Is the Whistleblower Complaint HEARSAY? - Real Law Review

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ม.ค. 2025

ความคิดเห็น • 4.2K

  • @LegalEagle
    @LegalEagle  5 ปีที่แล้ว +446

    This isn't hearsay: Legal Eagles get 2 months of unlimited learning on Skillshare for FREE: skl.sh/legaleagle19

    • @CyBorgXG1
      @CyBorgXG1 5 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      The best legal videos on all of TH-cam!

    • @PlzDntKilMeh
      @PlzDntKilMeh 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      You should do a review of the black list season 6 trial stuff for Raymond Reddington

    • @Technizor
      @Technizor 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      With all of those exceptions, the answer is "Yes, but actually no."

    • @notnormalyet
      @notnormalyet 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      @Micah M Of course he is, but repeating something misleading over and over until people start believing it has been a part of the Republican playbook for a while now.

    • @fartzinacan
      @fartzinacan 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Thank you so much for helping make sense of all the bs being slung.

  • @KnowingBetter
    @KnowingBetter 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1686

    LegalEagle is the greatest TH-cam channel that exists today.

    • @LegalEagle
      @LegalEagle  5 ปีที่แล้ว +406

      You don't sound like a credible expert...

    • @noahorakwue2653
      @noahorakwue2653 5 ปีที่แล้ว +36

      you two are hilarious!!!

    • @9393jack
      @9393jack 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @@LegalEagle I'm out of the loop, what do you mean?

    • @nolanmartin3573
      @nolanmartin3573 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      No u

    • @octopusph.d7737
      @octopusph.d7737 5 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      @@9393jack watch the video, BOZO

  • @Salazzarslaan
    @Salazzarslaan 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1497

    This sounds like the same argument used when discussing scientific theories. Because the colloquial and scientific definition of the word “theory” are entirely different.

    • @jhcoverdrive9287
      @jhcoverdrive9287 5 ปีที่แล้ว +93

      Chris Lane - you said it! Another one people misuse frequently (maybe to a lesser extent) is bias.

    • @paulyanosik9498
      @paulyanosik9498 5 ปีที่แล้ว +213

      Yep, and unfortunately since Lindsey Graham is an actual lawyer, he should already know the legal definition of hearsay. Instead, he is relying on the audience not knowing. Smh

    • @awesomesauce_3516
      @awesomesauce_3516 5 ปีที่แล้ว +22

      Jonathan Zirkle I love you for this comment

    • @capnbarky2682
      @capnbarky2682 5 ปีที่แล้ว +40

      @@awesomesauce_3516 i dont comment for the love of the ppl i do it out of my intense hatred of trump and the rich
      but thanks

    • @MrXMysteriousX
      @MrXMysteriousX 5 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      @@paulyanosik9498 lets be fair,he was using the colloquial one,as its what the average voters understand,given he was in a TV studio not a court its fair enough .

  • @BeerontheBrain327
    @BeerontheBrain327 5 ปีที่แล้ว +706

    “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
    ― Carl Sandburg

    • @themoleman6806
      @themoleman6806 5 ปีที่แล้ว +34

      Sums up the anti-trump clowns pretty well.

    • @gavinschultz8994
      @gavinschultz8994 5 ปีที่แล้ว +46

      No. If the facts and law are against you, then change them. Silly Carl Sandburg.

    • @faliakuna8162
      @faliakuna8162 5 ปีที่แล้ว +61

      @@themoleman6806 Yeah no. He's corrupt just as much as most other politicians. Some had hopes but only the blind still can't see it was deception. Trump is no saint. You don't have to be anti-Trump to see it.

    • @emptyother
      @emptyother 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Maybe he's less corrupt than we believe. Maybe the other politicians are just better at covering up theirs.

    • @themoleman6806
      @themoleman6806 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@faliakuna8162 He's provably less corrupt than Biden, Pelosi, and Romney once you find out all those people had ties to the Ukraine.

  • @Tarulia
    @Tarulia 5 ปีที่แล้ว +269

    I think you missed the really important question: Can you get a parking ticket in the United States based on a Hearsay Testimony?

    • @rsmith02
      @rsmith02 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      LoL, he's leaving all of us hanging...

    • @Jaxam01
      @Jaxam01 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      I think that's what is was when parking enforcement chalk marked tires to prove the car hadn't moved, even if the meter was paid up.

    • @acester86
      @acester86 5 ปีที่แล้ว +57

      Not if the crime isnt currently happening. If you walk up to a cop and say hey a guy just parked his car in the fountain over there. the cop would go, see the car there, then write the ticket. However if he went and the car wasnt there and there is no damages that insurance would have to pay for that would be the end of it. That's why it doesnt matter if the whistleblower complaint was hearsay, there was evidence to corroborate his claim. ALSO the whistle blower went through the proper channels to make his complaint, it isnt like he took it to the media or published the information himself on Wikileaks or something.

    • @planescaped
      @planescaped 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      ​@@acester86 This... it really is that simple.

    • @ErebosGR
      @ErebosGR 5 ปีที่แล้ว +24

      You can take a photo or video of a parking or other traffic violation and it's hearsay but still admissible to court.

  • @bretbret8293
    @bretbret8293 5 ปีที่แล้ว +666

    Perfectly stated. When Lindsey Graham said "It's just hearsay;" he was implying that the evidence can be disregarded because it's not real evidence. It seems to me that he's relying on the legal ignorance of the audience to make his argument.

    • @Mega_Mikey
      @Mega_Mikey 5 ปีที่แล้ว +30

      Bret Reed 90% of all things politicians, corrupt government officials, and news anchors say is said in reliance on the ignorance of their audience, I’d wager.

    • @ScotHarkins
      @ScotHarkins 5 ปีที่แล้ว +22

      Best part...Graham has a JD. Ergo, intentionally misleading (read: lying). Darn. I'm so shocked. Shocked I say. :|

    • @sparkysun43
      @sparkysun43 5 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      Actually he is viewing the story as an "at the time" piece. Also, the claimant says he had 1st, 2nd and 3rd hand information. The problem is he certified the complaint under penalty of perjury.
      Fact 1: There is no 1st hand information in the complaint.
      Fact 2: several pieces of the document are provably false.
      Fact 3: the complainant did NOT follow the process by contacting the staff of a congressman before contacting the IG.
      Fact 4: the actual text of the transcript does not match the reported conversation in the complaint. Several media outlets are tailoring the reporting by omitting 500 words to make it look like the favor relates to Biden. In actuality, the "favor" relates to the investigation of the beginnings of the 2016 election interference. Several news outlets covered this in 2016 and 2017. CNN or Politico both had coverage concerning this. The Biden portion was much later in the call and was not mentioned in relation to aid or providence thereof. The only mention of aid concerned purchase of Javelin anti tank missiles. At no point was suspension of aid discussed. This makes the House Democrats case harder to actually prove. Impeachment is a legal process. The current situation is not an actual impeachment process. This in every other instance has required a vote on the floor. At this point both sides become counsel for the government and the accused. They both have rights to call witnesses and take testimony. The current "investigation" is entirely one sided. There are arguments that could be raised by the president like deprivation of rights, and separation of powers issues that disappear after a vote. The president could in fact at this point claim executive privilege and refuse to participate and not supply any subpoenaed information until he is charged under Article 2. I'm not saying that he should, but he could.

    • @killathraxx3036
      @killathraxx3036 5 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      @@sparkysun43 👈🏾 this guy has never heard of "concision" before 🤦🏾‍♂️

    • @michaelsauls1142
      @michaelsauls1142 5 ปีที่แล้ว +37

      @@sparkysun43 you are missing the point. Whether or not there is flaws or false statements is for the trier of fact to decide based on this evidence. It can be argued that this evidence is false or misleading in the course of the investigation, but it still stands that a hearsay defense is not a valid defense in this case. So everything that you mentioned would have to be proven through a legal body, in this case Congress.

  • @yurdp
    @yurdp 5 ปีที่แล้ว +907

    Hearsay and conjecture, those are “kinds of” evidence. 😂🤣

    • @bryantcox3125
      @bryantcox3125 5 ปีที่แล้ว +22

      Lmao. Thhhhhe Simpsons. 😁

    • @DreamingInTechnicolor
      @DreamingInTechnicolor 5 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      The character’s name was Lionel Hunts? or something...

    • @yurdp
      @yurdp 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      S. D. That’s correct

    • @samihalloun7111
      @samihalloun7111 5 ปีที่แล้ว +55

      Works on contingency?
      No, money down!

    • @roooofus636
      @roooofus636 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@DreamingInTechnicolor Lionel Hutz

  • @LegalEagle
    @LegalEagle  5 ปีที่แล้ว +144

    For some reason the lamp has been slowly creeping up on me! Will fix in the next video (and you'd be shocked to see it in real life, it's super low; just a sensitive camera in a dark office).

    • @rednightfire2655
      @rednightfire2655 5 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      LegalEagle It just wants to brighten your day

    • @dennis4774
      @dennis4774 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Odd question, if offered to take this case, which ever side that hired you, would you take the case?

    • @LessaCaira
      @LessaCaira 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I'm not sure how to ask this tactfully. Do you have a nervous twitch or Parkinson's? I noticed a lot of shoulder/body movement when you were otherwise still, ie hands weren't gesturing and I was wondering if it's nervous energy or trying to keep your hands still or something else?

    • @robertcarson2365
      @robertcarson2365 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      It just wants equal screen time

    • @fwlo4409
      @fwlo4409 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      scary video

  • @queenannsrevenge100
    @queenannsrevenge100 5 ปีที่แล้ว +136

    “This isn’t ‘damning with faint praise’... it’s ‘praising with faint damnation’...”
    This is my favorite quote of the week. 😄

    • @megladon88
      @megladon88 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      That was an epic line!

