Agreed. Maybe the problem with this however is that most of the cases being made are not US based (yet) so answer given here may not matter to what is happening now.
@@jakemccloud2965 and that is why I, in the UK, had to wait until 21 to be able to drink alcohol, because the law is the same everywhere in the world 🙄 (infact I think that was something touched upon the Pheonix Wright video).
he's done it! the mad bastard has actually done it! he's found a way to get rid of hate comments! Devon: *lifts dog* If it's not something you would say in front of Stella, don't comment it at all.
Maybe Legal Beagal is the official position of the canis lupus familiaris mascot for this brand. It would be racist to require the mascot to fit a genotypical profile.
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean "don't take a claim of sexual assault seriously". You don't have to instantly believe he's guilty to take her claims as possibly true.
I know that I am late to the party. But innocent until proven guilty isn't even the standard that should apply to confirmation hearings. confirmation hearings are not trials. They are job interviews.
@@Sewblon So the questions should pertain to the job. Is there a question that Kavanaugh is an alcoholic now? If not, why so many questions about his drinking in HS/College?
@@Sewblon1) Yes, they are job interviews. 2) No, it is not appropriate to assume guilt when considering firing someone over an accusation in the workplace. So, you still assume innocence until proven guilty. There may be a less strict standard than a court of law, but you still need the presumption of innocence.
You don't have to be a good lawyer to become a politician. In fact, I would think being a bad (or horrible) lawyer is a prerequisite for being a politician. Just like the old saying goes - 'Those who can do. Those who can't become management/politicians/inset any other useless position'.
@@SydBat more importantly they sought the status of the JD and SOME resume-stuffing that couldn't be challenged so they could see office and obtain the power and prestige. So.... 61 vile people.
It's called "non practicing lawyers". Go to law school, pass the bar, and you can claim to be a "lawyer" the rest of your life. Not sure if there is a comparable occupation.
@@Eaglejake A fair number of doctors go to med school but end up doing other stuff. Engineers will also do it. People with teaching certificates claim to be teachers, but we all know they are overpaid, overindulged babysitters.
@@corpsman1980 The armchair Jury strikes again. It's called beyond reasonable doubt. It's the prosecution fault for failing to do so. The LAPD for their incompetence in collecting the blood and DNA evidence and how they handled it. For putting a racist who then perjured himself on the stand and ended up pleading the fifth. And Various other evidence.
Oh yeah! And the glove thing! I cannot put on gloves too big for my hand when I spread-hand try them on like OJ did. Also, the defense on how much blood evidence was collected and the slow ride chase of "What? Why are they following me?" It was a case of celebrity killing someone and thinking they could get away with it but someone in the plan betrayed the script.
SouthstanderRSM Ooh that would be interesting. Especially because you could look at the book’s representation, the 1962 film’s representation, and how it was conducted in accordance to the laws and procedural standards of both then and now. Also, though I’m not sure he would do this without someone more familiar in the matter, he could examine how race has influenced trials in the US historically and now.
@Silver Snacker If the "new" right is to be believed, everyone who isn't with them is a liberal. This is false, and is the best evidence of any brainwashing here. Seems to me that you believe you can't be wrong. It must be that reality itself has a liberal bias!
They actually brought in a lawyer for this hearing - and once she questioned the "plaintiff," even the Democratic members of the Committee never called on her to question the "defendant." The whole thing is suspect, in my opinion.
@@celettu there have been FBI studies shoeing that rape is mostly undecided because it doesn't go to court or other reasons and more are proven false rather than true.
Snoopy v California (1966) set the precedence that a beagle is "any dog of a size smaller than a collie but larger than a bread basket, with an overall whitish color and bearing some spots". Although we saw no spots on this dog, we did not see the entire dog and it is reasonable that there may be one or more spots on the posterior of said dog. Thus we can not rule out that it is a beagle.
A lot of people are objecting here and I disagree with the premise that Kavanaugh had perjured himself, but I think this guy is making the point that the cross-examination was done incompetently.
Part of the problem here is that many of these Senators, especially on the Dem side, may have been very able litigators in their youth but are far, far too old to be running these kinds of proceedings.
Time2LevelUp These are always the kinds of comment sections that are great. With stellar content creators you usually get great fan bases that can understand each other
Objection: In relation to the request to define "ralphing", Judge Kavanaugh did define it as throwing up (a term I also use to describe such) and then went on to explain he had a weak stomach and was prone to "ralphing."
Chris Lord yes, throwing up. But from drinking too much. He brings up the spicy food nonsense to detract from the fact he was known to drink too much. So much so, he would throw up. Ralphing.
They could have also asked about the “club” aspect. If he was ralphing purely from spicy food, how does that relate to beach week and the club about ralphing during beach week? It really was disappointing to see how they could have pushed things further but didn’t. I guess that’s the problem when you get senators asking questions that you really should have a lawyer for. It’s also why we saw Kamala Harris doing the right thing in pressing for an answer to her question- but having been a prosecutor, she knows what she’s doing.
While she wasn’t the nominee, she did choose to make a bunch of accusations against a man that had a sterling reputation before she started talking. She needs to be just as thoroughly investigated as him. What if she’s just a nut job, or a partisan hack?
@@thedoomnegotiator9693 yes, he was one of the most respected jurists in the country and has not even a slight blemish on his record before Blasey-Ford lied about him.
@Ulyssess It's true that Ford wasn't being nominated... At the same time, it's also true that she was allowed to "present evidence", and testify. **IF** the *truth* of her testimony can't be considered as a *real* issue, then in the future, any person could block any nomination on any grounds simply by making whatever accusation is convenient and/or likely to succeed in derailing the confirmation. Further, this *was* a legal proceeding. I'm not entirely certain, but I think the closest analogy to the usual legal terms would be a "deposition". If it were not a "legal proceeding", then perjury would be impossible. Her "testimony" was "entered as evidence", and therefore subject to cross-examination. In the long term, as a nominee for judge, HIS veracity, or lack of it, is, of course, the most important thing. Nevertheless, in the *short* term, HER veracity is equally important. A potential liar should not be allowed to sway the decision in either direction.
Objection! A "weak stomach" is a description which could apply to someone who is believed to be unable to handle the amount of alcohol as others in a comparative group (such as a group of friends). It is a valid statement that can be a legitimate description that may also be a reference to alcohol without actually referencing it.
You statement is absurd. You fail to refute the judge unless you can demonstrate that there is not just another reasonable definition but that there is NO OTHER reasonable definition. You fail to do that. Reason refutes your argument.
There is a VERY important point in your presentation: the senators missed questioning opportunities and mixed debate with questioning. The debates might have been important to the senators to show how they think to the people who elected them but at the same time prevented them to reach their stated goal.
@SysPowerTools not to mention the person who pushed her to accuse him also did it for several other women at the time whos stories had even-less credibility
Add to all this the irony of his appointment being resisted by utter loons dressed up in those ridiculous outfits from that asinine fear porn called The Handmaid's Tale; this was all predicated on the fear that Kavanaugh would singly overturn Roe v. Wade (which is actually worthy of review given that the woman came to deeply regret her original motives)...only for his first showing in the high court to be him siding with the more liberal justices on not even hearing a case which might have had such implications. They assassinated the man's character over nothing and continue to do so because admitting they were wrong and extending an apology is not part of the leftist playbook.
@@The_Lucent_Archangel what's crazy is dems have cried about roe v wade possibly being overturned for almost 20 years, yet nobody even remembers it until they cry about it. It's just part of their election toolkit now along with crying rape and racism that dates back to the 70s
phatymcdaddy Abortion is firmly entrenched in the toolkit of both parties. Any time Republicans need to whip up the evangelical vote they ring the pro-life bell and get their Pavlovian response.
SysPowerTools I don’t know what’s true, but I do know that Kavanaugh was lying his ass off about the terms he used in those journals. If he lies under oath what else would he lie about?
Every face Kavanaugh made in this trial showed unprofessional comportment to me. He does not appear to show maturity or empathy for any women who have been through sexual assault. People say it was an emotional experience for him and I understand that, but like DJ says, Supreme Court Justices are held to very high standards. He knew the expectations for himself and he did not hold up to it for this job. It concerns me greatly that he is currently on the Supreme Court.
You're doing good work, not just for educational purposes but for the health of the country. I'm a big fan of all your videos and they've given me insight and respect for the profession of law. I don't think I could ever be a lawyer but as a citizen I love your channel and find it useful and helpful. As always, I eagerly await your uploads and this looks like the start of a great series!
Simple: he's trying to show Kavanaugh is a liar while inferring Ford's telling the truth by omission of her inconsistencies. It's using a simple logic fallacy to pretend you're being objective when you've already prejudged a decision. The other logic fallacy involves meanings of denotation and connotation: the prior meanings and understandings of words might vary from one generation to another. For instance, in my part of the state of Maryland from the 70s to 80s, Devil's Triangle=Satan's Triangle= Bermuda Triangle=Quarters at the local bars. Remnants of that are found in the "Island" variation. That might not be what it means now so if you force the contemporary definition as the same as the earlier definition... :?
Probably because Ford was not up for a position on the Supreme Court. Whereas Kavenugh was up for a position on the court. It seems that people forget that giving eyewitness testimony about an event is different than testimony about one's own actions and how they would behave on SCOTUS.
@@Spartan117KC "Spartan117KC 25 minutes ago "Probably because Ford was not up for a position on the Supreme Court. Whereas Kavenugh was up for a position on the court." That shouldn't make any difference to a "trier of fact." So far, he hasn't dissuaded me from thinking he has a hidden agenda, an 'unvoiced premise' he's leading the viewer as the legal Sherpa. "It seems that people forget that giving eyewitness testimony about an event is different than testimony about one's own actions and how they would behave on SCOTUS." Yes, because people giving testimony involving him/her/themselves tend to portray events favorable to 'one's own actions' for accused and accuser. So, the method to determine which is more accurate is based on the likelihood of a past event and that depends on the accounts of those that can verify or corroborate the event being contested.
Lol I see where your vote is. Jesus we can’t even get a breakdown without you conservative snowflakes crying. How about we talk about the person accused
@Bill Carson "... It seems like common sense to me that Ford's testimony should be equally scrutinized to discourage corrupt stall tactics from the other side." I agree that her testimony should be equally scrutinized but for me it's to determine what did or did not occur-- that is who was more truthful or not. Her account fell to pieces that's why the Senators who had been lawyers took one of two paths: 1) they stopped beating on Ford or 2) they beat down more on Kavanaugh. And that showed the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths. What you saw then was a logic fallacy in action: intentional infliction of emotional pain leads to the truth; it doesn't, it only leads to conduct to relieve the pain.
