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
OBJECTION: Unrepresentative footage of Kavanaugh - he couldn't stop crying (yes, crying) because they wouldn't let him fill the hearings with fluff about doing church services and coaching a childrens softball team; they even went as far as to demand answers to questions about law stuff.
Almost as if he didn't understand that this was a job interview (in which applicants are vetted for suitability).
Also, senators had inadequate time to cross-examine properly; requests for said time were repeatedly denied (as was time to read tens of thousands of withheld documents), since the committee wanted to rubber-stamp the confirmation ASAP
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.
I have a question: "You ask a question until you get the answer you are looking for" <---- That. So, are you saying it as though the question itself needs to be answered or until you have grilled the witness / accused / interviewed person(s) enough till they just tell you what you want to hear? I think you are going with the former, since it could lead into other questions in which if they answer differently you could catch them in that but I do not know for sure.
I agree in general, courts as well as the public in large, see a law enforcement officer’s testimony as having substantial weight. However, Your comparison of the cop V bank robber testimony was a weak example, if trying to argue “he said she said” can still good evidence. To better get your point across you might have selected a different scenario. Because in the case of the cop V bank robber, we of course will have the victim bank to draw conclusions from. Hey bank, did you get robbed today? Please forgive me for not forming my comment in the form of an objection.
That covers the issue pretty well. I would say after watching the testimony that he doesn't display the kind of judge-like behavior you are talking about. On the other questions he doesn't meet the criteria or there is insufficient evidence against him. And if it's a he said she said situation, that suggests that there is equal evidence for and against. It doesn't even meet the burden of preponderance of the evidence much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt. On the last question, you might question whether he thinks like a judge once again. The correct answer would be no for precisely the reasons you stated. He should have made a proper legal argument for why he would never advise a client to encourage an investigation. He's applying for a job as a judge. Not a moral philosopher. That question was intended as a trap, and a good judge or attorney should have been able to keep himself from falling into it.
Has he shown judge-like behaviour? I'd argue no, from his first statement on he behaved like a politician, not a judge. he wasn't arguing law or whether or not the allegations are true or even to be considered for his position as a justice, he was arguing which political factions in his opinion were using which political methods out of which political motivations to hurt him and in extend another political faction. Also as a judge he should not allow the same kind of rhetoric he displayed in that very hearing (talking back, interrupting senators, refusing/evading to answer questions, "answering" with nonsensical questions back at the senators, etc).
Classy move by the rats digging up a 50 year olds yearbook from high school and grilling him on what he wrote as a high school student. Truly classy, as usual.
All for the great cause of maintaining their imaginary right to murder their unborn children in all 50 states whilst forcing strangers to pay for said child murder and thats assuming the notion that he will overturn roe which is a stretch at best.
Never join the human race democrats, stay sub-human rat forever so I can feel superior.
Although this is would not hold up in court. The terms described by Kavanaugh in the beginning of the episode I have said and used in the way he described them (Except for the name). I've even played devils triangle.
Objection. The word "ralph" is a common term for vomiting. Devils Triangle, while not a game common to where I grew up does seem like a lot of the drinking games I played as a child. Those answers were not evasive. However, trying to explain a drinking game while in a Senate hearing to a senator that doesn't even understand the simple game of quarters would be a ridiculous waste of time.
I'd be very much interested in hearing you give a presentation of how you would approach Justice Kavanaugh's defense if you were his attorney in both a criminal and civil matter regarding the alleged events of 30 years ago. Specifically, what would you like to ask Dr. Ford on cross-examination? I think perhaps that might bring some balance to this presentation which I found to be incredibly one-sided. You raised some good points on Kavanaugh, but I kept waiting for your comments on Ford, given the title of this video.
Objection: He was asked what ralphing was, he answered, stated it referred to vomiting.
Objection: The bank robbery comparison makes no sense. If a bank is robbed, you can prove a bank was robbed. Ford, at this point in time, has zero way to prove that what she claims even occurred and her testimony is not only uncorroborated by ANYONE but was contradicted by several sworn witnesses. Also There's significant difference between saying "That bank was robbed, I saw it happen and there's money missing" and "I saw Joey Jo Jo Shabadoo robbing that bank even though there's no physical evidence he did it"
OMG. All of you Right-wingers are getting your panties in a bunch. He is obviously being impartial but you guys don’t like what he has to say. That is why you guys decry bias.
