HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: LegalEagle

Real Law Review: Kavanaugh v. Ford Hearing

18476 ratings | 671363 views
I’ve been glued to the Kavanaugh/Ford hearings. Regardless of your political views, I think it raises important legal questions for our country. Welcome to Real Law Review. This is the first Real Law Review; a new series on this channel where I try to tackle the most important legal issues of the day. If you have suggestion for the next topic leave your comment below. And if you disagree, be sure to leave your comment in the form of an objection. But remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate. If you’d like to see me critique your favorite legal TV show or movie like Suits or Better Call Saul, check out my Real Layer Reacts series, https://goo.gl/42fKce ★ SUIT UP! Even if you're not a lawyer, you can still DRESS LIKE A LAWYER. All of my suits are from BlackLapel (I've used them exclusively for over five years). Their custom suits are amazing, yet still ridiculously affordable. HIGHLY recommended: https://go.magik.ly/ml/f78n/ ★ GET TIED! If you’re looking for skinny ties, pocket squares, or tie bars (like the ones I wear) check out Ties.com. Huge selection and great prices: https://go.magik.ly/ml/ftki/ There are four questions that I cover today: 1. Did Judge Kavanaugh commit perjury? 2. Did he display judge-like temperament? 3. Would Judge Kavanaugh prevent investigations into President Trump or the WH? 4. Would the current allegations of sexual assault hold up in court? 5. Should judge Kavanaugh have requested an investigation? BTW, I refer to “Judge Kavanaugh” and “Dr. Ford” because regardless of current allegations, both individuals have earned the right to be called “Judge” and “Doctor.” On a personal note, this is not meant to be a partisan analysis. I am not going to give my opinion on whether I think Judge Kavanaugh should be elevated to the supreme court based on his judicial philosophy or his political views. I’m a lawyer first, and that’s the perspective I try to give you. All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015). Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! ======================================================== ★ Say hi on Facebook: ➜ https://www.facebook.com/legaleaglereacts ★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (9743)
FD 2003 (6 minutes ago)
I would like to know why you think these terms are evasive? I am around Justice Kavanaugh's age. * "Ralph/Ralf" DOES mean to throw up (also "Buck") * "Devil's Triangle" IS a drinking game I played in college * Why does Ranate mean anything other than a female buddy? But thanks for showing how to lay a "perjury trap."
Blackened Sprite (1 hour ago)
it feels like they gave him too much respect, they let him interrogate them at some points (even that lady answering him as if he has any right to ask questions there!) and just demur or obfuscate for pretty much everything else. Just feels like they showed him way to much respect which let him just slip on by.
Shiftinggers (2 hours ago)
Objection: Stella is most likely a Bichon, not a Beagle.
Utubedarr (2 hours ago)
OBJECTION!!!!!! This person said they were objective but all his points were "leading and/or irrelevant". Kavanaugh was evasive about "ralph", I am 58 and it was always referring to throwing up as Kavanaugh answered. Yet the "legal" analysis is one of shysterism.
DirtyDeeds469 (6 hours ago)
Objection, you just focused your questions on Kavenaugh why were there no questions you had for Ford plus your complete lack of depth for all of the many Fords testimony it is my belife that this is nothing more than a biased opinion
Kai SUN (6 hours ago)
Objection: Dr Ford has polygraph result. Does that count as evidence? Love your content btw
Ron Wood (9 hours ago)
Hey Stella! Why isn’t ford pursuing a potentially federal crime now that it’s not politically valuable?
sebek2242 (10 hours ago)
what a load of bs.
櫻井ピーター (11 hours ago)
You are too stupid. American people are smart and have common sense. You cannot deceive them. What would happen if Professor Ford did not come forward? What if Professor Ford`s accusation was crafted and designed by the Democrat Party? Did you forget this? In 1991, President George H. W. Bush (Republican) nominated Judge Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court Justice. Senate hearings on Judge Thomas confirmation were completed and his confirmation seemed assured. Then, all of a sudden, Professor Anita Hill came forward and said in the nationally televised hearing that Judge Thomas had sexually harassed her many times in various ways. FBI made 3-day comprehensive investigation using their nationwide network with no corroboration. Professor Hill`s accusation against Judge Thomas was crafted and designed by the Democratic Party. Anti-Judge Thomas protesters were paid by the Democratic Party. Fortunately, Judge Thomas became the Supreme Court Justice. It sounds very familiar, right? In 2018, the Democratic Party tried it again with no success. This is the strategy the Democratic Party has been using to take power. Professor Ford`s accusation is completely groundless. So, what are talking about?