    • @CalebDenn
      @CalebDenn 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I think I missed the line when did he say it in the video

    • @FaceTubeU
      @FaceTubeU 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Feint.

    • @queenannsrevenge100
      @queenannsrevenge100 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@FaceTubeU - en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damning_with_faint_praise

    • @ihatecrackhead
      @ihatecrackhead 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      I have aright to a speedy trial, OH you fought the process instead of the substance
      someone makes YOU look bad when they don;t follow process and don;t give you your rights
      NOTHING Biases there, attacking someone for attacking an unfair process, cause someone how that's guilt to have rights

  • @dfer131
    @dfer131 5 ปีที่แล้ว +276

    "Praising with faint damnation." Can I get that on a mug or something, cause that sounds brilliant.

    • @SunflowerSpotlight
      @SunflowerSpotlight 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      It is quite catchy. 😅

    • @SteveNorwalt
      @SteveNorwalt 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      If you do decide to put that on a mug or shirt (or whatever), just make sure you spell it "feint." ;-)

  • @kjdewitt
    @kjdewitt 5 ปีที่แล้ว +493

    I definitely read this as "is the whistleblower complaint heresy?" Was confused...am not now haha

    • @Bhethar
      @Bhethar 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Hahaha same 🤣

    • @2011carp
      @2011carp 5 ปีที่แล้ว +73

      Only in the eyes of the God Emperor

    • @syntaxusdogmata3333
      @syntaxusdogmata3333 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      ROFL . . . thanks, I needed that today. 🤣

    • @Raintamp
      @Raintamp 5 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      @2011carp Warhammer 40k reference?

    • @jblue1622
      @jblue1622 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Kollin DeWitt this is basically how Trump has been leading as president, fake news is his “heresy”

  • @alwaysabsentx
    @alwaysabsentx 5 ปีที่แล้ว +418

    It feels so refreshing getting a professional insight on this topic FROM AN ACTUAL PROFESSIONAL instead of people who read two laws in their lifetime

    • @Grind121
      @Grind121 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      I read two laws then come here to get more info

    • @AnimeZone247
      @AnimeZone247 5 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      but the thing is Lindsey Graham is one of the people who makes the laws, you would think he would of known them. Or maybe he just sayin bs to fool voters smh

    • @shinobi-no-bueno
      @shinobi-no-bueno 5 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      The fact that he is a professional does not change that he has obvious bias

    • @WhirlOmar
      @WhirlOmar 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Brings up a lot of questions about how prosecuting lawyers against gangsters dealt with many of their cases when gangsters usually speak in codes. Wonder if those types of lawyers have something to add to this issue.

    • @Grind121
      @Grind121 5 ปีที่แล้ว +30

      @@shinobi-no-bueno or...or Trump and the people defending him are just flat out wrong, maybe?
      Like if Trump and his team continue to say 2+2=5 and everyone else knows it's wrong yet they continue repeat to it, is that obvious bias or just them being factually incorrect and just slightly off from the real answer.

  • @CrashCartHero
    @CrashCartHero 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    I'm not a lawyer or law student, but I love these videos. They're very informative and the content is fantastic. Keep these up.

  • @johnarnoudse7013
    @johnarnoudse7013 5 ปีที่แล้ว +574

    "HEARSAY!"
    "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    • @Blossora
      @Blossora 5 ปีที่แล้ว +39

      inconceivable

    • @havamall
      @havamall 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      word a as it recognising stopped I've that now often that word the heard I've

    • @gamophyte
      @gamophyte 5 ปีที่แล้ว +23

      All rise for honorable Inigo Montoya

    • @jarls5890
      @jarls5890 5 ปีที่แล้ว +25

      Fox News is trying to spin "hearsay" to be "a rumor" or "gossip".

    • @AtulSohan
      @AtulSohan 5 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      i heard someone say "legal Eagles balls shrunk beacue of all the hormone he took to get in shape for thode indocheno suits !" .
      i present that hearsay as a strong evidence corrabrating the same with previous experince of liberal mangainas !!
      BTW if u want a real legal breakdown from an actual and legal persective go to vivafrei
      th-cam.com/video/zPtrB3nPhP8/w-d-xo.html
      i too have an opinion .. but even as a law student i relaize what bias is ......
      i get it ORANGEMAN BAD!!!

  • @UncivilLaw
    @UncivilLaw 5 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    Objection! You implied the president once upon a time knew how to think like a lawyer in your opening. Not a chance, lol

    • @abaque24
      @abaque24 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Uncivil Law we can agree though that maybe at some point in time his mental faculties were.... better.

  • @supergecko28
    @supergecko28 5 ปีที่แล้ว +139

    Objection: "If you want to learn to make better arguments than Lyndsey Graham" sets the bar dubiously low for your sponsor, and does it disservice. You could learn to make better arguments than Lyndsey Graham by reading a coloring book.

  • @CeeEm-MoT
    @CeeEm-MoT 5 ปีที่แล้ว +122

    Something you didn't cover explicitly that seems implied in most of the hearsay complaints about the Whistleblower Complain is that people seem to think that the Complaint will be used as legal evidence within the impeachment process and that's it's only purpose, which isn't my take on it at all. The Complaint's primary value is to inform the appropriate parties in the government that something is happening that needs to be investigated, and that investigation will produce (or not produce) any evidence that would actually be used in a legal proceeding. For that purpose, it doesn't matter that it's legally hearsay. All that matters is, "Is this a credible complaint that we should investigate?" All of which was covered by the formal whistleblower process, before the Complaint ever became public knowledge.

    • @SlimThrull
      @SlimThrull 5 ปีที่แล้ว +23

      Now, now, don't go confusing everyone with facts.
      Joking aside, I thought I was going a bit crazy. At no point did I think the complaint itself was going to be used in any other than a justification to start an investigation. So many people were claiming it would be used as the primary evidence that I started wondering if that was really the case or not.

    • @blusafe1
      @blusafe1 5 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      @@SlimThrull That's THE WHOLE POINT! They're trying to gaslamp and confuse everyone!

    • @SlimThrull
      @SlimThrull 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@blusafe1 Nuance isn't your thing, is it? ;)

    • @nycstreetpoet
      @nycstreetpoet 5 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      Another point that I think could have used more attention is that the IG considers the complaint credible and urgent, and that’s after a two week investigation. You could argue two weeks isn’t a lot of time, but the IG wasn’t searching for a needle in a haystack. Odds are he was able to speak to some of the direct witnesses to these crimes in order to validate the whistleblower’s statements.

    • @SplotPublishing
      @SplotPublishing 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      My thoughts too. It doesn't matter at all that it is hearsay, because if it is entered as evidence, it will likely only be used in the way of proving that indeed someone tried to blow the whistle, and the Trump administration tried to impede that reporting, thus committing a separate offense. The claims included in it are irrelevant at that point, as the witnesses will be called to address the claims they had made to the whistleblower, in person under oath. The whistle blower will only be allowed to testify in any impeachment hearing (not just inquiry) about things he or she actually directly witnessed or took part in. So, hearsay is irrelevant.

  • @iliakatster
    @iliakatster 5 ปีที่แล้ว +104

    You know Devin's getting excited when his shoulders wiggle

  • @DoctorProph3t
    @DoctorProph3t 5 ปีที่แล้ว +129

    Thank you for this I’m tired of explaining that hearsay isn’t a defense of omission.

    • @dr.floridamanphd
      @dr.floridamanphd 5 ปีที่แล้ว +19

      Someone said that it’s inadmissible because hearsay has never once been allowed in court.
      After briefly explaining to her that what’s currently going on is not happening in a courtroom so hearsay doesn’t apply I then linked her to the federal rules for hearsay exceptions.
      I was blocked. 😂

    • @nhagan001
      @nhagan001 5 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      @Shuhac What makes you think patients are the ONLY people a Doctor talks to?
      What they don't have friends? family? they not allowed to talk to people on the train? at a bar?

    • @DoctorProph3t
      @DoctorProph3t 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Shuhac I’m not that kind of doctor. Not even the other kind.

    • @KaleunMaender77
      @KaleunMaender77 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @Shuhac the term "doctor" does NOT apply only to medical practitioners 🙂

    • @Matt_Fields_29
      @Matt_Fields_29 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      @@dr.floridamanphd some of these folks get really desperate. I've had people try to argue to me that it's not even illegal for the President to solicit or extort foreign leaders for political dirt.
      They will rearrange their entire perception of reality just to maintain the belief that Donald Trump did nothing wrong.

  • @munstrumridcully
    @munstrumridcully 5 ปีที่แล้ว +239

    The guy who got murdered by Michael Myers made a Dying Declaration, which is usually an exception and is admissible hearsay :)

    • @ValkyrieTiara
      @ValkyrieTiara 5 ปีที่แล้ว +31

      But the person saying "Yeah no I totally heard him say it was Michael Myers for real" is not a Dying Declaration, which is the point he was making.

    • @munstrumridcully
      @munstrumridcully 5 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      @@ValkyrieTiara yeah, I know. usually a cop has to get the Dying Declaration and they follow strict procedure to try and make sure it is admissible. I was just shouting out the name of it cause Legal Eagle didn't say it. Thank you for the correction. Cheers :)

    • @Klaaism
      @Klaaism 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Generally only law enforcement officers can deliver in court what would otherwise be "hearsay". Though due process tends to be a concern even then.

