Is the Whistleblower Complaint HEARSAY? - Real Law Review

⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
In response to a CIA whistleblower complaint, many of the President’s supporters argue it’s hearsay and therefore should be disregarded. Should we? Is it hearsay? What is Hearsay?
Legal Eagles get 2 months of unlimited learning on Skillshare for FREE: legaleagle.link/skillshare
I don't know if you can trust him, but check out Knowing Better! / @knowingbetter
Hearsay is an out of court statement used for the truth of the matter asserted in that statement. As I was writing this episode George Conway and Ken White wrote some amazing tweet threads that covered the same ground. I highly recommend reading them:
/ 1178313211424100352
/ 1177995935332409344
You should be subscribed to both.
Also, it just occurred to me that that the President’s statements are probably not being used for the truth of the matter asserted (in fact most of what he says is false), but rather the independent effect of the statements on the Ukranian president and for their legal status (i.e. an abuse of power).
What started as a rumor that there was an intelligence community complaint that the White House was trying to quash snowballed into a scandal that may dwarf Watergate.
Early this week we learned that the whistleblower’s complaint deal with the President directly. Most assumed it related to the July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.
When the White House released the transcript of the call with Zelensky, we learned that the two leaders discussed military aid, and then discussed two “favors” that President Trump wanted from Ukraine: 1) he wanted Ukraine to look into “servers” and Crowdstrike and 2) he wanted Ukraine to restart an investigation into Trump’s main political rival Joe Biden.
The next day the full Whistleblower complaint was released. The full complaint recapitulated all of the information in the read-out of the phone call and also dropped the bombshells that the White House had been attempting to coverup the phone call (and potentially others) but hiding it in a computer system designed only for the most secure communications.
House Democrats have already voted to start an impeachment inquiry.
(Thanks to Skillshare for sponsoring this video)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Real Law Review by LegalEagle; a series 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!
Remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate. Stella is the LegalBeagle and she wields the gavel of justice. DO NOT MESS WITH STELLA.
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
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!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta: / stellathelegalbeagle
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: [e-mail]

[@LegalEagle]

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

[@CyBorgXG1]

The best legal videos on all of KZbin!

[@PlzDntKilMeh]

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

[@Technizor]

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

[@notnormalyet]

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

[@fartzinacan]

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

[@BeerontheBrain327]

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

[@themoleman6806]

Sums up the anti-trump clowns pretty well.

[@gavinschultz8994]

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

[@faliakuna8162]

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

[@emptyother]

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

[@themoleman6806]

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

[@Salazzarslaan]

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

[@jhcoverdrive9287]

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

[@paulyanosik9498]

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

[@awesomesauce_3516]

Jonathan Zirkle I love you for this comment

[@capnbarky2682]

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

[@MrXMysteriousX]

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

[@queenannsrevenge100]

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

[@megladon88]

That was an epic line!

[@CalebDenn]

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

[@FaceTubeU]

Feint.

[@queenannsrevenge100]

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

[@ihatecrackhead]

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

[@Tarulia]

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

[@rsmith02]

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

[@Jaxam01]

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

[@acester86]

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

[@planescaped]

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

[@ErebosGR]

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

[@yurdp]

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

[@bryantcox3125]

Lmao. Thhhhhe Simpsons. 😁

[@DreamingInTechnicolor]

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

[@yurdp]

S. D. That’s correct

[@samihalloun7111]

Works on contingency? No, money down!

[@roooofus636]

@@DreamingInTechnicolor Lionel Hutz

[@bretbret8293]

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

[@Mega_Mikey]

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

[@ScotHarkins]

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

[@sparkysun43]

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

[@killathraxx3036]

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

[@michaelsauls1142]

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

[@scabbarae]

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

[@NeoFryBoy]

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

[@k98killer]

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

[@nothingineternityterms]

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

[@jonnyboy122189]

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

[@kjdewitt]

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

[@Bhethar]

Hahaha same 🤣

[@2011carp]

Only in the eyes of the God Emperor

[@syntaxusdogmata3333]

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

[@deepinthought2329]

@2011carp Warhammer 40k reference?