Becca Sertic (11 hours ago)
I'm an idiot who knows pretty much nothing about law. Can someone tell me why this is a hearing rather than a trial? It seems like lawyers would be better suited to do this, right?
Eldon Taylor (12 hours ago)
For a lawyer giving an unbiased opinion you sounded pretty bias to me.
Frederick Rostek (14 hours ago)
Why would a smart guy do such a one sided video? How can anyone possibly trust anything else he will publish? Most of his clients must be hyper sensitive liberals LOL
RNG Train (14 hours ago)
20:05: "There is evidence in the form of testimony". The only testimony was from Ford, no one else corroborated that. You continue with the analogy of a police officer accusing a bank robber of robbing a bank, to which there would have been many witnesses and cameras present. Not even Ford's family or friend can attest to Ford's testimony. If I accused you of sexual assault, would I need any other evidence besides my accusation to ruin your life? Your video is one completely one sided.
Andrew Q (15 hours ago)
"Not a partisan analysis" *only analyzes and criticizes Kavanaugh, not Ford* *uses definitional semantics to imply that any sane jury would potentially convict Kavanaugh in a court of law* Unsubscribed.
phillyortho (17 hours ago)
Yeah, you showed your political bias pretty easily here. Why didn't you cover how poor the precedent is to now use high school yearbooks and unconfirmed allegations from 38 years ago for a supreme court confirmation hearing? You should cover the issue from the other side too using Rachel Mitchell's findings too.
CandiGale73 (18 hours ago)
You’re very misleading towards your audience, and YOU know it. Don’t insult people’s intelligence. You are sooooo clearly LEFT, that it flashes brighter than Vegas at night. You will, or perhaps already, alienate anyone who likes your commentaries. You know this is not a trial, and never has been. This is what I mean about you misleading your audience. Brett was responding as a civilian to these allegations, not as a judge. That should HAVE been the first thing you mentioned. I’d be very curious to see YOUR very own reaction to allegations that you sexually assaulted AND gang raped women, with no corroboration other than the accuser’s word. Would you just simply say, “no, it’s not true?” You’d be completely calm, cool and collected right, even if you knew it not to be true? Sure you would! Kavanaugh was not in front of the senate on this day as part of his confirmation. This was his response to Ford’s allegation. If a man is accused, with no corroborating evidence, and all he did was raise his voice in disgust, then the leftists are grasping at straws. People who disagree will always spin things to suit their argument, but that doesn’t make their argument any more truthful. Know this: 1. Feinstein promised Dr. Ford not to release her name - she did not keep her promise. 2. Dems lied to Dr. Ford saying she HAD to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee in front of the world in D.C. 3. Republicans made several offers to come to her, to keep her identity unknown, their numerous offers were never relayed to Dr. Ford by the Dems or even her lawyers. Why? Because, at that time, Feinstein was still claiming she wanted to protect Dr. Ford’s privacy. 4. Listen to the dem questions to Kavanaugh. These are not questions! They are irrelevant! They just keep repeating that he (Kavanaugh) should request an FBI investigation. If you don’t know who can call for an FBI investigation, Google it. Hint - the senate can! This all boils down to one thing. The dems don’t want another conservative on the Supreme Court. They’ve asked for the FBI investigation because they are hoping it will take over a month, past Election Day. They think they will get house majority, and this entire fiasco will be a moot point; aside from destroying a man’s career, reputation, and possibly some form of depression and/or anxiety. But who cares, right? What the dems did, is basically alienate so many of their voters, that I’d be willing to bet that they will not get the majority they had hoped for. This Kavanaugh debacle, that they weaved and crafted in the hopes of being the majority, will undoubtedly guarantee that if one thing is true, they have screwed themselves so badly, that I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of them are voted out of office next month. Karma is a bitch. Lying, misrepresenting, back-door dealings will come back to them. They may not see it coming, they may not understand exactly what it is or why it’s happening, but it will catch up to them.
