Real Law Review: Kavanaugh v. Ford Hearing

⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
I’ve been glued to the Kavanaugh/Ford hearings. Regardless of your political views, I think it raises important legal questions for our country. Welcome to Real Law Review.
This is the first Real Law Review; a new series on this channel where I try to tackle the most important legal issues of the day. If you have suggestion for the next topic leave your comment below. And if you disagree, be sure to leave your comment in the form of an objection. But remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate.
If you’d like to see me critique your favorite legal TV show or movie like Suits or Better Call Saul, check out my Real Layer Reacts series, goo.gl/42fKce
★ A Few of My Favorite Things★
(clicking the links really helps out the channel)
Custom Suits: legaleagle.link/indochino
Ties: fave.co/2ImLY9I
Tie Clips/Bars: amzn.to/2WIQ6EE
Pocket Squares: amzn.to/2UfsKtL
▶ Why Indochino Suits? (50% off Premium Suits + free shipping) [legaleagle.link/indochino]: Off-the-rack suits NEVER fit right. Indochino makes fully custom suits that fit perfectly using any material I want, with all of the options I want. And they cost 1/3rd of what normal suits costs. I’ve purchased them with my own money for years, so I’m thrilled they are now a sponsor.
▶ Why Ties from TheTieBar? (Free shipping on orders over $50) [fave.co/2ImLY9I]: Normal ties are too fat. Skinny ties are too skinny. So these days I only wear ties that are exactly 2.5” wide. They are fashionable without being hipster. You see them in all of my videos. TieBar ties are perfect, come in every color I want, and never cost more than $19.
▶ Why these Tie Clips? [amzn.to/2WIQ6EE]: It’s really hard to find affordable tie clips that are the right size (1.5”), look good, and are great quality. These tie bars are all three. Plus the 3-pack gives a variety of styles. They pair perfectly with 2.5” ties from TheTieBar (above).
▶ Why these Pocket Squares? [amzn.to/2UfsKtL]: I like my pocket squares perfectly, well, square. Like straight-out-of-Mad-Men square. The only way to do that is with a stiffer material that keeps its shape. I’ve exhaustively tried dozens of pocket squares, and these are by far the best. It’s how I get the perfectly flat pocket square you see in my videos.
--------------------------------------------------
There are four questions that I cover today:
1. Did Judge Kavanaugh commit perjury?
2. Did he display judge-like temperament?
3. Would Judge Kavanaugh prevent investigations into President Trump or the WH?
4. Would the current allegations of sexual assault hold up in court?
5. Should judge Kavanaugh have requested an investigation?
BTW, I refer to “Judge Kavanaugh” and “Dr. Ford” because regardless of current allegations, both individuals have earned the right to be called “Judge” and “Doctor.”
On a personal note, this is not meant to be a partisan analysis. I am not going to give my opinion on whether I think Judge Kavanaugh should be elevated to the supreme court based on his judicial philosophy or his political views. I’m a lawyer first, and that’s the perspective I try to give you.
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Say hi on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ

[@stephlrideout]

"And you ask that exact question again until you get the answer that you're looking for." This is also extremely effective with children

[@purplepepper2503]

Lol

[@icemule]

.....and women.

[@stephlrideout]

@@icemule he's here all week folks, please give a warm welcome to Mid-90s Stand Up Comedian

[@cynderellylastname6060]

Is it really? I'm definitely trying this when I have kids in like.....10 years....

[@pbjae8140]

Stephanie Rideout until it is badgering.

[@DaybreakTownGSA]

"Ketchup on spaghetti" Guilty, your honor. Throw the book at him.

[@seanbrewer1232]

Give-ah him the ah-chair!

[@steelonius]

@@seanbrewer1232 Is that Mayor Quimby?

[@Yousuck00]

At least it’s not ketchup on steak. That’s an act of treason.

[@blakespeaks314]

MotoX Champ but SPAGHETTI?

[@lagon7830]

speaks ketchup is just another type of tomato sauce, it's not that bad, lmao

[@masapopovic9022]

he's done it! the mad bastard has actually done it! he's found a way to get rid of hate comments! Devon: *lifts dog* If it's not something you would say in front of Stella, don't comment it at all.

[@Bee-nw6df]

It’s so hard to imagine that Devin was once a 17 year old boy. Like, he seems like he has been an ageless stereotypical-looking lawyer forever :0

[@anenemystand5582]

I just imagine he looked exactly the same but smaller

[@pivs]

Just popped out of the womb yelling objection.

[@ginnyjollykidd]

And in his older age, if he goes gray, I recommend cultivating a dark hair look with gray temples.

[@IceNixie0102]

Objection: Stella is not a beagle.

[@SolarMechanic]

This is the real issue here! Clearly a Bichon Frise.

[@iansullivan9738]

Maybe Legal Beagal is the official position of the canis lupus familiaris mascot for this brand. It would be racist to require the mascot to fit a genotypical profile.

[@mena94x3]

Mike Carson - or a Goldendoodle. Looks exactly like mine.

[@johnnytopside9215]

@@SolarMechanic Stella the legal bichon frise just doesn't have the same ring to it

[@thenovakillers1834]

Objection: character argument/ relevance, we still love her

[@jakemccloud2965]

can we get your take on the legal definition of gambling and how that applies to loot boxes in video games?

[@hazukichanx408]

That'd be awesome!^^

[@Scottland89]

Agreed. Maybe the problem with this however is that most of the cases being made are not US based (yet) so answer given here may not matter to what is happening now.

[@jakemccloud2965]

@@Scottland89 the takes I've heard so far have from armchair lawyers, I'd like to see someone who knows what they are talking about address it

[@Scottland89]

@@jakemccloud2965 and that is why I, in the UK, had to wait until 21 to be able to drink alcohol, because the law is the same everywhere in the world 🙄 (infact I think that was something touched upon the Pheonix Wright video).

[@kevinc9065]

I endorse this idea.

[@darkartsdabbler2407]

To all the "not a beagle" comments How many of you are actually eagles? I'd argue very few

[@eliyahuberkowitz2812]

So Stella is not a beagle and he is very very far from being an eagle, especially the legal variety.

[@galaxy9radio664]

My last name is Eagle soooo

[@jacksoniansonex9235]

@@galaxy9radio664 I thought your last name was 9Radio

[@galaxy9radio664]

@@jacksoniansonex9235 hot damn you caught me 😂

[@mosspally6995]

(America intensifies)

[@teridactyl1250]

This is one of the most polite political comment sections I’ve ever seen. Good use of the ban gavel.

[@maivaiva1412]

And also of canine-aided emotional manipulation.