The creator of this video has great points and in many instances has shown how the Democrats screwed themselves over with the hearings. Again, this is a point of view solely on the legal aspect of this issue.
Objections: I believe that decrying the questioning process of the democratic senators is a bit harsh. While yes, hey could have done more to pin the witness down, in the cited case of his weak stomach, asking the witness when he last ate certain ethnicity of food is counter productive. In such a case, a witness with any legal savy would just claim outright ignorance to when he last ate any specific food. I love spicy food, and under oath I would never give a specific date for when I last had. Even if it was last night, I would be too hesitant to lock myself in and simply claim easily understood ignorance.
My second objection is weaker than the first, as I did not bring the papers I need to court today. I did some checking, but could not be sure. When an individual senator is questioning a candidate for appointment to public position, they have a limited amount of time to interview the prospective appointee. Asking the same question over and over ad naseum may make sense in a court of law where your are not working on a timer, but you have to get to other questions when you have only a limited amount of time to examine your witness.
Now, that said, I am not 100% certain the senators questioning Brett had a time limit. I am rather sure they did, but the brief research I did brought up to many results for me to pore over pro bono. Pay me more and I'll do more research. ;)
Question #4 - Objection, nonresponsive. The question was would Dr. Ford's testimony have held up in court? Whilst you pointed out that their testimony is evidence, there are aspects to that testimony that you did not address: recanting aspects of her story under questioning by the FBI, alleging to psychological harm which was later called into question by observers claiming contrarian behaviors, and her alleged tutelage of persons to psychologically manipulate questioners. I am not stating that I believe that any victim should be attacked by the opposing side but I am curious about how you would defend someone in an ethical and lawful way if these counter-allegations were known at the time of her testimony presuming a criminal trial.
kavanaugh is in no way shape or form suited to be a supreme court justice, he is unstable, manipulative, and untrustworthy in every sense of the words, he is only out for himself and his messed up agenda which would infringe on basic human rights.
We need to stop going back to childhood to try to find reasons to reject people. College is College, people do crazy things. High school is high school, people do crazy things. Lots of things happen that you may not be proud about later in life. I am not talking about crimes. When you are looking for an adult to fill a position, judge that man or woman by their career as an adult. Of course, none of this matters with the political polarization we are living with.
Also, not a single human being in that high of a political office is "neutral" , none of them get to that position by being honest and just and good individuals, they get there by favors, money and corruption, they may start out that way, but the favors needed to climb up the ladder make honesty and other good qualities impossible, they ow to many other dishonest people favors by then, and if they are to honest, they get removed from their political position fairly quickly, i dunno why people dont seem to notice it
no human being is impartial to judging, they just lie about it same as everyone else, all judges send people to jail just because they dont like how they look, or something they said or because they just think they did it, some judges may be better at not acting on their internal judgment, but all of them do it, imo
Would agree the senators did a bad job with the questions
Truthfully, like the Republicans did they should have gotten an expert to question Kavanaugh and press him more.
I suspect they did not do that because they wanted the camera time which is sad and reminds me of movie (book) Bon Fire of the Vanities
As for whether he acted judgly: i don't think it was necassary or appropriate in this circumstance. I would be more suspicious if he hadn't shown any vitreol in the face of these allegations. They can try to hide behind duty and "truth seeking" but the questioners were undeniably accusers.
Objection: While the burden does indeed rest on the prosecution in MOST criminal cases, that is not the case for rape cases. That burden has been reversed in u.s. law, so unfortunately whether the jury would have believed ford or not, the fact that there is an accusation is too much for Cavanaugh to disprove because of how long ago the alleged crime took place. Also, this was never meant to be a court case, it was a job interview.
Objection: it is not at all unreasonable to expect young men into drinking to create a quarters variant that increases the amount of drinking, three grouped glasses would do that, nor is it unlikely that these people would choose to name it with frat boy humor. Devil's threesome, or in this case devil's TRIANGLE. Would infact be a likely name.