JimiSurvivor (21 hours ago)
So, essentially, what you call "evidence" IS "SHE SAID." Therefore, whoever makes an accusation is supplying "evidence." Is that the way it is nowadays? I think you understand that when people said there was no evidence they meant that there was no evidence to CORROBORATE Ford's story.
Saady Kohanim (21 hours ago)
Whom did you vote at last presidential election? Democrat? Right?
Trevor Lee (22 hours ago)
dude is definitely left leaning
Matthew Bishop (22 hours ago)
You showed your partisanship when you use the word "unfortunately" at a key moment in the video
James Crenshaw (22 hours ago)
My view is that Senators of both parties argue at the same time as asking questions, because they are more interested in creating sound bites than seeking truth.
Sleeping Bear (1 day ago)
1983? How are you the only person who knows what year Mrs Ford thinks this happened?
Mr. Tactical (1 day ago)
That’s not a beagle.
David Chiu (1 day ago)
Total fail She was fake... He was real Other details try to make mountains of the molehill the D's have also failed to do before all honest ppl who watched the whole thing
Kyndral22 (1 day ago)
Objection: Stella not a beagle
Mr. Snuffles (1 day ago)
"I have evidence." "You have evidence?" "I have part of a testimony." "What percentage of a testimony do you have?" "I dunno...12%?"
One Puff Man (1 day ago)
Objection! A jury would likely find Kavanaugh innocent due to the inconsistencies revealed in Ford's testimony during her hearing. Regardless of what of what happened, Ford has shown she isn't a reliable witness.
Angrage Macmuffins (1 day ago)
The Judge is unfit, Says the Bum, in a suit.
Phaser1980 (1 day ago)
This really was not as one-sided and/or unbiased as you think it is. But a good video despite that.
Jeremy Dirksen (1 day ago)
Does he have one with Mrs ford
Peter Knudson (1 day ago)
I know it is a complicated issue, but I would be interested in your take on migrants passing through other countries and seeking sanctuary in the US. Also the issues of children being separated from parents. You know, nothing huge ;)
Peter Southern Boy (1 day ago)
Spoiler Alert: No real effort spent here examining the veracity of Dr. Ford’s claims. Meh.
Salt King (1 day ago)
Trumpists get involved... there goes your civil debate culture
Alejandro Garcia (1 day ago)
Bummer. I was excited to find your channel so I subscribed then you lost me after watching. So much to say but will rest my points. I would however encourage that you review your video again and see if you really are in a neutral place as lawyer first. I see you leaning on a side
Robert Promm (1 day ago)
You are biased. Yeah, like progressive justices found the right to abortion in "an emanation from a penumbra" in the 4th amendment to the bill of rights. That is textualism, not!
Jason Q (2 days ago)
You forgot that this hearing was already decided before it began. That’s why it was a circus.
carlos jones (2 days ago)
Disappointing and biased analysis how does the law deal with falsely claiming impartiality?
fbcpraise (2 days ago)
Yeah, you wimped out. You subjected him to your analysis, but not her. You took 25 minutes of my life and skirted the real issue. You're a lawyer all right.
Mark Shay (2 days ago)
I was looking forward to this, especially when you said you were Not going to be partisan. So.... When are you going to post the video being just as critical of Fords testimony?... Genuinely asking as I'm taking you at your word of looking at the whole hearing from a legal neutral view? Just on the evidence side of things... You omitted that the Evidence was not just he said she said, but she said THEY said... Are you telling us that a jury would not consider the 4 "witnesses" sworn statements that refute her testimony? Don't get me wrong... If you'd have been neutral and covered both sides I would think this video was great... But you come off looking like a clear partisan against the judge.... Pity, I just discovered your page and the couple videos I watched came across as legitimate. Anyhoo, I really look forward to part 2 of this video if you're sincere 😀👍
freemoralagent1 (2 days ago)
Thank you so much for explaining in such way that we the people can undertand. I must say that I injoed the video very much.👏👏
Adams Warriner (2 days ago)
objection. you didn't answer question number four..........and then so someones testimony is evidence if they are believable like cops? okay. they might have a vested interest. oh tell me more.
