Trump Just Won His Defamation Case & Woke People Lost It 😂

[@taigenraine]

Legal Eagle insinuating that a Florida jury would make a politically motivated ruling, while completely ignoring that a New York jury might also make a politically motivated ruling.

[@sarafontanini7051]

yes but the point is that because florida is EXTREMELY right wing overall, it's bias would be notable in a case involving trump, the right wing darling florida having a bias in trumps' favour IS somethign to consider, especially giving everything florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, has done.

[@ealtar]

@@sarafontanini7051 and new york having a brain deficiency isn't somthing to consider ????

[@C8mon]

@@sarafontanini7051The exact same argument could be made for several blue states.

[@TotallyCluelessGamer]

@@sarafontanini7051 you realize of course, New York is just as heavily biased in the other direction, right? Which at its core is important to the point they're making, which is that Legal Eagle only cares about a bias when it applies in a direction he doesn't like.

[@taigenraine]

@sarafontanini7051 My point is that all of Trump's convictions have been in Manhatten, which voted 84% for Biden in 2020 and 82% for Kamala in 2024. Legal Eagle has cheered on those convictions and says they are 100% correct, ignoring the jury bias, which in the 'hush money' case was actually admitted to by jurors that the defense was not allowed to exclude. Not to mention, they elected a prosecutor who ran on the platform 'I'll prosecute Trump'.

[@ryanscanlon2151]

"a jury of Floridians might be motivated to find in his favor"....but a jury of new Yorkers would never be motivated to find against him. Man that grinds my gears.

[@Man_Emperor_of_Mankind]

Right, and jury of New Yorkers found Trump guilty of a crime that he was never charged or tried on, and he's totally silent about that. Oh, and the judge who allowed it was a Biden doner who's household was actively campaigning for Biden during the trial of the "unspecified" underlying crime that turned paying an invoice and submitting it to accounting into a couple dozen felony indictments

[@dmansam7716]

They don't want to be "precisely, factually, semantically correct", they want you to fall in line for "[their] democracy" (which they claim is in danger because someone they didn't want was voted in with the popular vote).

[@Aaroncarter95]

It's clear Legal Eagle has political bias, and normally that doesn't bother me TOO much, but he's so biased I wouldn't want him to represent me because I fear he'll find out who I voted for and either drop me as a client, not pick me up as a client to start with or not give it his all to defend me in court

[@sammorgan31]

@@Aaroncarter95 In other words, he's a shit lawyer.

[@limitedhangoutlive]

He wasn't found anything too. It was a civil case in NY for something that happened decades ago. The case itself was a joke and that definitely has something to do with why the judge didn't throw out the defamation suit against Stephanopoulos and why they settled.

[@Reallytallsocks]

I stopped watching LegalEagle when he made a completely serious video accusing MatPat of ripping off his video, and his evidence was that they both talked about the same conversations that the internet was already having everywhere. I realized that he is kinda childish and petty a while ago. His spiral downward over Trump only proves it

[@AYFKMRN]

He’s gone from Trump Derangement Syndrome to full-blown Trump Derangement Psychosis in front of our eyes, and Nux thinks it’s ’slight’ TDS.

[@jacobjacksonsson9375]

successful lawyers dont really have time or need to post on youtube full time. the fact that he does speaks volumes

[@attila5221]

lawyers keep it professional, he's became an influencer.

[@jacobjacksonsson9375]

@@attila5221 not only that but having a public facing page with videos that can never be deleted from the internet is not very lawyery

[@Destiny87]

I stopped watching when he made a video telling everyone to vote for Biden.

[@micaldomlancer1494]

Trump gets accused of grape. Trump calls her a liar. Accuser fail to prove in court that they were graped. Trump found liable for lying about not graping the accuser. Can someone explain how this makes sense.

[@Ham-y5t]

The same reason any miscarriage of justice happened in the last decade: orange man bad.

[@pyrolight7568]

Preponderance of evidence. Basically it is who the jury believes more. It makes sense where there is no criminal recourse. It is crap for stuff like grape. Basically you are found liable. It does not confer guilt but people can say you did x.

