

[@obiwankenobi4713]

They’ve been saying he did nothing wrong and that it was a “perfect call” for months, and yet they’re publicly saying that they’re not going to hold a fair trial?

[@BenjaminBadbrother]

This is a partisan attack, and you're shocked there is a partisan defense?

[@obiwankenobi4713]

Desmond Cameron It’s not an attack, it’s an impeachment, put in practice specifically for situations like this. In 2018, the people spoke and elected a house that would hold Trump accountable for his actions, and that’s exactly what they’ve done. And if the Republicans had any dignity or respect for the country it wouldn’t be as partisan

[@BenjaminBadbrother]

@@obiwankenobi4713 ​ Dr Stentle It is partisan, the house voted along entirely partisan lines even losing democrats. There is no American consensus on impeachment. You're asking for a "fair" trial, but this is not a criminal court, there are no criminal chargers, and the worst outcome is that Trump was right in that Biden used his authority to enrich his son and impede an international investigation. This was a huge waste of time for moral posturing while defending immoral behavior.

[@obiwankenobi4713]

Desmond Cameron Why do you hold everyone else to a higher standard than Trump? If it turns out to be true, the worst thing is that a President bribed a foreign leader to interfere in the next election. I need to remind you they’re also impeaching him for not cooperating with the impeachment investigation? Because that is undeniably true. I know the republican line is not to legitimize the “sham witch hunt” but if he truly didn’t do anything wrong, why wouldn’t he follow the law and cooperate?

[@BenjaminBadbrother]

@@obiwankenobi4713 ​ He didn't have to cooperate, because they didn't follow normal processes by going to a court. The bribe was foreign aid to which the foreign leader has stated he did not know was being withheld. This is the hill the democratic establishment has chosen to die on. This is a "sham witch hunt" because none of this would be out of the ordinary if it were true: A president used his authority to set conditions on foreign policy regarding an American citizen who has implicated themselves in foreign corruption. The worst that can be said is that this person could be a political rival, but that's not a special protection.

[@kineticstar]

"That's a bold strategy Cotton; let's see how this works out for both parties!"

[@WitchHunter1991]

It's amazing how you managed to smoothly transit to the indochino add this time.

[@sdolsay]

True and it was funny to point out Trumps pants but how in Gods name did he miss mocking Nadlers!

[@EZScape]

Your videos are so good. Informative and unbiased, keep it up man.

[@roguedogx]

I know I'm going to regret asking, especially because it's so far off and unlikely to happen, but is there any legal basis for what happens if the president is removed from office and just refuses to leave?

[@culwin]

The old president sits at their desk in the oval office in a corner, and they build prison bars around it.

[@rvanzo925]

Then it would go to the army. Whoever has the army backing them wins. In the end, whoever holds the guns holds the power.

[@warblackjack5565]

I imagine they would call the Sergeant at Arms to forcibly remove the person. Same could happen if someone refuses to show up but is subpoenaed to; that person would be held in contempt of Congress, and forced to show up if they choose to go the inherent contempt route.

[@roguedogx]

@@culwin this that foreshadowing or an artistic interpretation on what's currently happening? lol

[@dracocrusher]

I'm just imagining Mitch McConnel trying to pull Trump away and he's just like "Mmmm.... No!" and they're just like "Well, what can we do? He's got a tight grip on the presidential desk, guess he's just going to stay here now."

[@dominict9325]

This is why Windu decided to kill Palpatine instead of give him a Senate trial.

[@ericallinger7479]

Oof

[@andysutcliffe3915]

both have saggy faces in funny colours too! Edit: palpatine and trump, not windu

[@jhroomy]

Ironically, the only thing Palpatine really did illegally, was treason. Being a sith was not against the Republic law.

[@AroAceGamer]

Criminals should not be having co-conspirators as jurors deciding their fate.

[@gaiusjuliuspleaser]

@Erich Klein McConnell just said he's making the rules.

[@AroAceGamer]

@Erich Klein Pfft. Madison was right about political parties...

[@chloebutler8438]

Is it legal for Mitch McConnell to flat-out state that he won’t be a fair juror?

[@gaiusjuliuspleaser]

In the US? Probaly, yeah.

[@josecolon7267]

Mitch and Lindsey both took part on Impeachment #2 also, hence why we need term limits.

[@GonnaDieNever]

Yes, Impeachment is a political proceeding. It is the same reason that is legal for Schumer and Pelosi to coordinate, or McConnell and the White House. Impeachment is not a trial inasmuch as it is a Senate proceeding.