Nathan Wubs (2 days ago)
you were quite neutral in your explanations in this video. Yet you still got dogpilled on, despite not making too many direct value judgements. But hey that is the youtube commenters way. If you are not bending over to say they are the best there ever was then you are evil and should be buried, by a lot of shitty bs shouting. (Was going say arguments, but they are not arguments)
Ebiegberi Adonkie (2 days ago)
This is a stupid clickbait title.. this isn't a fair examination of both parties involved. You clearly lean left.. you can't hide that, even as an 'unbiased' lawyer
Tracchofyre (2 days ago)
Since it was him under attack nobody would ever expect him to be impartial in the case. We expect judges to be impartial in cases that do not personally involve them. Actually, in these cases the judges dismiss themselves or take themselves out of a case. Kavanaugh could not do it here, so it was all right for him to express emotions, yes, even anger. His mistake was to not explain that in his opening statement, where he went off to a wild attack against the Clintons and Winnie the Pooh and all others. He should have calmly, in his opening statement, explained that he is not working as a judge in his own case, but has every right to defend himself, without in any way harming his professionality as a judge. It is his right to be angry. It is his right to also attack back. But he should have stateted the reasons for it before.
jlrinc (2 days ago)
The problem with your analysis of the case for perjury is that this was not a trial. It was a political event and the senators didnt have a snowballs chance in hell of pinning him down on anything in the 5 minutes allotted. But I do agree that it would have been impossible to prove he was lying about the definitions without subpoena power to call witnesses.
PurpleSuicide (2 days ago)
“Devil’s Triangle is a drinking game when you have 3 drinks in a triangle” That’s the weakest response I’ve ever fucking heard lmao what kind of game is this? That’s just drinking in a Triangle that’s not a game 😂
Bassfishing (2 days ago)
@LegalEagle You have a really big problem..... This would have never made it to a court room.
sminthian (2 days ago)
13:30 Ha, I finally got that joke from SNL about Alyssa Milano being in the audience.
Ogamis (2 days ago)
No channel is safe from right wing extremists prepared to ignore reality.
B Mac (2 days ago)
Pointing out that other people are partisan, is not the same as being partisan yourself. If he is telling the truth, and he is being accused of something he didn't do, I understand why his instincts would tell him that there is a partisan conspiracy. There's also evidence that supports that opinion. Change my mind.
Deathstroke OG (2 days ago)
Is black tie attire the best way to dress in court and is there ever a time when it could actually be inappropriate?
tvsinesperanto (2 days ago)
OBJECTION - 19:50 - Eyewitness testimony, as I am sure you are aware is TERRIBLE evidence. Maybe even the least reliable. Add to that the 36 year time gap and the unreliability of the human memory AND an obvious motive to lie and you are back to practically ZERO evidence in my opinion. Saying Ford's testimony is "evidence" may be technically or legally true but it's CRAPPY evidence. Certainly not even CLOSE to warrant destroying a man's (or a woman's for that matter) life over.
degen83 (2 days ago)
Kavanaugh was right when he called this a circus perpetuated by left wing organizations who hate the Trump administration. The Democrats are corrupt, inept, and absolutely are biased in their entire procedings.
Daisy Cowan (2 days ago)
I know that you are a lawyer, but as someone who also wants to be a lawyer and was looking through the comments, I don't know how accurate your reviews are, so I'm not sure if I should completely trust your channel
socksrocksandocks (2 days ago)
okay so im accusing you of rape with no evidence what now you should just be guilty im going to testify against you and that is evidence against you good luck beagle thats all you need right with no physical evidence or witnesses or anything like that it is wrong to think he is guilty or even potentially guilty backing him into a corner over a damn yearbook and thinking that ties to him sexual assault is retarded
Dave Plu (2 days ago)
Stella is so brave !!!!
