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

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!


How do the Trump articles of impeachment compare to Nixon, Clinton, and Johnson? Legal Eagles get 2 months of unlimited learning on Skillshare for FREE:

From the New York Times:
A fiercely divided House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Friday, setting up a historic vote before the full House that would make him only the third president to be impeached. The impeachment articles, passed over sharp Republican protests, accused the president of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress. The votes and a fractious two-day debate preceding them reflected the realities of the hyperpartisan divisions in American politics that have grown wider during Mr. Trump’s three years in office.
With back-to-back votes shortly after 10 a.m., the Democratic-controlled committee recommended that the House ratify the articles of impeachment against the 45th president, over howls of Republican protest. Each passed, 23 to 17, along strictly partisan lines. The full House is expected to vote on Wednesday to impeach Mr. Trump, and he would stand trial in the Senate in the new year.

(Thanks to Skillshare for sponsoring this video)


Welcome to Real Law Review by LegalEagle; a series where I try to tackle the most important legal issues of the day. If you have a suggestion for the next topic leave your comment below.

And if you disagree, be sure to leave your comment in the form of an OBJECTION!

Remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate. Stella is the LegalBeagle and she wields the gavel of justice. DO NOT MESS WITH STELLA.

★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts:
Laws Broken:
Law 101:
Real Law Review:

All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!


★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜
★ Stella’s Insta:
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here:


LegalEagle says:

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

a35362 says:

I'm constantly intrigued by the way you wiggle around while you speak. Settle down! 😀

archaic outlaw says:

Why did this trash video auto play after my last video when I had auto play turned off? Propaganda much YouTube?

Nathan Rubin says:

thanks, John Krasinski!

Adam Hart says:

It will take creative spinning of the truth to convince his base this is nothing?
No, they've drowned themselves in the kool-aid for 4 years. They explain away any charge against him as a "deep state conspiracy" and immediately approve of anything he actually admits to doing.

Aristotelezz says:

I wonder why 15,000 lies in three years isn't a impeachable offense. Any Captain of Industry or army general would get kicked out right away. How can a soldier have fate in his mission if his superiors lie all the time? Sometimes leaders are unable to tell the truth, that goes with the territory. But that totally different from lying all time about everything. The lying of Trump is clearly a psychiatric disorder. Very unpresidential!

Jordan Hillard says:

They didn't go for bribery because that'd have to actually be proven since its an actual crime. They're not interested in having to produce the whistleblower (who is accusing Trump of a crime and Trump has the right to face his accuser) because they know they're full of shit.

thelonelydirector says:

I really big thank you for this video. I learned A LOT! 🙂

notthere83 says:

Reminds me of the fact that where I live, the president has essentially no connection to any major political party.
It's a problem that Republicans love Trump so much.

Broken Fiction says:

Can you make sure you talk about the issue of McConnell saying he would do whatever Trump’s lawyers tell him too. Just curious to know if that was okay, if there is precedent or if there any rules against it?

JJ says:

I would love to see a video about the legality of presidential ordered drone strikes on US citizens.

David Robinson says:

When the Executive and the Legislative can't agree, then it's up to the THIRD branch. Congress does NOT have sole discretion over impeachment when it comes to things like subpoenas. You know that so why would you leave it out? It's important to note that President Trump has every right to refuse the subpoenas and have the Supreme Court decide the outcome.

Kaotiqua says:

Have you done "Frank vs God" yet? Just encountered the film, and was wondering as i watched what you'd think about the case.

AgentOroko says:

I appreciate you handling this in a non partisan manner. The stuff on past presidential impeachments was really interesting.

That being said, the Dems don't have the votes in the Senate for removal, and may not even have enough in the house. I honestly feel like this crap is pissing off voters and that not only includes his base, but independent voters also like Libertarians and other centerists, and will hand the president another victory in 2020.

Darien Sampson says:

The "witnesses" when asked if any of them had first hand or physical evidence of a crime to raise their hand resolutely left their hands down while looking at one another. Also tha fact that the minority was refused a day to bring forward their own witnesses as outlined in the law, and who had witnesses then join the questioners effectively being both a witness and a prosecutor. The whole impeachment hearings was a partisan sham, which is why a New Jersey Democrat and and a Arizona Democrat both switched to the Republican party and another two went independent.

Master Obiwan says:

legislative and the executive are co equal branches of government.. The legislative can ask whatever it wants of the executive, and equally the executive can tell the legislative to go pound sand.. Neither branch answers to the other.. Now if the Judiciary (as in the case of nixon) had ordered the executive to comply, and the executive had refused, then it would be impeachable.. seeing as that has not happened, there has been no offence.. I further suspect that the reason they have not added bribery is because then the "witnesses" would be forced out into the open for cross examination. You know, the anonymous witnesses, who comey never met, who are somehow receiving death threats. Those witnesses.

Daniel Guthrie says:

20:51Who PROVED what was in the "Whistle blower" complaint is/was bad for Trump?How is that "obvious?" It's your opinion.He doesn't have to prove ANYTHING TO ANYONE.  He doesn't have to convince anyone of anything.The prosecution has to prove his guilt.

Derek Patterson says:

I love how the Legal Eagle completely ignores the garbage fire that was the hearings during which every single person who was called said there was no request to Ukraine and that they either made it all up, or heard it from someone who made it all up.

The ability of the left to completely ignore reality never ceases to amaze me.

Fluffy says:

PLEASE do a full Watergate video. It's so interesting.

Joe Hall says:

to be a lawyer, youre as dumb as they come. i have to believe in that TRUMP – driving people crazy cause this guy has that in his thinking . you should change your name from LEGAL EAGLE to DUFFY DUCK

True Monarchy says:

I will comment do "Tron Carter's Law and Order." Until he does it. Will he? Probably not. But control what you can control

chopscissors says:

As the process has gone on, Trump's numbers have actually improved, so it's not so clear that this will be bad for Trump.

Thiago Torres says:

Well Trump cannot tell the truth ever, so he will inevitably lie on a grand jury, he may even lie when he is taking oath, a super power i would say

Amanda Schultz says:

"Pro Nixon shenanigans" LOL

SportyN says:

Objection! Ukraine said there was no quid quo pro so the house couldn’t impeach based on bribery.

Brad Deal says:

Biden is going to be indicted for laundering Ukraine oil money. There go s one count. Supreme Court is reviewing the obstruction charge. There goes count 2

l8Os says:

Trump 2020! Together we can do it

Write a comment