[@christopherg.matton9610]

The most controversial thing here is the fact that Stella is not, in fact, a beagle

[@TGMS77]

Objection... True Story but let us be happy

[@TheLibermania]

Neither i nor the lawyer are eagles.

[@HadToChangeMyName_YoutubeSucks]

@@TheLibermania -- But are you a libermaniac?

[@amish-ish]

@@TGMS77 Sustained.

[@TheLibermania]

@@HadToChangeMyName_KZbinSucks I'm a Libermann (a poorly timed reference that noone will get), but name was taken. 😉

[@Cheezeblade]

OBJECTION: I move to re title Stella "the LAWbradoodle"

[@jasonmoore7223]

Have a reply

[@samrobinson3949]

I second

[@GC-ji3ye]

Cheezeblade the objection stands

[@mikebolton4257]

Cheezeblade objection sustained

[@Yalltoosoft]

unknowning unknown I hold you in contempt of court for defamation.

[@adriennemcla]

"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean "don't take a claim of sexual assault seriously". You don't have to instantly believe he's guilty to take her claims as possibly true.

[@Sewblon]

I know that I am late to the party. But innocent until proven guilty isn't even the standard that should apply to confirmation hearings. confirmation hearings are not trials. They are job interviews.

[@mrsniffwell7736]

@@Sewblon So the questions should pertain to the job. Is there a question that Kavanaugh is an alcoholic now? If not, why so many questions about his drinking in HS/College?

[@authenticallysuperficial9874]

​@@Sewblon1) Yes, they are job interviews. 2) No, it is not appropriate to assume guilt when considering firing someone over an accusation in the workplace. So, you still assume innocence until proven guilty. There may be a less strict standard than a court of law, but you still need the presumption of innocence.

[@ourvaluesarewhoweareinadem4093]

61 of the current Senators have law degrees. How can they be this bad at being lawyers?

[@SydBat]

You don't have to be a good lawyer to become a politician. In fact, I would think being a bad (or horrible) lawyer is a prerequisite for being a politician. Just like the old saying goes - 'Those who can do. Those who can't become management/politicians/inset any other useless position'.

[@mightybluespider]

@@SydBat more importantly they sought the status of the JD and SOME resume-stuffing that couldn't be challenged so they could see office and obtain the power and prestige. So.... 61 vile people.

[@Jake-go8pz]

It's called "non practicing lawyers". Go to law school, pass the bar, and you can claim to be a "lawyer" the rest of your life. Not sure if there is a comparable occupation.

[@ourvaluesarewhoweareinadem4093]

@@Jake-go8pz A fair number of doctors go to med school but end up doing other stuff. Engineers will also do it. People with teaching certificates claim to be teachers, but we all know they are overpaid, overindulged babysitters.

[@aaronmichelson5510]

They were not avid subscribers to LegalEagles! BOOM! BAM!

[@thewonderfulsmiles2281]

Literally the best way to keep a comment section civil, show a dog

[@PMRoanhouse]

Cats are better

[@VindicAlpha]

Well, that didn't take long.

[@PMRoanhouse]

that's the joke ;)

[@briancarlson6216]

I would say showing a kitten and puppies would be even better but that's just my opinion

[@twistededge8307]

Punting a lawyers super cute dog would be a pretty bad move...good luck with that😂

[@jbrisby]

You should cover the trial of Tyrion on Game of Thrones.

[@NO_PJM]

Ooooooo that would be awesome especially in consideration of the setting of the "middle ages" (in a fantasy world) 💜

[@tsfbaf303]

jbrisby „REAL LAW review“

[@nonh1]

I don't think there's anything remotely similar to “trial by combat” in real modern law.

[@robertfaucher3750]

YES

[@iansullivan9738]

@@nonh1 yet

[@onestopshockblockcockblockcop]

Judge: Define what you meant by "she's so good with the tongue" Defendent: It means she's honest..uh..so I thought.

[@TheInsomniaddict]

Could also mean something similar to glib. Someone capable of insincere or shallow speech. Or someone capable of choosing neutral terms, as in having a political form of speech, such as having a "silver tongue" or a "gift for the gab."

[@rediz5557]

@@TheInsomniaddict That's not what that term means and you know it lol

[@efulmer8675]

@@rediz5557 Claiming "that's not what the term means" is all well and good, but going after TheInsomniaAddict is not called for. They may actually not have known or understood what sexual implications can be made with that statement.

[@_somerandomguyontheinternet_]

“It means she’s a very persuasive speaker.” “So you did not mean that she is physically good with her tongue.” “No.” “You did not mean she was good at performing oral sex.” “Correct.” ^ An example of hammering it home like LE mentioned above

[@_somerandomguyontheinternet_]

@@efulmer8675 or they could just be playing the devil’s advocate. I enjoy doing that on occasion. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@johnroutledge9220]

Alternative title: "How to think like a lawyer when you're being questioned by someone who isn't thinking like a lawyer."

[@UnexpectedWonder]

Absolutely! 😁😁😊😊

[@SouthstanderRSM]

I would love to see you take big name cases and show us how you would represent each side. As for a movie, ”To Kill a Mockingbird”.

[@Jekku1987]

I second this. Would love to see him go through "To Kill a Mockingbird".

[@Snaperkid]

SouthstanderRSM Ooh that would be interesting. Especially because you could look at the book’s representation, the 1962 film’s representation, and how it was conducted in accordance to the laws and procedural standards of both then and now. Also, though I’m not sure he would do this without someone more familiar in the matter, he could examine how race has influenced trials in the US historically and now.

[@epmepm7496]

WTF

[@stupled]

Objection! Stella is not a beagle. She is pretty cute though.

[@lindamorrell7522]

Stella is a Poodle with a 'puppy cut'.

[@YunisRajab]

Sustained!

[@kimberlygabaldon3260]

Linda Morrell or maybe a Westie mix.

[@wlan246]

Stella identifies as a Beagle. Therefore, according to precedent, she is a Beagle.

[@danieleast8830]

ok that's funny.

[@isaacs.4309]

This is an awesome legal channel, perfect mix of informative and entertaining. Thank you!

[@raymond2018]

100% agree. He wants to stretch our knowledge of the law but does not want to go so far as to bore or lose people while at the same time he has the right about of entertainment. He has some videos that are serious and deep dive while others that are totally on the fun sude with legalize added.

[@SupermanHopkins]

The ultimate example of lawyering. DJ answered *no* questions! 😂

[@JKDC97]

SupermanHopkins typical lawyer answer: “it depends...”

[@catnamestaken]

I'm not a law student, not even from the states, we have a different system here, but I'm loving these vids for some reason.