ART MCPHARLIN (2 days ago)
He is a lawyer, so I doubt a lot of what he said.
blazingdisciple (2 days ago)
I appreciate this commentary. I haven't looked at this from an academic standpoint. I would say that he should have conducted himself better during the hearing, but at the same time, he did exactly what he needed to do to skate through. He did what he needed to do to confound his accusers, and as I watch the testimony, he was the one in control. He is obviously very qualified as a judge, but I think he lacks the impartiality that a Justice is supposed to have. I don't see any honesty there. He knows how to game the system. Shame on him and anyone who wants someone like that as a Supreme Court Justice.
degen83 (2 days ago)
No not shame on him. Shame on the Democrats and their shills in the media trying to ruin a man's life just because some woman accused him for something she has no evidence for 35 years after the fact for. This entire case is politically motivated and I'm sick of the Democrats getting away with rubbish like this time and time again.
Matthew Brown (2 days ago)
Excuse me. There are extremely partisan supreme court justices sitting on the bench right now. And there are very fiery justices sitting right now. Im not trying to excuse Kavanaugh's behavior, just saying if his behavior and political views are grounds for disqualifying him from being a justice, then we probably need 9 new justices.
degen83 (2 days ago)
Matthew Brown Even more funny is I'm not a Republican, I'm on the centre. I don't believe either Republicans or Democrats, but I see a sheer unfair double standard being levelled by the Democrats against the Republicans in pop culture, in the news, in the schools, in media, and the common denominator is that facts are always ignored when the Democrats are trying to accuse Republicans of things. I would love there to be no partisanship in the supreme court. But the Left would never go for that because they would lose power. They need those justices in power to serve their interests. We need less partisanship, but unfortunately I see the left pushing this line and reinforcing it every single day I watch the news or watch a talk at a school.
Matthew Brown (2 days ago)
+degen83 the funny thing is im a Democrat, im just not a socialist or sjw.
degen83 (2 days ago)
Wanting to end partitanship is what the Democrats say when they want to remove someone for being a Republican. They never want to fairly apply their standards across the board, unless they can move the goalposts to protect their partisans first.
Patrick Phelan (2 days ago)
It's not difficult to see which side of the political spectrum you land on. You claimed no opinion, yet, your entire summary was opinion of how judge Kavanaugh conducted himself in the process. Any good investigator knows that you first investigate the accuser to determine if an actual crime or event had taken place; and then follow the evidence to it's conclusion. Where was the investigation into Ford's claim? .. there wasn't one, nor was anyone calling for one. Objection - Opinion
Christopher Stentz (2 days ago)
My momma said that Congress is full of failed attorneys.
ryanhamstra (2 days ago)
Am I the only one who’s definitely heard the term raulfing as a term for puking?
Matt Bourgeois (2 days ago)
Excellent series. I've always been fascinated with the letter of the law. How it can be argued, presented, bent, or followed. Please do a segment on NXIVM, Keith Raniere, and Allison Mack. I know it's a dark subject, but from a legal prospective it's an interesting and probably difficult case to prosecute. The women were all of age, "consenting" adults, who were clearly manipulated and groomed to give up personal freedoms and their own common sense. Are there provisions in the law to prevent this kind of brain washing? Raniere's lawyer makes some appalling arguments, but is he legally correct? Not withstanding the obvious framing of the apparent facts being in favor of his clients innocence. What will the jury be instructed to consider? Anyway also do Legally Blond you don't wanna bum people out too much. And thanks for doing this Ford/ Kavanaugh segment.
Jeffrey S (2 days ago)
I’m glad that I came across this video. Many people ask if I watched the this or other congressional testimonies and I usually say no. As you mentioned many times the democrats had very poor questioning skills. You would think that this being the judicially committe they would know better and be better prepared.
RaifSeverence (2 days ago)
To ralph is Slang for vomiting Originating between 70 and 75. So that answer of his isn’t wrong.
