A Rhetorical and Legal Analysis of Michael Cohen's Testimony Before Congress (Real Law Review)

[@TheNexan_]

I'm not American, nor do I really follow law, but man, does Cohen's mic need a pop filter.

[@matt61387]

TheNexan Our government spends obscene amounts of money on everything. Yet the microphone for a congressional hearing is lower sound quality than my high schools 10+ years ago....

[@TacComControl]

Congressional budgeting. They'll spend hundreds of thousands on lavish dinners a year, but will let technology Fester for decades unupgraded.

[@MarkArandjus]

THANK. YOU. Finally someone said it! It drove me crazy! So many plosives! P!residentT, F!raud T!rumP! Pop filters are incredibly cheap, Congress, don't tell me it's not in the budget!

[@lcoopcooperl]

That's because Government is inefficient and incompetent at everything, and only free markets encourage technological advancements.

[@tenebrisevernight]

To give a more positive reason for the mic quality. I'd imagine it has something to do with the importance of getting "exactly what the person said," and how any changes in the audio could be brought up later as an accusation of tampering with testimony.

[@anthonyduane4815]

“Credibility is incredibly important” I love the English language.

[@thazmat]

You can thank the Normans for that

[@phoenixnoire2435]

You ever try calling someone incredible instead of calling them a liar and then, when they thank you, shift your tone as you tell them, "No... I meant that literally"?

[@phoenixnoire2435]

I think he's impressed by the fact we've been using the word, "incredible," figuratively so loing that that nobody seems to notice that the literal interpretation of that sentence contradicts itself... Some still have issues even after having it pointed out to them, apparently...

[@ultru3525]

@Fresh Beginnings Having an incredible witness can mean 2 very different things.

[@teridactyl1250]

Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

[@AnthonyHarrisTechrat]

"Michael Cohen is going to jail for a long time, but he could put that time to good use by learning a new skill, especially because he's been disbarred by the state of New York." THAT is the most savage segue to an ad spot I have ever witnessed.

[@martingriff101]

I rather the one in the video can the president be indited about learning Russian

[@MrOSUrocker]

Eagle really is hilariously clever/savage

[@DanielDugovic]

That's the smoothest segue I've heard today, and I just watched Bryan Lunduke speak about the perils of cloud computing and ease & convenience of having your own server.

[@fictionmyth]

I have to imagine in some way, Legal Eagle takes this a bit personally. Not directly but as an attorney himself. This whole fiasco has harmed the reputation of every legal professional in the country to some degree. Not majorly but it definitely instills doubts about what people like him do. It goes from, "These are the people you want protecting you in legal matters." to "These are criminals who do whatever their client needs, regardless of legality." It's a bit like you're a pro football player and there is another pro football player who gets caught cheating on their wife. You may not be cheating but you better believe your wife is at least a bit more suspicious of you.

[@Wayazaexa42]

@@fictionmyth He's gone the savage route on a couple of occasions though so I don't think it's because of that link. Also anyone could cheat on their SO, I'm curious why you'd go with that in your example? It's more like a football player got caught cheating in a way that affects the game, like doping. As _that_ does cast doubt about whether other football players use it, and especially other members of the same team. Seems like a more fitting analogy, but maybe that's just me.

[@ArlanKels]

I always think you're either brave or insane for tackling the political stuff. If only because some people can't keep their political malice in their pants.

[@futurestoryteller]

It really is legal stuff though. It's better to get an unbiased professional's opinion on these matters because political beliefs do not change legal realities, and what's good for one political party's vote tally might not necessarily be fair or reasonable to the system of courts, which exists as one of our three branches of government for that very reason.

[@bozzutoman]

If a viewer takes "offense" at sound legal analysis, their motives are likely corrupt. The truth doesn't hurt; unless it ought to.

[@TheNoonish]

Personally, I like it keep it in my sock drawer.

[@cmmosher8035]

I think he is braver for having a pet with light coloured fur that close to a dark suit.

[@kyoukotoshino5600]

My political malice is always knocking stuff over. Once it even hit my gf in the eye

[@lcoopcooperl]

*LegalEagle,* please don't go away for a long time again. The web is a bleak place without you.

[@JqlGirl]

Well, he IS a lawyer and probably has clients and cases to deal with sometimes. And I'm sure that pays him a whole lot better than the youtube gig does.

[@NightsChapterSeven]

Best law channel on youtube

[@R0ndras]

He makes more money as a lawyer than in youtube and he actually does some good while that, so you know.. he can do whatever he wants.

[@Grinnar]

@monokhem he actually says his credentials in a bunch of videos.

[@efremvercaigne7265]

@monokhem he's said before he specialises in copyright law.