[@jblue1622]

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

[@dfer131]

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

[@SunflowerSpotlight]

It is quite catchy. 😅

[@JoltsD]

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

[@carlwawrina8080]

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

[@JGirDesu]

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

[@NeilHolmes72]

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

[@toddr2265]

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

[@kickboxerinsj13]

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

[@TheBrothergreen]

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

[@kickboxerinsj13]

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

[@TheBrothergreen]

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

[@kickboxerinsj13]

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

[@QuikVidGuy]

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

[@KnowingBetter]

LegalEagle is the greatest KZbin channel that exists today.

[@LegalEagle]

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

[@noahorakwue2653]

you two are hilarious!!!

[@9393jack]

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

[@nolanmartin3573]

No u

[@octopusph.d7737]

@@9393jack watch the video, BOZO

[@johnarnoudse7013]

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

[@Blossora]

inconceivable

[@havamall]

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

[@gamophyte]

All rise for honorable Inigo Montoya

[@jarls5890]

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

[@AtulSohan]

i heard someone say "legal Eagles balls shrunk beacue of all the hormone he took to get in shape for thode indocheno suits !" . i present that hearsay as a strong evidence corrabrating the same with previous experince of liberal mangainas !! BTW if u want a real legal breakdown from an actual and legal persective go to vivafrei kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIHXo3Vpo7Wbhpo i too have an opinion .. but even as a law student i relaize what bias is ...... i get it ORANGEMAN BAD!!!

[@ignitionfrn2223]

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

[@radar9561]

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

[@alwaysabsent7161]

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

[@Grind121]

I read two laws then come here to get more info

[@AnimeZone247]

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

[@shinobi-no-bueno]

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

[@WhirlOmar]

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

[@Grind121]

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

[@iliakatster]

You know Devin's getting excited when his shoulders wiggle

[@gavinschultz8994]

What a cutie.

[@tadstrange1465]

Wait his name is Devin

[@DrRockso79]

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

[@xanderbeutel9239]

Hm?

[@Bwleon7]

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

[@xanderbeutel9239]

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

[@CeeEm-MoT]

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

[@SlimThrull]

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

[@blusafe1]

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

[@SlimThrull]

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

[@nycstreetpoet]

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

[@SplotPublishing]

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

[@LegalEagle]

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

[@rednightfire2655]

LegalEagle It just wants to brighten your day

[@dennis4774]

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

[@LessaCaira]

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

[@robertcarson2365]

It just wants equal screen time

[@fwlo4409]

scary video

[@UncivilLaw]

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

[@abaque24]

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

[@sophiaflorence4510]

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

[@mariedemers9839]

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

[@DoctorProph3t]

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

[@dr.floridamanphd]

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

[@nhagan001]

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

[@DoctorProph3t]

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

[@KaleunMaender77]

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

[@Matt_Fields_29]

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

[@munstrumridcully]

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

[@ValkyrieTiara]

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

[@munstrumridcully]

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

[@Klaaism]

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

[@AnonEyeMouse]

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

[@munstrumridcully]

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

[@_JayRamsey_]

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

[@Buxt8224]

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

[@gavinschultz8994]

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

[@supergecko28]

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

[@brianlampert5797]

TehGex sustained.

[@SlimThrull]

Well, I lol'ed.

[@gamelairtim]

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

[@FrozenLemur]

*clap clap clap*

[@zackthebongripper7274]

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

[@Justanotherconsumer]

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

[@Justanotherconsumer]

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

[@billwest9090]

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

[@PerthScienceClinic]

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

[@dustinwhitaker9377]

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

[@Staunts]

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

[@itsmealex8959]

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

[@TheMarrrk]

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

[@johnbaer1528]

@Jay THIS!! Finally found a simple; applicable analogy in these bias-dripping comments! For the love of god people, take a breath and think critically for once...