[@pumacheyenne6823]

@@micaldomlancer1494 like most of the legal actions against Trump, it does not.

[@zarthemad8386]

just like saying Biden's Ukraine deal was extortion/money laundering House and Senate DNC held Trump accountable for Biden's crimes

[@aprylvanryn5898]

It's because nobody can be reasonably expected to distinguish between the common parlance and the legal definition of the word. What trump was doing was calling her a liar and a few other less than choice things in order to besmurch her reputation and make her claims seem less/ not credible. The court ruling was essentially based on an established pattern of behavior. Things he has said in the past like his famous "grab em by the p" recording or how he announced that he would "inspect" the dressing rooms of his pageants (which included miss teen universe), showing his general distaste for women like that time he called Rosie a dog. He's just done so much that is public record. In short, he is liable because of the things he's said and done and because the courts found Caroll to be more credible than the former and future president of the United States of America. Hope that helps you understand.

[@bunjiagglebracht8993]

Important note: the "rape" case was tested in civil court, not criminal court - which has significantly lower standards of evidence. Instead of beyond reasonable doubt, its just "more likely than not". Also, the only evidence presented in the case was the womans claims, and her friends testimonies. Of course, you would never know this if you only listen to legaleagle.

[@lightnvongola7649]

Yep! More likely than not is a better way to put it. But highly improbable

[@pdpgb]

With a jury in a 80% Dem district.

[@martylund8411]

Her own very public acts of being a crazy attention-seeking weirdo obsessed with SA fantasies revolving around celebrities was also completely prohibited from being introduced into evidence.

[@scottishwarrior3547]

Which is why we should go on her old notes, she said I had consented sex with Trump till he ran the third time for president

[@frost_94]

That don't like trump😅

[@pumacheyenne6823]

I don’t believe he assaulted her. Her accusation is a plot of Law & Order: SVU. The store where she claims the assault happened would have had lots of people in it who all would have recognized Trump. No witnesses seeing him there that day. The dressing room where she claims the attack happened was kept locked and an employee would have had to been asked to open it for them. No employee has said they did that. No employee of that store as a witness to even seeing either of them there that day. None of it makes sense. Not to mention that she has accused other men with similar allegations.

[@markhohenbrink5230]

Don't forget the dress she wore during the event wasn't made until years after the supposed event.

[@pumacheyenne6823]

@ I use this trial as a litmus test for intelligence. 😏

[@davidschmidt2081]

​@@markhohenbrink5230That's definitely a point against her, but things like that can just be memory. I think the whole case is ridiculous, but accepting she's being honest for just a second (doubt it), that could just be a mistake.

[@Alondro77]

@@davidschmidt2081 There's a reason statues of limitations exist for these things. Without them, women could just make up BS about anyone they happen to hate, claiming all manner of crap from decades earlier with zero evidence and drag the man through the courts just to harm him. Women ARE than vindictive and false. You should see how they treat each other when they get into fights! I've caught them spreading HORRIBLE false rumors about each other, especially my aunts. They'd get into BSing about each other, not knowing I knew the truth.

[@WhatTheHell116]

@@davidschmidt2081 her story also changed 4-5 times included Time and Location lol. She has also Claimed like 20 other people have Raped her.

[@Geoff8620]

So he was never found guilty. They found him liable, meaning they didn't have any hard evidence to truly convict him. However, they still held him accountable whether it was true or not.

[@DanielRichards644]

and it's absolutely insane that is something that can be done in our court system.

[@scottphillips8607]

​@@DanielRichards644 It's not supposed to be allowed, the judge was corrupt.

[@darthbrooks4933]

@@DanielRichards644they did it to a billionaire too. What can they do to you or I?

[@edwardmcgarthwaite7771]

Criminal court justice: The standard is clear, my hands are tied. Equity court justice: I am the law!

[@Phont0]

That's the difference between a civil and criminal court. In criminal you are guilty or not guilty in civil you are liable or not liable.