James Hutchings (2 days ago)
@LegalEagle (and dog): I'd be interested in your opinion about the appropriate level of proof for a hearing of this type. Is it analagous to a trial (requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt), or analagous to a job interview (in which case a lower standard might be used)?
Justme Here (2 days ago)
Sorry, you did do this from a political bias standpoint.
Kyoji Kasshu (2 days ago)
that's no beagle!
Potted Aloe (2 days ago)
Wow, this video must have gotten shared on trumpeter reddit or something if the gaggle of right wing nutters in the comments is anything to go by 🙄
keekeemyfirstcat (2 days ago)
You really need a sock on that nose. It looks like it is cold.
It's amazing how a system designed against partisanship has resulted in being very partisan. My stance, as a foriegner mind you, on this issue is if Brett shouldn't be a Justice, none of the others would meet the same criteria either, so none of them should be. But you're already down the rabbit hole, may as well embrace it.
degen83 (2 days ago)
To be honest, most of the partisanship comes from the Left. They protect other leftists, and will say and do anything to get more leftists in and non leftists out. This Kavanaugh thing is another Democrat ploy to character assassinate a non leftist. Partisanship has only gotten worse now that the Democrats run the media, run our education system, and nas a stranglehold on our culture via Hollywood. The truth and facts and reality show a very differnt picture than what the Democrats say, but so far the facts have not prevented the Democrats from lying or the anti Republican biased media from reporting on it as if it were true. We need real journalism again, not this partisanship garbage we have today. Journalists should not be activists yet that is what all American journalists are today, political activists for the Democrat party.
Troianii (2 days ago)
while his dated usage of terms is different from what is now the common lexicon, if you follow the etymology you'll find that the now common meaning of things like a "devil's triangle" originated years AFTER he was at that school. Further, a half a dozen classmates have sworn that Kavanaugh's description is accurate.
Blaze Freak (2 days ago)
Devils triangle is a drinking game I've played it. I've never heard of the devils triangle being sexual. I thought we called tht a threesum
joemama62 (2 days ago)
"I don't know how a jury would come out on this question." Really? What kind of lawyer are you? What EVIDENCE did Ford provide? All of her "corroborating" witnesses came out and said they don't remember anything like her testimony. There was absolutely NO evidence provided. You are a political hack, not an attorney. At least not a good attorney. This case would have NEVER made it to court, let alone be heard by a jury.
Kinkou Kinkou (2 days ago)
If the Clintons are involved in this.... Somethings up and doesn't smell right
joebaseball17 (2 days ago)
This insufferable little beta-male lost me as soon as he used his lap dog as a prop.
Mike Gillespie (2 days ago)
Senators only had 5 minutes....why waste that time asking irrelevant questions like "when was the last time you ate spicy food?"
Momma_D my friends (3 days ago)
I was really excited to hear a lawyers non bias view. In your first few minutes, it's very easy to see that you are most Definately against the Judge. You keep saying "they should have asked this way..." Then you put in your personal view almost every time. You follow up with how the Judge was not telling the truth. Then you say how the democrats did not know how to ask the right question. Due to them not being lawyers. What about the republican? You are very one sided. You should state that at the beginning. By the way.....realize he was innocent and had every reason to be angry. I can't imagine having you as a lawyer. Thank God! Oh, by the way, please follow up video about Dr. Ford's answers...... A smart woman acting stupid when asked questions.
Gutty (3 days ago)
Objection: Why haven’t you addressed Fords lack of a case and the reasons why it would never hold up in court.
Tomáš Bastl (3 days ago)
Sooo...where is the "vs.Ford" part?
funnyblog100 (3 days ago)
I looked it up it turns out devils triangle is actually a drinking game. Brett Kavanaugh was telling the truth. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Devils%20Triangle&page=3
Paul Birchenough (3 days ago)
Ta, will watch more.