[@solidstategaming7521]

I really enjoyed this video and all of your content, I was curious on what type of law you practice or did practice? Thanks for the information

[@Vivi2372]

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

[@Staunts]

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

[@TheLegendOfLame]

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

[@Staunts]

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

[@sedlonarime1]

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

[@TheLegendOfLame]

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

[@justinaclayburn2248]

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

[@haldosprime3896]

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

[@micahpalmer3537]

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

[@IskurBlast]

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

[@Bhethar]

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

[@dittokiddo3340]

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

[@br8745]

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

[@oldvlognewtricks]

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

[@Warrior_Culture]

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

[@rmdodsonbills]

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

[@blindsightedkill]

Lyndsey, "It's all hearsay!" Actual lawyer, "That doesn't make it any less damning." It's amazing how much smarter you become when you get rid of your natural bias.

[@TheXanderGrim]

Read the document boxes checked on the report then refer to US 18 1001

[@gbonkers666]

Graham is an actual lawyer too.

[@TheXanderGrim]

@@gbonkers666 But Hearsay in this case Devalidates the document based on the check mark of the applicant

[@ActivelyVacant]

It's like when you have people arguing against science that something is "just a theory."

[@DorianGrayClampitt]

gbonkers666 and yet..... can’t seem to make legal arguments to save his life.

[@CaptainCocaine]

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

[@rsmith02]

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

[@beeble2003]

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

[@override367]

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

[@DJHise]

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

[@beeble2003]

DJHise Watch the video: DNA evidence is hearsay.

[@thermferrell]

this channel is amazing. I have taken basic civil law classes but this elaborates on many points that are glossed over in those classes. Keep up the good work sir.

[@andresvillarreal9271]

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

[@abcdef-ms9mb]

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

[@andresvillarreal9271]

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

[@xaisies]

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

[@Vael221]

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

[@GevinShaw]

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

[@sivad1025]

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

[@samanjj]

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

[@sivad1025]

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

[@elrojogrande744]

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

[@drewforchic9083]

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

[@FatFredyFreak]

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

[@drewforchic9083]

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

[@LolitaGray]

Thank you for this video! As a law student it is so enjoyable to watch someone in practice talk about a major topic in evidence and in the context of ongoing issue. It would be great to watch more videos on other core topics in civil procedure and evidence.

[@mikearisbrocken8507]

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

[@FauxFoxPaw]

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

[@Flash9230]

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

[@rvanzo925]

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

[@Liliputian07]

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

[@Jdpanzone]

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

[@UGNAvalon]

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

[@huttj509]

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

[@Apis4]

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

[@dr.floridamanphd]

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

[@Cryptic0013]

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

[@Ramskull5]

I was listening to this at work and I thought he meant the other Mike Myers 😂😂

[@mbryant861]

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

[@RustinChole]

Me too.

[@joecool2501]

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

[@TimBaoht]

Not against a sitting president

[@JoeSkeen]

@@TimBaoht lol wut

[@rvanzo925]

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

[@darubicon1501]

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

[@joecool2501]

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

[@zmanjace1364]

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

[@scrunchycrumbundles8013]

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

[@FaelCacilhas]

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

[@hciapetus1251]

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

[@Herpestidae]

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

[@kokobeans6956]

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

[@poozizzle]

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

[@SuperTed588]

Thanks for all the hard work you put into these really interesting vids!!

[@NicolasdeFontenay]

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

[@BirdSauce]

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

[@hi00118]

Excited utterance exception!

[@pre-packaged_9692]

Same.

[@crystalmayfield1692]

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

[@lj158]

Awesome video, answered a lot of questions/confusion I had with this case

[@danielholmes7658]

You mean HERESY!!?? *purging intensifies*

[@nolan7295]

FOR THE EMPEROR!

[@ilyaaaaaaaaaaaas]

The Codex Astartes supports this action

[@FrankHarwald]

Did you mean hershey? *candy bar chocolatisifies*

[@JFDavis-lq1bp]

Did somebody say HERESY?

[@RKroese]

He who stands with me, shall BE my brother.

[@crazymonk27]

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

[@Joesolo13]

Exactly

[@S41t4r4]

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

[@lylemcdermott2566]

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

[@crazymonk27]

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

[@crazymonk27]

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

[@Hawkeye9165]

Hey LegalEagle. As always thanks for the vid. Very interesting one and I really appreciate you taking the time to give a masterly synopsis on hearsay and the legality around it.