Objection: Although it is correct to say that both Ford and Kavanaugh's testimonies are evidence, it is also key to note that there is no significant evidence to link Kavanaugh to the specific crime that he is accused of other then tests of his moral character. In a he said/she said scenario, it is the burden of the accuser to prove a lie or fault in the accused's testimony. To use your cop/robber example, a jury would clearly be more inclined to believe the cop as a sign of authority, but that should not be the sole rationale of conviction as there is still a chance that the authoritarian figure lies. It would be unfair to convict anyone solely based on a 'more trustworthy' testimony. I am aware that many cases are carried out this way, but in a moral and legal stance they should not. I apologize for the length of this and I respect you for skipping along a thin line when it comes to this issue. Keep up the great work as always.
Ryan Moore, oh so we should take “his opponent wouldn’t be surprised” that he’s capable of X or Y as evidence ? How American of you . Hope you get judged by the same “surprised” standard of evidence one day with no way to prove your innocence!
Which is exactly the reason why there should have been a proper FBI investigation and why Marc Judge, the one person the victim named as actually being present during that assault, should have been forced to testify in person.
100% agree. He wants to stretch our knowledge of the law but does not want to go so far as to bore or lose people while at the same time he has the right about of entertainment. He has some videos that are serious and deep dive while others that are totally on the fun sude with legalize added.
Believe it or not, this has been a legal question in the UK. Under a piece of poorly drafted legislation called The Dangerous Dogs Act, certain breeds were outlawed, but the law failed to properly define those breeds, so there were multiple cases involving canine family trees, genetic testing and so on to determine whether a particular animal was an alsation (if memory serves) or just a mutt.
Could you do a video where you do a full session of a legal process? Like you pick a case, show us how you would work it, and then how it would be played out in court?
C P sorry but your request is even more dumb. A better understanding of the legal process shouldn’t require a massive loan debt and a law degree. That is only required should one want to be an actual lawyer.
Stop beating him up for the request. Yes, preparing for a trial is a lengthy process and responds to a specific set of circumstances/charges and it would be difficult to cover that in detail in a TH-cam video. The best advice is to watch all of his videos, every one. Hopefully after that, you will see that the law is incredibly complex and that him describing the process would be insufficient in helping you understanding the complexities involved with taking an action (criminal or civil) to trial and adjudication.
Who in their right mind would ever request the FBI investigate themselves? Even if I knew I was 100% innocent of the charges I have no interest in a federal department picking apart my entire life for the world to see. And I think my lawyer would back me up on that one.
Only if you're 100% innocent. If you're guilty, you wouldn't want an investigation. An innocent man requests the investigation to exonerate them! Get it?
In Washington state some of these mean different then in other states. Devil's Triangle in my high school was a drinking game but it doesn't involve quarters.
Have you ever played quarters? > No. It's a quarter's game. Lol it reminds me of a Futurama episode. So Leela, where are you from? > Have you ever been to Peru? No. > I'm from Peru.
OBJECTION!: The phrasing of this statement implies a generalization that beagles are not inherently cute. I submit as evidence the following: images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/510Kf0epQ1L.jpg
I just discovered your channel and have been obsessed with youre lawyered show viewings... This is ballsy given how divisive we are currently but thats what good lawyers take on. Hope your channel keeps growing and looking forward to many more videos!
Objection: Judge Kavanaugh was not the judge in that hearing, he was the accused. Expecting an individual, even a judge to be impartial in that situation is like expecting a soccer player who's normally a referee not to care which goal the ball lands in.
Overruled: this was more like a job interview; your analogy is disastrously unsalvageable and confused with itself. If the soccer player was applying to be a referee, then they shouldn't care which goal is made, only objectively measuring that a goal was made by one team or the other, not advocating for the team he played on and penalizing the opposition.
@@Firehazard159 *Terrible* Analogy not withstanding, he's right. A man accused of such a crime would be furious if he was innocent, regardless of his occupation, but _especially_ a man who is in an occupation where he has the capacity to see these accusations ruin (and sometimes end) lives. Every woman who is found to have falsely accused someone of that crime should be sent to prison for at least 10 years, in my opinion. If they're willing to take that risk, then the man should be made to be calm and collected while evidence is being laid out. The fear of a false guilty verdict has pushed people to suicide, it shouldn't be thrown around lightly. *Especially out of court!!!*
Lawyers almost always ask a potential juror about jury nullification, but they never label it such. Instead they might ask something like, "Do you have any ideas or prejudices that would hinder you from following the instructions that I will give as to the law?" And since jury nullification is common with regard to drug laws, they might ask specifically if you agree with drug laws.
@@nathanberrigan9839 Then, if you're a juror, you're not admitting to jury nullification since that wasn't the question. What does 'agreeing' with a law even mean? What does 'following' a law even mean? A court has no authority to bar you from holding a law to be unjust or invalid in its application. CITIZENS are the final judge of fact AND law.
Idk.. I'm 2 years younger than him I was in a sorority and Never heard of Devils Triangle until this.. But after a bit.. I felt a connection.. Like was I at the country club house drinking bear with older cute college guys... I was in 1984.. Wrong place.. Them the rest if it reminded me of the movie Animal House.. I've called him that ever since
Contrary to Legal Eagles statement at the beginning. He is an obvious partisan actor. I am also pretty sure he thinks guilty until proven innocent should be the standard for sexual assault.
The title is in regards to the case which is termed the 'Kavanaugh vs Ford Hearing', at no point does it imply that Ford will be discussed, as there is no reason for him to stay from actually relevant detail.
@@zant41 nice job resorting to insults. very commendable. In your opinion the title "Real Law Review: Kavanaugh v. Ford Hearing" clearly states that he would review only kavanaugh testimony?
@@adamk4264 okay so first that wasn't an insult but ok go off. And then, no it doesn't, but it doesn't say it will show Ford's testimony. Kavanaugh v. Ford is just the name of the case.
Hey guys, Not being on the Supreme Court, isn’t destroying anyone’s life. Justice Kavanaugh was at a job interview, not a court of law. As a judge, his reality is that his temperament needs to be that of an even-keeled individual. True conservatism is supposed to be against Activist judges. From, A conservative
Objection: I dont think its possible to "lock down" a definition. Even one single persons usage of a term can evolve, espacialy if its some form of slang.
@@BlackEpyon Maybe, however they are asking K how he used it years earlier. You cant ask him what it meant and then try to "lock down" a different definition than he meant. Here would be an interesting example. You make a facebook post "My boy just turned 5". Seems harmless right? I call you to court and I lock down the definition of "boy" to be its historic version, boy = slave. I accuse you of violating the constitution. You argue thats not what that word means to you. Too bad, I already "locked down" the word. Legal Eagle obviously only supports one side in this and cant help himself.
@@beardedrogue4282 If that's the definition he's using, then the context changes from him having a 5 year old kid, to having a 5 year old slave, but at least we aren't talking past each other.
In addition to new cases and new legal controversies, I would LOVE for you to go back to older cases to review those as well, such as the OJ Simpson case (being innocent in crime, guilty in civil case), and other famous trials/legal issues in the past.
I thought the issue with the word ralphing, in this case, was whether or not it was from alcohol abuse specifically. Kavanaugh tried to make it about spicy food and the reason for eating spaghetti with ketchup.
Yes, it clearly means vomiting, but Cavanaugh was being blatantly disingenuous to suggest that he was remembered from the beach parties for vomiting due to "spicy foods". There were numerous people who came forward and said Cavanaugh was a big drinker when he was young. That shouldn't be disqualifying in and of itself, the issue is he needed to deny that he ever drank to excess or he'd open the door to admitting it was possible that her accusations were accurate and he was too intoxicated to remember. He lied under oath, could they prove perjury? I have no idea, but I'm the same age he is, and I know he was lying about a number of those terms. And having a supreme court justice who is willing to lie under oath, is not wonderful.
You sir, just poked a hornets nest. But I can fully appreciate the input from your particular perspective, very informative, thank you... And watch out for those nasty hornets. ;)
@@MrDavidKord No you don't, not everyone is or runs in your circles of friends, some people can be oblivious to words for decades, and also Ralph as defined by google dictionary and many others is be sick · spew · spew up · fetch up · heave · retch · reach · gag · get sick · throw up · puke · chunder · chuck up · hurl · pray to the porcelain god, not everyone is a depraved womanizer. and not everyone uses the same terms for words, and +LegalEgal was either ignorant, or purposefully misdirecting his viewers when he said Kavanaugh was "Dodging questions"
I can only add that in college a few years before the judges time the term for being sick after drinking was to 'call on Ralph ' and copious volunteers were known a Ralphers. Never heard the term used in any other context.
Objection: the meaning words & phrases can change overtime. Case in point: the word "sick". Once used strictly to describe thr feeling of being in bad health, it can now be used as an adjective to describe something really cool or sick. Along those lines, people have been known to take phrases & adapt them to a similar situation or something they feel it can fit.
So what we need to ask is: “Did these words mean these things in 1982?”. Not having been alive then, I couldn’t tell you, but the thing is: if people who were alive have to ask what they mean at all, they likely weren’t in common usage. Also, who asks people if they’ve farted while using the preterite tense?
I graduated HS in 80 and attended college from 80-84. I never heard of ANY of these words except "ralph" which simply meant to throw up. Even as wild as me and my crew were, we did not discuss or participate in "gang rape", that would be WAY off limits, we did play quarters though. The idea that these guys were talking about 3 way gang rape sounds ludicrous to me. Believe it or not, it was not a male free for all in the 80's as far as rape was concerned. It was as serious then and it is serious now. Raped women WOULD come forward if this had happened. Thinking about it on a personal level, it was women that were groping me and "raping" me while I was passed out drunk. One left me passed out in a car with my pants down, only to be discovered by campus police the next morning. LOL! Never forget that day. She told me i passed out and she "was gonna get hers". I laughed it off and never mentioned her name to police.
ikarikid, it's even more difficult than just “Did these words mean these things in 1982?”, after all there wasn't any global form of communication. It could be entirely possible for a word or set of words to mean entirely different things depending on country, or state. So I'd would have to be “Did these words mean these things in 1982 in Kavanaugh's group of friends?” which is going to be impossible to disprove as only they know.