    • @AnonEyeMouse
      @AnonEyeMouse 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      A dying declaration only applies to people who are dying, not simply about to die. If the man on the phone is bleeding out from a machete in his chest, that would be a dying declaration. If he was merely being chased by Myers and then spoke, prior to being mortally wounded and killed, it does not count as a dying declaration.

    • @munstrumridcully
      @munstrumridcully 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@AnonEyeMouse Yes, the formal requirement is that the victim has to be injured to the point that he believes he is dying, without hope of recovery.

  • @scabbarae
    @scabbarae 5 ปีที่แล้ว +28

    They know good and well what "hearsay" actually means in this context. They just hope the voters don't.

    • @NeoFryBoy
      @NeoFryBoy 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Yup. This is important. People need to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. They need to be called out when they lie, and Lindsay knows perfectly well that what he's saying is a lie. He's pretending to not know what hearsay is.

    • @k98killer
      @k98killer 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Obama's administration leaked a disinformation dossier prepared by a DNC contractor and used it as justification for a FISA warrant to spy on Trump's campaign. Nobody cares. No wrongdoing when the Democrats are the ones abusing power to spy on political rivals. It's all part of the plan. But Shokin gives a sworn affidavit to Trump's administration, and he mentions the allegations in a phone conversation with Zalensky where he doesn't say anything about military aid being delayed, and everyone loses their mind.
      The public is made up of partisan idiots and independent voters, so don't hold your breath hoping for a majority of people to think critically about any of this.

    • @nothingineternityterms
      @nothingineternityterms 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@k98killer Are you one of Trump's lawyers? Because this is absolute nonsense.

  • @Bhethar
    @Bhethar 5 ปีที่แล้ว +138

    Legal Eagle sort of relaxes me. It reminds me that in this chaotic world there is still the rule of law to keep us civilized.

    • @dittokiddo3340
      @dittokiddo3340 5 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      Having rules and upholding them are two different things unfortunately... or fortunately depending on your perspective I guess.
      US case history is full of those above the law.

    • @br8745
      @br8745 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@dittokiddo3340 Like how the executive branch has discretion when it comes to enforcing laws 🙃

    • @oldvlognewtricks
      @oldvlognewtricks 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      And then you remember that impeachment is a political process, rather than a legal one.

    • @Warrior_Culture
      @Warrior_Culture 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@dittokiddo3340 That doesn't change the fact that without some form of law, things would be far worse than they are. Even if there are certain individuals that escape it or it doesn't always function as intended, it's simple existence and the efforts of enforcing it are better than lawlessness. It always amuses me when people say they think there should be no law or police to enforce it because those individuals are either entirely ignorant of what it would be like without law/police, or terrible enough people to not care. EDIT: I'm not implying you are one of those people, it was just a general statement.

    • @rmdodsonbills
      @rmdodsonbills 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      "Still," yes. Hard to say how long we'll have that. Enjoy it while you've got it, I say.

  • @gamelairtim
    @gamelairtim 5 ปีที่แล้ว +138

    300 Spartans could fight in the shade thrown at Lindsay Graham here.

    • @FrozenLemur
      @FrozenLemur 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      *clap clap clap*

    • @zackthebongripper7274
      @zackthebongripper7274 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      leagaleagal is your typical pseudointellectual lawyer, in other words a sophist. What he omitted is the fact that the Intel IG Changed Whistleblower Requirement in August. It's another hoax and coup attempt. Case closed. www.newsmax.com/newsfront/whistleblower-michael-atkinson-inspector-general-first-hand/2019/10/01/id/935201/

    • @Justanotherconsumer
      @Justanotherconsumer 5 ปีที่แล้ว +32

      Zack TheBongRipper that’s basically moot - the whistleblower is no longer the source of evidence, the transcript provided by Trump is the evidence.

    • @Justanotherconsumer
      @Justanotherconsumer 5 ปีที่แล้ว +21

      Absolutely nothing on my channel or I’ve just read the information provided by the White House.
      If they’re going to claim that the summary they provided is a lie to Congress, that’ll be interesting.

    • @billwest9090
      @billwest9090 5 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      Zack TheBongRipper how are you so wrong but still talking? That’s already been debunked so stop with the conspiracy theories.

  • @xaisies
    @xaisies 5 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    I am amazed at the clarity of your presentation - especially on this video but in general with you channel.

  • @radar9561
    @radar9561 5 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    I wish the news would look at this situation in a similar objective legal view. Great stuff as always.

  • @Vivi2372
    @Vivi2372 5 ปีที่แล้ว +219

    I thought it was pretty amusing that they tried to claim hearsay when they released the document that corroborated the hearsay on their own.

    • @Staunts
      @Staunts 5 ปีที่แล้ว +20

      How exactly was there corroboration? Looks more to me like they jumped the gun and claimed quid pro quo when there was none, and looked stupid when Trump released it. That's why schiff had to come out and dramatize it. Btw you should look into schiffs involvement, just got caught lying about not knowing beforehand. You can go ahead and fall for the same bogus claims made by the same losers who tried Russiagate. Remember that? Here's a spoiler for you: the intel community is corrupt, and they're trying to take down Trump by transposing their crimes onto him. They all colluded w foreign powers.

    • @TheLegendOfLame
      @TheLegendOfLame 5 ปีที่แล้ว +41

      @@Staunts First off, the "transcript" released isn't the full transcript. It's a memorandum. Due to this, this "quid pro quo" could be in the full transcript that the whistleblower was referring to. Anyway, the "transcript" shows Trump asking for political help from a foreign Government. That is illegal. While it's not quid pro quo (at least, not explicitly, but it is very heavily implied based on Trump's wording that he was asking for it in return for military aid) it clearly shows Trump is the corrupt individual, as he's trying to use his political power to give him an advantage on the next election, so he can be president again. That is illegal and highly corrupt, and we should not stand for it.

    • @Staunts
      @Staunts 5 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      @monokhem quote me the quid pro quo. Where does he say " do this or you won't get this" like Biden said? You are being had by a corrupt intel community man. I suppose you believe saddam had wmds?

    • @sedlonarime1
      @sedlonarime1 5 ปีที่แล้ว +30

      @@Staunts When someone gets accused of a crime and says the accuser is actually the guilty party, there's reason to investigate the accuser.
      But when someone gets accused of multiple crimes at different times, and each time they say the accuser is actually the guilty party, there's reason to be skeptical. There's a pattern to Trump's responses. A smarter man wouldn't keep using the same method to deflect blame.

    • @TheLegendOfLame
      @TheLegendOfLame 5 ปีที่แล้ว +26

      @@Staunts Also, people don't want Trump impeached for political reasons, so there isn't corruption there. They want him impeached because *he* is corrupt. Idgaf what party you're part of when you're president or what you think is best for the country (I may not agree at times, but I won't push for impeachment), but if you are clearly a corrupt individual, I will not stand for you being in office a day longer than necessary.

  • @NicolasdeFontenay
    @NicolasdeFontenay 5 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    LegalEagle needs a class on skillshare. Your channel is pretty awesome man. I never thought I would enjoy legal studies. (from my couch)

  • @beeble2003
    @beeble2003 5 ปีที่แล้ว +39

    Isn't this missing the point? The whistleblower complaint isn't evidence being used in court: it's an allegation that's caused an investigation.

    • @override367
      @override367 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Yes that's the part the news keeps dropping the ball on because they gotta have their horse race. "Nobody is convicting Trump on hearsay, they are starting an investigation based on hearsay. Oh look more hearsay, Trump is on television committing the same crime again. "

    • @DJHise
      @DJHise 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      If Trump was arrested on murder charges and charged with DNA evidence, the GOP would claim the person who the cops engaged in hearsay and conclude there is no case.

    • @beeble2003
      @beeble2003 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      DJHise Watch the video: DNA evidence is hearsay.

  • @micahpalmer3537
    @micahpalmer3537 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    this is a significantly better breakdown than your first video and what I have come to expect from this channel. A very thorough breakdown of what the term hearsay means and different examples/circumstances of its use within a legal setting.

    • @IskurBlast
      @IskurBlast 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Actually after watching this video I think legal eagle is just a google lawyer. Photos, videos and audio recordings are not hearsay. A photograph is not making an assertion so it does not meet the definition of hearsay. Lets go back to My Cousin Vinny. The photo of the trees is not making an assertion. The assertion is that the leaves on the tree obstructed the view but the photo isn't making that assertion. A photo is almost always passive.
      In short a photo makes no assertion and therefor isn't hearsay. See United States v. May 1980.

  • @Vael221
    @Vael221 5 ปีที่แล้ว +48

    Thought experiment: Would a parking ticket be inherently considered hearsay, as it is essentially a written statement that alleges a person committed a parking violation? So if you contested the ticket in court and it was upheld you would be in effect receiving a parking ticket based on hearsay testimony?

    • @GevinShaw
      @GevinShaw 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      How about those tickets based on traffic cams? Another two layers of hearsay, the camera itself and the software that runs them.

    • @sivad1025
      @sivad1025 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I've always wondered this too. If a cop gives someone a ticket because someone calls 911 and says this guy is illegally parked but the cop himself doesn't see it, then there would be a hearsay issue. Problem is, this works differently if the cop seed your car and gives the ticket. I think the only way you could dispute the ticket is if you brought evidence yourself to show that the ticket is wrong. But, let's say you took pictures of the car, the cop would argue that you moved your car and you would dispute his claim. Who knows what would happen then. Again, it's puzzled me too.

    • @samanjj
      @samanjj 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Davis Parks I think that’s why the person that gave you the ticket has to show up as well to court

    • @sivad1025
      @sivad1025 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@samanjj It's definitely why. My confusion comes down to when you and police officer disagree and there are only the two disagreeing testimonies.