[@rvanzo925]

Yeah, he has 1st amendment right to say whatever he wants and even privilege to be protected form consequences from his words.

[@jkim078]

It seems if people don't like what he said, then they can vote him out of the office.

[@idndyzgaming]

Senate trial... can it be filibustered?

[@worcestershirey]

[Strom Thurmond has entered the chat]

[@paradoxmo]

No, the Senators actually can’t even talk unless called upon by the Chief Justice. All their questions have to be submitted in writing to the Chief Justice.

[@SunnyPickles92]

Senators don't filibuster like they used to. In previous days, they would hold the floor and keep talking without sitting or yielding the floor. Nowadays, in order to vote on a bill to become law (majority vote) they need to vote on ending discussion on the bill (it takes 3/4 of the senate to end discussion and vote on the bill). Because of this, a simple minority of 30 senators can prevent ANY bill from becoming law even with partisan support.

[@dracocrusher]

@@SunnyPickles92 What a wonderful little broken system we have to deal with.

[@lucifer6966]

No, but the Senate can refuse to try the case effectively accomplishing the same thing. The House can as well.

[@ranelgallardo7031]

Now I see why so many politicians are lawyers. Can you imagine teachers, journalists, businessmen, and scientists in a Senate impeachment trial?

[@Ri3hy]

@matt you’re not a legal eagle

[@Ri3hy]

Ranel Gallardo we need scientists. Political Scientists

[@Ri3hy]

Matt Davis I don’t argue in comments. Sorry, I just calls ‘em like I’s see ‘em.

[@ranelgallardo7031]

Matt Davis Okay but c’mon man. You kind of need lawyers in politics, otherwise you’d get a lot of unconstitutional laws passed.

[@ranelgallardo7031]

lelennyfox34 That would be nice, but those types don’t really set themselves up to debate often. Which is what you need in a politician.

[@theinquisitor18]

The constitution is very vague when it comes to what you can impeach a Civil Officer for. For example: the word "misdemeanor" in terms of United States Code(not the Constitution) is a crime, not a serious one, but one nonetheless. In old English Common law a misdemeanor wasn't necessarily a indictable offense. It was more or less bad conduct. I think that's what the Constitution is going for. Because, a bad president or civil officer doesn't have to commit a crime to act against the United States.

[@dicorockhimself]

He mentioned this last video on this topic

[@ThatGuy-vi8ch]

Nope, they don't have to commit a crime. But you still need clear evidence of what you accuse another man of doing.

[@theinquisitor18]

@@ThatGuy-vi8ch, releasing the transcripts of the July 25th call would totally prove Trump was guiltily of misconduct or would be sufficient evidence to prove he's innocent.

[@theinquisitor18]

But by failing to release them I have doubts he's innocent, or at least is hiding something.

[@theinquisitor18]

@@triggerme6144, that's in a Court of law. This isn't a Federal Court. All rights are not valid in an impeachment, unless the Senate explicitly states that it is to be applied.

[@Viewbob_True]

Did anyone else notice "Judge Judy and Executioner"

[@onanthebarbarian9883]

And then a link to a Judge Judy video popped up. Brilliant.

[@rarrmonkey]

Pelosi wants the trial to take place when Ohio start voting for the Democratic nominee, that way Bernie Sanders and Elisabeth Warren will have to split time between campaigning and participating in the trial.

[@koro_kokoro]

If you think the republicans wouldn’t do the same thing you’re high

[@dariensampson7913]

@@koro_kokoro ... does it matter? It's a scummy action no matter who does it so why is your justification the other side would be just as scummy?

[@calebgarrett214]

@@koro_kokoro they wouldn't do it to there own lol

[@zemorph42]

@@koro_kokoro if they thought that, they would not have even mentioned Bernie or Warren.

[@paradoxmo]

People might call me naive, but I don’t think Pelosi or Schumer would be interested in handicapping any of the candidates on purpose right now. She wouldn’t want to be accused of shenanigans if one of them wins anyway and she has to work with the new president.

[@Furore2323]

"Trial in the Senate!"

[@Sensitiveskeptic]

😂🤣💙

[@ponderingypanda]

The Senate will decide your faith.

[@cmartin8093]

I am the senate

[@thisisisabella3634]

Objection: Will the actual transcript of the Ukraine call be used in the trial?