[@Unwise-]

I find myself looking up things that he says to see if we have an equivalent here in the Canadian legal system.

[@ChaoticMarinMusic]

@Silver Snacker If the "new" right is to be believed, everyone who isn't with them is a liberal. This is false, and is the best evidence of any brainwashing here. Seems to me that you believe you can't be wrong. It must be that reality itself has a liberal bias!

[@williamsepisodereview]

you should review the 1994 OJ Simpson trial and the tv show the people vs oj simpson

[@theexiled3034]

Oh my god, yes.

[@khaos5085]

Yes the Jury was too easy on OJ even after he confessed they gave him a not guilty verdict.

[@theexiled3034]

@@corpsman1980 The armchair Jury strikes again. It's called beyond reasonable doubt. It's the prosecution fault for failing to do so. The LAPD for their incompetence in collecting the blood and DNA evidence and how they handled it. For putting a racist who then perjured himself on the stand and ended up pleading the fifth. And Various other evidence.

[@enmunate]

Thomas Moreland you know that OJ is a free man, right?

[@That80sGuy1972]

Oh yeah! And the glove thing! I cannot put on gloves too big for my hand when I spread-hand try them on like OJ did. Also, the defense on how much blood evidence was collected and the slow ride chase of "What? Why are they following me?" It was a case of celebrity killing someone and thinking they could get away with it but someone in the plan betrayed the script.

[@michaelredman2339]

If my Freshmen councilor knew what a Devil’s Triangle was, the freaking senators knew. LOL. I could draw them a picture. No quarters involved. 😆😆😆😆

[@InfinteIdeas]

People can have different colloquialisms for games and activities

[@LesbianWitchAcademia]

@Captain Caveman I believe the term you're looking for is "Spitroasting"

[@Wyrd80]

Oh they knew too, but putting him on the spot would have meant admitting that...

[@kharris2393]

Everyone who watched How I met your Mother knew that lmao. We know you know, guys!

[@bethprather9241]

Idk.. I'm 2 years younger than him I was in a sorority and Never heard of Devils Triangle until this.. But after a bit.. I felt a connection.. Like was I at the country club house drinking bear with older cute college guys... I was in 1984.. Wrong place.. Them the rest if it reminded me of the movie Animal House.. I've called him that ever since

[@pulloutking]

Ah i remember last time i went to a party and played devils triangle with the bros

[@pisceanqueen1]

🤣😂

[@chancock4222]

Objection: I’m pretty sure that isn’t a beagle.

[@ceruleanaus7688]

Sustained.

[@bogrot69]

We must believe her!

[@5avan10]

Snoopy v California (1966) set the precedence that a beagle is "any dog of a size smaller than a collie but larger than a bread basket, with an overall whitish color and bearing some spots". Although we saw no spots on this dog, we did not see the entire dog and it is reasonable that there may be one or more spots on the posterior of said dog. Thus we can not rule out that it is a beagle.

[@chancock4222]

Savant I was just completely and utterly owned by you.

[@bobjuh]

Maybe the dog identifies as a beagle? :P

[@LightxHeaven]

This video is like stepping into the DMZ between North and South Korea trying to stop each other's armies from advancing lol.

[@celettu]

They do sometimes. So do men.

[@wyntr1903]

@@celettu there have been FBI studies shoeing that rape is mostly undecided because it doesn't go to court or other reasons and more are proven false rather than true.

[@celettu]

@James obviously. That's not the point.

[@celettu]

I'm not picking a side here.

[@harasnicole]

I'd like a link to these so-called "FBI studies."

[@wuxiagamescentral]

Funny since 80% of the senators have law degrees

[@jkholtgreve]

Part of the problem here is that many of these Senators, especially on the Dem side, may have been very able litigators in their youth but are far, far too old to be running these kinds of proceedings.

[@3nails4you]

Objection! That shelf in the background needs to be reinforced, it's bowing in the middle.

[@richardhoffman5769]

3nails4you overruled, it’s bending but unbroken

[@cm7686]

"Bend but don't break" - classic lawyering

[@thephilosophicalphilswift8677]

bend don't break

[@troyhenry6111]

Objection! Optical illusion

[@0MasterOfFates0]

I noticed that in the first 2 seconds lmao

[@Time2LevelUp]

Let's see how civil the comments section is... Fingers crossed I'm surprised by everyone's discourse.

[@Kipah]

I can't imagine someone would be uncivil and break an otherwise stella comment section.

[@Makekith3697]

Time2LevelUp These are always the kinds of comment sections that are great. With stellar content creators you usually get great fan bases that can understand each other

[@Time2LevelUp]

Hear, hear!

[@michaelknight2897]

He's not covering Ford. Comments will be fine. He isn't challenging the left sacred values.

[@piotrswat169]

Jack Crow true that cause trumptards values are no 1 Muuuuuuuuuurica

[@JayColucci1]

Who in their right mind would ever request the FBI investigate themselves? Even if I knew I was 100% innocent of the charges I have no interest in a federal department picking apart my entire life for the world to see. And I think my lawyer would back me up on that one.

[@edwardsalacuse1332]

Only if you're 100% innocent. If you're guilty, you wouldn't want an investigation. An innocent man requests the investigation to exonerate them! Get it?

[@edwardsalacuse1332]

AN INNOCENT MAN!!

[@taranoodtayo]

Another brilliant analysis DJ. Saving this for future trial use. PS Stella is not a beagle!!!!!!

[@mgk2020]

Objection! That's not a Beagle.

[@supersizesenpai]

XD

[@88michaelandersen]

But she's a good dog.

[@jordananderson2728]

Bichon?

[@mr.w.146]

She identifies as one so she/he/them/it is one.

[@thanrose]

For the purposes of this court, we have not defined beagle narrowly.

[@nl817]

Objection! A "weak stomach" is a description which could apply to someone who is believed to be unable to handle the amount of alcohol as others in a comparative group (such as a group of friends). It is a valid statement that can be a legitimate description that may also be a reference to alcohol without actually referencing it.

[@c.a.g.3130]

You statement is absurd. You fail to refute the judge unless you can demonstrate that there is not just another reasonable definition but that there is NO OTHER reasonable definition. You fail to do that. Reason refutes your argument.

[@kennethtavares707]

This is an amazing class which is the way I describe this information. I wish I knew about you sooner. This is the type of information the voters as a whole should be listening to. THANK YOU

[@auntiejenn3315]

I wish I would have found this at the time. Love your legal commentary! Absolutely enthralling!

[@EddieHD_]

Could you do a video where you do a full session of a legal process? Like you pick a case, show us how you would work it, and then how it would be played out in court?