[@dumbledoratheexplora1140]

When you're able to roast someone with you sponsorship.

[@XD152awesomeness]

DumbleDora TheExplora lol right? Awesome segue

[@monicahart731]

I think it’s so cool that you’re revealing this secret world of law in layman’s terms so everyone understands. I really appreciate your work.

[@kanvaros4451]

Potential legal question , if someone is disbarred are they still legally obligated to not break confidentiality? Since that normally can get you disbarred it seems like he can spill all the beans now since he has already been disbarred

[@adama7752]

Yeah, what's the worst they do, disbar him twice, because they really mean it?

[@idealoading]

the logical (and legal) is that sb has to keep the information confidencial if when he gain them was a laywer and acted as laywer of this person .

[@Fs3i]

I think the punishment for breaking confidentiality can go higher than a disbarring (i.e. jail sentence / fines), but I'm not a lawyer. Maybe someone else in the comments knows better.

[@jacobjohnson7369]

Good question! There is an exception to attorney-client privilege in confidentiality, and that is the crime-fraud exception. Cohen's actions and testimony strongly suggest that he actively participated in a crime (namely the payments made to Stormy Daniels). Theoretically, without being disbarred, Michael Cohen could have still provided testimony. But now that he has been disbarred and is no longer acting in the capacity of a lawyer, Cohen can break confidentiality. In short, "no".

[@stentor1980]

First, most of the time when a lawyer is disbarred for ethics reasons it's not permanent. They can usually apply to be reinstated after some period provided they behave themselves in the meantime. Repeating the conduct that got them disbarred in the first place will make that difficult if not impossible. Second, disbarment is not the only consequence an attorney can face for violating attorney-client privilege. The client can sue for legal malpractice even if the attorney is no longer practicing law. That being said, the others are correct in that attorney-client privilege doesn't apply in this case because Cohen was acting as Trump's co-conspirator.

[@danielthemaniel7461]

Please do To Kill a Mockingbird next! Reading it in class and talking about the legal aspects. I (and my class) would love to hear your commentary. Hope you consider.

[@Tuikkal]

I watched the entire testimony. All 7 hours of it. Why? Because I'm an IDIOT. I should've watched LegalEagle's video about it.

[@darrylflinch5274]

So did I but not an idiot! LOL

[@pluto8404]

An idiot would only watch an edited version and not get their information from the source.

[@MrS-pe6sd]

Now more than ever you need to watch the real information irst hand for yourself. everybody's got an agenda including this guy. so good job.

[@darrylflinch5274]

@@MrS-pe6sd That's true! I watched the whole thing and it was just sad. I can honestly say without a doubt that Jordan and some of the other Republicans have sold themselves to the Devil. Let me not be so mean but it really felt like they just gave Trump their soul.

[@conheo4]

I watched the SNL skit, that Ben Steller played as Micheal Cohen. It was much better.

[@cassidy678]

Your segues into skillshare pitches are golden.

[@NukeMarine]

They are works of art in and of themselves. And if art is a skill you'd like to develop, consider skillshare as an avenue of approach.

[@scottw3048]

@@NukeMarine I love you.

[@lisahenry20]

@@NukeMarine I think I need skills hare to learn a funny way to respond to that

[@jeffmcarthur5617]

"Bordering on tokenism in and of itself..." More like taking a giant leap, doing a double somersault, and landing with a perfect 10 on tokenism.

[@SeanWinters]

For real? Y'all are ridiculous.

[@SeanWinters]

@Es D You had prime opportunity to make fun of me and that's all you got? Gotta say, I'm disappointed. I guess the old saying is right, the left can't meme.

[@pendragonfan42]

"Bordering on tokenism" I was wondering why he said it that way, since it would seem this is the example the dictionary would use to explicitly define tokenism.

[@KuK137]

@@pendragonfan42 Probably trying to both be polite and not say something problematic if some mad republithug tried to use it against him somehow...

[@tuxedomollusk]

@@Generic8864 It's really baffling to me that so many people can be suckered in by the idea that making that sort of argument is somehow "treating someone as a prop"... not only is that not true, but you're acting as though a statement being an effective building block for someone's case, somehow makes it _ineffective._ All he actually did was point out a fact that _relates_ to that person, a fact which, itself, is used as evidence - er, excuse me, "a prop". Or are you suggesting that we should disregard any and all pieces of... reality... relating to peoples' relationships, even when it's relevant to the topic at hand, simply because they strengthen your opponents' claim? The topic of that discussion was the relationship between two people, and the implications it had for someone's character. As such, the relationship between her and her employer was pertinent information, and so it's the only information that anyone should be interested in, in this context. That isn't dehumanizing the employee - the time and place for making an active showing of your appreciation for someone's personality is, funnily enough, during your personal and professional interactions with them, NOT while presenting an argument grounded in impartial facts before a formal hearing.