[@FaytsShadow]

Nux, Trump wasn’t found guilty of anything. The case was in civil court, which has a “more likely than not” standard, which is not a very high standard at all. In civil court, guilt (which has a much higher standard of proof) isn’t determined, only basic likelihood. There’s a reason the E. Jean Carroll v. Trump case wasn’t tried in criminal court. It’s because the burden of proof is higher, the amount of discovery is wider, and the fact that E. Jean Carroll has done this to multiple other men before would have been allowed to be presented and considered.

[@hallarious506]

And dont forget all the controversy about the jury instructions.

[@FaytsShadow]

@hallarious506 different case. This is the nipple judge case, not the NY criminal business case.

[@CharlotteMckinzie-o4p]

The woman was a liar 2 and they gagged pres trump he is still under the gag order they won't let him tell his side or prove it it's full garbage case

[@aprylvanryn5898]

They can't charge him because it's passed the statute of limitations in criminal court. He's liable because the jury found her more credible that the former/future president. At the end of the day, one of 3 things are true. The court ruling is correct and trump finger banged a woman in a change room against her will, it never happened at all, or trump full on graped her. Given that she's one out of 26 women who have accused him of misconduct, I'm inclined to believe the courts.

[@ZiggyZou]

Trump is such piece of human garbage. The fact that he elected President again is insane. His maga cult is terrifying

[@aaronburdon221]

Trump was convicted in an area that is 70-80% democrat in a civil lawsuit for an assault that apparently happened 20 years ago (she couldn't even remember the year but it was apparently so traumatic). Trump is/was one of the most famous men in the world. Do you really think he ever really walks alone in public (bodyguards would definitely be around) or has enough time for an SA even if he wanted to? They extended the statute of limitations specifically for this case and would barely let his lawyers talk. Even IF he did it (which I highly doubt he did if for nothing else, sheer logistics), this case should've been a mistrial.

[@darthbrooks4933]

@@aaronburdon221 they denied a venue change too, you always get at least one by right.

[@pdpgb]

And I'm sure it will get appealed but they just needed their "convicted felon" talking point for the election. Now that they lost and it was all for nothing I'm sure these cases will quietly disappear one after the other.

[@PollySunshine-r9j]

Not only that but the judge refused to allow the jury to hear exculpatory evidence. The judge is horrendously corrupt.

[@rev.jonathanwint6038]

She also accused apparently 22 other Men of sexual assault and has been diagnosed with schizophrenia none of which was allowed to be used in Trump's trial. Several of these men by the way were able to prove themselves innocent And where alibied.. none of which Trump was allowed to use in his defense.

[@Ashmita-bf5kj]

The absolute sheer amount of SA and grapes that happen among the famous and wealthy (epstine and everyone who was involved with him, diddy and Hollywood) the probability for him to be doing that is actually very high. You're showing bias and cognitive dissonance with your comment. If trump wasnt so politically supported by people given the climate and if he was just the billionaire sleezy womanizer businessman you'd never write what you did.

[@EpochWin]

Three big reasons ABC don't want this case going to trial. 1- Discovery phase allows an insane amount of internal communications to come to light, making other legal cases likely. 2- Should the case succeed, which seemed incredibly likely, it could establish case law where other similar cases in the future would be able to use as precedent. 3- ABC's insurance company likely has a provision in their contract that demands a settlement if the settlement will cost less than a (successful) legal defense. Personally I wish that Trump had refused to settle and actually taken the case to trial, but that might be unrealistic given that he's going to be busy doing, y'know, president stuff.

[@KujoTenshi]

This is why no mainstream media will allow a case go to discovery

[@kevinreilly4611]

I used to like Legal Eagle then he showed his true colors. To me he showed his true colors a long time ago with openly lying about the Rittenhouse case and everything that happened with Reedy Creek in Florida.

[@pdpgb]

He's basically acting like the Dems lawyer and arguing for their side no matter what the facts or law actually says. Just like he would in a court room. His opponent is always wrong and the law is always on his side. You shouldn't trust a word he says without looking at the facts your self or Trump's own legal team's argument.