    • @elrojogrande744
      @elrojogrande744 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Cops are given higher standing in that regard when acting in an official capacity.

  • @mikearisbrocken8507
    @mikearisbrocken8507 5 ปีที่แล้ว +176

    "if you want to make better arguments than Lindsay Graham"
    Got that covered, thanks.

    • @FauxFoxPaw
      @FauxFoxPaw 5 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      I'm pretty freaking stupid, I could probably do that myself.

    • @Flash9230
      @Flash9230 5 ปีที่แล้ว +19

      I remember the arguments Lindsey Graham used to defend Brett Kavanaugh during the judicial committee hearings was "These allegations are false, he's a good man."
      I facepalmed and then I laughed.

    • @rvanzo925
      @rvanzo925 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      But the accusations are false, not even her father believe her and her friend said it is false.

    • @Liliputian07
      @Liliputian07 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@raymondterry2346
      she spent a long time explaining memory and how it works, and even without extremely precise details, her arguments were better - all of them
      (rough quote, from memory: "I've spent years trying to forget the incident and now I have to recall every detail")

    • @Jdpanzone
      @Jdpanzone 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Liliputian07 the thing is, after 30 years and her stating she has been actively trying to forget the incident, she could have (unknowingly or unwittingly) rewritten the entire incident. Instead of Brett it could have been someone else. Or it could have been an entirely different scenario that became what she testified to.
      But at the end of the day there was no evidence outside of her testimony to go towards her claims. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But under the law and our country's legal system of innocent until proven guilty, is just that. Yes it was not a criminal or civil trial. But we should always try to uphold the principles of due process, even in something like a SCOTUS appointment.

  • @mattcelder
    @mattcelder 5 ปีที่แล้ว +40

    Woah!!! Wasn't expecting that Knowing Better cameo!! Two of the most professional, well spoken channels on TH-cam. What a great surprise!

    • @garrysmith1029
      @garrysmith1029 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Isk how to feel about that knowing better guy

  • @ignitionfrn2223
    @ignitionfrn2223 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    2:05 - Chapter 1 - What is hearsay ?
    6:00 - Chapter 2 - Exceptions
    6:50 - Chapter 3 - The most recent allegations
    9:50 - Chapter 4 - The whistleblower complaint
    13:30 - End roll ads

  • @justinaclayburn2248
    @justinaclayburn2248 5 ปีที่แล้ว +23

    0:42 - that is a HILARIOUS picture of Graham.

  • @sabinrawr
    @sabinrawr 5 ปีที่แล้ว +19

    Objection! (preface) Hi, LegalEagle. I love your videos, including this one. (substance) You said that you'll talk about the difference between an impeachment and a criminal indictment "in a second", but I don't believe you did (even for varying values of "a"). Can you please explain? Thank you!

    • @gavinschultz8994
      @gavinschultz8994 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Bryan Shepard
      I gotchu.
      Impeachment is a process that Congress can use to yeet public officials from their job.
      Criminal indictment is the decision to charge a suspect with a crime.
      The President is the only person that can't be indicted under literally any circumstance. This is because the job is important. In order for the President to become indictable, either Congress must remove the President via impeachment, the president must resign, or the President's term must be completed where they are not re-elected.

  • @crazymonk27
    @crazymonk27 5 ปีที่แล้ว +45

    Well isn't one point of the whistleblower giving heresay information to atart the investigation which will lead to more concrete evidence being found?

    • @Joesolo13
      @Joesolo13 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Exactly

    • @S41t4r4
      @S41t4r4 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      The worst thing about the Argument is that some non US people See the news in Fox,.. and think that it means the whole situation is just made up

    • @lylemcdermott2566
      @lylemcdermott2566 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Being found by who? The FBI? Schiff? They sure don't investigate on Bidden s shady business in Ukraine. But when Trump is asking questions. Hellfire is raining down. Go figure.

    • @crazymonk27
      @crazymonk27 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      @@lylemcdermott2566 yo... the prosecutor was fired because he wasnt investigating Biden's son enough. Can you please get out of your feelings and stop distracting from the points by pointing fingers at other people? Let's go after trump AND Biden AND any other criminals in our government instead of defending one because other person bad too. Do you remember all of the Benghazi hearings? How many of those happened? Were you also claiming that hellfire was raining down on Hillary for that? Also it is weird that this is a case of an actual crime outlined by legal professionals instead of what Republicans go after people for. Also im good with Biden having reasons to drop out because that dude is old and suffering mentally because of his campaign.

    • @crazymonk27
      @crazymonk27 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@lylemcdermott2566 to address your points directly. It is the job of congress to thoroughly investigate a whistleblower complaint of this nature and yes it is also the job of the FBI to INVESTIGATE things which occur within america. To your point about Biden's shady dealings in Ukraine I think you should think more about it as a systemic problem which occurs with the family of all people of power sometimes with just wealth and other times within political spaces. His son worked for a company mostly because he had the Biden name and was able to show up at meetings to make negotiations easier regardless of anything his father ever did to assist that company and of courae it is possible that he could ask his father for a favor from time to time, yet it is highly unlikely that this is rare and that no other children of people in power have done exactly the same.

  • @mariedemers9839
    @mariedemers9839 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    It would be amazing to see an update of what’s come out so far, I’m not even sure if there’s really much change despite the growing evidence. I do appreciate a logical non-biased approach that you give. Thanks I’m glad I found your channel

  • @carlwawrina8080
    @carlwawrina8080 5 ปีที่แล้ว +77

    And the last time I'd heard anyone speak aloud the word "inchoate" was... never. Big points to you, Devin!

    • @JGirDesu
      @JGirDesu 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Thanks for pointing that out because I shall add it to my spoken vocabulary!

    • @NeilHolmes72
      @NeilHolmes72 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I remember in Civil Procedure class one of my classmates pronounced it in-chote in front of the whole class. Smart guy but he took some grief for that!

    • @todd-617
      @todd-617 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      I had to look that one up. I is smarter now

  • @tombreon
    @tombreon 5 ปีที่แล้ว +31

    Objection! This video is an excellent video explaining the rules of hearsay!
    ...wait, why am I "objecting?" Nevermind, objection withdrawn.

  • @BirdSauce
    @BirdSauce 5 ปีที่แล้ว +98

    Guy: Oh my god Mike Myers is killing me!!!!
    Mike Myers: *Yeah Baby*

  • @sophiaflorence4510
    @sophiaflorence4510 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    As an engineer who's geeking out over the legal world in the past few years, thanks for your whole channel. This has been great.

  • @rsmith02
    @rsmith02 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Very well done. I also didn't understand the legal meaning of "hearsay" and its admissibility as evidence. Excellent video.

  • @danielholmes7658
    @danielholmes7658 5 ปีที่แล้ว +58

    You mean HERESY!!?? *purging intensifies*

    • @nolan7295
      @nolan7295 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      FOR THE EMPEROR!

    • @ilyaaaaaaaaaaaas
      @ilyaaaaaaaaaaaas 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      The Codex Astartes supports this action

    • @FrankHarwald
      @FrankHarwald 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Did you mean hershey? *candy bar chocolatisifies*

    • @JFDavis-lq1bp
      @JFDavis-lq1bp 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Did somebody say HERESY?

    • @RKroese
      @RKroese 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      He who stands with me, shall BE my brother.

  • @CaptainCocaine
    @CaptainCocaine 5 ปีที่แล้ว +69

    *TL;DW:* Well yes, but actually no.

  • @malte1984
    @malte1984 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Why do I enjoy this channel so much? I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a citizen of the united states, nor do I live in the USA or the continent of north america... I'm an electrician from germany who lives in germany! The knoloedge I get from these videos is basically useless to me and yet I can't stop whatching these vodeos^^

  • @RobertBarton86
    @RobertBarton86 5 ปีที่แล้ว +43

    I'm really enjoying the videos in this series. They're helping me to wrap my head around this current madness. I would love to see a video regarding the legality of the threats of arrest for treason which are being issued by the White House.

    • @sparkysun43
      @sparkysun43 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      I'd like to know the penalties for lying on the floor of the house or falsifying evidentiary material.

    • @moriellymoproblems7842
      @moriellymoproblems7842 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @@sparkysun43 so basically what the GOP does?

    • @SonofKalas22
      @SonofKalas22 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Also bs. Treason requires you to aid an enemy state or petition another state to become an enemy essentially.
      Definition: In Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, treason is specifically limited to levying war against the US, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Conviction requires two witnesses or a confession in open court.[2]

  • @kickboxerinsj13
    @kickboxerinsj13 5 ปีที่แล้ว +30

    I like that he touched on the flaws in eye witness testimony.

    • @TheBrothergreen
      @TheBrothergreen 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Eye witness testimony, however, is still superior to "expert" testimony.

    • @kickboxerinsj13
      @kickboxerinsj13 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@TheBrothergreen I was more touching on the idea that in the science world eye witness testimony is worthless. Reproducable results however are another matter ^_^

    • @TheBrothergreen
      @TheBrothergreen 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@kickboxerinsj13 I know what you meant. I'm almost convinced that all eye witness testimony should be limited to the same rules as hearsay. The only reason I think that would be a mistake is that it would make a lot of non-violent crimes almost impossible to prove. Still, there have been far too many people wrongfully convicted based on eye-witness testimony that was flat out wrong.
      Expert testimony, though is worse. It's an opinion that's bought, and it's usually given arbitrarily (for instance you might find an expert to diagnose a mental disorder without ever meeting the patient/accused.)