Jeffrey Willis, you should tell your story in some newspaper somewhere. Raped men aren't being treated the same as raped women. To some extent this is fine if you're conservative in your views, but especially the more liberal, left-leaning democrats should be the ones most vehement about these crimes, but they aren't.
Sorry that the facts don’t fit your narrative, but if your only defense that this man is biased, them you really are looking for anything to support your argument
I won't form this as an objection more of a request. Dould you do another video talking about Fords testimony? I would be very interested to hear your take on her performance and during the hearing.
Thomas Moreland so... This guy presents legal explanations. I'm just confused why you would be here with a ludicrous unfounded claim? You don't seem to get the premise of this show
How about covering something about being convinced to take a plea deal when you tell your lawyer you are innocent and didn't do it? I know John Oliver covered it, and I also know I have experienced it once first hand. But it would be nice to hear about it in a more serious nature and know if there is any ways to clear your name after it has happened.
"I'm gonna answer these 5 questions with no biases" Proceeds to answer 0 questions with statements absolutely full of biases. You could've been there yourself if I hadn't known.
snate56 that doesn’t make sense. He is running for President. One of the constitutional powers of a president is the ability to select a Supreme Court judge. So the fact he is not ‘up for a position on the Supreme Court’ is of zero relevance. Also what do you mean ‘at the time’? At the time of the offence?
Everyone agrees that "ralphing" refers to throwing up, the point of the question was whether or not ralphing referred to having a weak stomach or to binge drinking.
Greyman Reb, that is true of lawyers also. One of the drawbacks of the adversarial legal system is that neither side seem to be really interested in justice and that applies to the adversarial political system too. We truly seem to live in a world where honesty is punished and lying is rewarded.
Objection...the common refrain "There is no evidence" is verbal shorthand. Most intelligent people recognize that eyewitness testimony is evidence, even when the person testifying might be biased or mistaken. There's no reason to take the phrase literally. In particular though, your example of a bank robbery vastly overstates the value of Dr. Ford's accusations. If a police officer witnesses a bank robbery there will be tellers who confirm that they were robbed. The location will be known. The bank will offer records to prove that money was taken. If a police officer's accusation were phrased as "I saw this man rob a bank, but I can't remember the date and I'm not sure where it took place and I didn't bother to report it.", there would be plenty of people and probably a few lawyers who would employ the phrase "No evidence of a crime", especially if the accused were a respected man with a long successful career free of any legal or ethical problems. The problem I have with your review of the case is that focuses almost exclusively on questions about Kavanaugh's character and demeanor. For example, you seem to think that the questions should have been more probing around the issue of Kavanaugh's weak stomach. It would make no sense to hold that position unless you think that a tolerance for Indian food would have represented a material impeachment of his testimony. Otherwise it's just a waste of time. You don't mention a similar line of questioning in which Dr. Ford was forced to admit that her fear of flying doesn't prevent her from taking several recreational trips every year via commercial airlines. Finally, I think your conclusion was disingenuous. Would Dr. Ford's testimony be enough to convince a jury? You say that you don't know. The real question is would it ever go to trial? Would a prosecutor look at the vague, unsubstantiated accusation from 30+ years ago and proceed with the case? Would it survive a motion for summary judgment? Rather than guess, or refuse to guess, at what a notoriously unpredictable jury outcome would be, it would have been more reasonable to examine how a legal professional would weigh the evidence.
The Federation itself is likely up for criminal negligence for putting 3rd in command of a starship, in direct responsibility for over a thousand personnel, both servicepeople and civilians, a creature whose degree of sentience is unknown. At best, the Federation is in violation of whatever automatic and computer-control law was put in to place to prevent another instance like unfortunate events that resulted in the serve damage to and the loss of all crew aboard the USS Excalibur (NCC-1664) when the M-5 computer was put in command of the USS Enterprise, since they had no proof or demonstrable evidence Data was a being and not an automaton when commissioning him (it).
+Visage Liquifier: But... but... Data rules...! 😄 Good point, though. Thank goodness lawyers seem to have less influence in the 24th century, or it woulda been a much less interesting show.
I know this is an older video. I’m new to your channel. I’m a 41 year old man and I’ve only known the term “ralphing” as throwing up, honestly I never knew that was a different definition. Honestly, I never heard of the other terms, such as; Devil’s Triangle?? I never heard of it. Same is true for the rest.
A devil's triangle is a type of threesome. That being said, I find it rather annoying that people are excluding the very obvious and extremely possible option that Brett was not, in fact, lying about the definition, but was rather referring to a drinking game he and his friends had perhaps invented. It is quite common for people to invent their own drinking games.
@@elazarsinger4187 "Devil's Triangle" is a common name for the Bermuda Triangle. We played a quarters game in the 80s; we didnt know the name, but consider: 3 glasses in a triangle. You shoot for the glass of the person you want to make drink. If you fall in the triangle, in the middle, you drink them all.
No he is not brave, he thought he is smart and charming and all legally savy, but as an idiot he actually picked the side with no evidence becuse of politics. And he did pick a side that much is obvious from his points.
Should they be treating this as a criminal trial and deciding whether the evidence is sufficient to decide guilt or should they be treating this as a job interview and deciding if he is a sufficiently qualified candidate. The two approaches may very well put Kavanaugh in a profoundly different light.
Given that no criminal allegation was presented against him, how the Democrats were acting like SCOTUS Justices themselves trying to take him down was sick. I don't know how the questions they asked were considered to be in order at any point.
Intresting wrinkle in the framing. In Washington DC it is illegal to ask about criminal allegations that did not result in a conviction during an interview.
We played drinking games calling them 18 different names... we invented new names all the time. How unimaginative that we now think urban dictionary limits or defines anything.
Your review of Kavanaugh's statements sort of makes sense but what I'm curious about as a layman is how it even got to that point. In particular, regarding Ford's testimony, which I remember watching and being absolutely shocked by because it contained so few specifics even time and place! If I, as someone who wasn't involved and didn't particularly care for either side, could look at it as silly, I'm sure Kavanaugh may have as well, which probably effected his testimony or at least demeanor. Imagine someone accuses you of a crime but can't tell you when or where it occurred. Then you are asked to basically account for your entire lifestyle during your youth including stupid things you did that might now make you appear foolish or asinine (neither of which, unlike an alleged sexual assault, is a crime btw). I'm sure very few of us would give answers that didn't seem similar in tone or content to Kavanaugh's.
I would go so far as to say that I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Ford not only lied but did so deliberately and with deliberate and malicious intent.
@@DenmarkRadar frankly, I think a liar would have been more specific and checked her story more. The quality of her testimony is fairly consistent with, trying to build memories from trauma and trying to remember something that happened 30 odd years ago. I think she was used politically for sure, but I don't think she was malisous
I'd support this, but from the standpoint of how Judge Judy (and shows like it) are not the same as litigation, but that it's actually arbitration that is occurring. Wildly different rules of evidence, and all decisions are typically final.
Objection: humans become emotional under stress and defensive against direct accusation. I dont think that he overreacted and no situation in court would be this personal.
Had he acted like an impartial judge, the headlines would have been how cold and calculated he was. How indifferent to the situation he was. The trolling was going to happen no matter what.
Even if he's innocent (I doubt it) he isn't fit to be a judge. Let alone the top ranking judge in America. It staggers me that so many men (and its mostly men) shrug off his incompetence, seemingly purely because he's been accused of rape. And I guess it is because you want a united front because you're all terrified of being called rapists. Well hint: don't rape people. Don't flirt with people who aren't interested. Don't do anything creepy. Its not that hard. Act like adults.
I watched the hearing for Judge Kavanaugh and have to admit I was influenced by partisanship. I was so focused on what I perceived to be character assassination attacks, that I missed the judge's temperament. Congress had the right to ask those questions, but got very vague answers or ridiculous ones. I have to say if I'm thinking non partisan that he was not guilty of sexual assault, but should not have been elevated to Justice. The simple fact he got mouthy with a sitting senator while she was performing her constitutional duties and allowed his frustration to get the better of him proves he doesn't have the proper temperament.
She wasn't performing her constitutional duties, she was grandstanding knowing she was planning a presidential bid. This was a confirmation hearing for the supreme court and they asked questions about gang rape brought forward by Avenatti. At that point they lost any semblance of credibility.
You do understand that, by definition, if he answers the yes or no truthfully it can't be perjury. That doesn't change in the U.S. no matter how animal adjacent a court is.
Sqkerg well what I am pointing out is that a perjury trap baited question is one in which there is no right answer because if you say “yes” they will say AHA! We Got you! and if they say “no” they will say “roll the tape from 10 years ago” It can be the slightest detail in the question that trips someone.. like “were you in fact at Starbucks at 10:am Sunday the 14th of July?” And if they say “yes I was” then the snake lawyer would say “that is a lie we have your receipt and your coffee was paid for at 9:52am” are we to believe it actually took you 8 minutes to stir in your cream and sugar? The average person takes approximately 1.5 minutes to stir in their sugar and cream. How do you like your coffee? Is it true that you always drink it black? So you didn’t need 8 minutes to stir anything into it before you left. You’re either lying now or you lied in your first deposition.
@@nunyabizness4892 In that scenario, you would say, I believe it was around that time, yes. You are still answering the question and you're not committing perjury by the most technical of margins. It's also worth pointing out that I can't possibly imagine a scenario where that would be take seriously, and that technical of a mistake obviously wouldn't have any standing.
Sqkerg I’ve heard witnesses be scolded by the like of shelia Jackson lee and kamala Harris yelling “yes or NO YES OR NO ANSWER THE QUESTION , YES OR NO!” And then if the witness answered either choice they build a false talking point off of it to circulate in the media
Objection: Your analysis of #4 is poor, in that you evade the central controversy, which is, what are the odds kavanaugh would be convicted in an actual court of law, to focus on a different question, whether direct testimony constitutes as proof. This comes off as a straw man, or a weak man, in that you evade one question to answer a question you can rationalize and handle more easily. A far better use of this time would be to examine the success rate of a prosecutor in a rape trial whose only major piece of evidence is the "victims" testimony. Would that be able to surpass the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." The answer is pretty obvious: probably not. It's telling that there are prosecutors who could make this case, and are incentivized to do so maybe not only for a dislike of kavanaugh, but also the press and acclaim such a case would bring them. They haven't, and likely because they know they couldn't get all 12 jury members to convict with the available facts
*You can't argue and question at the same time* 10:10 *You have to ask pointed yes or no questions* 11:24 The Arguments 12:22 Judge-like temperament 13:45 Sparring with the questioners 15:24 Character Evidence: Admissible if character is made an issue 16:19 Presidential Indictment 19:10 Blaisey Ford's burden of proof Circumstantial evidence Direct evidence 21:00 Testimony is evidence 21:53 Kavanaugh request for an investigation
You didn't seem to like the Democrat senators approach to questioning kavanaugh. What do you think about Rachel Mitchell? How well did she do, questioning Ford? An what is your opinion on Mitchell's report of this case?