[@anonnobody3901]

That's a crazy lengthy process. And it is also different whether civil or criminal.

[@shawn-raymulder9049]

C P sorry but your request is even more dumb. A better understanding of the legal process shouldn’t require a massive loan debt and a law degree. That is only required should one want to be an actual lawyer.

[@NikRiddick]

Stop beating him up for the request. Yes, preparing for a trial is a lengthy process and responds to a specific set of circumstances/charges and it would be difficult to cover that in detail in a KZbin video. The best advice is to watch all of his videos, every one. Hopefully after that, you will see that the law is incredibly complex and that him describing the process would be insufficient in helping you understanding the complexities involved with taking an action (criminal or civil) to trial and adjudication.

[@SnivillusLupin]

They actually brought in a lawyer for this hearing - and once she questioned the "plaintiff," even the Democratic members of the Committee never called on her to question the "defendant." The whole thing is suspect, in my opinion.

[@llamatooth]

Maria Frances Kamala Harris is a prosecutor so they did have a lawyer question him. They both sound like liars to me.

[@exmcgee1647]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYTMqnimqZufirM

[@exmcgee1647]

rachel mitchell did a cross on BK

[@KevinReijnders93]

"That's why everyone hates moral philosophy" - The Legal Eagle watches the Good Place 😮

[@latenightcrazies]

“You don’t want to ask your lawyer for philosophical advice” 😂😂😂😂

[@Vera-kh8zj]

There is a VERY important point in your presentation: the senators missed questioning opportunities and mixed debate with questioning. The debates might have been important to the senators to show how they think to the people who elected them but at the same time prevented them to reach their stated goal.

[@biggshoverwelder3690]

@SysPowerTools not to mention the person who pushed her to accuse him also did it for several other women at the time whos stories had even-less credibility

[@The_Lucent_Archangel]

Add to all this the irony of his appointment being resisted by utter loons dressed up in those ridiculous outfits from that asinine fear porn called The Handmaid's Tale; this was all predicated on the fear that Kavanaugh would singly overturn Roe v. Wade (which is actually worthy of review given that the woman came to deeply regret her original motives)...only for his first showing in the high court to be him siding with the more liberal justices on not even hearing a case which might have had such implications. They assassinated the man's character over nothing and continue to do so because admitting they were wrong and extending an apology is not part of the leftist playbook.

[@phatymcdaddy]

@@The_Lucent_Archangel what's crazy is dems have cried about roe v wade possibly being overturned for almost 20 years, yet nobody even remembers it until they cry about it. It's just part of their election toolkit now along with crying rape and racism that dates back to the 70s

[@Kaddywompous]

phatymcdaddy Abortion is firmly entrenched in the toolkit of both parties. Any time Republicans need to whip up the evangelical vote they ring the pro-life bell and get their Pavlovian response.

[@Kaddywompous]

SysPowerTools I don’t know what’s true, but I do know that Kavanaugh was lying his ass off about the terms he used in those journals. If he lies under oath what else would he lie about?

[@cdlord80]

Objection: In relation to the request to define "ralphing", Judge Kavanaugh did define it as throwing up (a term I also use to describe such) and then went on to explain he had a weak stomach and was prone to "ralphing."

[@fernie51296]

Chris Lord yes, throwing up. But from drinking too much. He brings up the spicy food nonsense to detract from the fact he was known to drink too much. So much so, he would throw up. Ralphing.

[@katherinemorelle7115]

They could have also asked about the “club” aspect. If he was ralphing purely from spicy food, how does that relate to beach week and the club about ralphing during beach week? It really was disappointing to see how they could have pushed things further but didn’t. I guess that’s the problem when you get senators asking questions that you really should have a lawyer for. It’s also why we saw Kamala Harris doing the right thing in pressing for an answer to her question- but having been a prosecutor, she knows what she’s doing.

[@clairelally3644]

@@fernie51296 Known by whom? It's a matter of opinion whether he drank "too much" because that is an inherently subjective standard.

[@clairelally3644]

@@katherinemorelle7115 Perhaps his friends made him eat spicy food?

[@InternetMameluq]

@@clairelally3644 If you drink enough to vomit it's too much.

[@ElektroLUDIKITS]

Objection! This puppy looks nothing like a beagle! :D

[@Clancyfan004]

Very nice break down of the situation. I really enjoyed your analysis of the topic.

[@JAFFAWIRE]

A lot of people are objecting here and I disagree with the premise that Kavanaugh had perjured himself, but I think this guy is making the point that the cross-examination was done incompetently.

[@yourleftisttesticle]

Extremely so.

[@WIIRULESMAN]

You're doing good work, not just for educational purposes but for the health of the country. I'm a big fan of all your videos and they've given me insight and respect for the profession of law. I don't think I could ever be a lawyer but as a citizen I love your channel and find it useful and helpful. As always, I eagerly await your uploads and this looks like the start of a great series!

[@SavageEcaterina]

John Thangam a

[@captainz9]

Kavanaugh is around my age (I'm 55), and yes to "ralph" was to vomit/puke. At least in CT/NY in the 70s/early-80s. And I guess in MD as well.

[@stephenwright8824]

Massachusetts too, says this 52 year old lifelong resident.

[@Duckduckobtusegoose]

I’m 21 and live in Canada, (my dad is 58) and I’ve also always known “to Ralph” as “to vomit”

[@SeisoYabai]

Nobody is contesting that, why is this even the conversation?

[@NoriMori1992]

Nobody disputed that.

[@QuesoCookies]

Everyone agrees that "ralphing" refers to throwing up, the point of the question was whether or not ralphing referred to having a weak stomach or to binge drinking.

[@beuxjmusic]

Matt Damon's SNL Sketch about this Hearing is one of my favourite Sketches ever. I watched it at least a Dozen times without having any knowledge of this event, and it still made me virtually cry with laughter... Now that I see real footage of the hearing, I see that the performance on SNL was so good, I could infer most of the occurrences in the Hearing from the sketch xD

[@r.r.7900]

I just discovered your channel and have been obsessed with youre lawyered show viewings... This is ballsy given how divisive we are currently but thats what good lawyers take on. Hope your channel keeps growing and looking forward to many more videos!

[@jaypence332]

In Washington state some of these mean different then in other states. Devil's Triangle in my high school was a drinking game but it doesn't involve quarters.

[@Bladeofdeath311]

Have you ever played quarters? > No. It's a quarter's game. Lol it reminds me of a Futurama episode. So Leela, where are you from? > Have you ever been to Peru? No. > I'm from Peru.

[@biggshoverwelder3690]

he said it was "like Quarters" not quarters :(

[@troyevitt2437]

???"In Washington state some of these mean different then in other states."??? Will that be Blue Cheese or Thousand Island with that word-salad?