    • @kickboxerinsj13
      @kickboxerinsj13 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@TheBrothergreen Apologies, I misunderstood your statement. I wholeheartedly agree.

    • @QuikVidGuy
      @QuikVidGuy 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@kickboxerinsj13 science doesn't say it's worthless, it says there are flaws and exploits. it's still incredibly valuable
      also expert testimony is a very contextual thing and the complete dismissal of both of these is petty worrying

  • @UGNAvalon
    @UGNAvalon 5 ปีที่แล้ว +46

    For some reason, seeing the section about “legal acts” immediately made me think:
    “But my lord, is that _legal_ ?”
    “I will _make_ it legal!”
    “That’s technically a legal act!”

    • @huttj509
      @huttj509 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      I can see Lindsey Graham's next talking point. "Look, that phone call was a Legal Act, so it can't be illegal."

    • @Apis4
      @Apis4 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Except you just know if Trump had lightning bolts at his disposal he'd use them for the stupidest things, and had he a lightsabre, he'd have killed himself by now.
      In way, were he a Sith Lord, it would so much easier, we'd know, that ultimately, he'd be destined to doom himself, or be doomed by his protege.
      Unless you ascribe to the Darth Jaja theory.....then....Trump is definitely a Sith Lord too, and it's not going to play out as normal, he'll survive this, just like he did the Mueller Report, and we're all f*cking doomed.

    • @dr.floridamanphd
      @dr.floridamanphd 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Apis4, the House will impeach. That’s all but guaranteed. McConnell won’t have as tight a grip over the proceedings as many think. Basically he’ll have to contend with the “managers” sent over by the House while being supervised by the Chief Justice to make sure everything stays above water.
      While they won’t remove him from office (I highly doubt 67 Senators will vote for it) they only need 51 votes to bar him from holding future office and that cannot be overturned by a pardon.
      Democrats have 47 members in their caucus and there at least 6 GOP Senators that’ll flip. They only need 4.
      I have a very strong feeling we will see the end of Trump before November 3, 2020.

    • @Cryptic0013
      @Cryptic0013 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@dr.floridamanphd "I have a very strong feeling" is how most political disasters begin for the left.

  • @crystalmayfield1692
    @crystalmayfield1692 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I love that your channel is a thing and I appreciate the way you cover topics. I also can't get enough news on this since word of the phone call and whistle blower erupted, and it's even more fulfilling than more news to hear your coverage from the legal perspective. Keep it up please! 😍

  • @zmanjace1364
    @zmanjace1364 5 ปีที่แล้ว +57

    Did anyone else picture the wrong Mike Myers in their head when he said "oh no. Mike Myers is killing me." No? No one saw a weird cat man with a baseball bat? I've seen too many memes...

    • @scrunchycrumbundles8013
      @scrunchycrumbundles8013 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Zman Jace no. Because he showed a clip from the movie Halloween.

    • @FaelCacilhas
      @FaelCacilhas 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      yeah, for me was Austin Powers. They made that joke on that "Baby Driver" movie and now I can only imagine him on Halloween.

    • @hciapetus1251
      @hciapetus1251 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Rafael Cacilhas - “yeah, baby!”
      Same. I pictured Austin Powers, but only because I watched it last night (the first one).

    • @Herpestidae
      @Herpestidae 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I was just listening to the video, and I, too, had to pause for a moment to remember the movie villain.

    • @kokobeans6956
      @kokobeans6956 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I imagined it was the Canadian actor Mike Myers wearing a Michael Myers mask.

  • @TonyPoirier
    @TonyPoirier 5 ปีที่แล้ว +61

    I think the whistleblower needs a cool name. I’d like to nominate Deep Whistle.

    • @Contevent
      @Contevent 5 ปีที่แล้ว +18

      Agent Orange.

    • @blanchy
      @blanchy 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      We might soon just call him by his name since you don't get whistle blower protection for making false complaints.

    • @blanchy
      @blanchy 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@Tolgeros No it isn't. "Id like you to fire that prosecuter" is fine. "I won't give you a billion dollars in aid unless you fire that prosecuter" is quid pro quo.
      You can literally read the transcript released by the WH yourself. Nothing is ever withheld from the Ukraine and they are never told they will get anything in exchange for any favors.

    • @blanchy
      @blanchy 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Tolgeros there's nothing wrong in the call. So all the complaints, I guess would be the answer to your question.

    • @jincyquones
      @jincyquones 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@blanchy "You can literally read the transcript released by the WH yourself. Nothing is ever withheld from the Ukraine and they are never told they will get anything in exchange for any favors."
      🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

  • @DrRockso79
    @DrRockso79 5 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    It's crazy how the whistleblower ended up becoming a MacGuffin in all this only a week later, heh.

    • @xanderbeutel9239
      @xanderbeutel9239 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Hm?

    • @Bwleon7
      @Bwleon7 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@xanderbeutel9239 an object or device in a movie or a book that serves merely as a trigger for the plot.
      basically thanks to the reaction of the President and the White House to the whistleblower ( confirming and releasing the details of the call), the whistleblower themself is no longer needed. We have other evidence that can be used.

    • @xanderbeutel9239
      @xanderbeutel9239 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Bwleon7 Interesting. I didn't know about that term before!

  • @BeardedReactions
    @BeardedReactions 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Objection: mischaracterization of the fact in the record. Specifically calling them “incriminating statements” is a mischaracterization of the record and exactly what is at issue here. I move to strike them from the record and move to a mistrial because the irreversible damage has been done.

    • @rsmith02
      @rsmith02 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Why do you argue they are non-incriminating? Soliciting the help of foreign governments on behalf of a political candidate is a crime, period.

    • @BeardedReactions
      @BeardedReactions 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      rsmith02 that is incorrect. A president can do that, but he/she cannot pressure someone into doing it by offering/withholding something in return. Going off of that, Trump did not incriminate himself in the call.
      However, my objection wasn’t arguing whether or not he said anything incriminating but rather stating it in the trial/hearing. The trial/hearing is to determine whether anything incriminating was said, and so classifying them as such prior to a ruling is inappropriate.

  • @Reggiethethird
    @Reggiethethird 5 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    WOOOOOO KNOWING BETTER! That reference made me smile

    • @StarlightAxi
      @StarlightAxi 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      they well, get around to say the least

  • @muhammadawan5074
    @muhammadawan5074 5 ปีที่แล้ว +28

    Wait didn't the transcript confirm everything the whistleblower claimed. So if someone says u parked in a restricted zone and then u give a picture to the judge confirming that u did u will get a ticket

    • @wfjhDUI
      @wfjhDUI 5 ปีที่แล้ว +27

      It was a perfect parking job, absolutely tremendous, believe me. One of the great parking jobs of all time. Everybody is saying so. To ticket someone over a parking job like that would be insane. What we really need to investigate is the SPY who said I parked in a restricted zone. This is MOTORIST HARASSMENT.

    • @hi00118
      @hi00118 5 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      Ellisar Atranimus if anything Trump said can be construed as asking Ukraine to investigate a political opponent of his then that’s absolutely an impeachable offense lol what are you talking about

    • @AquaDogYT
      @AquaDogYT 5 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      @Ellisar Atranimus what hi said. Adding onto this, even if you dont believe that part of it, the accusations of Trump putting politically sensitive information on nationally sensitive drives is DEFINITELY an impeachable offense. If that happens to be true, trump would be done for. period.

    • @wfjhDUI
      @wfjhDUI 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @Ellisar Atranimus It is in fact illegal to solicit, accept, or receive foreign contributions (money or in kind) to a political campaign. But that's irrelevant anyway since the impeachment process doesn't rely on the courts or US criminal code. Instead, it's up to Congress. Trying to instigate a baseless investigation into a political opponent is an impeachable abuse of power all by itself, especially when doing so involves undermining US foreign policy interests.
      You're also just being willfully naive. By your reasoning, "I would like to offer you some quid. Please do quo for me." isn't quid-pro-quo, it's just two unrelated statements, since no exchange is explicitly stated. Obviously that's absurd.

    • @hi00118
      @hi00118 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      ChickenManiac 123 or at least he would be if we had an impartial legislature, which we don’t. Impeachment would be and probably is absolutely warranted but no way a GOP controlled Senate upholds it

  • @BryanShort_Attorney
    @BryanShort_Attorney 5 ปีที่แล้ว +23

    Speeding tickets themselves are hearsay. Hearsay that is admissible under several exceptions to the hearsay exclusion (business/gov records)

    • @marsupius
      @marsupius 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@michaeljurney8354 the ticket is hearsay. If the officer shows up at court and testifies, then that is eye witness testimony (more commonly known as direct evidence).

    • @gavinschultz8994
      @gavinschultz8994 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Michael Jurney
      Brian Short: There is a banana in the fruit bowl.
      You: That is not true, because there is also an apple in the fruit bowl.
      Your sound logic has radicalized me. Well played. 200 IQ.

    • @JGD714
      @JGD714 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@marsupius the ticket is not hear say because a ticket is actually a citation, so it would be a court case started on hear say plus whatever other evidence the officer has prepared. If it doesn't go to court and you pay the ticket then it's still not hear say, because no evidence was needed as you admitted guilt.

  • @Buxt8224
    @Buxt8224 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    I love how you make this stuff relevant. It really makes the law feel real to me rather than some bs magic that I don't understand

    • @gavinschultz8994
      @gavinschultz8994 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Kip Buxton
      Philosophy of law is rather sociological and sociology is bs magic so he's probably deceiving you.