[@louiscypher4186]

and heavily distorted the roe vs wade decision.

[@dennisivan85]

Yep thats when i stopped watching him. He lies and obfuscated so.much of the actual law and known facts it was clear he isnt credible.

[@jonnhanzo9529]

He exposed he a scummy lawyer with a bias But as someone who watches law channels. Never believe a lawyer is a good person. You will eventually find something they do or say as scummy

[@KnightmareOX]

watch Nate the lawyer instead. Hes not a whackjob like Legal Eagle

[@Didymus20X6]

By the way, we NEED the Electoral College. Because without it, New York and California will run the whole country. We already have too much NY/CA control already; we need less of it.

[@sentinel7672]

More or less. Whenever the left starts complaining about the Electoral College giving smaller states too much power in the presidential election they're more or less showing *why* the Electoral College (and, indirectly, the Senate) are necessary for the US to be functional: without the EC or Senate, heavily populated states with cultures and concerns far removed from the rest of the country would have sweeping authority over everything. As I've put it before, what does a writer in San Francisco know about the concerns of a lumberjack in Maine, a farmer in Idaho, or a rancher in any rural state? Basically nothing, but without the EC and Senate, the federal government would be making one size fits all policies (and let's be honest, FEMA's botched handling of the flooding in Appalachia shows that the government operates almost exclusively through such policies) designed based off the needs of the residents of a small collection of growing megacities that generally either don't know or don't care about the events or situation outside their own bubble. In fact, whenever I hear someone say they want to get rid of the Electoral College I find it a very disingenuous stance to have because of the simple fact that the current political situation in the US means removing it will obviously and explicitly *benefit* one party while making the other almost nonviable for the presidency. Anyone who's calling for the end of the EC is essentially saying "we don't like that these irrelevant states have any impact on who's in the White House in any way whatsoever" which sounds so insanely undemocratic to me. It's like how the Democrats call for the end of the filibuster whenever they have a small majority in the senate (not enough to actually pass a cloture vote without Republicans also supporting it) but immediately drop that stance like it's radioactive the moment the Republicans get the majority. I just can't look at those stances without feeling like it's meant specifically to consolidate power and nothing else.

[@wizardgaming6759]

@@sentinel7672well what’s crazier is that they complain about the Electoral College, but gloss over the fact that he also won the popular vote lol.

[@genevievec.8002]

What I find compelling is how it might affect support given to states that don't have significant voting power without it. It would give a president or candidate little to no reason to act like low population states even exist because it will not help them get elected.

[@swickens930]

@@Didymus20X6 Ya idk why people say that the electoral college is out-dated. It literally works the same now as it always has. It's even more practical when you realize that the USA is designed to accept more states into its borders. So one day the USA could have 60 states. Using an elector system makes way more sense in a Republic. The only time democracies work is if you have like, 30 people and they're voting on what you should cook for dinner. Important decisions for large countries HAS to account for regional and cultural differences, which is what the electoral college does. Obviously farmers are going to think differently than CEOs, it doesn't matter "how many" of them there are.

[@kazineverwind5267]

California has 56 electoral votes. My state has 6. Californians have 9 TIMES MY ELECTORAL POWER and STILL complain about the electoral college. Miss me with that.

[@ravinhud4979]

I don't believe Carroll. She went on a news program and said rape is sexy. She has also accused like 4 guys of it.

[@ricochet1351]

Specify! It was in an interview with Anderson Cooper. Nux would want to know! Edit: I had the wrong gay hack fraud interviewer at first, Jake Fapper-I mean Dicktapper-I mean JAKE. TAPPER. You can see my mistake thought, right?

[@rev.jonathanwint6038]

In her book she accuses 22 men of raping her on different occasions several which have alibis.