Also to ralph is a well known colloquial phrase for vomiting.
So yes, the prosecution is clearly attempting to prejudice the jury.
I object! An accusation is not evidence! Dr, Ford claimed that Kavannah sexually assaulted her. She claimed that there were two males in the room, one of which was Kavannah. When asked which male was on top of her like she claimed, she said that she couldn't identify which one. And this happened at a "party" that she has no idea where it was located, nor could she establish who or how many people were there. And ALL witnesses that she claimed were there denied that the party even happened! The point being is that 1) if the party didn't happen, then the sexual assault didn't happen; 2) If you can't identify the individual who is sexually assaulting you, then you can't claim years later that a specific person sexually assaulted you at that incident when you still have no idea of who it was! Dr. Ford was proven to commit 2 crimes; false accusation and perjury!
I looked up boofing because I have been young before, and the kids I hung around were pretty raunchy, yet I had never heard it as a term for anal sex. But lo and behold it has been put in urban dictionary to be a common slang term used for anal sex in the 1980s! Granted the urban dictionary entry was made after the Kavanaugh hearing, I'm sure the person just meant to add it to urban dictionary all this time but finally got around to it, conveniently, when the hearing took place.
I also looked up "Devil's Triangle," and, again, it does, in fact, mean a threesome...at least according to definitions made after the hearing. The one definition I could find that was before the hearing, in 2011, specifically made sure to state it wasn't a threesome. But who knows.
You'd think that slang that was supposedly so common and clearcut would have had documented loose definitions long before the hearing, and not only after the hearing.
Why do we not focus on Ford's testimony what so ever ? Hers was just as bad as his. And he's defending himself while his whole life is being questioned. Of course he's going to be evasive. But she gets to just lob accusations at him with absolutely no evidence and supposed witness testimony saying what she alleged never happened. I like this channel and I appreciate your videos but you're clearly bias towards the democratic side of things. And that's fine. But you should at least analyze both sides.
+TheBrothergreen If you give me a definition of a cat...and then immediately provide me with a cat. Exactly, that's why I said: "Do you have proof?"
How do you know he willingly lied? Where is the proof?
+Gene Creamers I don't think you understand the relationship between defining a thing, and that thing existing. If I give you the definition of a cat, and then, immediately provide you with a cat, then I have met the burden of proof to prove the existence of said cat. If you have a problem with the definition, by all means, challenge it, but, per the definition provided, and given the testimony, we can clearly see perjury. No additional "proof" is needed. All we need is for Kavanaugh to knowingly make a single untrue statement, while under oath. That's it.
Honestly I don't think Kavanaugh met the dispositional standards to be a reliable witness, let alone the burden to be one of the most highly respected judicial bodies in the world. If all it takes to rile him up to a sniffling, quivering voiced mess and lament about conspiracy theories is to ask questions about his past, then he has no merits as a judicial authority.
Also, OBJECTION: The claims of Kavanaughs purgery I thought were not in reference to his current claims about boofing, ralphing, devil's triangle etc, but his conflicting prior testimony about prior knowledge of obtaining and distributing stolen political documentation, which a memo or email about the topic was discovered authored by Kavanaugh to show he knew the source of the documents, knew it was at least obtained without permission, and had gleefully reminisced in that fact privately.
2. Did he display a judge-like temperament? No. Hell no. And to those saying he wasn't supposed to act like a judge, remember, THIS IS A JOB INTERVIEW. He is still trying to get the job. And the people he was addressing will decide if he got to be a judge.
To pretty much all of the commenters he admitted that he has a bias. He said he would do his best to try to be as neutral as possible we're all humans we all have opinions and bias and it's impossible to act completely without said bias in my opinion he did a much better job than most people at that
Of course, in this video, much like in real life, all of the pressure and all the burden of proof is placed on Kavanaugh. No one puts that much time into investigating Ford, even though at this point the evidence HEAVILY favors Kavanaugh, essentially 4 testimonies against 1. What a world we live in, where you can have such out outrageous charges leveled against you to destroy your reputation, and then, if you show any sign of anger at the attacks people are flinging at you, they try to use that as proof against you.