[@biggshoverwelder3690]

@@troyevitt2437 Neither, some things mean different in different places, it's almost like cultures affect words :D

[@troyevitt2437]

@@biggshoverwelder3690 Either incorrect syntax or punctuation. Word-salad is word-salad.

[@SouthernGreyShark]

When a politician tells someone they only want a "yes or no" answer, they're just looking for a gotcha sound bite. Everyone knows that.

[@armandogarza2995]

And not trying to examine a person? You can’t do both?

[@digitalnomad9985]

@@armandogarza2995 That is the drawback of having politicians examine persons.

[@Booplesn00tgaming]

Especially Harris.

[@bradster1708]

Greyman Reb, that is true of lawyers also. One of the drawbacks of the adversarial legal system is that neither side seem to be really interested in justice and that applies to the adversarial political system too. We truly seem to live in a world where honesty is punished and lying is rewarded.

[@faktafakta316]

not true tho

[@tonymacaluso9657]

These are very educational videos, thanks for making such great content

[@joelellis7035]

Objection: Stella is not a beagle!

[@StevieSmith77]

no, She's a legal Beagle

[@petermcarthur7450]

Believe it or not, this has been a legal question in the UK. Under a piece of poorly drafted legislation called The Dangerous Dogs Act, certain breeds were outlawed, but the law failed to properly define those breeds, so there were multiple cases involving canine family trees, genetic testing and so on to determine whether a particular animal was an alsation (if memory serves) or just a mutt.

[@jameswarbrick9168]

a beagle is a small hound for hunting hares.

[@SAL83468]

Joel Ellis Stella may not be a beagle but she is (proper noun) a Legal Beagle. Discuss.

[@MagruderSpoots]

Sustained.

[@NotHPotter]

Objection: Stella is way cuter than a beagle.

[@LordKnightcon]

OBJECTION!: The phrasing of this statement implies a generalization that beagles are not inherently cute. I submit as evidence the following: images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/510Kf0epQ1L.jpg

[@NotHPotter]

Objection: Speculation. At no point did I comment on the cuteness of cute little beagles.

[@LordKnightcon]

...sustained. 😄

[@MichaelTheLibertarian]

"Objection: Stella is way cuter than a beagle." I wish to write the concurring opinion.

[@lordmaster6667]

Objection! Immaterial! The Cuteness of Stella V. Beagles isn't the issue. This being a moot point, Stella remains not a beagle either outcome reached.

[@wf4919]

Who else came for what he thought of Fords testimony?

[@Booplesn00tgaming]

Too bad all he did for most of the video was try to dismantle Justice Kavanaugh.

[@chuckmiller692]

Yea. All he did was show clips used to show his bias. Even the part about evidence, and whether a jury would be able to convict he FORGETS to even mention her "witness" discounts her memory!

[@jpe1]

Blackdogsmatter what bias does he show, and how does he show it?

[@jpe1]

Chuck Miller what bias did he show? In what way did the clips show his bias?

[@jpe1]

Booplesn00t unfortunately justice Kavanaugh is trivially easy to dismantle and may have the distinction of being the second Supreme Court justice to be impeached. Why Trump nominated such a deeply flawed person is beyond me...

[@frankienerdyboy]

Good thing this wasnt picking apart fords case because it would be open and shut

[@Handsy_McGee]

Yep, a whole 30 second video. I suppose he couldn't find room for it in this one though...

[@nabr891]

I felt like I was charged $500 for watching this video.

[@andrewm79615]

Na Br I watched it on 1.25x speed so I was only billed $400

[@aussiejed1]

... and got no answers for your money.

[@nabr891]

Yeah, I liked the end especially "So, do you agree?" Agree with what?

[@GM-ln7te]

kinda need to wash the slime off, huh? Me too.

[@nedaddy1]

😂🤣

[@suckzsockz1]

Do a lawyer reacts to bee movie

[@johnwhitesel5728]

That would bee interesting.

[@Vindude1029]

That seems like it should bee a BUZZfeed video

[@whiistlingwinds5855]

Okay but yes.

[@wiccanXexodus]

"According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly." "I see a good closing argument here: we have reiterated our foundation for the evidence we have against the prosecution, and established the case we want to make to the Jury."

[@snipeuoutjsl]

But every time they say bee you object.

[@bobbyjackson4452]

Thanks for doing this presentation. As a lay-person, I don't have any experience with the law apart from what I've read about other cases here and there. I really like that you broke this down strictly by the law without being partisan to either side. I have a difficult time watching hearing such as this because the politians involved rarely seem to directly answer the questions. That just bothers me to no end. I'm glad you called out the wrongs on both sides. Though many in the Senate & House have law degrees, it seems that not as many have actually used them procedurally in a court. That's more apparent in settings like this.

[@douglaskurtz8357]

had to laugh at "that's why everyone hates moral philosophers"

[@rayceeya8659]

Thanks for covering this subject. I only recently found your channel but after watching about 3 or 4 episodes I subscribed immediately. I got the impression you didn't critique ongoing cases, but I'm glad you went here with it. So thank you again.

[@neriah9969]

In addition to new cases and new legal controversies, I would LOVE for you to go back to older cases to review those as well, such as the OJ Simpson case (being innocent in crime, guilty in civil case), and other famous trials/legal issues in the past.

[@DanHarkless_Halloween_YTPs_etc]

Yeah, that'd be cool. As I'm sure LegalEagle would mention, though, you can't be found guilty in a civil case, just liable.

[@nunyabizness5391]

Not guilty because the jury didn't want another riot. Liable in civil court because he murdered two people.

[@adamk4264]

I thought the title read : "Real Law Review: Kavanaugh v. Ford Hearing", where is the Ford part of the review?

[@MarkTatsu]

Contrary to Legal Eagles statement at the beginning. He is an obvious partisan actor. I am also pretty sure he thinks guilty until proven innocent should be the standard for sexual assault.

[@MrWrongoStarr]

The title is in regards to the case which is termed the 'Kavanaugh vs Ford Hearing', at no point does it imply that Ford will be discussed, as there is no reason for him to stay from actually relevant detail.

[@zant2146]

Ok so you just can't read that's all

[@adamk4264]

@@zant2146 nice job resorting to insults. very commendable. In your opinion the title "Real Law Review: Kavanaugh v. Ford Hearing" clearly states that he would review only kavanaugh testimony?

[@zant2146]

@@adamk4264 okay so first that wasn't an insult but ok go off. And then, no it doesn't, but it doesn't say it will show Ford's testimony. Kavanaugh v. Ford is just the name of the case.