That was the most asinine part of this whole thing. Back in the 80s there was far less monoculture (without the internet) and there were regional terms for all sorts of stuff. When you start getting into youth subcultures and all the possible slang that develops among cliques and groups of friends... yeah, I am pretty sure Devils Triangle could have meant 1000 different things that were not sexual.
People not being calm when asked in the manner of "Why did you rape her" ia totally understandable, and to deny the political reality around this situation ia dishonest
"Do you think Kavanaugh displayed a "Judge Like" behavior?" 16:14 Define "Judge Like" behavior. Take in to account Kavanaugh is much like a self representing defendant, which in your past episodes, you have stated is a terrible thing to do. I would also ask; how many judges, whom you would deem represent "Judge Like" behavior, have been put through similar circumstances? I would argue that there is no way to define what is "Judge Like" behavior and that it is highly subjective.
I think it is also not a legal question but rather a lawyer has greater knowledge and experience to offer an opinion than the average citizen. On the other hand, Kavanaugh clearly has the legal chops to understand the nature of the testimony he provided. He set the tone of political attack from the start in his prepared opening statement. It's clear he intended to play up the political circus aspect of the trial as his defense. Granted, this is in fact a political proceeding anyway, but I personally find that choice reprehensible and disqualifying independent of any assessment of perjury or guilt in sexual assault allegations.
You're acting like it's okay to act like a whiny baby... It's a job interview and Kavanaugh was crying cause he was assured he'd get it but OMG something came up that he has to actually do work... He displayed a lack of respect for the women there and a lack of dignity.
Late objection: lawyer seems to be already working from the assumption that the accused is lying and is not embroiled in a game of perception where truth rarely ever relevant. A little impartiality if you pleasez
Great point. At the same time the lawyer never addresses the veracity of the witness' testimony while continually questioning the truthfulness of the accused. Some impartiality would go a long way.
Objection: I have to disagree in the "judge like behavior" part, rigth now in the position that he is an Acussed and he should and could play that role the best his knowledge let him, why? Because he is been acused, he is not the judge in this hearings, and second yes there is proof, an accusation but is that acusation alone can sustain a crime such has sexual assualt on their own beyond reasonable doubt and even passed all that time....it will be a really hard case to win
can we get your take on the legal definition of gambling and how that applies to loot boxes in video games?
That'd be awesome!^^
Agreed. Maybe the problem with this however is that most of the cases being made are not US based (yet) so answer given here may not matter to what is happening now.
@@Scottland89 the takes I've heard so far have from armchair lawyers, I'd like to see someone who knows what they are talking about address it
@@jakemccloud2965 and that is why I, in the UK, had to wait until 21 to be able to drink alcohol, because the law is the same everywhere in the world 🙄 (infact I think that was something touched upon the Pheonix Wright video).
I endorse this idea.
"And you ask that exact question again until you get the answer that you're looking for." This is also extremely effective with children
Lol
.....and women.
@@icemule he's here all week folks, please give a warm welcome to Mid-90s Stand Up Comedian
Is it really? I'm definitely trying this when I have kids in like.....10 years....
Stephanie Rideout until it is badgering.
"Ketchup on spaghetti"
Guilty, your honor. Throw the book at him.
Give-ah him the ah-chair!
@@seanbrewer1232 Is that Mayor Quimby?
At least it’s not ketchup on steak. That’s an act of treason.
MotoX Champ but SPAGHETTI?
speaks ketchup is just another type of tomato sauce, it's not that bad, lmao
he's done it! the mad bastard has actually done it! he's found a way to get rid of hate comments!
Devon: *lifts dog* If it's not something you would say in front of Stella, don't comment it at all.
The most controversial thing here is the fact that Stella is not, in fact, a beagle
Objection... True Story but let us be happy
Neither i nor the lawyer are eagles.
@@TheLibermania -- But are you a libermaniac?
@@TGMS77 Sustained.
@@binbashbuddy I'm a Libermann (a poorly timed reference that noone will get), but name was taken. 😉
Objection: Stella is not a beagle.
This is the real issue here! Clearly a Bichon Frise.
Maybe Legal Beagal is the official position of the canis lupus familiaris mascot for this brand. It would be racist to require the mascot to fit a genotypical profile.
Mike Carson - or a Goldendoodle. Looks exactly like mine.
@@SolarMechanic Stella the legal bichon frise just doesn't have the same ring to it
Objection: character argument/ relevance, we still love her
Literally the best way to keep a comment section civil, show a dog
Cats are better
Well, that didn't take long.
that's the joke ;)
I would say showing a kitten and puppies would be even better but that's just my opinion
Punting a lawyers super cute dog would be a pretty bad move...good luck with that😂
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean "don't take a claim of sexual assault seriously". You don't have to instantly believe he's guilty to take her claims as possibly true.
I know that I am late to the party. But innocent until proven guilty isn't even the standard that should apply to confirmation hearings. confirmation hearings are not trials. They are job interviews.
@@Sewblon So the questions should pertain to the job. Is there a question that Kavanaugh is an alcoholic now? If not, why so many questions about his drinking in HS/College?
@@Sewblon1) Yes, they are job interviews. 2) No, it is not appropriate to assume guilt when considering firing someone over an accusation in the workplace.
So, you still assume innocence until proven guilty. There may be a less strict standard than a court of law, but you still need the presumption of innocence.
OBJECTION: I move to re title Stella "the LAWbradoodle"
Have a reply
I second
Cheezeblade the objection stands
Cheezeblade objection sustained
unknowning unknown I hold you in contempt of court for defamation.
You should cover the trial of Tyrion on Game of Thrones.
Ooooooo that would be awesome especially in consideration of the setting of the "middle ages" (in a fantasy world) 💜
jbrisby „REAL LAW review“
I don't think there's anything remotely similar to “trial by combat” in real modern law.
YES
@@nonh1 yet
Objection! Stella is not a beagle. She is pretty cute though.
Stella is a Poodle with a 'puppy cut'.
Sustained!
Linda Morrell or maybe a Westie mix.
Stella identifies as a Beagle. Therefore, according to precedent, she is a Beagle.
ok that's funny.
61 of the current Senators have law degrees. How can they be this bad at being lawyers?
You don't have to be a good lawyer to become a politician. In fact, I would think being a bad (or horrible) lawyer is a prerequisite for being a politician. Just like the old saying goes - 'Those who can do. Those who can't become management/politicians/inset any other useless position'.
@@SydBat more importantly they sought the status of the JD and SOME resume-stuffing that couldn't be challenged so they could see office and obtain the power and prestige.
So.... 61 vile people.
It's called "non practicing lawyers". Go to law school, pass the bar, and you can claim to be a "lawyer" the rest of your life. Not sure if there is a comparable occupation.
@@Eaglejake A fair number of doctors go to med school but end up doing other stuff. Engineers will also do it. People with teaching certificates claim to be teachers, but we all know they are overpaid, overindulged babysitters.
They were not avid subscribers to LegalEagles! BOOM! BAM!
you should review the 1994 OJ Simpson trial and the tv show the people vs oj simpson
Oh my god, yes.
Yes the Jury was too easy on OJ even after he confessed they gave him a not guilty verdict.
@@corpsman1980 The armchair Jury strikes again.
It's called beyond reasonable doubt.
It's the prosecution fault for failing to do so. The LAPD for their incompetence in collecting the blood and DNA evidence and how they handled it.
For putting a racist who then perjured himself on the stand and ended up pleading the fifth.
And Various other evidence.
Thomas Moreland you know that OJ is a free man, right?
Oh yeah! And the glove thing! I cannot put on gloves too big for my hand when I spread-hand try them on like OJ did. Also, the defense on how much blood evidence was collected and the slow ride chase of "What? Why are they following me?" It was a case of celebrity killing someone and thinking they could get away with it but someone in the plan betrayed the script.
It’s so hard to imagine that Devin was once a 17 year old boy. Like, he seems like he has been an ageless stereotypical-looking lawyer forever :0
I just imagine he looked exactly the same but smaller
Just popped out of the womb yelling objection.
And in his older age, if he goes gray, I recommend cultivating a dark hair look with gray temples.
This is one of the most polite political comment sections I’ve ever seen. Good use of the ban gavel.
And also of canine-aided emotional manipulation.
To all the "not a beagle" comments
How many of you are actually eagles? I'd argue very few
So Stella is not a beagle and he is very very far from being an eagle, especially the legal variety.
My last name is Eagle soooo
@@galaxy9radio664 I thought your last name was 9Radio
@@jacksoniansonex9235 hot damn you caught me 😂
(America intensifies)
I would love to see you take big name cases and show us how you would represent each side.
As for a movie, ”To Kill a Mockingbird”.
I second this. Would love to see him go through "To Kill a Mockingbird".
SouthstanderRSM Ooh that would be interesting. Especially because you could look at the book’s representation, the 1962 film’s representation, and how it was conducted in accordance to the laws and procedural standards of both then and now. Also, though I’m not sure he would do this without someone more familiar in the matter, he could examine how race has influenced trials in the US historically and now.
WTF
I'm not a law student, not even from the states, we have a different system here, but I'm loving these vids for some reason.
I find myself looking up things that he says to see if we have an equivalent here in the Canadian legal system.
@Silver Snacker If the "new" right is to be believed, everyone who isn't with them is a liberal. This is false, and is the best evidence of any brainwashing here.
Seems to me that you believe you can't be wrong. It must be that reality itself has a liberal bias!
They actually brought in a lawyer for this hearing - and once she questioned the "plaintiff," even the Democratic members of the Committee never called on her to question the "defendant." The whole thing is suspect, in my opinion.
Maria Frances Kamala Harris is a prosecutor so they did have a lawyer question him. They both sound like liars to me.
th-cam.com/video/oSiyEpt6lTQ/w-d-xo.html
rachel mitchell did a cross on BK
Alternative title: "How to think like a lawyer when you're being questioned by someone who isn't thinking like a lawyer."
Absolutely! 😁😁😊😊
This video is like stepping into the DMZ between North and South Korea trying to stop each other's armies from advancing lol.