Philosophical question: from your perspective- do the public simply not understand the way legal action works as we deal more in emotion? Or do lawyers often miss moral ambiguities by being so focused on exact legal process?
Objection: While I do not necessary approve of Kavanaugh, his judge-like quality wasn't necessarily being determined. But I say this is more of the result of the senators not making that a key focus. Given the political side of things, the GOP senator want to present this man under fire to their supporters despite how we expect a certain character to be fit for judge, let alone a Justice.
as to question #3 if a president could be indited then every decision or act made by the president would be dragged before a court, making it impossible to lead the country one way or another. but if a president did something unconstitutional he could be impeached by the congress, that is the check in the constitution that the legislative branch has over the executive branch. while keeping the three branches separate. get over it Trump is the president period.
Seems to be that in this one the republicans or even centrist liberals (the actual dictionary definition of liberal not the american hard-left meaning of liberal) have brought up more than valid points of arguments with objections as to why he didn't cover what the case was actually about, yes you can talk about Kavanaugh all day long but it doesn't mean anything if you don't also analyse the plaintiff which would have been Ford in this case, there was far too many inconsistencies in her story and the witnesses she called actively shot down her story in minutes for her case to actually hold any meaning. If you're gonna try and present a neutral viewpoint in future please try to talk about both sides, that's just kinda common sense.
OBJECTION! That's a very misleading title.
The title suggests the presentation of both sides of the conflict when the video is just the examination of Kavanaugh's qualifications for the position he is applying for making it seem like you are raking Ford's side. I don't think you are but the fact you only judge Kavanaugh makes it seem That way
Objection, and I know it's a dumb pet peeve of mine, but 'Democratic' is a improper way to describe members of the demecrat party since democratic is defined mainly as 'relating to or supporting democracy or its principles.' not political affiliation
It's obvious that Kavanaugh is a liar. Like Clarence Thomas, unworthy of any public office let alone the Supreme Court. I think in front of a jury he would be laughed out of court. He will never be in the same arena as RBG or Scalia. He will be remembered in the same light as Clarence Thomas. A legal lightweight who should have stayed on a muni court somewhere.
Objection: Partisan issues do not apply, or at the very least apply minimally, as he was not yet a SCOTUS Judge. Additionally, this was not a trial, so in many situations turnabout would be fair play on many of the questions.
I liked the video, but there wasn't just her testimony pointing at his likely guilt, his own calendars from that time corroboration significant portions of what she said. And you presumably couldn't use it in court, there was a 3rd person alleged to have been in the room who wasn't subpoenaed that described a situation with a rather uncanny resemblance to the sexual assault that she is alleging.
Presumably, in a real court case, the prosecutor or defense would have subpoenaed that 3rd party to shed some more light on the matter under oath.
Consequently, if this went to trial, it would probably be more likely for him to be convicted than it seems. But, that being said, I doubt that with all the time that's past and the individuals involved that a jury would convict without a lot more.
If Ford's and Kavanugh's sworn testimony are "evidence", then so are the sworn statements of the witnesses named by Ford that say that no such event ever happened and the two guys who say that Ford is falsely remembering an encounter with THEM.
I can't believe what's going on in the comment section. OK, well, I can...but still.
I'll attempt to address one of the common comments, one which states that Kavanaugh had every right to snap back because he and his FAMILY were being attacked. I would hope people would give my actions leeway if I were being grilled. I would expect my parents or siblings or friends to be given that leeway as well. We're not professionals in trial and hearing etiquette, and certainly not ones attempting to shoot for the moon.
As a slight parallel, if a police officer was being verbally attacked by a perp, and the officer's family were being dragged through the mud in the process, would we not expect the officer to act with professionalism? Same thing here - they're professionals and thus are held to a higher standard than the lay person.
If I got defensive and snapped during my professional dealings with any of my customers (clients, co-workers, etc), the result would not have been positive. Why would this be any different? Why are we defending a man who lost his professional cool? I get it - we all have rough days and lose our cool, but that doesn't usually hold up when being professionally reprimanded.
That all said, he made it anyway so who am I?