[@jessevoidswarranties8335]

I love your videos. Any chance you would run through the legal side of a old situation? Ruby ridge or Branch davidians from the 90s I would love to hear what was done legal and illegal from the government

[@nikolaklobucar7981]

Hey Legal Eagle. Can you make a video about jury nullification and why it's sort of a taboo to talk about it?

[@JoeMitchell2]

CGPGrey did a great video on this, if you haven't seen it look it up!

[@greg.murphy]

This channel is about the lawyer side of things. JN isn't a good fit.

[@nathanberrigan9839]

Lawyers almost always ask a potential juror about jury nullification, but they never label it such. Instead they might ask something like, "Do you have any ideas or prejudices that would hinder you from following the instructions that I will give as to the law?" And since jury nullification is common with regard to drug laws, they might ask specifically if you agree with drug laws.

[@c.a.g.3130]

@@nathanberrigan9839 Then, if you're a juror, you're not admitting to jury nullification since that wasn't the question. What does 'agreeing' with a law even mean? What does 'following' a law even mean? A court has no authority to bar you from holding a law to be unjust or invalid in its application. CITIZENS are the final judge of fact AND law.

[@nathanberrigan9839]

@@c.a.g.3130 Prosecutors know we have that right which is why they try to fish out jurors who know our rights and use their free dismissals on them.

[@alexalexandrov7767]

Found this show like a week ago and ate through all content in a week. Your show is too good

[@gwynhyfer]

OMG I LOVE Stella! - now how can I concentrate...?

[@michaelpisciarino5348]

*You can't argue and question at the same time* 10:10 *You have to ask pointed yes or no questions* 11:24 The Arguments 12:22 Judge-like temperament 13:45 Sparring with the questioners 15:24 Character Evidence: Admissible if character is made an issue 16:19 Presidential Indictment 19:10 Blaisey Ford's burden of proof Circumstantial evidence Direct evidence 21:00 Testimony is evidence 21:53 Kavanaugh request for an investigation

[@JuniorJoe2000]

Objection: Although it is correct to say that both Ford and Kavanaugh's testimonies are evidence, it is also key to note that there is no significant evidence to link Kavanaugh to the specific crime that he is accused of other then tests of his moral character. In a he said/she said scenario, it is the burden of the accuser to prove a lie or fault in the accused's testimony. To use your cop/robber example, a jury would clearly be more inclined to believe the cop as a sign of authority, but that should not be the sole rationale of conviction as there is still a chance that the authoritarian figure lies. It would be unfair to convict anyone solely based on a 'more trustworthy' testimony. I am aware that many cases are carried out this way, but in a moral and legal stance they should not. I apologize for the length of this and I respect you for skipping along a thin line when it comes to this issue. Keep up the great work as always.

[@ryanmoore6801]

except that numerous people have said they would not be surprised and the one witness who could confirm is keeping his mouth shut

[@15dugogo]

Good Evidence, Bad Evidence, Admissible Evidence.

[@bryanaams]

Ryan Moore, oh so we should take “his opponent wouldn’t be surprised” that he’s capable of X or Y as evidence ? How American of you . Hope you get judged by the same “surprised” standard of evidence one day with no way to prove your innocence!

[@swanpride]

Which is exactly the reason why there should have been a proper FBI investigation and why Marc Judge, the one person the victim named as actually being present during that assault, should have been forced to testify in person.

[@bryanaams]

swanpride mark judge said what he wanted to say in a sword statement! If he deviated from that statement he goes to prison.

[@Noin007]

Objection: I still remember the phrase "Talking to Ralph on the big white phone" being commonly used all while going through school. And his answer on that question seemed quite straight forward.

[@steelonius]

Kavanaugh was asked if "ralphing" related to vomiting from alcohol use. The senator asked a couple of times if it was "related to alcohol." Kavanaugh danced around that and made it about spicy foods and said that's why he eats spaghetti with ketchup.

[@tomhaskett5161]

In the UK, it was 'calling for Hughie'.

[@CowBeatsCrow]

9:21 Debate aside, it's slightly funny how he's trying to assert his experience at the same time that he's falling into a trap.

[@harleyroesner1274]

tell stella i love her with all my heart,,

[@kspieler]

That Legal Beagle doesn't look like a beagle...

[@Arlae_Nova]

The illegal beagle

[@katharinehe]

I have a feeling the legal beagle is going to be shocked and appalled by this controversial statement

[@Wizza2418]

Should have objected.

[@wlan246]

Stella identifies as a Beagle. Therefore, according to precedent, she's a Beagle.

[@Dreaded88]

@LegalEagle: Sen Leahy: *_"...I been on this committee 44 years..."_* Yeah, and you can see why people are lobbying for Term-Limits!

[@posiepie6613]

I love the idea of the legal beagle😂 hope she approves of my comment

[@Hellowakeup]

Can you explain the difference between this case and the allegations of Tara Reid against Joe Biden and if there should be an FBI investigation?

[@1601tgc]

Hé can’t so he won’t

[@raymond2018]

then we need to do the same about the allegations against Trump. If you want to go down that slippery slope I will be happy to have both investigated.

[@snate56]

There may indeed be no difference, however at the time, Joe Biden was not up for a position on the Supreme Court.

[@1601tgc]

snate56 that doesn’t make sense. He is running for President. One of the constitutional powers of a president is the ability to select a Supreme Court judge. So the fact he is not ‘up for a position on the Supreme Court’ is of zero relevance. Also what do you mean ‘at the time’? At the time of the offence?

[@zachtemoro2116]

@@raymond2018 Um, yeah? Why would we not do both?

[@Seph727]

I would be interested in your opinion on how the other side of the case behaved legally.

[@cockatoo010]

It's nice to see you cover these topics. Keep up the good work!

[@danielclark-hughes692]

Certainly takes guts these days, kudos to him.

[@JackFate518]

It would have been interesting (and would be in future such videos) to grade the senators on their performance questioning a witness. Or at least to mention a couple of good ones and a couple of poor ones.

[@chrilin5107]

I'd never comment anything anywhere Stella would take offence to. Happy to see you've got a great moderator...she's lovely. Thanks for providing interesting and informative content regarding relevant topics.

[@thomasreges3332]

Star trek next generation, measure of a man. Data on trial for his life, please review

[@DanHarkless_Halloween_YTPs_etc]

Oo. Yeah. Good one.

[@theexiled3034]

Star Trek the next Generation The Drum Head. That was a great episode.