[@adrianaarjona1396]

Would've liked to hear what you had to say about Alexandria's line of questioning

[@katherinemorelle7115]

Adriana Arjona it did seem to be the one most intent on gaining additional pieces of evidence, rather than wasting time on grandstanding. At least, that’s what I think from the differing questions that I’ve seen. Personally, I was impressed.

[@MihitsTilozi]

I can't believe I havent found your channel until now! Your sober, clear and impartial analysis of this very well-talked-about hearing is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for this video

[@lasrber]

I would like to state, officially and on record, Stella is best girl, and deserves all the tummy rubs.

[@thetruephoenixful]

My favorite thing about this testimony was Trump's reaction particularly how according to trump Cohen lied for several hours except for when he said "I don't know if Trump colluded with Russia". That seems strangely convenient

[@RuminatingRaptor]

So very true.

[@dmike03]

I can't believe people actually believe that crap! Only the good stories are true. If it's bad or damaging for trump it's automatically fake! I mean, this is the real world ain't it? Cuz, It damn sure don't seem like it sometimes!

[@jeckjeck3119]

@@dmike03 Trump supporter have left real world long ago.

[@athenacykes3486]

@@jeckjeck3119 Still held onto the world longer than Hillary supporters.

[@jeckjeck3119]

@@athenacykes3486 Hillary has no real supporters. People only voted for her cuz alternative was... well... all this.

[@Max7345-i8m]

I can understand your frustration with the lack of follow-up questions during this hearing, but try to keep in mind that every single person asking Cohen questions only has a small window of time to do so--about 5-7 minutes if I recall correctly, and the length of Cohen's answers can eat away at this time limit as well.

[@grendelum]

Yet one side didn’t ask a *_single_* actual question...

[@dapeach06]

While true, the time limit could have been mitigated with proper preparedness. AOC managed to ask all the questions she had, and follow up questions, in less than her alotted time. Too many other members of Congress wasted time with grandstanding, or asking questions whose answers they hadn't prepared for.

[@PoggoMcDawggo]

They could easily ask him to testify on another date to answer follow up questions. Though they probably already received their answers in the closed door hearing the day prior. Or maybe they just don't want to ask for political reasons who knows anymore!

[@jeckjeck3119]

@@dapeach06 Yeah. They call her dumb.... yet she and her progressive friends are only ones doing it right:/

[@MrS-pe6sd]

Because of the Democrats asked any real questions they would have exposed this whole fallacy.

[@crovax1375]

Can you do a video on Paul Manafort's sentencing? Getting four years when guidelines provided nineteen years is probably worth talking about

[@Garethaxz]

This would be fantastic, though I'm not really sure there's much to go over past the usual white-collar wrist-slap policy.

[@shawnstatuto2444]

This would be interesting. But if youre worried he's not getting enough time, dont't because NY state is charging him as well.

[@esmenouvelle9439]

The judge received letters from quite a few government officials, can't remember what these kind of letters are called, but they said that he's wonderful, don't give him much of a sentence. And it worked.

[@crovax1375]

@@shawnstatuto2444 I'm not worried about whether if he got off lightly or not. I'm more interested in what determines sentencing guidelines and a lawyers viewpoint on them

[@pluto8404]

Whats with americans wanting to give everyone life in prison. Then yall wonder why you have such a high number of prisoners???

[@tommyshumaker6661]

Pls address manifort's 47 month sentence.

[@brandondavidson4085]

He got even more from state convictions and he has more trials and indictments to face in the future. The federal judge knew this, and technically he wasn't legally incorrect. "Otherwise blameless life" is a true statement, because Manafort had never been charged for any of his previous crimes, but he is now.

[@bokhans]

Tommy Shumaker 24 + 10 = 7 rich privilege mathematics. You and I would have gotten 34 years and not in a country club style place with several tennis courts. USA law is broken.

[@Salted_Fysh]

I was sad to see that this hearing had the exact same issues as the Kavanaugh hearing. Too little follow-up and too few attempts at getting at the details. Given the (political) importance of these hearings for both sides, I am surprised that they apparently forgot to ask for expert advice on how to conduct a witness examination. Twice.