[@rayfrompalmbay9656]

Good question or objection

[@thisisisabella3634]

@@rayfrompalmbay9656 Seems to be the most important document that nobody talks about anymore.

[@rvanzo925]

Probably not because the House did not use it for the articles. They made 2 generic ones, one of which (obstruction of congress) doesn’t even exist.

[@ASEYFRIED]

The transcript of the Ukraine is the ONLY piece of evidence that matters. How can it NOT have been used?

[@thisisisabella3634]

@@rvanzo925 Would it not be needed for the abuse of power charge? Evidently Biden's name was brought up more than what the Cliff's Notes version showed. It would destroy Trump's main, and only defense.

[@lfr234]

2/3 are needed to remove him from office... which means... that 20 republican Senators would have to vote against "their" president....this matter is a political theatre not anything close to a fair trial. Its like a defendant going to a coart that consists by majority of his friends or at least people who owe him something and let them vote whether he/she is guilty...

[@ericallinger7479]

Just like how the Democrats were majority in the house... don't get caught up by either party, they are both corrupt af and should be watched.

[@Grayfox01]

Tie that is too long, coat that is too big, and pants of a centaur

[@sara-name-unavailable]

Objection! Not even going to touch Mitch McConnell saying the senate is going to take the accuses lead on impeachment?

[@GtdAquataine]

Until McConnell actually follows through on that statement, I dont think it merits commenting on for this kind of video. McConnel is a shrewd guy and hell decide what best serves him when he has to make that decision. Words and only words from a politician are mercurial at best, and cynical at worst.

[@LuciusC]

I'm pretty sure they'll be taking the Chief Justice's lead either way... But given how partisan this all obviously is, I don't think he's obligated to take any of it seriously. Jury nullification is a thing, lest we forget.

[@lifeofbrianinatruck1930]

Judge, Judy and executioner. That's a nice Hot Fuzz reference.

[@cowardly_wizard]

The greater good

[@jonathancampbell7798]

@@cowardly_wizard hag

[@vladthecon]

"i am the law" - judge judy

[@hillbillydiva1309]

Whatever the rules it will be only smoke and mirrors because most politicians have stopped actually working for our own intrested a long time ago.

[@TealWolf26]

That's the gig. It's not about performing the job, it's about getting the job and holding onto it as long as possible against the other side.

[@creeeamy7133]

The US has straight up become an Oligarchy, what the citizens care about is irrelevant to most politicians.

[@sarasmr4278]

A democracy...if we can hold on to it.

[@jessebishop5041]

LegalEagle, if we are a nation that governs on rule of law. With the understanding that no one is above the law. Why can our law makers break their oath of office without pentaly, but I can go to jail be fined or both If I take an oath and fail to abide by it. Legally where is our nation going? We have so many laws on the books now that on an average every person commits at least one felony a week and doesn't even realize it. The incarceration levels are higher than anywhere else in the world. But yet our law makers are in our faces and tells us to get over it and we expect it. So if the Senate openly admitted to jury nullification and the chief justice John Roberts is ok with that. Than jury's all over the nation has the same duty to conduct jury nullification and the the judge should be ok with it as they look at chief justice John Roberts for inspiration.. Before everyone jumps all over me, I am registered as an independent as I like to vote my mind not what some party tells me to even if I know deep down it's wrong. So when I say law makers, that's all of the law makers!! Your thoughts or you go to leave this one alone?

[@lordblazer]

You're witnessing the breakdown of rule of law and the rise of might makes right.

[@Cleighcade]

You don’t have to justify your party, your question is a good one and it’s one I’ve been wondering as well. I’m a democrat but that doesn’t matter here. What matters is the system isn’t working because it’s falling apart at the seams as we find that the population grows and the parties grow further and further apart. The constitution is not holding up in these modern times and it is showing. The system is not holding and it’s showing.

[@swackhammer2139]

@@Cleighcade It's really sad, but true the constitution isn't looking good. The document itself is solid to this day, but the policiticans are eroding it's tenants piece by piece. 1st, 2nd, and especially the 4th amendments are all just seen as a jokes these days it seems.

[@ziplock56655]

@Robert G Just read the first paragraph. Can you point out that bit where it says the democrats who wrote it disagree with the constitutional law in relevance to impeachment? Article I, Paragraph I: The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States - and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed - Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency, in that:

[@andromidius]

@will Robinson The fact you have to ask that question tells me one of two things: 1/ You have no idea what is going on. 2/ You don't consider bribery, corruption, intimidation and insider trading to be 'crimes', and thus have no concept of what law is.