They do sometimes. So do men.
@@celettu there have been FBI studies shoeing that rape is mostly undecided because it doesn't go to court or other reasons and more are proven false rather than true.
@James obviously. That's not the point.
I'm not picking a side here.
I'd like a link to these so-called "FBI studies."
Objection: I’m pretty sure that isn’t a beagle.
Sustained.
We must believe her!
Snoopy v California (1966) set the precedence that a beagle is "any dog of a size smaller than a collie but larger than a bread basket, with an overall whitish color and bearing some spots". Although we saw no spots on this dog, we did not see the entire dog and it is reasonable that there may be one or more spots on the posterior of said dog. Thus we can not rule out that it is a beagle.
Savant I was just completely and utterly owned by you.
Maybe the dog identifies as a beagle? :P
A lot of people are objecting here and I disagree with the premise that Kavanaugh had perjured himself, but I think this guy is making the point that the cross-examination was done incompetently.
Extremely so.
Part of the problem here is that many of these Senators, especially on the Dem side, may have been very able litigators in their youth but are far, far too old to be running these kinds of proceedings.
Let's see how civil the comments section is... Fingers crossed I'm surprised by everyone's discourse.
I can't imagine someone would be uncivil and break an otherwise stella comment section.
Time2LevelUp These are always the kinds of comment sections that are great. With stellar content creators you usually get great fan bases that can understand each other
Hear, hear!
He's not covering Ford. Comments will be fine. He isn't challenging the left sacred values.
Jack Crow true that cause trumptards values are no 1 Muuuuuuuuuurica
Objection! That's not a Beagle.
XD
But she's a good dog.
Bichon?
She identifies as one so she/he/them/it is one.
For the purposes of this court, we have not defined beagle narrowly.
Objection: In relation to the request to define "ralphing", Judge Kavanaugh did define it as throwing up (a term I also use to describe such) and then went on to explain he had a weak stomach and was prone to "ralphing."
Chris Lord yes, throwing up. But from drinking too much. He brings up the spicy food nonsense to detract from the fact he was known to drink too much. So much so, he would throw up. Ralphing.
They could have also asked about the “club” aspect. If he was ralphing purely from spicy food, how does that relate to beach week and the club about ralphing during beach week?
It really was disappointing to see how they could have pushed things further but didn’t. I guess that’s the problem when you get senators asking questions that you really should have a lawyer for.
It’s also why we saw Kamala Harris doing the right thing in pressing for an answer to her question- but having been a prosecutor, she knows what she’s doing.
@@fernie51296 Known by whom? It's a matter of opinion whether he drank "too much" because that is an inherently subjective standard.
@@katherinemorelle7115 Perhaps his friends made him eat spicy food?
@@clairelally3644 If you drink enough to vomit it's too much.
Shouldn’t all of those comments also apply to Ford’s testimony?
While she wasn’t the nominee, she did choose to make a bunch of accusations against a man that had a sterling reputation before she started talking. She needs to be just as thoroughly investigated as him. What if she’s just a nut job, or a partisan hack?
@@perrimadden6964 Sterling reputation?
@@thedoomnegotiator9693 yes, he was one of the most respected jurists in the country and has not even a slight blemish on his record before Blasey-Ford lied about him.
@@mrb152 Ah, I'll look into it. I wasn't being combative, just genuinely curious.
@Ulyssess It's true that Ford wasn't being nominated... At the same time, it's also true that she was allowed to "present evidence", and testify. **IF** the *truth* of her testimony can't be considered as a *real* issue, then in the future, any person could block any nomination on any grounds simply by making whatever accusation is convenient and/or likely to succeed in derailing the confirmation.
Further, this *was* a legal proceeding. I'm not entirely certain, but I think the closest analogy to the usual legal terms would be a "deposition". If it were not a "legal proceeding", then perjury would be impossible. Her "testimony" was "entered as evidence", and therefore subject to cross-examination.
In the long term, as a nominee for judge, HIS veracity, or lack of it, is, of course, the most important thing. Nevertheless, in the *short* term, HER veracity is equally important. A potential liar should not be allowed to sway the decision in either direction.
Objection! A "weak stomach" is a description which could apply to someone who is believed to be unable to handle the amount of alcohol as others in a comparative group (such as a group of friends). It is a valid statement that can be a legitimate description that may also be a reference to alcohol without actually referencing it.
You statement is absurd. You fail to refute the judge unless you can demonstrate that there is not just another reasonable definition but that there is NO OTHER reasonable definition. You fail to do that. Reason refutes your argument.
Objection! That shelf in the background needs to be reinforced, it's bowing in the middle.
3nails4you overruled, it’s bending but unbroken
"Bend but don't break" - classic lawyering
bend don't break
Objection! Optical illusion
I noticed that in the first 2 seconds lmao
There is a VERY important point in your presentation: the senators missed questioning opportunities and mixed debate with questioning. The debates might have been important to the senators to show how they think to the people who elected them but at the same time prevented them to reach their stated goal.
@SysPowerTools not to mention the person who pushed her to accuse him also did it for several other women at the time whos stories had even-less credibility
Add to all this the irony of his appointment being resisted by utter loons dressed up in those ridiculous outfits from that asinine fear porn called The Handmaid's Tale; this was all predicated on the fear that Kavanaugh would singly overturn Roe v. Wade (which is actually worthy of review given that the woman came to deeply regret her original motives)...only for his first showing in the high court to be him siding with the more liberal justices on not even hearing a case which might have had such implications. They assassinated the man's character over nothing and continue to do so because admitting they were wrong and extending an apology is not part of the leftist playbook.
@@The_Lucent_Archangel what's crazy is dems have cried about roe v wade possibly being overturned for almost 20 years, yet nobody even remembers it until they cry about it. It's just part of their election toolkit now along with crying rape and racism that dates back to the 70s
phatymcdaddy Abortion is firmly entrenched in the toolkit of both parties. Any time Republicans need to whip up the evangelical vote they ring the pro-life bell and get their Pavlovian response.
SysPowerTools I don’t know what’s true, but I do know that Kavanaugh was lying his ass off about the terms he used in those journals. If he lies under oath what else would he lie about?
Every face Kavanaugh made in this trial showed unprofessional comportment to me. He does not appear to show maturity or empathy for any women who have been through sexual assault. People say it was an emotional experience for him and I understand that, but like DJ says, Supreme Court Justices are held to very high standards. He knew the expectations for himself and he did not hold up to it for this job. It concerns me greatly that he is currently on the Supreme Court.
You're doing good work, not just for educational purposes but for the health of the country. I'm a big fan of all your videos and they've given me insight and respect for the profession of law. I don't think I could ever be a lawyer but as a citizen I love your channel and find it useful and helpful. As always, I eagerly await your uploads and this looks like the start of a great series!
John Thangam a
Why no break down of Ford's testimony as well?
Simple: he's trying to show Kavanaugh is a liar while inferring Ford's telling the truth by omission of her inconsistencies. It's using a simple logic fallacy to pretend you're being objective when you've already prejudged a decision. The other logic fallacy involves meanings of denotation and connotation: the prior meanings and understandings of words might vary from one generation to another. For instance, in my part of the state of Maryland from the 70s to 80s, Devil's Triangle=Satan's Triangle= Bermuda Triangle=Quarters at the local bars. Remnants of that are found in the "Island" variation. That might not be what it means now so if you force the contemporary definition as the same as the earlier definition... :?
Probably because Ford was not up for a position on the Supreme Court. Whereas Kavenugh was up for a position on the court. It seems that people forget that giving eyewitness testimony about an event is different than testimony about one's own actions and how they would behave on SCOTUS.
@@Spartan117KC
"Spartan117KC
25 minutes ago
"Probably because Ford was not up for a position on the Supreme Court. Whereas Kavenugh was up for a position on the court."
That shouldn't make any difference to a "trier of fact." So far, he hasn't dissuaded me from thinking he has a hidden agenda, an 'unvoiced premise' he's leading the viewer as the legal Sherpa.
"It seems that people forget that giving eyewitness testimony about an event is different than testimony about one's own actions and how they would behave on SCOTUS."
Yes, because people giving testimony involving him/her/themselves tend to portray events favorable to 'one's own actions' for accused and accuser. So, the method to determine which is more accurate is based on the likelihood of a past event and that depends on the accounts of those that can verify or corroborate the event being contested.
Lol I see where your vote is. Jesus we can’t even get a breakdown without you conservative snowflakes crying. How about we talk about the person accused
@Bill Carson "... It seems like common sense to me that Ford's testimony should be equally scrutinized to discourage corrupt stall tactics from the other side."
I agree that her testimony should be equally scrutinized but for me it's to determine what did or did not occur-- that is who was more truthful or not. Her account fell to pieces that's why the Senators who had been lawyers took one of two paths: 1) they stopped beating on Ford or 2) they beat down more on Kavanaugh. And that showed the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths.
What you saw then was a logic fallacy in action: intentional infliction of emotional pain leads to the truth; it doesn't, it only leads to conduct to relieve the pain.
Objection: Although it is correct to say that both Ford and Kavanaugh's testimonies are evidence, it is also key to note that there is no significant evidence to link Kavanaugh to the specific crime that he is accused of other then tests of his moral character. In a he said/she said scenario, it is the burden of the accuser to prove a lie or fault in the accused's testimony. To use your cop/robber example, a jury would clearly be more inclined to believe the cop as a sign of authority, but that should not be the sole rationale of conviction as there is still a chance that the authoritarian figure lies. It would be unfair to convict anyone solely based on a 'more trustworthy' testimony. I am aware that many cases are carried out this way, but in a moral and legal stance they should not. I apologize for the length of this and I respect you for skipping along a thin line when it comes to this issue. Keep up the great work as always.
except that numerous people have said they would not be surprised and the one witness who could confirm is keeping his mouth shut
Good Evidence, Bad Evidence, Admissible Evidence.
Ryan Moore, oh so we should take “his opponent wouldn’t be surprised” that he’s capable of X or Y as evidence ? How American of you . Hope you get judged by the same “surprised” standard of evidence one day with no way to prove your innocence!
Which is exactly the reason why there should have been a proper FBI investigation and why Marc Judge, the one person the victim named as actually being present during that assault, should have been forced to testify in person.
swanpride mark judge said what he wanted to say in a sword statement! If he deviated from that statement he goes to prison.
This is an awesome legal channel, perfect mix of informative and entertaining. Thank you!
