Lawyer Examines Impeachment Defenses (Real Law Review)
- Published: 26 November 2019
- What defenses do the Trump Administration defenders have left?
Get 3 months of Audible for just $6.95 a month (That’s half off!). Just text legaleagle to 500 500 or click audible.com/legaleagle
From the New York Times:
“Republicans mounted an array of defenses of President Trump at this week’s impeachment hearings — making arguments that at times seemed to conflict with one another logically, but that dovetailed in a key way: All served to undermine Democrats’ allegations that Mr. Trump abused his power. In angry statements from the hearing dais, lines of questioning to witnesses and comments during breaks to reporters, Republicans sought to poke holes in the strength of evidence that Mr. Trump personally put a condition on the government committing official acts — namely, that Ukraine publicize investigations that could benefit him. But at other times, Republicans suggested that Mr. Trump’s pursuit of those investigations was justified — reading into the record related facts and allegations about Ukrainian actions in 2016 and about the Ukrainian gas company Burisma and its decision to give Hunter Biden, the son of Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a lucrative board seat.”
As I see it, here are the main Republican legal defenses:
No quid pro quo
It’s all hearsay
The aid was released (the Sideshow Bob defense)
The Ukranians didn’t feel pressure (no harm no foul)
The Ukranians didn’t have to pay
No mens rea
It’s foreign policy
The state department went rogue
The President must root out corruption
It’s bad but not impeachable
Great article by Elie Mystal, who you should definitely be following
I also recommend Orin Kerr: twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1194320853929848832
And definitely read Neal Katyal: twitter.com/neal_katyal
(Thanks to Audible for sponsoring this video)
Welcome to Real Law Review by LegalEagle; a series where I try to tackle the most important legal issues of the day. If you have suggestion for the next topic leave your comment below.
And if you disagree, be sure to leave your comment in the form of an OBJECTION!
Remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate. Stella is the LegalBeagle and she wields the gavel of justice. DO NOT MESS WITH STELLA.
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should conta ct your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ twitter.com/legaleagleDJ
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ facebook.com/legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta: instagram.com/stellathelegalbeagle
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: [email protected]