[@Dragonite43]

Even worse when you consider that many politicians are LAWYERS! 0.o

[@hariman7727]

There's some huge details in there, like Cohen never having been to the Ukraine when he was supposed to be setting up the trump/russia collusion. But most of this testimony is Cohen lying for Meuller, to try to smear and convict Trump for defeating Hillary. Paying someone to not speak about something negative with your own money is NOT a crime. Having your lawyer pay that and then using your own money to pay the lawyer back is NOT a crime. This was a show, not any actual testimony, and the democrats are ignoring dozens, if not hundreds of black and minority people who will defend Trump. The woman's whole speech about the black person being brought was a racist diatribe condemning Trump for being white while existing.

[@vallokius886]

@@hariman7727 He didn't pay Cohen back with his personal money, he used either donation funds from the Trump Charity or his campaign finances to do it (I forget which), either instance is illegal. Stop lying about the facts.

[@hariman7727]

@@vallokius886 but that's the lie. Everything I have heard points to Trump paying for that with his own funds. it's just the mainstream media coverage is always accusing him of using campaign funds. And again I would like to point out the Cowan stands to gain a massive amount of time off of his convictions for other crimes because he confessed to a non crime to get Trump. On top of that, legally, Cohen pleading guilty doesn't nothing to convict Trump. It just means that one habitual liar has pled guilty to a non crime.

[@kevinschrage9447]

Keep in mind this was the public hearing. This was about dangling red meat in front of the press to score political points. The closed door hearing were where they would run down details of Cohen's testimony.

[@galileykwong7017]

If a news network like PBS Newshour invited you to analyze a case in their show, would you go?

[@13orrax]

can you do robocop and robocop 2 next? my lawyer friends keep telling me theyre busy and not to bother them at work

[@worsel555]

My lawyer said he would but would have to double his rates.

[@iansullivan9738]

Original or remake?

[@worsel555]

@@iansullivan9738 ALWAYS the original.

[@cylonred8902]

Rep Jim Jordan is an embarrassment to Ohio - this and other statements after the riot prove it.

[@i-win]

clap clap *LAW REVIEW*

[@LastDr3am3r445]

i-win 👏🏻👏🏻

[@Heartless-Sage]

Even as someone from the UK not the US this is fascinating to watch thank you for your views on these matters they are most enjoyable.

[@Falcrist]

Almost as fascinating as watching brexit proceeding in the house of commons. Ordah *_OOODAAAH_*

[@peterobinson3678]

I second that! (op, not Brexit!)

[@sonnyritali4960]

Video request: laws broken by Miss Frizzle in the magic school bus

[@lifestories1446]

While I agree with the recommendations, the congress members only have 5 minutes to question the witnesd. This prevents the followup that is being recommended. Further this is a hearing, not a trial.

[@ChrisB-ox5rn]

will you do a video about sovereign citizens and so called right to travel and where these people are getting these laws from.

[@TribuneAquila]

Check out a channel called Knowing Better, I think the video is called governing paper people. But he did a deep dive on what they believe and where they interpret these rights from.

[@TBDF12]

They get a bunch of them from the articles of confederation ( the U.S's first constitution that sucked so bad they threw it out to start over). In highschool my schools resource officer seriously told a teacher, "I can't do anything to him he's a sovereign citizen." The kid was yelling and then refusing to go to the office.

[@kholinar4819]

"Sovereign citizens" is one can of worms, but the "right to travel" has roots in English Common Law and is enshrined in the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution. Essentially, right to travel and its ilk are the things that were assumed to be rights so fundamental that they didn't need to be mentioned by the framers, because by giving the people far more expansive rights, like the first, second, and fifth, they didnt see the need to name them. They just wrote a catchall ninth that essentially said "If its a right more fundamental than these, its protected.

[@michaelheliotis5279]

@@kholinar4819 Yeah, and probably the greatest example of the Framers' propensity for not enumerating what they believed to be fundamental rights is in the wording of the Second Amendment, which doesn't actually confer the right to bear arms but simply states that this right "shall not be infringed", because the Framers believed it to be a fundamental right in extension of the natural right of all men (but not women or blacks) to defend themselves.

[@kholinar4819]

I can generally agree with that sentiment, but I think the logic behind it is a little misguided. The second amendment does not describe a right "So fundamental" to not need outlining. It was a right not previously afforded by the Crown, thus when it was enshrined in the second, demonstrated that the rights previously afforded under the monarchy were also being recognized. Also, It doesn't recognize the right of all men to bear arms. but to maintain a well-regulated militia, and this was interpreted by the courts to mean that they had the right to maintain arms.

[@Iejir_Isk]

I appreciate a mostly (far as i could tell) unbiased look at this, and the actual legal issues involved. Thank you

[@slvdchronicles]

That was some smooth transition to your integrated ad. Hahaha!

[@jonwhisler6967]

Legal Eagle, have you done a legal break down of the trial in legally blonde?