[@Foogi9000]

Yeah, i hate Trump and i think he's a narcissistic liar who holds no strong convictions. But i also don't think he raped her purely based on the current evidence we've been given

[@scottishwarrior3547]

She said earlier I loved having sex with him till the third time

[@pirbiphx3017]

And her whole story was an episode of SVU. And that department store isn't empty. There would be witnesses to such a thing. Trump couldn't walk into the place without being instantly recognized at the time. And she paints her trees and rocks blue to represent where she thinks a river once ran. Which is not exactly related but her elevator doesn't go to the top.

[@bubbasbigblast8563]

Stephanopoulos was told by his producer, in writing, to not use the word "rape" beforehand. He did it anyway. Some staffers angry about the massive settlement at a time when they feared losing their jobs have also mentioned jokes about doing things like killing or convicting Trump. So basically, Trump was going to prove there was deliberate malice for certain, and the only real questions were if ABC went so far that they could be on the hook for Trump's legal fees, or worse, if ABC acted criminally in the process. Disney, understandably, had zero interest in finding out how bad things were alongside Trump and the public.

[@TheFIRESTARX]

"there was no evidence, but the jury implicitly found this to be true" lol cool

[@lightnvongola7649]

Pure lawyer insanity

[@Vaga-Bard]

Exactly what happened tho. It was surreal watching in real time.

[@ghostpuppolter3207]

That is fucking insane, not surprising though for New York. Same thing goes for the hush money case, absolute sham trial to try and interfere in the election.

[@joeclaridy]

​@@Vaga-Bardwhy? Anyone who was nonpartisan could see the fix was in, get Trump at any cost was in full effect.

[@WorldsGreatestRingAnnouncer]

Also, Trump’s preference in women is his biggest defense. The photos of her back when this happened, show her to be not really attractive. Trump is only interested in 25-45 year old models. She’s not even close to be a model. Unironically, his boorishness is best defense.

[@Escape2Paradox]

I used to like LegalEagle, until DeSantis won his case against Disney (after LE repeatedly said he wouldn't) and Disney tried to pull that fast one with the Reedy Creek outgoing board granting themselves perpetual control. He was calling it a huge victory for Disney and that FL/DeSantis was screwed, when almost every other lawyer on YT was saying there was no way that BS would stand in court. He was coping HARD on that one and was preaching what he wanted to be true as truth, not what actually was.

[@ModernSundew]

6:36 If you look at the full sentence, it said "was not found liable" and he hides the "not" on the right of the screen, quoting the sentence while only highlighting the "found liable" part. He blatantly lied lol

[@Blazzes1001]

that's crazy, just lost all respect for this liar

[@mlodyowiec5683]

1|)Holy shit 2)Nux's avatar accidentally covered the "not" part xD

[@codyespey9761]

Who's lying? Nux is covering way more words than just "not." That's the sacrifice of having a virtual model edited over whatever footage. Non argument. And eagle is quoting stephanopolis here, so he's not lying. Non argument. The only person here who would be lying is stephanopoulos.

[@Mazephyr]

After reviewing this a couple times over, this argument isn't valid. Legal Eagle was quoting Stephanopolis for his "defamatory statement" and simply highlighted the words for video effect. He was not referencing the document on screen at all. He did not hide anything, or lie about anything, because nothing there was actually relevant to what he was trying to say.

[@ModernSundew]

@@codyespey9761 I actually went to the orginal video that LegalEagle posted and watched that before coming to Nux's video, I even posted a comment on there mentioning the same thing before coming here and mentioning it. The lie here is a false quote, he's misrepresenting the quote by cutting off half of it in order to change the meaning, and then highlighting only what he wants us to hear instead of the whole sentence. The difference of "found guilty of rape" and "he was not found guilty of rape." is fairly significant. You see his intent shine through later when you see another clip, 21:55, where even Nux is concerned about how quickly he changes the subject/glosses over the actual verdict.

[@danielrobinson7872]

The lady originally wasn't able to sue Trump in the first place, but a law was conveniently changed to allow just enough extra time for her to go after him.

[@ashwinf12]

None of above is true, She doesn't even remember which year it was!