Ivivion (3 days ago)
Jordan Sullivan (3 days ago)
I think the difficulty with the Democratic senators is that they weren't lawyers. You make really great points 7:00 to 8:05
Malo Perverso (3 days ago)
Objection: Ford was Butt-Ugly, and Looked 71, instead of Her Real Age, 51.... WTF!?
fish killer (3 days ago)
the crazy feminist professor ford is a complete liar. you're very partial towards her , aren't you? lets see a 180, and scrutinize the poor feminist , that can't remember anything , but only the fact that Kavanaugh raped her. this whole hit campaign has been ridiculous. i'm surprised Kavanaugh didn't punch out the lot of these lying sleeze bag liberals. you're a schill.
Sean Heupel (3 days ago)
My lawyer is working on a case involving Uber and Lyft. It is a lesser known fact that riders can get drivers deactivated through fraudulent testimony and complaint. This has affected thousands of drivers, and I have numerous subscribers on my other channel that were deactivated permanently for false claims, like being drunk or high, causing drivers to lose a source of income. Uber has a mandatory clause that drivers must go through arbitration instead of suing Uber, but what we intend is to go after the passengers that committed acts of defamation. What is your opinion on the subject of forced arbitration and if that will come into play, as passengers and drivers technically use Uber's service and a suit like this does not go after Uber, directly?
Keegan Fitzgerald (3 days ago)
So why is there no neutral judge? It sounds like there should be.
gutspraygore (3 days ago)
"When was the last time you ate Cajun food?" This can be used against me later on? Are you serious?
TheScottybob (3 days ago)
I would be interested in your take on if collusion is or is not illegal? May be a too general question to answer. I would imagine there are several layers involved in it if that collusion is attached to a crime? Interesting show by the way.
Athena Cykes (3 days ago)
Should I be surprised that a video asking 5 questions answered by a lawyer received 5 indirect and "you decide" answers? Should have repeated the question as a yes or no a few times.
Eat Candy (3 days ago)
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus false in one thing, false in everything
AmeriJam Acres (3 days ago)
Objection! Assumed facts not in evidence. There is no credible evidence that the “devils triangle” is a sexual reference. Many other incidents to many to mention. Over and over you suggest Kavanaugh was not truthful without any supporting evidence. At best you take the unsupported word of political hacks without evidence backing it up. The worst part is how you have put the accused on a guilty until proven innocent standard without properly addressing the accusations and their credibility. Never in history has so little evidence been used to prosecute someone. Every person named by the accused denies the party even took place let alone any assault took place. The accuser cannot name the location of the party, how she got to the party, who invited her to the party or any other corroborating details. The few she has offered have been denied by all who she has named as being there.
degen83 (2 days ago)
Exactly. This is why facts matter. They can set you free, and unfortunately this lawyer has drunk the kool aid from the anti Trump media instead of letting the facts prove the case. The facts are that Ford accused Kavanaugh but all of her witnesses reject her version of events. There is no evidence other than her word regarding the alleged sexual assault, and even her own witnesses prove her version to be incomplete at best, and flat out wrong at worse. Bottom line if this lawyer spent as much time going after Ford as he did going after Kavanaugh here this would have been much better. Instead he seems to assume Kavanaugh is guilty and he is acting more like a prosecuting attorney here rather than an unbiased person discussing modern legal issues. His bias in this case shows in how he analyzes this case. He should have spent an equal time discussing Ford's accusations and how the evidence works because this is far from a he said she said, this is a he said said but when witnesses are called forth to corroborate the she said, all her witnesses refuted her sworn statements and accusations. In that case the evidence against him is her word which is directly contradicted by her own witnesses who said there was no party, they have no idea what she is talking about. Innocent until proven guilty means that just because a female accuses a man of sexually assaulting her, that does not mean we have to treat the man as guilty until there is evidence to prove it. Her word vs his is not sufficient evidence. That is why in rape cases we gather evidence, looking for semen, looking for signs of physical struggle, and we gather evidence. There is no evidence to support the claims against Kavanaugh and therefor all people who are not directly involved in the case should treat the accused as innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately the Democrats want to create kangaroo courts and judge people guilty just by alleged victims statements without evidence. That is not a world I want to live in, and that is why we must wholeheartedly reject rubbish analysis that unfairly focuses only on one side despite the other side having more faults with their case.