100% agree. He wants to stretch our knowledge of the law but does not want to go so far as to bore or lose people while at the same time he has the right about of entertainment. He has some videos that are serious and deep dive while others that are totally on the fun sude with legalize added.
I felt like I was charged $500 for watching this video.
Na Br I watched it on 1.25x speed so I was only billed $400
... and got no answers for your money.
Yeah, I liked the end especially "So, do you agree?"
Agree with what?
kinda need to wash the slime off, huh? Me too.
😂🤣
Objection: Stella is not a beagle!
no, She's a legal Beagle
Believe it or not, this has been a legal question in the UK.
Under a piece of poorly drafted legislation called The Dangerous Dogs Act, certain breeds were outlawed, but the law failed to properly define those breeds, so there were multiple cases involving canine family trees, genetic testing and so on to determine whether a particular animal was an alsation (if memory serves) or just a mutt.
a beagle is a small hound for hunting hares.
Joel Ellis Stella may not be a beagle but she is (proper noun) a Legal Beagle. Discuss.
Sustained.
Could you do a video where you do a full session of a legal process? Like you pick a case, show us how you would work it, and then how it would be played out in court?
That's a crazy lengthy process. And it is also different whether civil or criminal.
C P sorry but your request is even more dumb. A better understanding of the legal process shouldn’t require a massive loan debt and a law degree. That is only required should one want to be an actual lawyer.
Stop beating him up for the request. Yes, preparing for a trial is a lengthy process and responds to a specific set of circumstances/charges and it would be difficult to cover that in detail in a TH-cam video. The best advice is to watch all of his videos, every one. Hopefully after that, you will see that the law is incredibly complex and that him describing the process would be insufficient in helping you understanding the complexities involved with taking an action (criminal or civil) to trial and adjudication.
Who in their right mind would ever request the FBI investigate themselves? Even if I knew I was 100% innocent of the charges I have no interest in a federal department picking apart my entire life for the world to see. And I think my lawyer would back me up on that one.
Only if you're 100% innocent. If you're guilty, you wouldn't want an investigation. An innocent man requests the investigation to exonerate them! Get it?
AN INNOCENT MAN!!
In Washington state some of these mean different then in other states. Devil's Triangle in my high school was a drinking game but it doesn't involve quarters.
Have you ever played quarters? > No.
It's a quarter's game.
Lol it reminds me of a Futurama episode.
So Leela, where are you from?
> Have you ever been to Peru?
No.
> I'm from Peru.
he said it was "like Quarters" not quarters :(
???"In Washington state some of these mean different then in other states."???
Will that be Blue Cheese or Thousand Island with that word-salad?
@@troyevitt2437 Neither, some things mean different in different places, it's almost like cultures affect words :D
@@biggshoverwelder3690 Either incorrect syntax or punctuation. Word-salad is word-salad.
Objection: Stella is way cuter than a beagle.
OBJECTION!:
The phrasing of this statement implies a generalization that beagles are not inherently cute. I submit as evidence the following:
images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/510Kf0epQ1L.jpg
Objection: Speculation. At no point did I comment on the cuteness of cute little beagles.
...sustained. 😄
"Objection: Stella is way cuter than a beagle."
I wish to write the concurring opinion.
Objection! Immaterial!
The Cuteness of Stella V. Beagles isn't the issue. This being a moot point, Stella remains not a beagle either outcome reached.
I just discovered your channel and have been obsessed with youre lawyered show viewings...
This is ballsy given how divisive we are currently but thats what good lawyers take on.
Hope your channel keeps growing and looking forward to many more videos!
Objection: Judge Kavanaugh was not the judge in that hearing, he was the accused. Expecting an individual, even a judge to be impartial in that situation is like expecting a soccer player who's normally a referee not to care which goal the ball lands in.
Howling Din whether he was impartial to the issue of his confirmation to the supreme court was not addressed in the video
Truth.
Overruled: this was more like a job interview; your analogy is disastrously unsalvageable and confused with itself.
If the soccer player was applying to be a referee, then they shouldn't care which goal is made, only objectively measuring that a goal was made by one team or the other, not advocating for the team he played on and penalizing the opposition.
@@Firehazard159 *Terrible* Analogy not withstanding, he's right.
A man accused of such a crime would be furious if he was innocent, regardless of his occupation, but _especially_ a man who is in an occupation where he has the capacity to see these accusations ruin (and sometimes end) lives.
Every woman who is found to have falsely accused someone of that crime should be sent to prison for at least 10 years, in my opinion.
If they're willing to take that risk, then the man should be made to be calm and collected while evidence is being laid out. The fear of a false guilty verdict has pushed people to suicide, it shouldn't be thrown around lightly.
*Especially out of court!!!*
@UlyssessThese people have such selective tunnel vision. I almost can't wait for the crying to begin when he does something they don't like.
@LegalEagle:
Sen Leahy: *_"...I been on this committee 44 years..."_* Yeah, and you can see why people are lobbying for Term-Limits!
Hey Legal Eagle. Can you make a video about jury nullification and why it's sort of a taboo to talk about it?
CGPGrey did a great video on this, if you haven't seen it look it up!
This channel is about the lawyer side of things. JN isn't a good fit.
Lawyers almost always ask a potential juror about jury nullification, but they never label it such. Instead they might ask something like, "Do you have any ideas or prejudices that would hinder you from following the instructions that I will give as to the law?" And since jury nullification is common with regard to drug laws, they might ask specifically if you agree with drug laws.
@@nathanberrigan9839 Then, if you're a juror, you're not admitting to jury nullification since that wasn't the question. What does 'agreeing' with a law even mean? What does 'following' a law even mean? A court has no authority to bar you from holding a law to be unjust or invalid in its application. CITIZENS are the final judge of fact AND law.
@@c.a.g.3130 Prosecutors know we have that right which is why they try to fish out jurors who know our rights and use their free dismissals on them.
Found this show like a week ago and ate through all content in a week. Your show is too good
The ultimate example of lawyering. DJ answered *no* questions! 😂
SupermanHopkins typical lawyer answer: “it depends...”
If my Freshmen councilor knew what a Devil’s Triangle was, the freaking senators knew. LOL. I could draw them a picture. No quarters involved. 😆😆😆😆
People can have different colloquialisms for games and activities
@Captain Caveman I believe the term you're looking for is "Spitroasting"
Oh they knew too, but putting him on the spot would have meant admitting that...
Everyone who watched How I met your Mother knew that lmao. We know you know, guys!
Idk.. I'm 2 years younger than him I was in a sorority and Never heard of Devils Triangle until this.. But after a bit.. I felt a connection.. Like was I at the country club house drinking bear with older cute college guys... I was in 1984.. Wrong place.. Them the rest if it reminded me of the movie Animal House.. I've called him that ever since
I thought the title read : "Real Law Review: Kavanaugh v. Ford Hearing", where is the Ford part of the review?
Contrary to Legal Eagles statement at the beginning. He is an obvious partisan actor. I am also pretty sure he thinks guilty until proven innocent should be the standard for sexual assault.
The title is in regards to the case which is termed the 'Kavanaugh vs Ford Hearing', at no point does it imply that Ford will be discussed, as there is no reason for him to stay from actually relevant detail.
Ok so you just can't read that's all
@@zant41 nice job resorting to insults. very commendable. In your opinion the title "Real Law Review: Kavanaugh v. Ford Hearing" clearly states that he would review only kavanaugh testimony?
@@adamk4264 okay so first that wasn't an insult but ok go off. And then, no it doesn't, but it doesn't say it will show Ford's testimony. Kavanaugh v. Ford is just the name of the case.
Do a video where you check out r/legaladvice. There are people there who could really use your help.
That sub is a dumpster fire.
@@trucid2 Every Reddit sub is.
@A. Knight So truueeee!!! :')))
@@igbk6155 Worse even than 2XC? That's hard to believe.
I wouldn't want the FBI investigating me. Also I love how he isn't allowed to get upset about people trying to destroy his life.
Hey guys,
Not being on the Supreme Court, isn’t destroying anyone’s life. Justice Kavanaugh was at a job interview, not a court of law. As a judge, his reality is that his temperament needs to be that of an even-keeled individual. True conservatism is supposed to be against Activist judges.
From,
A conservative
Daniel your a damn liar
@@malcolmwolfe8879 Calling him a rapist and trying to get him fired from his job is destroying someones life
@@malcolmwolfe8879 Hey everybody, this guy is touches children. You aren't a conservative, stop lying.
Nick.Insane.Bane you’re*
Ex: you’re a reason why I believe IQ tests should be required for voting and reproduction.
Objection: I dont think its possible to "lock down" a definition. Even one single persons usage of a term can evolve, espacialy if its some form of slang.
Yes, but for the sake of the argument,trial, etc, you need to agree on a common definition so that you're not talking past each other.
@@BlackEpyon Maybe, however they are asking K how he used it years earlier. You cant ask him what it meant and then try to "lock down" a different definition than he meant. Here would be an interesting example. You make a facebook post "My boy just turned 5". Seems harmless right? I call you to court and I lock down the definition of "boy" to be its historic version, boy = slave. I accuse you of violating the constitution. You argue thats not what that word means to you. Too bad, I already "locked down" the word.
Legal Eagle obviously only supports one side in this and cant help himself.
@@MarkTatsu Okay, I'll play along. Your boy (slave) just turned 5. Slavery is illegal. Why you you have a slave?
@@BlackEpyon You just proved his point.
@@beardedrogue4282 If that's the definition he's using, then the context changes from him having a 5 year old kid, to having a 5 year old slave, but at least we aren't talking past each other.
In addition to new cases and new legal controversies, I would LOVE for you to go back to older cases to review those as well, such as the OJ Simpson case (being innocent in crime, guilty in civil case), and other famous trials/legal issues in the past.
Yeah, that'd be cool. As I'm sure LegalEagle would mention, though, you can't be found guilty in a civil case, just liable.
Not guilty because the jury didn't want another riot. Liable in civil court because he murdered two people.
Props to you man for having the courage to actually discuss real important legal issues like this from an informed legal stand point
Double Props for negotiating the minefield that this issue is.
As far as Kamala Harris’s question about an fbi investigation. No it is not his job to prove his innocence, it is her job to prove otherwise
That Legal Beagle doesn't look like a beagle...
The illegal beagle
I have a feeling the legal beagle is going to be shocked and appalled by this controversial statement
Should have objected.
Stella identifies as a Beagle. Therefore, according to precedent, she's a Beagle.