[@FriskyDingo1983]

Exactly... and her account of the incident is directly from a Law and Order SVU episode. She is a liar.

[@AYFKMRN]

Plus it’s a civil judgement, it means nothing. Her incoherent ramblings on CNN even had Anderson Cooper stopped in his tracks and scratching his head.

[@attila5221]

@@FriskyDingo1983 wait, was it from an episode? i gotta know which one

[@tarrantwolf]

And when she decided on a year, she said she was in a dress that wouldn't be made for another 5+ years

[@AYFKMRN]

@@attila5221 shoot I used to know this one…..I believe the episode is called *Theater and Tricks* from Season 12.

[@RaggedLands]

Best part is, she won by "preponderance of evidence". As a legal standard, that's about just one step better than her making a twitlonger.

[@DanielRichards644]

Legal Beagle has SEVERE TDS, he's had it for a while and it's looking to be a terminal case.

[@kmiaw6353]

What is TDS in this context? I'm not american and I can't find any specufic definition in this context and everyone is talking about "TDS"

[@vahlak6554]

@@kmiaw6353Trump Derangement Syndrome. It refers to the clear and observable degrading mental state of those obsessed with hating Trump. It's not an officially recognized thing, but it's something clear to anyone looking objectively. Like when everyone knew cigarettes were bad, but not that they caused cancer.

[@voltron8375]

​@@kmiaw6353 Trump Derangement Syndrome

[@jacobjacksonsson9375]

@@kmiaw6353 it means trump derangement syndrome

[@chineduonwumere5562]

​@kmiaw6353 It's an abbreviation for "Trump Derangement Syndrome." In other words, people who let their hatred for Trump overshadow their common sense and lead them down insane actions or lines of reasoning, etc. Like those women who let TikTok convince them to sterilize themselves after Trump won the election

[@PollySunshine-r9j]

The judge refused to allow exculpatory evidence to be shown to the jury. One example is that the DNA on Carroll's dress was not Donald Trump's. Another example is that Carroll went on a tv show and said there was nothing sexual in her "encounter" with Donald Trump.

[@jenns1483]

Ppl will argue that Trump denied giving dna when first asked. Stuff like that bugs me. It's understandable why he didn't. The judge's reasoning was not understandable when Trump finally offered.

[@PollySunshine-r9j]

@@jenns1483 The judge is corrupt. His actions more than prove it. My understanding is the DNA on her dress was tested, and it was not Trump's. To not allow the jury to hear exculpatory evidence is criminal.

[@darthbrooks4933]

“The court decided on it so that’s just what it is.” Yes, because our justice system is infallible and *not* run by political demogogues who will do anything they have to in order to get ahead

[@Slashthekitsune]

It's only fallible when it doesn't do what you want. /s Guys like LegalEagle and a few others I've seen will only ever call foul when the foul is against them.

[@darthbrooks4933]

@ like David pakman now claiming the the entire mainstream media is pro far right, lol. “They cry out as they strike you.”

[@tb.9kba93g]

Nux is kinda right tho, as long as the court found him liable, then it's not defamation to SAY that the court found him liable, even if the court was biased or wrong it's still true that the jury ruled that way. So if the ABC guy had said "liable for S.A." instead of "liable for R-" then trump couldn't sue him for anything.

[@darthbrooks4933]

@@tb.9kba93g that’s an appeal to authority fallacy, just FYI

[@tb.9kba93g]

@@darthbrooks4933 ?? How is it an appeal to authority to say "you can't be sued for defamation if you report correctly what the court ruled, even if the court ruled wrongly"?

[@williamhestilow4021]

LegalEagle lost his mind a long time ago and consistently started ignoring the law for his own biases.

[@astormofwrenches5555]

He was not found guilty of rape OR sexual assault of any kind. Dont repeat lies.