  • @joecool2501
    @joecool2501 5 ปีที่แล้ว +22

    Objection: to sum up on the end hearsay can be used to initiate an investigation as mention under indictment

    • @TimBaoht
      @TimBaoht 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Not against a sitting president

    • @JoeSkeen
      @JoeSkeen 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@TimBaoht lol wut

    • @rvanzo925
      @rvanzo925 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      And not when the underlying “accusation”, telling someone to investigate, is not a crime.

    • @darubicon1501
      @darubicon1501 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      R Vanzo telling someone who’s a public official to investigate or they won’t get their money is bribery (a crime). Trying (albeit weakly) to cover up the crime of a public official (the president) is a crime.
      Letting a diplomatic official (the president) sell the honor and respect of your country for their own personal gain just because you agree with his rhetoric SHOULD be a crime!

    • @joecool2501
      @joecool2501 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@rvanzo925 well i think it depends if that person could benefit, Trump was trying to get someone to investigate someone and thats what he is in trouble for but he had something to gain and used the power of his office

  • @etrecklefrancois2792
    @etrecklefrancois2792 5 ปีที่แล้ว +19

    Somehow it feels like the next argument that will be brought up will be the Chewbacca defense. Lol.

  • @AWriterWandering
    @AWriterWandering 5 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    Graham is purposely stretching the truth. Relying on the public’s perception of the word “hearsay” to make the allegations seem less damning.

    • @robertmartin8907
      @robertmartin8907 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      How do you make an allegation less damning than "not at all?"

    • @AWriterWandering
      @AWriterWandering 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Robert Martin asking a foreign leader to investigate the son of your political rival a week after you suspended aid to foreign leader's country is in no way damning? Hell, asking a FOREIGN LEADER to investigate something about your political rival is not damning in itself?

  • @TRYtoHELPyou
    @TRYtoHELPyou 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    Killing it with those sponsor transitions. Great work!

  • @TearDownGenesis
    @TearDownGenesis 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    I think another issue is them calling it hearsay even though it isn't a trail. Its a document to trigger an investigation. Which should be sufficient. That's like calling the cops and saying "someone is breaking into my friends house" and they're like "i'm going to need proof before I send an officer."

  • @JagannathMxO
    @JagannathMxO 5 ปีที่แล้ว +56

    But wait, there's more! (As of, like, two hours ago.)

    • @VIPandalicious
      @VIPandalicious 5 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      Kind of looks like the best plan of action is to just film him and wait.

    • @JackgarPrime
      @JackgarPrime 5 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      @@VIPandalicious He should just put up a livestream that doesn't stop during this with how rapidly its moving.

    • @notnormalyet
      @notnormalyet 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      @@VIPandalicious Except he's said so many awful, untrue, or damning things and his fans just don't care. It's like they have a cult mentality (or doublethink).

    • @zomaga1
      @zomaga1 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@notnormalyet Why aren't you able to elaborate right away? And why do i have to ask what are those things? If they are so untrue, awful and damning why are you just leaving them to imagination? Can they even persist light of the day? Or are they just some dark things in your imagination?

    • @0xCAFEF00D
      @0xCAFEF00D 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@zomaga1 You can find countless people that say Trump say untrue things. The reason you don't include examples of what you're talking about in conversation is because if we actually did that we'd have maybe 1% opinion and 99% references. That's just not the nature of commentary.
      The point of the comment is that notnormalyet thinks Trump supporters are a cult who are blind to criticism of their leader. In context it'd a motivation for why the livestream idea wouldn't matter. He's not trying to present large volumes of evidence supporting that, it's just expressing an opinion. Why would you not include common counterarguments to common criticisms of Trump in your post? It's for the same reason. It makes no sense unless you've got that prepared somewhere (like a blog). And even then people frown on that. It looks like advertising.

  • @dr.floridamanphd
    @dr.floridamanphd 5 ปีที่แล้ว +75

    Objection! Counselor needs to EQ his microphone to soften his S sounds. You’re coming in sharp, brother.

    • @WoodzTheWall
      @WoodzTheWall 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Damn you, now I can't unhear it

    • @GrimmReaper7165
      @GrimmReaper7165 5 ปีที่แล้ว +41

      He's coming in sharp because of his awesome suits made by Indochino *whispers Indochino* 😂😉

    • @notsogreatsword1607
      @notsogreatsword1607 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      ssst ssst ssst oh god its all I can hear

    • @CantKillACowboyTX
      @CantKillACowboyTX 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Maybe he could throw a de-esser plug-in on while he records?

    • @matthewroe496
      @matthewroe496 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@CantKillACowboyTX De-esser is certainly the easy way and at this point probably available no matter what editor he is using.

  • @drewforchic9083
    @drewforchic9083 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Please keep doing updates on this whole situation. It just keeps getting deeper and more complex, and you've got the best breakdowns of it.

    • @FatFredyFreak
      @FatFredyFreak 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Nothing deep or complex about it, the President of the United States asked the leader of a foreign nation to dig up dirt on a political opponent while implying that he would withhold military aid if said foreign leader didn't go along with the plan. Its a clear abuse of the power of the office for personal political gain, not to mention the illegality of inviting foreign nations to meddle in US elections. The transcript, released by the White House, removes any doubts that could be raised. Not only did he do it, he's PROUD of himself for doing it, and later openly invited other foreign powers to follow suit and help him politically.

    • @drewforchic9083
      @drewforchic9083 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@FatFredyFreak Oh, I completely agree. I just mean that more stuff keeps coming out that continues to damn him more and more, like the text messages now, and Legal Eagle has the best comprehensive breakdowns of everything and how it all fits together. Also, these videos make it much easier to show to people who keep trying to insist "nothing's wrong here" that, in fact, everything is wrong here.

  • @haldosprime3896
    @haldosprime3896 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I imagine this video was alot less of a headache to complete compared to the last one. I appreciate your continued efforts.

  • @srofv7805
    @srofv7805 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    I feel like the US tradition regarding "hearsay" is for the good of the judicial system as we approach a more technologically capable future. It can be more easily transformed into a law that combats deepfakes and audiomodulation, once the technology and AI utilization matures, than most European traditions can.

  • @andresvillarreal9271
    @andresvillarreal9271 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Objection! You are using the standards for evidence during a trial when you should be using the standards for a whistleblower complaint: credible and urgent.
    When I call the police to tell them that my house was robbed, they only ask me a few questions to make sure the case merits sending officers to the site. They do not ask me to collect the evidence, validate the credentials of the lab, send the evidence, analyze the lab results and write the opening argument for the trial. In this case, a whistleblower who gives a narrative that the accused cannot immediately contradict is a lot more than necessary.

    • @abcdef-ms9mb
      @abcdef-ms9mb 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Mind you, reporting a robbery and impeachment of a president of the United States are on rather different levels: It's more than desirable to consider all pieces of evidence and objections to them before taking on an action as grand as impeachment.

    • @andresvillarreal9271
      @andresvillarreal9271 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@abcdef-ms9mb You have to find and evaluate every single piece of evidence that you can reasonably expect to find before the trial starts, and this is not different between a robbery and impeachment of a president.
      But the point here is that the level of evidence necessary to start an investigation is a lot lower than the one needed to start a trial, no matter if it is a robbery or an impeachment. The only things expected from the whistle blower are that he/she is credible and that the matter of his/her complaint is urgent. He could have, for example, a personal recolection of documents that were destroyed, or may be relaying information from a witness who cannot or will not appear before a jury. The whistle blower is convincing an authority that there is something worth investigating, not relaying evidence to a prosecutor in a trial.

  • @baddmatt9588
    @baddmatt9588 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    How can you say the whistle blower's complaint and the transcript released by the White House as being "damn close". Whistle blower says Quid Pro Quo, and the White House says no Quid Pro Quo. How is that remotely close?

  • @aaronmotta7028
    @aaronmotta7028 5 ปีที่แล้ว +12

    You can't get a parking ticket because of hearsay, yes, but you can certainly open an investigation because of it, resulting in a parking ticket.

    • @Rolexenforcer
      @Rolexenforcer 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      False

    • @aaronmotta7028
      @aaronmotta7028 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Rolexenforcer Do you just comment without looking anything up? How do you think investigations start? a 911 call. A 911 call is considered hearsay in court. An investigation is opened after a 911 call, which either results in an indictment or not. Moron.

    • @Rolexenforcer
      @Rolexenforcer 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@aaronmotta7028 walk up to a police officer today and tell them your neighbor parked in front of a fire hydrant 3 weeks ago and see what they tell you or better yet watch what they'll do, I'll give you a heads up, they'll do absolutely nothing. Your analogy makes zero sense whatsoever.

    • @aaronmotta7028
      @aaronmotta7028 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Rolexenforcer Just because the officer does nothing does not mean they cannot. They absolutely can. It's called probable cause. You mean to tell me an officer is legally not allowed to follow a tip they received? Give me a break lol. You're just defending your law breaking president bud. You're wrong, I can literally list the federal statutes of probable cause if you'd like.

    • @aaronmotta7028
      @aaronmotta7028 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      And also, someone parking in front of a fire hydrant 3 weeks ago is not the same as a documented and recorded conversation that breaks international law.

  • @worthasandwich
    @worthasandwich 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Kind of an odd question. A few years ago I sat on a jury for a murder case. In the case the defendant never spoke in his own defense, that was not the issue. A key factor in the case was the victims father recognized the defendant in a dark room after the murder. The defendant allegedly shot the victim and pointed the gun at the victims father and said something to the effect of "Move and I'll shot you to!" Could we as the jury have asked the defendant to speak to see if he had a easy distinguishable voice?