NickN100 (3 days ago)
Objection: I love your videos. I am very open minded. Question number 4. You didn’t address that dr Ford presented 4 witnesses to this event. All 4 have stated in sworn oaths that this event did not take place. Does this not carry legal weight?
Sebastian Ramirez (3 days ago)
please react to daredevil
Simon Keel (3 days ago)
I would say this man's legal observation is very sound. It makes me laugh when people get upset at a lawyer discussing something to do with the law or pseudo-hearing that they don't agree with, he has studied law longer than you were in highschool and is good at reading people. Mr. Kavanaugh was lying, it was pretty obvious and Ford's recollections were more that of a memory than a lie when she described how she thought she was going to suffocate under his weight, this isn't a lie.
Simon Keel (2 days ago)
I agree with that sentiment and I also think that we are moving towards something dangerous where people's careers can be completely obliterated before they get a chance to defend themselves.... In this case I do think there was something more to this. On the other hand the opposition is also doing something dangerous in saying that these are false claims. A claim of sexual assault should be taken seriously, but at the same time we need to hear both sides and be able to analyze how each side is presenting the case. It needs to be straight down the middle, nothing should influence these cases besides the facts. When you put your own views and ideology into something like this it will make a definitive answer nearly impossible to find. I did include my opinion in the original comment but I by no means think I am a lawyer, I was just going off what I perceived in their body language whether it is right or wrong. I am definitely a left leaning person but I really try to look at things objectively. I did also see certain things in Ford's testimony that made me have some questions as well though but I believe the environment Kavanaugh was raised in was conducive to this alleged behavior.
Antoine Chauvet (3 days ago)
It doesn't matter if you think that the guy is lying, you need to prove it. And he's clearly doubting that Kavanaugh is truthful for many questions, but because the dems couldn't ask the right question, they couldn't trick him into perjuring himself or saying something stupid enough to warrant further investigation. If the senators were competent in hearings, they would have asked the right questions and it could have turned out quite differently. I think it shouldn't be their job though, they could hire lawyers to ask the questions and it would be fair since the opposing party is aware of the law much more than them.
Mary Britzman (3 days ago)
Did you have more videos on this? If not very pointed at just Kavanaugh and not entire hearing. Are you really an attorney? If so I think you must be Creepy Porn Lawyer part deux!! Good luck on your ambulance chasing career because there is no way you would ever make it to the highest court in the land as Justice Kavanaugh is now.
James Moore (3 days ago)
What about the statute of limitations? would it extend to this case as 1983 was 36 years ago and any evidence for or against would be either untrustworthy or circumstantial. This could bring about a way of dismissal. As you've said before our system of law is based on protecting the innocent even if that unfortunately means letting the guilty go free. Further this case might allow more lawsuits of this type many of which could be considered frivolous or false. Thus causing the potential for he said she said arguments to weigh in favor of one or the other without proper evidence or testomy.
Pedro Fernandes (3 days ago)
Objection : In the case of a bank robber you can prove that there was a robbery giving the cop more credibility their for is not the same.
Pedro Fernandes (2 days ago)
+degen83 exactly my point but you elaborated beter.
degen83 (2 days ago)
In the case of the bank robber you have evidence the robbery took place. You will probably have other evidence, like other eye witnesses who were in the bank as it got robbed, or people seeing the get away car as it sped off. In the Kavanaugh case not only do we not have any other eye witnesses, all the ones that were called up denied the accusers story. We must also note the time period and that 35-36 years has passed and she was silent until this day. This is nothing more than a publicity stunt to character assassinate Kavanaugh. Any real court would find the lack of evidence to collaborate the claims to be justifications to throw the case out. But instead the Democrats keep pushing to drag this out even further.
MnementhBronze (3 days ago)
A lot of butthurt manboys in the comments today. Incredible the lengths people will go to be imbeciles. Keep up the quality content LegalEagle.
BakerBoy (2 days ago)
You do know that Kavanuagh was confirmed, don't you? I think the butthurt is coming from the left, but I can hardly hear it over the sound of their heads exploding.

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.