[@AYFKMRN]

Chyup, you’d think Nux’s cousins and uncles would be on the phone immediately telling him he’s guilty of the same as ABC

[@kathartickarma]

To be fair there’s a slim chance that a rape case ever goes to trial, and an even slimmer chance for a conviction due to the fact that the only real way for a rape conviction to be issued is for the victim to get a rape kit done, which only has a specific and short time frame, so yes there is still a large chance that trump did rape all of those women, and used the hush money payments to prevent the victims from getting a rape kit done within the time frame to get those rape kits done. Once again this is all alleged but it’s a likely theory.

[@gatorboy306]

That attorney’s only purpose in making this video was to convolute the issues. The CIVIL Sexual assault case 30 year after the fact was a total joke.

[@stevehagen9804]

If you had followed, the trial, the whole thing was a joke, a weird story made up with no evidence decades after any statute of limitations would’ve passed

[@tophatminion.7558]

Plus it was civil not criminal

[@darthbrooks4933]

Complete farce, more so than the other “fraud” case

[@VinnyMartello]

It was all BS.

[@tarrantwolf]

​@@VinnyMartelloevery case against him was, they had to bend things into pretzels just to pretend they were close enough to bring charges in an 80% blue area

[@lehahiah81]

Almost as nonsensical as the Juicy Mullet story.

[@SinnerChrono]

Dudes brain is cooked. Do not take advice from people who hate orange man or people who worship orange man.

[@enderchan]

This event was supposed to be 30+ years ago, it was purely she said / he said. If you watch the interview with the lady she talked about how everyone fantasizes about it. Also named her cats after female body parts and panted random trees on her property blue because the creek dried up!!!

[@Underworlddream]

She sounds really crazy.

[@vahlak6554]

They literally _changed the law_ to allow her case to happen, too. They wonder why Trump won, but this was their best case against him, and no one believes it.

[@St33lStrife]

Yeah, I don't buy it. If they had the evidence to convict, they could've convicted

[@Nolan-Boi]

I googled “what was the proof in the Trump Carroll case” and all I got was “she said it happened. Then she told 2 of her friends who weren’t even there that it happened.” Rock solid evidence right there

[@Alondro77]

Never forget the Duke Lacross team case or the false accusers of Brett Kavanaugh. They ALL eventually had to admit they completely lied about everything. Brett Kavanaugh's accusers were easily caught because he was in a completely different state PROVABLY when they said it happened. But it's proof that WOMEN LIE about this stuff, especially when it's someone they hate for political reasons.

[@usonly101]

It was malicious. His producers continually told him not to say “rape” but he did it anyway to push their narrative

[@KingRoyal98]

the whole greenland thing still blows my mind TRUMP said he wants to buy greenland and people seems to treat that as if he's saying he'll invade greenland as if their the same thing

[@aaronburdon221]

It would require both their governing body and our governing body to work out a deal and come to an agreement. That's probably not going to happen.

[@tophatminion.7558]

​@@aaronburdon221the point still stands. He said he wants to buy Greenland not I want to buy Greenland but they say no we'll just Conquer them.

[@animegopher]

​@@aaronburdon221Then he won't buy Greenland. He used the word "buy" for a reason. He thinks he can find a good price. If he can't, then it is what it is. My only question is why Trump would want to buy Greenland.

[@SugarFreeGaming]

They don't work under logic, in their minds trump is super Hitler and is trying to control the world, so no matter what he says, they will twist it to the most extreme circumstances that in reality would never happen

[@EonsEternity]

​@@animegopherbecause he has money, at that point you ask why not, not why lol

[@stevethemc2611]

I learned one important thing from the “me too” movement that I always carry into trials like this Trump case. Women can and will lie if they stand to gain from it. Not always but often enough.

[@waystaff76]

Let's not lose sight that this was from a civil (not criminal) trial 30 years after the fact. So damn sketchy.

[@michaelcarney6280]

I don't understand it doesn't it have a statute of limitations?

[@waystaff76]

​@@michaelcarney6280Part of why it was a civil trial. I also don't think it was about the act but, about Trump calling BS on the allegation.

[@dumbidiot973]

@@michaelcarney6280The standard of proof is far lower in civil court. There is literally no proof Trump did anything to this woman besides what she said.