[@kbsanders]

10:13 Judge Judy and executioner?

[@jace399]

It's a reference to a movie or tv show I can't remember, but a character in the show or movie says "he thinks he's judge Judy and executioner" or something along those lines 👍

[@Loomx5]

It's a Hot Fuzz reference, the link to the clip appears in the top right when he says it too. If you've not seen Hot Fuzz, y'all need to get on that because it's brilliant.

[@valentinofamily4913]

Finally! We are able to write a comment as you are watching them. We love your content. God Bless you in the Name of Jesus and Merry Christmas!

[@Gcrowan]

The outcome of a trial should be determined by what the defendant did and not by who is on the jury. Dems vote yes, Reps vote no, regardless of what Trump actually did. The crimes in question aren't subject to differences in political views, if it was a fair trial, the yes and no votes would be split evenly between dems and reps. The only thing this trial will accomplish, is showing the world that party loyalty beats out fairness. And that the whole system is deeply flawed.

[@Gcrowan]

​@[REDACTED] What I mean is that "obstruction of congress" is something both Dems and Reps think is a bad thing. So in a fair trial, the party affiliation of the senators shouldn't matter and they should judge the actions and not just "oh it's Trump, we gotta screw him". And if that were the case, roughly half the "yes" votes would come from dems and half from reps, and the same with the "no" votes. If anyone votes against their party viewpoint, then you should commend them for actually having been fair in their judgement and not letting themselves get influenced by party loyalty.

[@Arthagnou]

I disagree. IF there was any evidence for quid pro quo, Trump would be impeached. as of yet the things he is charged with Arnt crimes, arnt unique actions to Trump (other Presidents have done similar). So the charges are purely political and not based in evidence. So it will go down political lines ESPECIALLY if we are to believe Reb Jeff Van Drew, when he claimed local functionaries are pressuring the Dems to vote for impeachment even if there was no evidence. I wonder what would the reaction be of the Republicans IF the Dems had majorities in the Congress and Senate. If Trump were impeached without evidence (as it appears the Dems want).

[@JadeyCatgirl99]

Chief Justice: "Mr Trump you have been found guilty by two-thirds of the Senate in wearing a bad suit. You are to be removed promptly from the office of president" Trump: "I should have gone though Indochino!"

[@hawkeye5955]

Trump: "Quick, get me a suit from Indochina!"

[@PrettyProChannel]

Legal Eagle, this is good... but you didn't explain when he actually gets put in a peach. I'm confused...

[@kolya4536]

liberals: "The Senate will decide your fate" Trump: "I AM the Senate!"

[@jasonleslie203]

Lol

[@cmartin8093]

He needs to stand trial

[@mysteryjunkie9808]

Video 23 mintues long was posted 12 mintues ago. Over a 100 comments about it lmao 😂

[@TreyDieterich]

Entirely possible he had it unlisted so patrons or something could view it early. But most likely you're assuming that people make statements before absorbing all the facts ... Which I would agree with lol

[@Oxxyjoe]

200% speed gogogooo

[@LinkiePup]

Thats Lag Fam.

[@mors_ontologica_9242]

To be fair, most of them are "Did he say judge judy?"

[@GodsSpartan611]

I appreciate the non bias analysis of political matters. It is quite refreshing.

[@eigensinn83]

Objection: Calling Trump #notabillionaire by proposing Indochino to him has to be accompanied by some kind of burn🔥 language! 😜

[@franklinturtleton6525]

I foresee a Chewbacca defense, but taken literally from South Park.

[@andysutcliffe3915]

Franklin Turtleton people voted this orange buffoon into office in the first place, this does not make sense! 🙂

[@joshuahillerup4290]

Really, when writing the Constitution there should have been something saying that having political parties is illegal, as having no parties seems to be a big assumption about how this whole thing works.

[@Slider1207]

Finally, someone gets it.

[@joshuahillerup4290]

@@Slider1207 I mean, I have a lot of other ideas about how a government should be wrong, and no doubt some of them would be terrible if put into practice (just I don't know which ones), but yeah, the structure of the US government in general does not fit well with political parties, and this is one very obvious example why.

[@koro_kokoro]

Well remember when they wrote it they said you aren’t smart enough to pick who you are voting for, it was written for those in power not those beneath

[@joshuahillerup4290]

@@koro_kokoro sort of. It was the group of people with the second most amount of power taking control from those with the most. Very very common in history.