[@696190]

check his channel

[@BLasherman]

He hasn't yet, It has been highly requested, I'm sure it's coming as an anniversary episode or something. I'm sure he's thinking about it.

[@brentchaffin9603]

Please do a Part Two covering more of the hearing! I've been watching this channel for awhile, especially following for the recent Trump videos, and this one was the best one so far.

[@Sheepyhead]

This is so extremely interesting, I really appreciate the simple technical deconstruction of the techniques used!

[@773superprguy]

I really love this channel!! You definitely clean up the back and forth mess from congress

[@TheCoyoteKid]

Could you do a video on paralegals? I'm going to school to be a paralegal, and I would love to hear your thoughts on paralegals and what makes a top flight paralegal. Also, what are some things paralegals can do right out of school to make themselves stand out, especially if they have no previous experience in a law firm. Thank you for all your videos, they're very informative and I enjoy everything I've learned watching you.

[@dustydarkhorse]

This is definitely one that I'm going to watch at home and take notes on. After work it is then. Thanks for this!

[@idontwantachannel7542]

I know you couldn't put it all in because there's sooooooooooooo much but I wish you could have explained Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's questioning. I've heard so many interpretations that I'm genuinely baffled about what she was up to. Maybe you could do a Part II?

[@fpp144]

Dude ur dog is working. There are literally NO rude, cringe, or immature comments

[@WinterPhoenixForestKirin]

Oh God, that dog is so cute. How could anybody be uncivil when they're the moderator? Almost reminds me of my own cavachon. They'd be a great moderator, since no one can get a word in edgewise when they're talking!

[@Good_Horsey]

Objection, your videos are too damn good and I can't get any work done around the house. Also, some of us are eagerly expecting your analysis video to the "Chicanery" episode of Better Call Saul.

[@aqualitymagentachickenmask3298]

SleekStratos Yes! Desperately so!

[@dribkram]

Holy crap, that was amazing. Best Skillshare plug ever!

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

"Making out Ms. Patton to be a demonstrative exhibit" is a much nicer way to say what Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib said. I liked her wording better. Your wording is funnier though.

[@tuxedomollusk]

Well, LegalEagle's wording was actually accurate. Saying that you're "making a prop of" someone is just a way of saying "you're providing evidence that supports your argument" in a way that *sounds* ugly, as though pointing out a fact that strengthens your claim actually _weakens_ it somehow.

[@Reinforce_Zwei]

Did you also like her wording that "Some people did something" in reference to 9/11? Tlaib should have resigned for those comments, but you'd still support her because "muh muslims".

[@natewilliamson5894]

i love the segue to the ad in every video, its so smooth

[@djbloo8996]

I'm not racist I have a black friend XD

[@grendelum]

DJ Blue - let me wheel out the black staffer we’ve brought out before and make her just stand there to prove it !!

[@savageshot3723]

Why would a racist have a friend they're racist towards though? Honest question

[@AbMaSync]

Meanwhile I will talk the entire time on HER behalf. XU

[@joer8854]

@@savageshot3723I knew a skinhead who had swastika tattoos used racial slurs on a constant basis and berated African Canadians all the time. He used to sit with a man who was one of the darkest African Americans I've ever seen and talk about why segregation was the best thing and introduce him as the whitest black man you'll ever meet. But he's not racist right.

[@AbMaSync]

@@savageshot3723 Many reasons. It could be that they want to make themselves look better ("see we are progressive, this person says so"), they could honestly like that person but ignoring their bias against people of the same marginalized group or they could be desperate, they notice that some stances they held before are not welcome anymore so they try to find support in any way, accepting even people from the group they don't like.

[@hillwin10]

Killer video -- don't have time to watch it in its entirety right now. At the end of lunch -- going to suggest one more time: Cartman vs Kyle -- Imaginationland trilogy (i.e dry balls [South Park]). To Kill a Mocking Bird (if for some reason you haven't done this yet).

[@tjmed7708]

pls pls do southpark lol

[@audraeden8923]

Way cool Legal….. I watched the whole thing when you first posted. Then today, really savored it. Your insights aside, you are a great teacher.

[@Abou47Pandas]

I watched that whole hearing. I don't understand why he would be lying, considering he might go to jail himself for doing the things he has done.

[@Telhias]

Why do people confess to crimes they didn't commit? It happens and we cannot dismiss this possibility just because we can't think of a reason.