[@visageliquifier3636]

The Federation itself is likely up for criminal negligence for putting 3rd in command of a starship, in direct responsibility for over a thousand personnel, both servicepeople and civilians, a creature whose degree of sentience is unknown. At best, the Federation is in violation of whatever automatic and computer-control law was put in to place to prevent another instance like unfortunate events that resulted in the serve damage to and the loss of all crew aboard the USS Excalibur (NCC-1664) when the M-5 computer was put in command of the USS Enterprise, since they had no proof or demonstrable evidence Data was a being and not an automaton when commissioning him (it).

[@DanHarkless_Halloween_YTPs_etc]

+Visage Liquifier: But... but... Data rules...! 😄 Good point, though. Thank goodness lawyers seem to have less influence in the 24th century, or it woulda been a much less interesting show.

[@rsmith830]

I'd like to see Encounter at Farpoint discussed. Any excuse to see Q is worth a watch.

[@suebolden]

Objection: I haven’t heard the term ralphing for years, but where I come from, it does mean vomiting.

[@wingedbluj1674]

True, I only ever heard that word in terms of vomit, but I only have heard it once.

[@natachatumadre9684]

ralphing always means vomiting

[@steelonius]

I thought the issue with the word ralphing, in this case, was whether or not it was from alcohol abuse specifically. Kavanaugh tried to make it about spicy food and the reason for eating spaghetti with ketchup.

[@walterrobinson1988]

Yes, it clearly means vomiting, but Cavanaugh was being blatantly disingenuous to suggest that he was remembered from the beach parties for vomiting due to "spicy foods". There were numerous people who came forward and said Cavanaugh was a big drinker when he was young. That shouldn't be disqualifying in and of itself, the issue is he needed to deny that he ever drank to excess or he'd open the door to admitting it was possible that her accusations were accurate and he was too intoxicated to remember. He lied under oath, could they prove perjury? I have no idea, but I'm the same age he is, and I know he was lying about a number of those terms. And having a supreme court justice who is willing to lie under oath, is not wonderful.

[@danielmcgillis270]

"Hay Ralph, lets go for a ride in my Buick"

[@kj8840]

Yes let's use Urban Dictionary for words used in the 80s. I'm sure word use/connotation doesn't change at all in 30 years.

[@ourvaluesarewhoweareinadem4093]

That was the most asinine part of this whole thing. Back in the 80s there was far less monoculture (without the internet) and there were regional terms for all sorts of stuff. When you start getting into youth subcultures and all the possible slang that develops among cliques and groups of friends... yeah, I am pretty sure Devils Triangle could have meant 1000 different things that were not sexual.

[@AsukaLangleyS02]

Well, one is a liar and the other likes to drink beer.

[@kcammons]

Objection! The so-called "legal beagle" is no beagle at all.

[@sonicwind1901]

This is actually a very solid analysis and explanation. You said that many of the senators dont have trial experience but what is most frustrating is that many are former US Attys, State AGs and Prosecutors of some kind and even they didnt perform well at all. Any Prosecutor worth their salt should be chomping at the bit to Cross any defendant. Kavanaugh made the key mistake most people who take the stand against their atty's advice do, they think they are the smartest person in the room.

[@deidryt9944]

Agreed -- however, the one thing to remember is that the Senators were under a pretty strict 5-minute time limit. Now, they could have yielded time to each other or coordinated, but the haphazard way the hearing was put together and the overall rush made this very unlikely. The practice of alternating between Senators on either side of the aisle also frustrated any real attempt to followup well.

[@sonicwind1901]

Deidryt while this is true and certainly contributed to this issue. Many of the former Prosecutors spent their time arguing and grandstanding rather that effectively Crossing. Use your time wisely, and save your argument for the appropriate time which us not when you are examining the witness. This video does an excellent job walking through this.

[@chris0000924]

Well yes, people really believing some no name jock would run a rape gang some party girl 30 years ago. Despite the times she contradicted herself and actual witness from the time testifying against her. It's an obvious political assassination campaign.

[@deidryt9944]

Again, agree with what you're saying. My main point is the difficulty of it, as was also illustrated by the prosecutor that the Republicans brought in with her questioning of Dr. Ford. She did a much better job of probing like a deposition, but even she was frustrated constantly by the format of the hearing.

[@ericpipe141]

Agreed, however, I don't think this is one of those cases where he could have said no...

[@darknevermore3]

Watch a dozen kids cartoons from the early 90’s; “ralphing” is constantly used in reference to throwing up. It’s commonly used.

[@lynxminx4]

The point is not that he lied about the definition of 'ralphing', but that 'Ralph Club' as referred to in his yearbook was a group of kids who couldn't eat spicy food without throwing up. If you are proud enough of your vomiting skills to form a club, it is unlikely you are a victim of medical circumstance- you're a binge drinker.

[@AlejandroGonzalez-rw9kt]

imagine resorting to a high school kid's yearbook thirty years later to accuse him of sexual assault...

[@NoriMori1992]

Nobody disputed its meaning.

[@anenemystand5582]

@@AlejandroGonzalez-rw9kt the sexual assault happened close to that time and so all that information is relevant. Its establishing that he is the sort of person who would be at these parties would get wasted and would sexually assault someone. Furthermore his dodgyness reflects poorly on him. Everyone acts stupid when they are young. He may look a bit bad if he said "yeah I was all about thos devils triangles. But it reveals far worse things that he would lie about it now. That he would dodge and that he would get outright angry that people dare ask the truth of him. That is the issue here

[@ElliotGindiVO]

I like these the best. Tell us how legal real things are. I never know for sure.

[@DivinionFaith]

How about covering something about being convinced to take a plea deal when you tell your lawyer you are innocent and didn't do it? I know John Oliver covered it, and I also know I have experienced it once first hand. But it would be nice to hear about it in a more serious nature and know if there is any ways to clear your name after it has happened.

[@possiblepilotdeviation5791]

Why no break down of Ford's testimony as well?

[@michaelpimentel3002]

Simple: he's trying to show Kavanaugh is a liar while inferring Ford's telling the truth by omission of her inconsistencies. It's using a simple logic fallacy to pretend you're being objective when you've already prejudged a decision. The other logic fallacy involves meanings of denotation and connotation: the prior meanings and understandings of words might vary from one generation to another. For instance, in my part of the state of Maryland from the 70s to 80s, Devil's Triangle=Satan's Triangle= Bermuda Triangle=Quarters at the local bars. Remnants of that are found in the "Island" variation. That might not be what it means now so if you force the contemporary definition as the same as the earlier definition... :?

[@Spartan117KC]

Probably because Ford was not up for a position on the Supreme Court. Whereas Kavenugh was up for a position on the court. It seems that people forget that giving eyewitness testimony about an event is different than testimony about one's own actions and how they would behave on SCOTUS.