[@psychohazards]

I heard that you sir are really useful. Also love that little shoulder dance you do when you talk. Way more appealing than my shaky leg.

[@mattcelder]

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

[@garrysmith1029]

Isk how to feel about that knowing better guy

[@sabinrawr]

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

[@gavinschultz8994]

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

[@sedifric873]

Knowing better? I love the channel, and I really didn't expect a shoutout from here!

[@teethgrinder83]

When you said "Mike Myers is killing me" I couldn't help but think of the actor/comedian 😂

[@biohazard724]

Imagine the last words you hear before being stabbed to death are "Oh behave!"

[@teethgrinder83]

@@biohazard724 haha yeah it would be interesting if nothing else

[@aka_pcfx]

My dyslexia always makes me reas "heresy"

[@karsten69]

many lawyers thinks it's heresy too.

[@moukidelmar]

Seems reasonable

[@VerbenaComfrey]

So want to post a space marine meme . . .

[@nikkity5491]

@@VerbenaComfrey *DO IT FOR THE EMPORER*

[@MrUndersolo]

Reaslly?

[@tombreon]

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

[@mistylee717]

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

[@rsmith02]

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

[@alexisc.4289]

Even if I wasn’t interested in the content of your videos, your voice is so nice to listen to that I’d probably watch anyway lol

[@JagannathMxO]

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

[@VIPandalicious]

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

[@JackgarPrime]

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

[@notnormalyet]

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

[@zomaga1]

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

[@0xCAFEF00D]

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

[@BryanShort_Attorney]

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

[@marsupius]

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

[@gavinschultz8994]

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

[@JGD714]

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

[@MrJaster45]

Very good! I'm really enjoying your legal analysis. Thanks so much.

[@xzonia1]

Thank you for these videos! It's extremely helpful to me in understanding what's happening in these proceedings.

[@TonyPoirier]

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

[@Contevent]

Agent Orange.

[@blanchy]

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

[@blanchy]

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

[@blanchy]

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

[@jincyquones]

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

[@Charles-mz7rm]

Objection. I don't know if this is relevant, but the examples you were giving (Michael Myers, etc.) were assuming that we know a crime was committed, and hearsay being used as evidence against a defendant. What I am seeing with the whistleblower complaint is hearsay trying to prove a crime actually happened. Is there a legal/constitutional difference here? Obviously, as more evidence comes out, the complaint may be used as secondary or tertiary evidence to support a more robust claim, and that I have no problem with.

[@SublimeNotions]

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

[@OokamiKageGinGetsu]

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

[@N0tsaved]

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

[@OokamiKageGinGetsu]

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

[@jenniferstine8567]

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

[@clear_image_photos5477]

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

[@bastiat6865]

Your presentation is top notch. Thanks for taking it to another level.

[@RobertBarton86]

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

[@sparkysun43]

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

[@moriellymoproblems7842]

@@sparkysun43 so basically what the GOP does?

[@SonofKalas22]

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

[@etrecklefrancois2792]

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

[@elcarto22]

Excellent breakdown and explanation - I learned a lot, as always in your videos.

[@joxxla]

keep making these. pretty please! just keeping us up to date is invaluable.

[@dmj271095]

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

[@Memespam]

*[Exterminatus intensifies]*

[@kaloyan2778]

Spiritus Objecticus!

[@NeoFryBoy]

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

[@dassemultor6940]

HERESY YOU SAY??

[@copperhamster]

Objection: I have heard more than once, from lawyers giving advice (admittedly, on the internet) that when a police officer gives evidence of what you said that is against your case, that is accepted testimony, but any exculpatory statements you make will be almost certainly objected to by the prosecutor as hearsay and that objection will be upheld. Essentially that the Miranda 'can and will be used against you' should be appended with 'and cannot be used to exonerate you' (I know they don't always issue the warning of your rights that way, but you understand what I'm saying). If hearsay is that conditional, why would that be the case? I mean you have a trained observer that, undoubtedly, took notes as soon as the encounter was done. (As most officers do).

[@kaloyan2778]

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

[@malte1984]

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

[@aramelmartin]

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

[@markgriz]

Wait, when did this president *ever* think like a lawyer?