Because context matters. This was an exceptional circumstance. *If* someone is falsely accusing you of trying to rape them years earlier, you don't have to sit there and act as though that won't affect you emotionally. This also extends to some of the questions he was being asked that were frankly ridiculous. Again, just imagine for a second that the allegation is false. Now imagine you're sitting there as someone lies about you in a truly horrible way and politicians seize upon that lie to further their agendas. Drawing a parallel between someone's temperament in this setting and their temperament whilst overseeing a court case is absurd.
I'm polite with customers/clients to a point, but I also know my boss/company will back me should said customer/client cross a line. At the very least, management will consider my emotional state.
Objection 1: Relevance - Impartial, by definition, means a matter in which one is not involved. How one reacts to a matter in which one is involved tells us nothing about how one reacts when one is not involved. This is why we expect judges to recuse themselves from matters in which they are a party, i.e., partial.
Objection 2: I'll call this one imbalance - An impartial review of a dispute would have addressed interactions on both sides, not just interactions of one party responding to adverse questioning. You can argue that it is the job of the other side to bring balance by highlighting their own relevant pieces, but that would admit you have a side and are therefore partial.
If you believe it does, then you should be similarly concerned with Barack Obama's dope smoking, Bill Clinton's oval office sex escapades, his similar behavior as Arkansas Governor and his wife's questionable behavior w.r.t. her at-home basement server containing classified information, her probable prevarication(s) regarding the Benghazi embassy massacre and a host of other occurrences of legal malfeasance.
The 6th, and untendered question, is whether his behavior, as a 17 year old high school student, even if true, should outweigh his 30 years of legal public service regarding his suitability as a Supreme Court Associate Justice.
If an accusation of attempted rape is made against a SCOTUS nominee and then subsequently proven, yes it should outweigh 30 years of legal public service. It's worrying that this question is even asked by some. Ignore what justice might be in a case such as that on a personal level and simply consider what it says if someone is promoted to SCOTUS Justice despite attempting to rape someone. It would be absurd. Plenty of other great candidates who could fill that vacancy in their stead.
When you brought up the point of not arguing while question the witness, it makes you wonder that most of these politicians were attorneys so shouldn't they know this as Lawyering 101??? No partisan responses please
Many people here are complaining about the lack of deep dive into Dr. Ford, correct me if I'm wrong but there isn't much to analyze is there? She answered all questions directly and straightforward didn't she?
Hmmmm.... I wonder why this currently has almost 1/3 as many dislikes as likes. I bet it's because this guy totally screwed up on this one while he nailed it on every other bipartisan video he made. It probably has nothing to do with the army of alt-right snowflakes taking their 4chan march to downvote this video.
For towns, each building is described, along with what and who can you can talk to, who to buy skills from, and what quests are available. For the outlying areas, the dungeons are listed.
Dungeon maps are not given -- they would be too extensive to fit easily into a web page and the automapping in the game is excellent. Also, every dungeon should be explored completely to get all of the loot, but only puzzles and hidden locations are described. I also skip most of the fighting because it isnt something that you can easily describe, nor does it matter in most places, except that you have to survive it. I do list the creatures that you will encounter in a dungeon or grid location to give you an idea of how difficult the location is.
Stores are listed with a "buy" and "sell". The "buy" value is multiplied by the items value to determine the price you have to pay for it. The "sell" value is divided by the items value to determine the price you can sell it to the store for. Higher is always worse, and a "buy" or "sell" of 1 means that you are buying/selling an item at cost.
Every location has a "reset" timer. This starts when you first enter the area, and after it "goes off", the entire grid square resets: monsters reappear and random treasure is replaced. Nonrandom treasure (including most stat-gaining liquids) is not replaced. All dungeons have a reset of 2 years (24 months), unless otherwise noted. Overland areas have reset times listed with their descriptions.
Artifacts are unique items that can be found. They come in two flavors: Minor artifacts are always benificial and have a value of 20000gp. Major artifacts always have a drawback, but their benificial powers are much stronger. They have a value of 30000gp. There are 15 minor and 15 major artifacts -- some of these artifacts are placed at specific locations; others are randomly generated.
Table of Contents.