Objection: I haven’t heard the term ralphing for years, but where I come from, it does mean vomiting.
True, I only ever heard that word in terms of vomit, but I only have heard it once.
ralphing always means vomiting
I thought the issue with the word ralphing, in this case, was whether or not it was from alcohol abuse specifically. Kavanaugh tried to make it about spicy food and the reason for eating spaghetti with ketchup.
Yes, it clearly means vomiting, but Cavanaugh was being blatantly disingenuous to suggest that he was remembered from the beach parties for vomiting due to "spicy foods". There were numerous people who came forward and said Cavanaugh was a big drinker when he was young. That shouldn't be disqualifying in and of itself, the issue is he needed to deny that he ever drank to excess or he'd open the door to admitting it was possible that her accusations were accurate and he was too intoxicated to remember. He lied under oath, could they prove perjury? I have no idea, but I'm the same age he is, and I know he was lying about a number of those terms. And having a supreme court justice who is willing to lie under oath, is not wonderful.
"Hay Ralph, lets go for a ride in my Buick"
I don't know why I went into this comment section.
Division of Zero calm down, it’s not that bad.
@Div/0: It is where the cool kids hang out.
to make sure it was safe for Stella
The answer is is either undefined or infinite...
I came to see how many called out the obvious bias. Not a terribly low amount, thankfully.
Good thing this wasnt picking apart fords case because it would be open and shut
Yep, a whole 30 second video. I suppose he couldn't find room for it in this one though...
You sir, just poked a hornets nest.
But I can fully appreciate the input from your particular perspective, very informative, thank you... And watch out for those nasty hornets. ;)
Well, "ralph" does mean to vomit, in terms of a 1980 or so issue of Mad magazine.
Yeah, but in college when someone calls you the "Ralph king" while talking about drinking a ton, you know what they're talking about.
Kavanaugh said it was vomiting. There should be no controversy on this.
Ralph = to vomit.
@@MrDavidKord No you don't, not everyone is or runs in your circles of friends, some people can be oblivious to words for decades, and also Ralph as defined by google dictionary and many others is be sick · spew · spew up · fetch up · heave · retch · reach · gag · get sick · throw up · puke · chunder · chuck up · hurl · pray to the porcelain god, not everyone is a depraved womanizer. and not everyone uses the same terms for words, and +LegalEgal was either ignorant, or purposefully misdirecting his viewers when he said Kavanaugh was "Dodging questions"
I can only add that in college a few years before the judges time the term for being sick after drinking was to 'call on Ralph ' and copious volunteers were known a Ralphers. Never heard the term used in any other context.
Objection: the meaning words & phrases can change overtime. Case in point: the word "sick". Once used strictly to describe thr feeling of being in bad health, it can now be used as an adjective to describe something really cool or sick. Along those lines, people have been known to take phrases & adapt them to a similar situation or something they feel it can fit.
So what we need to ask is: “Did these words mean these things in 1982?”. Not having been alive then, I couldn’t tell you, but the thing is: if people who were alive have to ask what they mean at all, they likely weren’t in common usage. Also, who asks people if they’ve farted while using the preterite tense?
ikarikid There is such a thing as an inside joke. And teenagers are often lewd in their use of their language, I know I was.
I graduated HS in 80 and attended college from 80-84. I never heard of ANY of these words except "ralph" which simply meant to throw up. Even as wild as me and my crew were, we did not discuss or participate in "gang rape", that would be WAY off limits, we did play quarters though. The idea that these guys were talking about 3 way gang rape sounds ludicrous to me. Believe it or not, it was not a male free for all in the 80's as far as rape was concerned. It was as serious then and it is serious now. Raped women WOULD come forward if this had happened. Thinking about it on a personal level, it was women that were groping me and "raping" me while I was passed out drunk. One left me passed out in a car with my pants down, only to be discovered by campus police the next morning. LOL! Never forget that day. She told me i passed out and she "was gonna get hers". I laughed it off and never mentioned her name to police.
ikarikid, it's even more difficult than just “Did these words mean these things in 1982?”, after all there wasn't any global form of communication. It could be entirely possible for a word or set of words to mean entirely different things depending on country, or state. So I'd would have to be “Did these words mean these things in 1982 in Kavanaugh's group of friends?” which is going to be impossible to disprove as only they know.
Jeffrey Willis, you should tell your story in some newspaper somewhere. Raped men aren't being treated the same as raped women. To some extent this is fine if you're conservative in your views, but especially the more liberal, left-leaning democrats should be the ones most vehement about these crimes, but they aren't.
“I’m not trying to be biased, just give my opinion as a lawyer”
Yea so that was a lie.
Sorry that the facts don’t fit your narrative, but if your only defense that this man is biased, them you really are looking for anything to support your argument
@@armandogarza2995 that's not the case here. Ford doesnt remember the time nor place. Key factors in cases like these.
I won't form this as an objection more of a request. Dould you do another video talking about Fords testimony? I would be very interested to hear your take on her performance and during the hearing.
Performance is a really good way to describe it when she was being paid to lie.
@@corpsman1980 sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. What other conspiracy theories do you believe? Flat earth?
Thomas Moreland so... This guy presents legal explanations. I'm just confused why you would be here with a ludicrous unfounded claim? You don't seem to get the premise of this show
Jennifer, Ford was the one with the ridiculous claim
@@maxbailey4971 saying she was paid to come forward is the ludicrous claim. Kavanaugh lied about the devil's triangle, boofing, ffff....
Funny since 80% of the senators have law degrees
How about covering something about being convinced to take a plea deal when you tell your lawyer you are innocent and didn't do it? I know John Oliver covered it, and I also know I have experienced it once first hand. But it would be nice to hear about it in a more serious nature and know if there is any ways to clear your name after it has happened.
"I'm gonna answer these 5 questions with no biases"
Proceeds to answer 0 questions with statements absolutely full of biases. You could've been there yourself if I hadn't known.
Ah i remember last time i went to a party and played devils triangle with the bros
🤣😂
objection: you didn't actually answer most of the questions.
I suppose to "cover" a question isn't the same as answering a question, but your objection is sustained imo
Bailiff!
Can you explain the difference between this case and the allegations of Tara Reid against Joe Biden and if there should be an FBI investigation?
Hé can’t so he won’t
then we need to do the same about the allegations against Trump. If you want to go down that slippery slope I will be happy to have both investigated.
There may indeed be no difference, however at the time, Joe Biden was not up for a position on the Supreme Court.
snate56 that doesn’t make sense. He is running for President. One of the constitutional powers of a president is the ability to select a Supreme Court judge. So the fact he is not ‘up for a position on the Supreme Court’ is of zero relevance.
Also what do you mean ‘at the time’? At the time of the offence?
@@raymond2018 Um, yeah? Why would we not do both?
Kavanaugh is around my age (I'm 55), and yes to "ralph" was to vomit/puke. At least in CT/NY in the 70s/early-80s. And I guess in MD as well.
Massachusetts too, says this 52 year old lifelong resident.
I’m 21 and live in Canada, (my dad is 58) and I’ve also always known “to Ralph” as “to vomit”
Nobody is contesting that, why is this even the conversation?
Nobody disputed that.
Everyone agrees that "ralphing" refers to throwing up, the point of the question was whether or not ralphing referred to having a weak stomach or to binge drinking.
Stella appropriate you say?
Woof woof bark yap woof bark bark yap bark yap woof woof yap yap bark woof
My dog has an add on:
Bark bark bark woof
@@Jogjosmowwdkfs Your dog should watch his language, there are children present
@@connorfreeman5825 Wrong there are /*/**56 here.
@@Jogjosmowwdkfs my cat responded me. meow, his, meow, mew!
When a politician tells someone they only want a "yes or no" answer, they're just looking for a gotcha sound bite. Everyone knows that.
And not trying to examine a person? You can’t do both?
@@armandogarza2995 That is the drawback of having politicians examine persons.
Especially Harris.
Greyman Reb, that is true of lawyers also. One of the drawbacks of the adversarial legal system is that neither side seem to be really interested in justice and that applies to the adversarial political system too. We truly seem to live in a world where honesty is punished and lying is rewarded.
not true tho
Objection! The so-called "legal beagle" is no beagle at all.
Objection...the common refrain "There is no evidence" is verbal shorthand. Most intelligent people recognize that eyewitness testimony is evidence, even when the person testifying might be biased or mistaken. There's no reason to take the phrase literally. In particular though, your example of a bank robbery vastly overstates the value of Dr. Ford's accusations. If a police officer witnesses a bank robbery there will be tellers who confirm that they were robbed. The location will be known. The bank will offer records to prove that money was taken. If a police officer's accusation were phrased as "I saw this man rob a bank, but I can't remember the date and I'm not sure where it took place and I didn't bother to report it.", there would be plenty of people and probably a few lawyers who would employ the phrase "No evidence of a crime", especially if the accused were a respected man with a long successful career free of any legal or ethical problems.
The problem I have with your review of the case is that focuses almost exclusively on questions about Kavanaugh's character and demeanor. For example, you seem to think that the questions should have been more probing around the issue of Kavanaugh's weak stomach. It would make no sense to hold that position unless you think that a tolerance for Indian food would have represented a material impeachment of his testimony. Otherwise it's just a waste of time. You don't mention a similar line of questioning in which Dr. Ford was forced to admit that her fear of flying doesn't prevent her from taking several recreational trips every year via commercial airlines.
Finally, I think your conclusion was disingenuous. Would Dr. Ford's testimony be enough to convince a jury? You say that you don't know. The real question is would it ever go to trial? Would a prosecutor look at the vague, unsubstantiated accusation from 30+ years ago and proceed with the case? Would it survive a motion for summary judgment? Rather than guess, or refuse to guess, at what a notoriously unpredictable jury outcome would be, it would have been more reasonable to examine how a legal professional would weigh the evidence.
Star trek next generation, measure of a man. Data on trial for his life, please review
Oo. Yeah. Good one.
Star Trek the next Generation The Drum Head. That was a great episode.
The Federation itself is likely up for criminal negligence for putting 3rd in command of a starship, in direct responsibility for over a thousand personnel, both servicepeople and civilians, a creature whose degree of sentience is unknown. At best, the Federation is in violation of whatever automatic and computer-control law was put in to place to prevent another instance like unfortunate events that resulted in the serve damage to and the loss of all crew aboard the USS Excalibur (NCC-1664) when the M-5 computer was put in command of the USS Enterprise, since they had no proof or demonstrable evidence Data was a being and not an automaton when commissioning him (it).