[@Irisheddy]

in a delusional way

[@MsJubjubbird]

lawyers use big words so no

[@looksirdroids9134]

@@MsJubjubbird But Trump has the biggest and best words. Just ask him.

[@Tytoalba777]

When did the president’s lawyers ever think like lawyers?

[@vladthecon]

one thing trump opponents miss is that when they see trump make a weak point they assume that was his best defense when it is often a feint to encourage overzealous attack which ends with them tripping over their own shoelaces

[@craigwildey]

When I now go and try to explain this to other people, and they inevitably reply, "Are you a lawyer?", I'm going to respond, "No, but I'm a Legal Eagle!"

[@calebcammack4096]

Don’t know if you’ll read this but your great you’ve made want to finally finish my major and get to wear you are. Not just polished and focused on the law but a professional who really is bringing otherwise hidden events to a wider and necessary audience. Keep this channel going. One day I hope to get a shout out Caleb Cammack!

[@DamonXWind]

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

[@KingofHearts]

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

[@DamonXWind]

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

[@Justanotherconsumer]

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

[@dr.floridamanphd]

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

[@WoodzTheWall]

Damn you, now I can't unhear it

[@GrimmReaper7165]

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

[@notsogreatsword1607]

ssst ssst ssst oh god its all I can hear

[@CantKillACowboyTX]

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

[@matthewroe496]

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

[@TRYtoHELPyou]

Killing it with those sponsor transitions. Great work!

[@andylowe1515]

I love the idea that the lawyers prosecuting this are watching legal eagle and going "ah ha that's what we'll argue" 🤣

[@gavinschultz8994]

andy lowe The FBI wants to know your location.

[@wizarddragon]

Looking forward to parts 3-25 of this series lol

[@AmeshaSpentaArmaiti]

I always thought hearsay was just a "someone told me he said this" kind of thing. Seems a little ridiculous that recordings are considered hearsay.

[@Joesolo13]

I think it comes down to the fact that a recording is simply a record of someone saying something. Anyone can say anything, it doesn't necessarily make it fact

[@ProjectPTSheep]

think of it the same way as lying. You think of saying someone did something as hearsay as you could lie about what they said; but you can lie on a document by omitting or lying about information and numbers. Photos and videos can also be doctored, edited or simply be missing key information to make a very misleading claim. Something that we see, is just very compelling to our lizard bias brains. Why magic tricks are so compelling, we know they are a lie but they are such a fascinating lie that it doubts or personal understanding

[@AmeshaSpentaArmaiti]

@monokhem i was thinking more in the way of security camera footage or a "secretly recorded" exchange which is what I'd assume would be submitted in the first place.

[@TGPDrunknHick]

@@Joesolo13 Actually something to take note of is that technically all digital evidence is considered to be Hearsay. it makes digital forensics a lot more difficult. literally everything done to retrieve or access the evidence must be recorded and a chain of custody must be established. the steps taken must also be repeatable. many cases have been lost because steps were not sufficiently documented, could not be retrieved or the tools used to retrieve things were not considered to be reliable. A recording can also be manipulated. things can be spliced up and all that so it's incredibly important to have a chain of custody and steps taken because metadata like when a recording was made could be key. if the recordings date and time stamp don't match the reported times it was recorded then you've got issues. Digital information is never cut and dry. it's a long and dull process but, steps can't be skipped over for simplicity or everything comes crashing down. this is something I have been studying myself so I have actually had to follow the steps and there are a lot of them to ensure validity of evidence. In this case a lot of steps have been missed. crucial steps so that means any recordings are treated even lower than what might regularly come up in a normal investigation. it might spark some kind of investigation but, it's hardly definitive proof of anything legally speaking.

[@MrHandss]

i mean it COULD be, but without diving down into the whole topic of trickery there and going by the content was 100% what was said, the issue comes down to what wasn't recorded. maybe crucial information one way or another was left out and all you have is some out of context clip

[@connorduffus]

This was the best thing I ever learned from mock trial.

[@gtoger]

I'm just hear to learn the word "recordations".

[@gavinschultz8994]

GTOger I came for the cake and stayed for the pizza.