[@michaelpimentel3002]

@@Spartan117KC "Spartan117KC 25 minutes ago "Probably because Ford was not up for a position on the Supreme Court. Whereas Kavenugh was up for a position on the court." That shouldn't make any difference to a "trier of fact." So far, he hasn't dissuaded me from thinking he has a hidden agenda, an 'unvoiced premise' he's leading the viewer as the legal Sherpa. "It seems that people forget that giving eyewitness testimony about an event is different than testimony about one's own actions and how they would behave on SCOTUS." Yes, because people giving testimony involving him/her/themselves tend to portray events favorable to 'one's own actions' for accused and accuser. So, the method to determine which is more accurate is based on the likelihood of a past event and that depends on the accounts of those that can verify or corroborate the event being contested.

[@NjDevilArmy973]

Lol I see where your vote is. Jesus we can’t even get a breakdown without you conservative snowflakes crying. How about we talk about the person accused

[@michaelpimentel3002]

@Bill Carson "... It seems like common sense to me that Ford's testimony should be equally scrutinized to discourage corrupt stall tactics from the other side." I agree that her testimony should be equally scrutinized but for me it's to determine what did or did not occur-- that is who was more truthful or not. Her account fell to pieces that's why the Senators who had been lawyers took one of two paths: 1) they stopped beating on Ford or 2) they beat down more on Kavanaugh. And that showed the difference between sociopaths and psychopaths. What you saw then was a logic fallacy in action: intentional infliction of emotional pain leads to the truth; it doesn't, it only leads to conduct to relieve the pain.

[@chantelleg5253]

ohmygod i literally love stella i really hope this video doesn’t make me sad/angry

[@nunyabizness4892]

When you’re in a kangaroo court you NEVER answer a baited question with yes or no because more often than not it’s a perjury trap.

[@sqkerg9528]

You do understand that, by definition, if he answers the yes or no truthfully it can't be perjury. That doesn't change in the U.S. no matter how animal adjacent a court is.

[@nunyabizness4892]

Sqkerg well what I am pointing out is that a perjury trap baited question is one in which there is no right answer because if you say “yes” they will say AHA! We Got you! and if they say “no” they will say “roll the tape from 10 years ago” It can be the slightest detail in the question that trips someone.. like “were you in fact at Starbucks at 10:am Sunday the 14th of July?” And if they say “yes I was” then the snake lawyer would say “that is a lie we have your receipt and your coffee was paid for at 9:52am” are we to believe it actually took you 8 minutes to stir in your cream and sugar? The average person takes approximately 1.5 minutes to stir in their sugar and cream. How do you like your coffee? Is it true that you always drink it black? So you didn’t need 8 minutes to stir anything into it before you left. You’re either lying now or you lied in your first deposition.

[@sqkerg9528]

@@nunyabizness4892 In that scenario, you would say, I believe it was around that time, yes. You are still answering the question and you're not committing perjury by the most technical of margins. It's also worth pointing out that I can't possibly imagine a scenario where that would be take seriously, and that technical of a mistake obviously wouldn't have any standing.

[@nunyabizness4892]

Sqkerg I’ve heard witnesses be scolded by the like of shelia Jackson lee and kamala Harris yelling “yes or NO YES OR NO ANSWER THE QUESTION , YES OR NO!” And then if the witness answered either choice they build a false talking point off of it to circulate in the media

[@robhawkins4677]

I won't form this as an objection more of a request. Dould you do another video talking about Fords testimony? I would be very interested to hear your take on her performance and during the hearing.

[@corpsman1980]

Performance is a really good way to describe it when she was being paid to lie.

[@tim3ng]

@@corpsman1980 sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. What other conspiracy theories do you believe? Flat earth?

[@jennifer7685]

Thomas Moreland so... This guy presents legal explanations. I'm just confused why you would be here with a ludicrous unfounded claim? You don't seem to get the premise of this show

[@maxbailey4971]

Jennifer, Ford was the one with the ridiculous claim

[@tim3ng]

@@maxbailey4971 saying she was paid to come forward is the ludicrous claim. Kavanaugh lied about the devil's triangle, boofing, ffff....

[@IFacePalmParadoxI]

Will you have a episode & your legal opinion on Judge Judy, and other shows like it?

[@lpnp9477]

This is a fantastic idea.

[@hamos4744]

I support this.

[@brandishwar]

I'd support this, but from the standpoint of how Judge Judy (and shows like it) are not the same as litigation, but that it's actually arbitration that is occurring. Wildly different rules of evidence, and all decisions are typically final.

[@HENJAM48]

I love your work, but where did you get the DEVO Plastic Wig?

[@alienkatt7362]

Please consider addressing the subject of Jury Nullification.

[@adoredpariah]

You sir, just poked a hornets nest. But I can fully appreciate the input from your particular perspective, very informative, thank you... And watch out for those nasty hornets. ;)

[@arcion504]

Objection: Most of this trial is hearsay.

[@andrewmartin2321]

Arcion look up hearsay

[@biggshoverwelder3690]

@@andrewmartin2321 it was also hearsay from 40 years ago which both her closest friend at the time, and her own father both disagree with, not to mention Kavanaugh was never at the alleged party she was.

[@howlingdin9332]

Objection: Judge Kavanaugh was not the judge in that hearing, he was the accused. Expecting an individual, even a judge to be impartial in that situation is like expecting a soccer player who's normally a referee not to care which goal the ball lands in.

[@andrewmartin2321]

Howling Din whether he was impartial to the issue of his confirmation to the supreme court was not addressed in the video

[@lll9107]

Truth.

[@Firehazard159]

Overruled: this was more like a job interview; your analogy is disastrously unsalvageable and confused with itself. If the soccer player was applying to be a referee, then they shouldn't care which goal is made, only objectively measuring that a goal was made by one team or the other, not advocating for the team he played on and penalizing the opposition.

[@NearlyH3adlessNick]

@@Firehazard159 *Terrible* Analogy not withstanding, he's right. A man accused of such a crime would be furious if he was innocent, regardless of his occupation, but _especially_ a man who is in an occupation where he has the capacity to see these accusations ruin (and sometimes end) lives. Every woman who is found to have falsely accused someone of that crime should be sent to prison for at least 10 years, in my opinion. If they're willing to take that risk, then the man should be made to be calm and collected while evidence is being laid out. The fear of a false guilty verdict has pushed people to suicide, it shouldn't be thrown around lightly. *Especially out of court!!!*

[@thedoomnegotiator9693]

@UlyssessThese people have such selective tunnel vision. I almost can't wait for the crying to begin when he does something they don't like.