[@kukuandkookie]

Telhias True, but that often happens from exhaustion and/or (psychologically (sometimes even physically) manipulative) interrogation. If it was exhaustion, Michael Cohen can retract his confession. He could also be viewed as an internalized false confession (where he comes to believe he did these crimes), but he’s mostly implicating Donald Trump more than just implicating himself, and usually people who internalize false confessions have mental health issues. Cohen himself seems pretty clear-headed with a coherent story. Of course that doesn’t mean it’s off the table that he’s still telling falsehoods, but just adding my two cents. :P

[@ephilbin]

Cohen: "Trump never expected to win the election." Also Cohen: "Trump would certainly consider collusion with Russia in order to win the election at any cost." The Cohen hearing contradicts the Cohen hearing. He's a convicted perjurer. He has already lied to congress. I'd say the burden of proof is on those who believe him.

[@danielallen3454]

@@ephilbin Trump didn't want to win the election. He wanted to lose but avoid looking like a loser. He wanted to lose by a slim margin so he could say, "See!? See how well I did!? It was rigged! They rigged the election! Read all about it in my new book and watch me talk about it on TrumpTV!" Unfortunately for Trump, a lot of people around him actually did want him to win. Which is why he;s now in the position of having his entire life gone through and every shady thing he;s ever done exposed to the world.

[@harrydepova8896]

@@ephilbin eh... you're cherry picking. Those statements are not contradictory. Just because he didn't expect to win doesn't mean he didn't pull out all the stops to try and do so. Just because you think you're outmatched in a race doesn't mean you won't try and pull out an upset. Right now he has no reason to lie. He's not getting anything in return for his testimony and assumes all the risk if he's proven to have lied with no chance of a presidential pardon. (which is what he thought he would get for lying to congress the first time) Also Cohen was convicted of lying about a coverup to protect trump and his crimes, now you're saying he's lying to implicate Trump. So which is it? If you're using him lying before as a reason to not trust him now, then that must mean Trump is guilty of what cohen was lying about in the first place.

[@jordansullivan5764]

I so appreciate your well-reasoned, logical explanations. It should be more common on the internet.

[@theshuggie]

We’ve really needed a channel like this to set the record straight in a nonpartisan manner. Keep up the good work!

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

The Justice Democrats in that hearing, Ro Khanna, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Rashida Tlaib did a great job. Khanna established a solid legal theory of guilt. Ocasio-Cortez established the legal basis for specific future subpoenas. Tlaib called out the illigitimate tactics used by the other side. All of them were great.

[@xmosphere]

Sam AOC has had really good hearings in committee so far. The money in politics one was a great breakdown of just how bad legal corruption is

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

@@xmosphere It was. I do wish she would have asked one question to the head of Common Cause who was there testifying: Why don't they disclose their donors? They fight against groups like Wolf-PAC trying to end the corrupting influence of money in politics by lying about Wolf-PAC and lying about the process Wolf-PAC is using and also lying about the fact that they disclose their donors when if you check their website, you will find zero donors listed. And they do it all while pretending they agree with Wolf-PACs goals, just so long as you don't try anything too effective. I wish she had asked about that. But otherwise, it was a great line of questioning.

[@jeckjeck3119]

@@xmosphere But.... but....I was told that she is not smart, how can that be!? /SARCASM.

[@MrS-pe6sd]

I assume you guys are all being sarcastic right, I mean really?... a great job? Then why did all the Democrats distance themselves from the circus the second it was over? nothing came of it.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

@@MrS-pe6sd Because most of them also take the money. Legal corruption is bipartisan.

[@MikeO89]

I have a video idea: could you do a video on how appeals work? Specifically, how might a case make it all the way up to the supreme court? What are the decisions made along the way that might deny appeals?

[@aceshighdueceslow]

Always a pleasure to see some cool lawyer commentary on real-life action, but it is an even greater pleasure to hear you do a roast disguised as a sponsor. Or a sponsor disguised as a roast, whichever way you look at it it is hilarious.

[@terrovek]

@0:30 Yes you can. It wouldn't likely be practical, and it would be a huge amount of work, surely. But you could do it, and I would watch it. I sat through the entire video put out on C-span of the proceeding, and I would LOVE to just see it overlayed with you in the corner commentating. Maybe a new format for videos worth investigating? Probably not. But I'd be into it.

[@Serai3]

Another great video. Thanks for clarifying and explaining these issues!

[@chaosXP3RT]

If anything, this has really taught me that lawyers really study psychology and language. They know the right questions to ask and how responses to those questions might go. Very cool!

[@FlorisGerber]

thats the best segway into sponsors i have ever seen. subscribed!

[@sabinehahn9774]

Aren't US citizens concerned about the obvious incompetence on both sides of politics when it comes to general knowledge and in particular knowledge of the law - don't they have at least knowledgable consultants that they listen to or prepare before these hearings? I already noticed that during the hearing of Zuckerberg.

[@ElBailes]

Objection! Would Michael Cohen be unable to take a book or movie deal under son of Sam laws?