    • @ArlanKels
      @ArlanKels 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      I believe you are not allowed to interact with the proceedings, even if you have a valid question.
      If evidence is not shown(Such as the guy speaking) you are not allowed to guess or otherwise make your own conclusion.
      You are only supposed to use the evidence presented within the case.
      That's why while I absolutely 100% love 12 Angry Men it is a highly "wrong" movie in regard to how it's supposed to happen

  • @tban4122
    @tban4122 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    A reported crime has to be investigated, however making a false report of a crime to said authorities is in itself a criminal action that can be punished and should be.... funny that you never mention that. ..

    • @soldierswitheggs
      @soldierswitheggs 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      It's interesting how the "false report" matches up almost exactly with the "transcript" (actually a call summary) that the White House itself released. Given that, I'm not entirely sure what you're upset about.

  • @aramelmartin
    @aramelmartin 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    This video was a good video. It was perfect. Probably the best video about hearsay of any presidency, and there was no pressure. Perfect.

  • @PerthScienceClinic
    @PerthScienceClinic 5 ปีที่แล้ว +21

    In the time it has taken this video to come out, the hearsay defence has vanished from the trollsphere... We're waiting to see what the next one will be.

    • @dustinwhitaker9377
      @dustinwhitaker9377 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      The defense is and has always been "no quid pro quo"

    • @Staunts
      @Staunts 5 ปีที่แล้ว +18

      Lol. Meanwhile us Trump supporters wonder what the next bogus impeachment hysteria will be that will go nowhere. Wonder why they won't hold a vote on impeachment? Hint: because they have nothing and its all meant to cast shade on Trump. Collusion, obstruction, what happened to those? Keep dreaming sweeties. Looking forward to four more years.

    • @itsmealex8959
      @itsmealex8959 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@Staunts Actually the house is following the same path previous impeachment inquiries have taken. I wouldn't just dismiss the inquiry as bogus unless it begins to go nowhere. But for the meantime, stuff is coming out left and right

    • @TheMarrrk
      @TheMarrrk 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@Staunts You like trump therefore he is isn't guilty set's a very poor precedent it should be investigated by a bipartisan body to ensure the law is being upheld no one should be above the law regardless of political leanings, so same goes for Biden

    • @PerthScienceClinic
      @PerthScienceClinic 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @Jay Even supposing that you're right about Trump's motives, there's a procedure to go through. US law enforcement talks to Ukrainian law enforcement. As for the rest, there is no evidence of impropriety on the part of Hunter Biden except that someone decided to pay him more than he is worth... But then, that's also true of Donald Trump.

  • @_JayRamsey_
    @_JayRamsey_ 5 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    "Mike Myers is killing me!"
    Definitely would have imagined something else without the clip.

  • @dajosh42069
    @dajosh42069 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    The last video you did on this topic was the one I was watching when my dad walked in.
    He sat there scoffing the entire time.. and saying that you have no idea what you're talking about. Really pisses me off when he does that shit, because he knows that he and I are barred from having any political conversation..ever. He ONLY watches Fox News, believes everything that they tell him, and practically thinks that Trump can do no wrong.
    It just perplexes me how people don't see an orange con-artist who conned his way into our highest office.. :/
    Things get awkward around election time in our household.>_

    • @andrews3271
      @andrews3271 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      people who think they can argue politics because they get all their information from one source are the worst

    • @TazorNissen
      @TazorNissen 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      dajosh42069
      Ah, sorry man. I have the same kind of issue with my brother and sister. We definitely don’t vote for the same people, though we don’t have Trump to worry about.

  • @poozizzle
    @poozizzle 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Skillshare, I've heard a few actors talking about turning nervous energy one enthusiasm. Thanks for keeping up with current news!

  • @danny6801
    @danny6801 5 ปีที่แล้ว +40

    Please analyze Disenchantment: "Fall of Tiabeanie" court proceedings.

    • @TheArtistKnownAsNooblet
      @TheArtistKnownAsNooblet 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Sorry to say but I think reactions might be on hold for a little while

    • @adamazzalino5247
      @adamazzalino5247 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Do it!

    • @danny6801
      @danny6801 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@Wertsir have you not seen season 2's finale?

    • @violenceislife1987
      @violenceislife1987 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@danny6801 i haven't seen it yet. what happens?

    • @William-Morey-Baker
      @William-Morey-Baker 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Wertsir when the king is gone, and there is no substitute, that is technically anarchy, but I believe you mean chaos... The distinction isn't a small one, unless of course you prefer the rule of a king to the self governance of the people by the people, ie direct democracy.
      Anarchy is a system of government with structure and the rule of law, like any other. It's actually the most democratic form of government.

  • @SublimeNotions
    @SublimeNotions 5 ปีที่แล้ว +70

    Objection! Inappropriate use of terminology: Wouldn't a document be a seesay not a hearsay?

    • @OokamiKageGinGetsu
      @OokamiKageGinGetsu 5 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      What if it was dictated? Is that a speak-n-spell seesay hearsay?

    • @N0tsaved
      @N0tsaved 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@OokamiKageGinGetsu This sounds like such a British-ism. I'm going to yoink that .

    • @OokamiKageGinGetsu
      @OokamiKageGinGetsu 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@N0tsaved Thanks. I grew up on British comedy. I think it may have warped my personality.

    • @jenniferstine8567
      @jenniferstine8567 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      If it was compiled by an Ouija board, definitely. Maybe also in the movies Jumanji and Zathura when the games declared cheating. Nobody actually saw the cheating happen. In Jumanji we are told that the boy tried to rig his dice. In Zathura the token was already moved. Oddly the game punishes the brother for putting the token back. It doesn't care about the other boy who did cheat. I had to rewind the movie to see if he really was cheating. He did "accidentally" move it. We're also told that he cheats at every game. IMO the game is biased.

    • @clear_image_photos5477
      @clear_image_photos5477 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Idk why I laughed so hard at this, I may need more sleep

  • @dmj271095
    @dmj271095 5 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    I misread the title as "Is the whistleblower complaint HERESY?"

    • @Memespam
      @Memespam 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      *[Exterminatus intensifies]*

    • @kaloyan2778
      @kaloyan2778 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Spiritus Objecticus!

    • @NeoFryBoy
      @NeoFryBoy 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      In nomine Trump, et filii, et spiritus sancti. Amen.

    • @dassemultor6940
      @dassemultor6940 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      HERESY YOU SAY??

  • @mookow2
    @mookow2 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    You should get a grant for all the legal advice you give to the general public. Well spoken, useful information. You can make the the most complicated stuff easy for a layman to understand. Love your channel man keep it up!

  • @mbryant861
    @mbryant861 5 ปีที่แล้ว +26

    Please do the movie “Fracture” with Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gossling. Such an underrated movie. It’s a court movie but excellent.

  • @DamonXWind
    @DamonXWind 5 ปีที่แล้ว +20

    I realize that federal controversies are both interesting and important, but I would also love to hear your take on the Guyger case in Texas. I found it very interesting to follow over the past week or so, and it is all available to watch on youtube, which is not common due to many jurisdictions not allowing video recordings of court proceedings (at least to be released publicly).

    • @KingofHearts
      @KingofHearts 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Since you followed the trial so closely, what do you think happened that night? I’ve really only seen the closing statements.
      I read somewhere she was sexting back and forth with her boyfriend at the time. I think she was intently focussed on her phone, as such she missed all the cues that she was on the wrong floor ( once you live in a condo for a while, you could be blindfolded in the Parking garage and still be able to find your apt, the steps and turns becomes second nature). By the time she snaps back into reality she’s standing at her door, ajar.
      From there, all semblance of logic goes out the window. Why didn’t she shoot him in the leg? Why didn’t she retreat and call police?
      Also, Botham Jean seemed like such an amazing guy. I’d be interested to know whether the defendant lawyers tried to smear Botham Jean in any way.

    • @DamonXWind
      @DamonXWind 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@KingofHearts shooting in the leg is a tv myth. If you aren't shooting to kill, you don't believe your life is in danger enough to use deadly force. If deadly force isn't justified, maiming is certainly not justified.
      The argument that she entered the apartment with the intent to kill is pretty convincing, and under texas castle doctrine, she might have been ruled justified if her mistakes were "reasonable", but the jury didn't rule that way.

    • @Justanotherconsumer
      @Justanotherconsumer 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      It might be hard for him, as he knows federal law and I think California law and Texas has its own set of quirks like any state.
      He’d have a more informed opinion than a non-lawyer, but someone from the Texas bar (maybe they call it a saloon?) would be better able to explain it.

  • @DahVoozel
    @DahVoozel 5 ปีที่แล้ว +15

    Hearsay? Yes. Grounds for an investigation? Most definitely unbelievably yes.

    • @johnlove2954
      @johnlove2954 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Nope. It is as much a grounds for investigation as me saying Legal Eagle raped someone in the hood.

    • @CoconutJewce
      @CoconutJewce 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Sure, but when the strongest piece of evidence (procured by the WH itself) doesn't mention the things that they're wanting him to be impeached for, then it kinda falls apart. Now it's back to the "Orange man bad = impeach him" narrative. And no one, not even AOC, gives a shit about that anymore.

    • @DahVoozel
      @DahVoozel 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@CoconutJewce did Trump request the Ukrainian president open an investigation into corruption? Did trump specifically reference the Biden family? Would a corruption investigation into the Bidens, even spurious, aid Trump? Shuld citizens be using access and power of elected office for their personal benefit?