[@John877]

www.history.com/news/founding-fathers-political-parties-opinion

[@varunnarain50]

You're probably the friendliest and most likeable lawyer I've ever come across You don't have the extreme apathy I see in every lawyer I've actually met.

[@moondog548]

He loves The Law and it shows. Makes him a great teacher.

[@kunzi_is_here]

Apathy is good as a lawyer cause you have to do a lot of lying.

[@theparalyzedarmy3836]

President Nixon played everybody and left office before he could be impeached. He definitely would have been

[@Arthagnou]

With Nixon there was actual evidence of wrong doing . There is no evidence aside from hearsay.

[@oniwolfin9589]

but we also impeached bill for having an affair, like that should have mattered right?

[@oniwolfin9589]

@@DespairNemesis Yes but what was ANYONE doing asking the man about his personal affairs, I can promise you right now if I were to cheat on my GF my job would not fire my ass if they found out. my girlfriend would kill me but thats another story, if thats he bar for impeachment trump has passed it over a few times.

[@crazybil112]

10:14 Judge, Judy and Executioner.

[@LegalEagle]

Judge Judy and Executioner. It's a Hot Fuzz reference.

[@TheRealK93B]

@@LegalEagle Ah, a man of culture I see 😎

[@crazybil112]

@@LegalEagle Ah, I knew it was a reference, I just forgot what movie it was referencing. Thanks LegalEagle!

[@lxverdant1837]

That feeling when you learn more from a KZbin video than an entire semester's worth of civics class

[@justintimeleave1360]

Whilst sometimes youtube screws up and bans channels for no reason, hosting channels such as legal eagle is great for humanity and democracy.

[@discingaround]

It's not going to be a fair trial, honestly. Lately the politics in America is a mockery, and it seems like they play with different rules than they demand the populous have.

[@laurahubbard6906]

Per Lewis Carroll: "I'll be judge; I'll be jury," said the cunning old Fury. "I'll try the whole cause and condemn you to death."

[@The_Robot_Youtuber]

When you talk about Donald Trump's suit game I laughed so hard it was great and the way you said it with out breaking a smile or breaking from the ad read was super funny

[@BillGilbert427]

The Supreme Court can overturn it as being unconstitutional.

[@PremiumBlank]

" Where everything's made up and the points don't matter." Odd how well that goes with this impeachment.

[@mcgoldenblade4765]

Why do people say Trump is in a peach? He's obviously an orange.

[@tackontitan]

Stunning and brave! Try to be original, reddit.

[@TheBronyBraeburn]

He's been found having relations with Princess Peach from the Super Mario Bros games.

[@nigelft]

@@TheBronyBraeburn But how old is Princess Peach ...?

[@kieronscully1161]

You want to know what "Trump is in a peach" meant?

[@therrawyr]

nigelft in her 30s Mario is a little older

[@Elesario]

Objection: it's not Drew Carey anymore, it's Aisha Tyler

[@LegalEagle]

Dude, I'm so old I watched Clive Anderson.

[@Paul_Ward]

We don't even get WLIIA on air in the UK any more. We have to find it through other means. I can't go into details for legal reasons, of course.

[@syntaxusdogmata3333]

@@LegalEagle You just went up several notches in my esteem, sir!

[@Elesario]

@@LegalEagle Me too, in the UK 😁

[@stevek8337]

"Judge, Judy, and Executioner" That was amazing

[@Droidworkr]

If the articles of impeachment have not been served to Trump yet is he impeached? Or does that only occur once the articles have been delivered?

[@ZenCorvus]

He hasnt been impeached until that occurs. So everything is bs until then that happens.

[@jth_printed_designs]

@@ZenCorvus Correct. Though this could just be a timing issue with the holiday, as it does take some time to set things up and actually get things to the senate. We'll just have to wait and see.

[@dibblydooda7604]

HE IS IMPEACHED ACCORDING TO MY INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION ... THE SENATE CAN DO OVERSIGHT OF THE HOUSE ACCUSING THEM OF THE SAME THING THEY ARE ACCUSING TRUMP OF ...ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS ...FUNNY ISNT IT ...OR IS IT ???

[@conradkorbol]

He has been impeached. He can no longer be pardoned for his crimes.

[@conradkorbol]

Zen wrong. He is impeached

[@JamieMcgee518]

I was just thinking of this, McConnell just wants to WIN. It will be an alternate reality clown show.