[@vincek8294]

My understanding of it is that he’d be free to write the book or sell the story, but if that law applies, he would be unable to keep the profits from such a deal. The Son of Sam could write a book, but the proceeds would have gone to the victims. But I could be very wrong lol

[@therrydicule]

@@vincek8294 In this case, the victims are all Americans given the value of democracy. So, we should encourage him to wrote a book that became a best seller and a great film. Hey, moneyball did 60 millions at the box office... It means everybody would get a quarter. It's better than a kick in the ass...

[@asher8754]

It dosent come into effect cause no victim in this case several white collar criminals made money off books like for example Jordan Belford

[@karl7736]

Now the true question for the aspiring attorney, if your conduct for a client makes you do dubious things and need an attorney of your own... is the retainer billable to the original client.

[@djbloo8996]

Either side of the political spectrum you need to realize this is bad and shoudnt be let go

[@FlareSherbetNatsu]

DJ Blue Your icon is 10/10

[@kholinar4819]

Party over country, say the republicans

[@djbloo8996]

@Brandon Roberts what logic is that and what are you talking about?

[@djbloo8996]

@Brandon Roberts oh ok

[@Brahuna]

Thanks a whole lot. You are shaping my knlowledge in American legal system. I am a lawyer in Brazil.

[@TheMouseMasterYT]

2:10 Stella seems to be set to "blep"

[@Throatzillaaa]

Omg i didn't even notice. He's hot af either way.

[@lillyrey5727]

I think a deeper dive into the hearing would have been so good. Great breakdown. None of it was boring.

[@Efreeti]

I am curious to what extent the kind of blatant attempts at character assasination, and personal attacks, especially evident in the questions directed towards Mr. Cohen by Paul Gosar and Jim Jordan, are common and acceptable in a court of law?

[@goodgulf13]

We need to run these hardcore conservatives out of government.

[@menotyu9576]

which hardcore conservatives? and why exactly? just because you hate them?

[@goodgulf13]

@@menotyu9576 The Russian trolls and other snowflakes

[@JD-mz1rl]

@@goodgulf13 lol so anyone who is a conservative is a Russian? What a wonderful little fantasy world you live in. Do you need any more tinfoil paper for your hats?

[@verdatum]

I would very much love it if you would do a video about how classical rhetoric is involved in modern lawyering. If I am not mistaken, you keep on hinting that you know quite a bit about that subject and it is a topic that absolutely fascinates me.

[@martinjara5455]

Noooo. I wanted to hear your take on AOCs questioning. 😭😭

[@joshuaford9714]

When I was watching this hearing, I was really hoping we would get your perspective. Glad to see it uploaded!

[@MagatsuUjio]

Interjection: I feel Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s time was well spent asking fully formed questions and would have been a positive reference in how to handle a witness.

[@Sam_on_YouTube]

Agreed. Ocasio-Cortez and Ro Khanna had the best lines of questioning. Together with Rashida Tlaib, the Justice Democrats were on fire at the hearing.

[@MagatsuUjio]

infinityquasar is a tool that is fine when repeating silly conspiracy theories, but falters when pressed for evidence and not conjecture. If you have a bias against her being progressive, female, non white, vocal, or simply because she has a spotlight, maybe work on that before opening your mouth in any court, be it law or public opinion.

[@basedelon]

@@MagatsuUjio when you have nothing to counter the previous comment, name-call and pull out the race card.

[@dillydongdillydo1928]

MagatsuUjio ad hominems are all you got. Pathetic.

[@Junkzillabox]

Wow, super fascinating!! Thank you for enlightening us!

[@Jessie_Helms]

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider ban-worthy? Banning is a very touchy subject on the internet, especially on KZbin, but your channel has a standard that is expected to be met that I think pretty much every viewer is aware of. Would it take something extreme like threats, or something more- though annoying- tame like rambling or being Uber-partisan?

[@Jessie_Helms]

Snowjew makes sense

[@lotoreo]

I'm absolutely in love with your videos

[@fiercemonkey1]

That is what i call a smooth transition into sponsored content, normally i just click on a new video when it comes up but he kept them comming. Dude i want you as my lawyer.

[@jeremiahpratt2492]

Loving the maturity and honesty you're putting into these contraversal videos, and I'm glad you're not shying from the topics. Anyway, have you ever seen Andy Sorkins The Newsroom? I'm very fond of it, and in it they claim they are using courtroom like procedures in their debates and broadcasts. I would love to see an analyses of the accuracy in it. If nothing else, maybe I made a recommendation of a show you can enjoy as well.