    • @CoconutJewce
      @CoconutJewce 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      ​@@DahVoozel 1. He asked them to look into Crowdstrike and what was going on with the prosecutor being fired. As far as I've heard, that's not illegal.
      2. Yes, he referenced Biden's son. And?
      3. Potentially, yes, depending on how you interpreted it. It would also aid Elizabeth Warren and any other presidential candidate. But if Biden did meddle with the elections, should Trump not have it looked into because there's a chance it could aid him? That seems nonsensical.
      4. I want to say no, but could you explain how that's relevant?

  • @demi-girldemi-girl8893
    @demi-girldemi-girl8893 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The whistleblower claims something that is not in the transcript.
    The whistleblower claims a quid pro quo that does not directly exsist.

    • @Contevent
      @Contevent 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Well, yeah, it does. It wasn't explicit in the transcript but we knew for a while that Ukraine had been warned that their financing was at stake, and recently we've learned that Mike Pence was the one to issue the warning and apply the pressure.
      So yeah, there was quid pro quo. It wasn't explicit in the transcript, but the complaint wasn't about it, t was about the whole event.

  • @katrinacherubin6878
    @katrinacherubin6878 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Aww, yeah, a Legal Eagle video on my birthday!

  • @GhostShakz
    @GhostShakz 5 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    Just realised you can get away with not wearing pants for these videos

    • @Halinspark
      @Halinspark 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      If it's good enough for the judge, it's good enough for the lawyers!

    • @pbagosy
      @pbagosy 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Halinspark This reminds me of Stephen Root's character in Justified, who wore nothing but a speedo and sock suspenders under his robe.

  • @maxwell4322
    @maxwell4322 5 ปีที่แล้ว +21

    If someone runs into the interview and screams 'theres an active shooter'. Hes gonna sit there and not move because its hearsay

    • @albaniaalban
      @albaniaalban 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Graham doesn't start running when the smoke starts spreading, that's just hearsay.

    • @fitzbut
      @fitzbut 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      He's going to sit there and not move because the capitol police will take care of it

  • @mmmcounts
    @mmmcounts 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    6:18 "Some of these exceptions are called non-hearsay for some reason, I don't know why that distinction exists."
    I'm not a lawyer or anything, but as a literate person I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say it's because these are similar and related things that actually fall in a different category which is distinguished as not being hearsay.

  • @novacorponline
    @novacorponline 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    "When critics fight the process and not the substance of an argument it tells you a lot about the weaknesses of their defense" That sounds all well and good if you don't think about it. What is the accusation? "I heard that the president did something illegal".
    There are two ways to defend that; either
    A: Argue that the person is not credible, or that they are lying (the hearsay argument)
    B: Argue that the person is telling the truth but that what you did isnt actually illegal
    Basically, your line of reasoning right there basically means that every instance of hearsay is completely indefensible because if you try to discredit the hearsay, you're admitting guilt and your only real alternative is to admit guilt.
    I don't like trump, but lets not pretend that due process and burden of proof can just be ignored or changed willy nilly depending on whether we like the accused or not.

    • @SplotPublishing
      @SplotPublishing 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Logic says four possibilities exist in regards the character and truth of a claim:
      1) He's right and of poor character
      2) He's wrong and of poor character
      3) He's right and of good character
      4) He's wrong and of good character
      There are ALWAYS more than two choices. Always.
      A: Argue that the person is not credible, or that they are lying. * This is NOT a hearsay argument. He JUST explained what hearsay is and is not. Hearsay has to do with information not directly known such as gossip. A person may be highly credible, and their information 100% correct, but that testimony still be hearsay.
      What he's suggesting is that using the hearsay argument is a way of discrediting the way of obtaining the information so you don't HAVE to defend against the accusations. But you cannot defend against accusations by claimng that the original tip that led to the investigation was hearsay, because hearsay has NEVER been a reason to reject a tip. It's only not admissible during the TRIAL. Cops can and do use hearsay every single day. Imagine that your girlfriend overheard you talking about robbing a bank. She reads about a recent heist. You are spending money though she knows you lost your job. She goes to the police. Should they open an investigation? I think you know the answer to that. Let's say the cops investigate and find a local convenience store had to turn in a bill that had the same serial numbers as some of the money stolen in the heist. They dust this bill for fingerprints and yours pop up. Now they have evidence, and probable cause for a search, etc. "Hearsay" will not be a defense at your trial. THAT is the relationship of this whistleblower to Trump. He's the tipster, not a witness.
      B: Argue that the person is telling the truth but that what you did isnt actually illegal - It is on it's face. So good luck with that.
      C: Argue that the person is credible, but they are mistaken. Credibility adheres to the person, NOT their statement. So an honest scientist testifies that a particular bone is an ancient artifact, but because he did not have the knowledge that it had been stored with ancient artifacts and had become contaminated, he did not properly account for that possibility in his tests. He is credible, but his testimony is still false. Not a lie, just wrong. - Maybe the whistleblower heard this stuff from trustworthy sources, but they misheard or misunderstood. Although, in this case, that would be an impossible sell, as most of what was in his complaint has already been demonstrated true.
      D: Argue the person is correct in the accusation and legality, and that you did it, but you should not be held responsible for it - Plead insanity, or claim you had a gun to your head, or say it was for "national security interests" or hide behind AG memos saying you can't be indicted, or... I think we know which he's gonna end up trying.

    • @charlescannon2469
      @charlescannon2469 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      I'm confused arguing the witness isn't credible or that stament is false *is*attacking the _substance of an argument_ Actually your B point i din't commit a crime also attacks the substance of his argument and not the process. Actually neither of those have anything to do with a hearsay argument.
      A hearsay argument would be;
      I heard people talking about killing that now dead person.
      You heard people talking about killing him it is not evidence he was killed (hearsay is not evidence) because you heard them talking about killing him (because it is hearsay) therefore do not tell the courts what you witnessed.
      His point is(as hopefully demonstrated above) is hearsay has it's place in court and people attacking process instead of substance is a problem thay needs addressed.

    • @novacorponline
      @novacorponline 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      ​@@SplotPublishing You split it into four for semantics, but really it's still two. A and C are the same, and B and D are the same. It boils down to attacking the hearsay as not being credible enough a source, or arguing that it shouldn't matter because it's not illegal or should not be punishable. Given that in such a situation where one is accused of something blatantly illegal, the "I shouldn't be punished" defense is obviously one which cannot be taken. That leaves you with only the "Witness isn't credible" defense.
      Since they don't know who the whistleblower is, they can't make any meaningful argument on the whistleblower's position or lack thereof, their reputation/history of reliability, their potential biases, what they could stand to gain from making the accusation, or the whistleblower's source's reliability, etc. The only actual defense they have available to them is to say that the accuser is some anonymous guy who heard a rumor and the testimony is therefor unreliable. Basically, the hearsay argument.
      And this would be the same for any anonymous hearsay argument. For example, a title 9. Where a college kid is accused out of nowhere that they did something inappropriate to someone, but not saying who or when, and that the kid has to prove right then and there (often without a lawyer) that they're innocent, or get expelled. They obviously fail every time because they don't know what's going on, who's accusing them, when the event happened or anything. That is the inherent danger of anonymous hearsay as an attack; it is nearly indefensible because you don't have any information to refute other than just the accusation it's self.
      It is utterly ridiculous to criticize a defense against anonymous hearsay as being "focused on the hearsay part" because there IS no other part to focus on. All the info other than the accusation is hidden from the defense.

  • @AliHasan-yz4sr
    @AliHasan-yz4sr 5 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    The Wizard of Oz reference is spot on.

  • @aeroripper
    @aeroripper 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Please keep doing these videos covering this topic.

  • @kaloyan2778
    @kaloyan2778 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    You know how I know LegalEagle is the greatest TH-cam channel? Because I remove my adblock when watching videos:)

  • @ANeMzero
    @ANeMzero 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Graham was a prosecutor himself. It is exactly the defense he thinks it is, one meant to obfuscate the facts and placate the base. The people he is targeting with this defense are not legal professions, they are lay-people who are already looking for any excuse to dismiss the complaint. He is using his position of authority, both as a Senator and a former prosecutor to falsely paint the complaint as lacking credibility, because he knows that his supporters will not scrutinize his statements.
    He's not presenting a legal defense, he's presenting a defense for the court of public opinion. He is setting the stage for his inevitable vote to not remove the President, no matter what the evidence says and to minimize the potential backlash from that act.

  • @thexalon
    @thexalon 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Objection: Lindsay Graham isn't talking to a court of law, he's talking to a court of public opinion, so he's likely to get away with making legally nonsensical arguments knowing full well that the judges (us non-legal folks) won't catch him. He's not making those kinds of arguments because he's dumb, he's making them because he thinks we are!

  • @p0mp0mpurin
    @p0mp0mpurin 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    i aspire to work in law when i’m older, and this channel gets me so pumped !! (≧∀≦)

  • @war1980
    @war1980 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Focus on semantics of hearsay, after denouncing ignoring substance over style, then equate all hearsay as equivalent. Great argument.

  • @mistylee717
    @mistylee717 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    My head is spinning. My entire argument has been, “this isn’t a trial.” I did learn quite a bit from this though. Much of it went right past me. Must watch again with the pause button on the ready. It does explain the frequent scenes you see in Hollywood that go: “objection. Heresay.” “I’ll allow it”.

    • @rsmith02
      @rsmith02 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      It's not a trial but grand juries and impeachment proceedings in the house have some similarities. Hopefully that will be the next video!

  • @AdrianAye
    @AdrianAye 5 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    Does anyone have a question for the president of Finland?

    • @Contevent
      @Contevent 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Mr President, could you ask Mr Trump about his impending impeachment?

    • @gavinschultz8994
      @gavinschultz8994 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      How are babies made?

  • @timweis493
    @timweis493 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Heard from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another you been messing around!