[@RmcBlueSky]

Nope...we, the ppl, are the jury. If we don't like what any of our candidate does, we can petition to remove them. All we need is let our senators know about how we feel. They might ignore us, like the parkland kids. But look what they where able to do. They got the governor to do some major policy change.

[@BJGvideos]

We, the people, are idiots, and lazy idiots at that.

[@oniwolfin9589]

@@BJGvideos I don't disagree, but one things for sure, trump has scared a bunch of the younger generation into action. I have friends who never cared for politics in the first place, coming to me asking me to lay out the ideas of certain policies and their holders. Whether or not trump will win in 2020 I cant say, what I can say is it wont be so easy this time. Thank you trump for scaring America into action against you.

[@moondog548]

@@BJGvideos yeah, but we can stop that any time! :p

[@Gizmomaster]

This is is why Impeachment should never be used as a political tool. It’s simply so ambiguous that it leaves government officials a free window of opportunity to to commit abuses of power. Just the process of impeachment puts a strain on Democracy because it grants elected officials so much more power. To see it being used in such a reckless manner is very worrying to me.

[@James-wv1ns]

Next do a legal review of KNIVES OUT, this movie had me hooked all the way through and I’d like to know how accurate the will reading scene was.

[@codystork3008]

He's gonna have to wait till its on dvd so he can use clips.

[@justgivemethetruth]

10:14 - Did you just say "for all intents and purposes the Senate is the Judge Judy and executioner"? This is great, thank you.

[@JonSmith-hk1bq]

Question: Is there a point where the Speedy Trial Clause would kick in? Could Trump appeal to the Senate to dismiss all charges on the basis that the House's refusal to transmit the articles violates his rights under the 6th Amendment?

[@cjinxed]

I'm guessing no because the 6th amendment specifically mentions criminal trials, which an impeachment trial is not.

[@JonSmith-hk1bq]

@@triggerme6144 Fairly certain the Supreme Court ain't touching this.

[@LuciusC]

@@RC-xl2fj Who has anything to testify about that hasn't already done so?

[@doublej82]

@@LuciusC John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney. Now it seems like Michael Duffey from the OMB has some pretty pertinent information.

[@AaronCanb]

@@doublej82 You guys said that about Sondland too, turned out his evidence was just his assumptions. Yet the papers still ran it as if he was confirming quid pro quo when he was doing the opposite. It's not hard to imagine legitimate reasons not to allow certain people to testify, with all the bad faith actors coming out of the woodwork.

[@ignitionfrn2223]

2:10 - Chapter 1 - Impeachment trial delays 4:50 - Chapter 2 - Constitutional language 6:30 - Chapter 3 - Senate guideline 10:35 - Chapter 4 - Past precedents 10:50 - Chapter 5 - Governing rules, the clinton impeachment 13:45 - Chapter 6 - The impeachment trail of Donald Trump 19:50 - End roll ads

[@GorillaCanon]

10:15 - "Judge Judy and executioner" hahahaha

[@Boyzby]

How is it possible no founding father thought there should be any structure for something like the trial of a president in the constitution? It seem like laws or honor has no part of removing an unfit president, and you can be part of it while stating you have no intention of making it fair. That's not just kind of insane, it actually is insane.

[@LDwestwood1986]

unfit?... shut up

[@Robert53area]

We havent had a fit president in a long time Trump is doing a decent job. The reason why impeachment is so hard to do in the first place because our country wasn't built for party lines. But that is what our country has become. Party lines have used their power to by pass the constitution at will, even Congress impeachment was done along party lines. Half of the witnesses were professors of university, what does a professor at a university know about what the president used his power in the Ukraine? Or are we also going to ignore the fact that former president and vice president funded the orange shirt revolution and started a coup in the Ukraine so they could line their pockets for monetary gains... which is impeachable as well.

[@timobatana6705]

I like how this actual lawyer depicts our legal system as a joke. Says a lot

[@oldnosoul4183]

He says that only now but not when a president is impeached for committing no crimes

[@timobatana6705]

@@oldnosoul4183 the impeachment is most likely a joke. I would not bother following it man. If something went down, it woukd take over the Internet. We have good people fighting in all corners too. The media is too busy curating their stories for specific narratives as we go about our days in reality. "Don't look to the TV to see how America is, ask your neighbor, you'll find its not all that bad." Some famous actor or something i dont remember who.

[@lernen.ohne.angst.official2737]

Thanks for helping me win 90% of my arguments. It's the ambiguity that gets people confused.