[@abhishekprashant3791]

Your transitions to sponsors are amazing

[@ritacampbell3833]

I believed him in the last testimony. He was abused and manipulated by a malignant narcissist. He woke up. He no longer was under the narcissist’s control. Therefore I believed him. A malignant narcissist is nothing to play around with, they have no scruples, no conscience, and no loyalty to anyone but themselves.

[@RagaarAshnod]

Thanks for keeping up with these on going situations.

[@hebera.carrillo2049]

Can you cover the michael Jackson case

[@garudagal23]

Great takes on the hearings points, i even like the way you work your ads into the topic. Thumbs up!

[@kelsyerscluster7936]

Let's give a semi legal example. Let's say I shot a man in the leg, and I say x person wanted me to do so but would never say it, even if I am right who is actually at fault? Spoilers, still me. Let's take this one step further. I had a lawyer at one time who said he felt breaking the law was the only way to do something after doing it. After breaking said law. I fired him on the spot.

[@coryzilligen790]

"Let's say I shot a man in the leg, and I say x person wanted me to do so but would never say it, even if I am right who is actually at fault? Spoilers, still me." If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that person x did indeed request it, then they would generally be liable as a conspirator to the crime. That's why the statements Cohen made about recordings and payments are of such big interest.

[@aceofspades9503]

Just wanted to shout out and say that I really love videos like these- super informative with a great breakdown.

[@SteveLamberts]

Wow! I thoroughly enjoyed that. Thanks for your insight.

[@MrLongshotbob]

I'm sure I'm too late but I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love a continuation of this.

[@Archy516]

wow, that advert of skillshare was so smooth.

[@NealMiskinMusic]

The segue into the sponsor spot was smooth! I have no comment on the rest of the video, but that was a quality segue right there!

[@johnhaggerty6009]

I really enjoyed your legal analysis of Cohen's testimony and the questions and political commentary by the members of Congress.

[@firebirdca2066]

I love how you incorporate your advertisements into your episode that way. Best way possible!

[@MrDuncanGilbert]

One of my favorite channels!

[@MagusTF2]

Great video as always!

[@gibbage1]

Wow. Thats how you do a skillshare sponsorship! Savage!

[@henryphilippeaux3566]

This seems like a pretty smart side-hustle, nice channel

[@radish1395]

Mark Meadows is such an embarrassment. I really hope my district doesn't reelect him after this.

[@shaycormaic5365]

Connen: Trump's racist Sane ppl: no hes not Connen : Trump = Russia Sane: ppl show us any evidence

[@ArlanKels]

Anyone who ever claims they're not racist are lying. Every single person on this planet is racist. Racism is hardwired into us biologically, as it needs to be.

[@ailius1520]

@@ArlanKels Okay, so racism is the Left's version of 'original sin', because the claim is that it's an inherit fault of being human that needs to be 'redeemed'. Guess what? That makes Leftism a religion. Not everyone has to accept your religion.

[@albaniaalban]

Trump: Says Haitians have aids and that Nigerians "will never want to go back to their huts" Trump: Calls Puerto Rican workers lazy after hurricane Maria. Trump: Pardons Joe Arpeggio after he's 1) found guilty of contempt of court and 2) found racially profiling hispanic citizens. Trump: Defends the Charlottesville rally and is later praised by former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke. Trump: Calls Haiti etc "shithole countries", later denied he ever made such a statement. To prove something beyond a reasonable doubt only works when people are able to doubt.

[@ailius1520]

​@@albaniaalban You don't understand. Okay, you've proved somebody is a racist. We no longer care. I'm done apologizing for being born without melanin. According to your religion, I must atone for the original sin of being white by offering a sacrifice of wealth and freedom. I reject that religion outright.

[@albaniaalban]

@@ailius1520 Hm, I'm sorry, but how is giving people the same opportunity, regardless of skin color, giving up your wealth and your freedom? I don't mean to pry, but do you see it as a zero-sum game?

[@bloodytea]

really fascinating to get into the game theory of law on what is the best practice to get the outcome you desire.

[@MISCplaceholder]

Love this stuff! Keep it up.

[@Jeremyneedsaname]

I love the advertising transitions connected with the content.

[@jonathanmatthews4774]

This was a fascinating review. I'd love to hear a longer version. This was very enlightening.

[@drewh2341]

I'm surprised you didn’t hit on the AOC questioning, which seemed the most direct and cogent of the entire day. Edit: Spelling - Your channel is awesome.

[@nacianon9368]

I object that you did not touch on Debbie Wassermanshultz’s ridiculous questions. As a layperson I shaking my head at her and knew her questions were speculative. And when Cohen said so I laughed.

[@Bonzulac]

24:14 OOOOOOOHHHH look at Mr Slick with the segue! Very smooth.