+Visage Liquifier: But... but... Data rules...! 😄 Good point, though. Thank goodness lawyers seem to have less influence in the 24th century, or it woulda been a much less interesting show.
I'd like to see Encounter at Farpoint discussed. Any excuse to see Q is worth a watch.
I would be interested in your opinion on how the other side of the case behaved legally.
I know this is an older video. I’m new to your channel. I’m a 41 year old man and I’ve only known the term “ralphing” as throwing up, honestly I never knew that was a different definition.
Honestly, I never heard of the other terms, such as; Devil’s Triangle?? I never heard of it. Same is true for the rest.
A devil's triangle is a type of threesome. That being said, I find it rather annoying that people are excluding the very obvious and extremely possible option that Brett was not, in fact, lying about the definition, but was rather referring to a drinking game he and his friends had perhaps invented. It is quite common for people to invent their own drinking games.
@@elazarsinger4187
"Devil's Triangle" is a common name for the Bermuda Triangle. We played a quarters game in the 80s; we didnt know the name, but consider: 3 glasses in a triangle. You shoot for the glass of the person you want to make drink. If you fall in the triangle, in the middle, you drink them all.
@@springbloom5940 well there you go.
I'm 41 as well and have only known the term devils triangle as a drinking game.
@@elazarsinger4187 Especially moronic high school boys.
Not doing a very good job of hiding your BIAS!
Oh boy. You're a brave one getting into this
No he is not brave, he thought he is smart and charming and all legally savy, but as an idiot he actually picked the side with no evidence becuse of politics. And he did pick a side that much is obvious from his points.
Should they be treating this as a criminal trial and deciding whether the evidence is sufficient to decide guilt or should they be treating this as a job interview and deciding if he is a sufficiently qualified candidate. The two approaches may very well put Kavanaugh in a profoundly different light.
Given that no criminal allegation was presented against him, how the Democrats were acting like SCOTUS Justices themselves trying to take him down was sick. I don't know how the questions they asked were considered to be in order at any point.
Intresting wrinkle in the framing. In Washington DC it is illegal to ask about criminal allegations that did not result in a conviction during an interview.
"That's why everyone hates moral philosophy" - The Legal Eagle watches the Good Place 😮
We played drinking games calling them 18 different names... we invented new names all the time. How unimaginative that we now think urban dictionary limits or defines anything.
Your review of Kavanaugh's statements sort of makes sense but what I'm curious about as a layman is how it even got to that point. In particular, regarding Ford's testimony, which I remember watching and being absolutely shocked by because it contained so few specifics even time and place! If I, as someone who wasn't involved and didn't particularly care for either side, could look at it as silly, I'm sure Kavanaugh may have as well, which probably effected his testimony or at least demeanor. Imagine someone accuses you of a crime but can't tell you when or where it occurred. Then you are asked to basically account for your entire lifestyle during your youth including stupid things you did that might now make you appear foolish or asinine (neither of which, unlike an alleged sexual assault, is a crime btw). I'm sure very few of us would give answers that didn't seem similar in tone or content to Kavanaugh's.
I would go so far as to say that I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Ford not only lied but did so deliberately and with deliberate and malicious intent.
@@DenmarkRadar frankly, I think a liar would have been more specific and checked her story more.
The quality of her testimony is fairly consistent with, trying to build memories from trauma and trying to remember something that happened 30 odd years ago.
I think she was used politically for sure, but I don't think she was malisous
Will you have a episode & your legal opinion on Judge Judy, and other shows like it?
This is a fantastic idea.
I support this.
I'd support this, but from the standpoint of how Judge Judy (and shows like it) are not the same as litigation, but that it's actually arbitration that is occurring. Wildly different rules of evidence, and all decisions are typically final.
Objection: humans become emotional under stress and defensive against direct accusation. I dont think that he overreacted and no situation in court would be this personal.
Had he acted like an impartial judge, the headlines would have been how cold and calculated he was. How indifferent to the situation he was. The trolling was going to happen no matter what.
Even if he's innocent (I doubt it) he isn't fit to be a judge. Let alone the top ranking judge in America. It staggers me that so many men (and its mostly men) shrug off his incompetence, seemingly purely because he's been accused of rape. And I guess it is because you want a united front because you're all terrified of being called rapists.
Well hint: don't rape people. Don't flirt with people who aren't interested. Don't do anything creepy. Its not that hard. Act like adults.
I watched the hearing for Judge Kavanaugh and have to admit I was influenced by partisanship.
I was so focused on what I perceived to be character assassination attacks, that I missed the judge's temperament.
Congress had the right to ask those questions, but got very vague answers or ridiculous ones. I have to say if I'm thinking non partisan that he was not guilty of sexual assault, but should not have been elevated to Justice.
The simple fact he got mouthy with a sitting senator while she was performing her constitutional duties and allowed his frustration to get the better of him proves he doesn't have the proper temperament.
She wasn't performing her constitutional duties, she was grandstanding knowing she was planning a presidential bid.
This was a confirmation hearing for the supreme court and they asked questions about gang rape brought forward by Avenatti. At that point they lost any semblance of credibility.
When you’re in a kangaroo court you NEVER answer a baited question with yes or no because more often than not it’s a perjury trap.
You do understand that, by definition, if he answers the yes or no truthfully it can't be perjury. That doesn't change in the U.S. no matter how animal adjacent a court is.
Sqkerg well what I am pointing out is that a perjury trap baited question is one in which there is no right answer because if you say “yes” they will say AHA! We Got you! and if they say “no” they will say “roll the tape from 10 years ago”
It can be the slightest detail in the question that trips someone.. like “were you in fact at Starbucks at 10:am Sunday the 14th of July?” And if they say “yes I was” then the snake lawyer would say “that is a lie we have your receipt and your coffee was paid for at 9:52am” are we to believe it actually took you 8 minutes to stir in your cream and sugar? The average person takes approximately 1.5 minutes to stir in their sugar and cream. How do you like your coffee? Is it true that you always drink it black? So you didn’t need 8 minutes to stir anything into it before you left.
You’re either lying now or you lied in your first deposition.
@@nunyabizness4892 In that scenario, you would say, I believe it was around that time, yes. You are still answering the question and you're not committing perjury by the most technical of margins. It's also worth pointing out that I can't possibly imagine a scenario where that would be take seriously, and that technical of a mistake obviously wouldn't have any standing.
Sqkerg I’ve heard witnesses be scolded by the like of shelia Jackson lee and kamala Harris yelling “yes or NO YES OR NO ANSWER THE QUESTION , YES OR NO!” And then if the witness answered either choice they build a false talking point off of it to circulate in the media
The problem is EVERYONE on Earth knows witness testimony is the least accurate and after this amount of time practically unverifiable.
Objection: Your analysis of #4 is poor, in that you evade the central controversy, which is, what are the odds kavanaugh would be convicted in an actual court of law, to focus on a different question, whether direct testimony constitutes as proof.
This comes off as a straw man, or a weak man, in that you evade one question to answer a question you can rationalize and handle more easily.
A far better use of this time would be to examine the success rate of a prosecutor in a rape trial whose only major piece of evidence is the "victims" testimony. Would that be able to surpass the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
The answer is pretty obvious: probably not. It's telling that there are prosecutors who could make this case, and are incentivized to do so maybe not only for a dislike of kavanaugh, but also the press and acclaim such a case would bring them. They haven't, and likely because they know they couldn't get all 12 jury members to convict with the available facts
*You can't argue and question at the same time*
10:10 *You have to ask pointed yes or no questions*
11:24 The Arguments
12:22 Judge-like temperament
13:45 Sparring with the questioners
15:24 Character Evidence: Admissible if character is made an issue
16:19 Presidential Indictment
19:10 Blaisey Ford's burden of proof
Circumstantial evidence
Direct evidence
21:00 Testimony is evidence
21:53 Kavanaugh request for an investigation
You didn't seem to like the Democrat senators approach to questioning kavanaugh. What do you think about Rachel Mitchell? How well did she do, questioning Ford? An what is your opinion on Mitchell's report of this case?
Yes let's use Urban Dictionary for words used in the 80s. I'm sure word use/connotation doesn't change at all in 30 years.
That was the most asinine part of this whole thing. Back in the 80s there was far less monoculture (without the internet) and there were regional terms for all sorts of stuff. When you start getting into youth subcultures and all the possible slang that develops among cliques and groups of friends... yeah, I am pretty sure Devils Triangle could have meant 1000 different things that were not sexual.
People not being calm when asked in the manner of "Why did you rape her" ia totally understandable, and to deny the political reality around this situation ia dishonest
Absolutely! 😁😁😊😊
"Do you think Kavanaugh displayed a "Judge Like" behavior?" 16:14
Define "Judge Like" behavior. Take in to account Kavanaugh is much like a self representing defendant, which in your past episodes, you have stated is a terrible thing to do. I would also ask; how many judges, whom you would deem represent "Judge Like" behavior, have been put through similar circumstances? I would argue that there is no way to define what is "Judge Like" behavior and that it is highly subjective.
I think it is also not a legal question but rather a lawyer has greater knowledge and experience to offer an opinion than the average citizen.
On the other hand, Kavanaugh clearly has the legal chops to understand the nature of the testimony he provided. He set the tone of political attack from the start in his prepared opening statement. It's clear he intended to play up the political circus aspect of the trial as his defense. Granted, this is in fact a political proceeding anyway, but I personally find that choice reprehensible and disqualifying independent of any assessment of perjury or guilt in sexual assault allegations.
You're acting like it's okay to act like a whiny baby...
It's a job interview and Kavanaugh was crying cause he was assured he'd get it but OMG something came up that he has to actually do work... He displayed a lack of respect for the women there and a lack of dignity.
Late objection: lawyer seems to be already working from the assumption that the accused is lying and is not embroiled in a game of perception where truth rarely ever relevant. A little impartiality if you pleasez
Great point. At the same time the lawyer never addresses the veracity of the witness' testimony while continually questioning the truthfulness of the accused. Some impartiality would go a long way.
Well, one is a liar and the other likes to drink beer.
Objection: I have to disagree in the "judge like behavior" part, rigth now in the position that he is an Acussed and he should and could play that role the best his knowledge let him, why? Because he is been acused, he is not the judge in this hearings, and second yes there is proof, an accusation but is that acusation alone can sustain a crime such has sexual assualt on their own beyond reasonable doubt and even passed all that time....it will be a really hard case to win
An accused person is still expected to conform to rules of decorum.