[@russianbot7139]

​@michaelcarney6280 new york made it possible a few years ago.

[@michaelcarney6280]

@@russianbot7139 what a surprise 🙄 thanks bro

[@SFUPodcast]

5:29 the Carroll case is insanely sketchy when you look at the transcripts. The prosecution couldn’t explain how she was “raped” in a room that remains locked to the public at all times and without being seen by anyone in the busy store. That’s just one massive discrepancy.

[@Ceraii]

The TDS is why I unsubscribed to Legal Eagle a long time ago. I'm only five minutes in and the cringe is real.

[@1CE.]

That’s why I unsubbed to Philly D many years ago as well

[@ocarinaplaya]

I checked out his previous video "Trump vs Free speech". I knew he was going to be against Trump but his phrasing and constant quips about Trump that had nothing to do with the subject made the TDS much more pronounced. Even in this video he's rooting for Carrol so hard that he seems to forget that Carroll couldn't get her facts straight, said things that were provably untrue (like wearing a dress that didn't exist for years until after the alleged attack), and the logistics didn't make sense.

[@bennettgrimm2618]

And now he wants to sue honey because he didn'r read the fine print. The guy's a total joke of a lawyer

[@RaggedLands]

check out legal mindset if you want a good lawtuber! he's pro trump, but makes it clear when his biases influence him.

[@Spyromancy598]

​@bennettgrimm2618 nah, the honey suit is a case of 'a broken clock is right twice a day' just because he puts all 3 L's is Legal Eagle, doesn't mean he isn't right about the Honey suit

[@dillonklasse4980]

I literally unsubscribed from legal eagle halfway through the election cycle. That man lost his mind, and showed that he isn’t anywhere near as unbiased as he claimed to be.

[@carsandsports123]

Wait he claims to be unbiased? I figured he wore it on his sleeve with how obvious he is. If he claims to be unbiased that makes it more sad

[@cnxlee_69420]

Finally,someone calls him out. I used to watch him for legal discussions around trending incidents but since the last election he's been insufferable. Full on trump phobia. Might as well change the name to politicaleagle.

[@Baneraze]

Did legal eagle just make an argument for the e jean carol jury being biased due to it being a New York jury? He claimed as a matter of fact that the Florida jury would be biased didn't he? Legal eagle doesn't seem to be a very good lawyer with that level of cognitive dissonance.

[@MmeCShadow]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also believe the Florida case was filed in Miami-Dade, one of thee bluest parts of the state. The jury selection likely would have been fairly even and far less politically biased than the NYC district

[@trenttodd7765]

I kept up with that trail and it was a kangaroo court.

[@ShawnWilsonPrime]

That being generous. She openly admitted in an interview that Trump didn't do anything sexual to her. Then, she went on to say she thinks women think rape is sexy. Also, there are no witnesses or records of her entering the secure building that trump was in and claimed she was wearing a dress that didn't exist at the time. This case was an absolute joke. There was so little evidence of sexualt assulty that they just stuck him with whatever they could get away with. Sexual abuse can even be cat calling. But it it easy to confuse with sexual assult if you're snot smart enough to look it up.

[@pumacheyenne6823]

Not to mention the fact that her story wasn’t even original. It was the plot of an episode of Law & Order: SVU. The store where she claims the attack happened would have had lots of people in it who (if it were true) would be witnesses to seeing Trump in that store that day. There were none. The changing rooms in that store are kept locked. You have to get an employee to open it for you. Where are the witnesses to seeing them in that store or unlocking the dressing room to give them access to it? None of this story makes sense.

[@VinnyMartello]

Kangaroo? It was the whole damn outback, mate!!!

[@AYFKMRN]

It still is; the judge, his daughter, the prosecution, it’s all completely and utterly effed.

[@pumacheyenne6823]

@ 😂😂😂🤣

[@s13gouf60]

Isn't this the clown who claimed that touching someone's news paper and making a pass was more than enough provocation to justify violent assault and grand theft?

[@JomboyTonesAgain]

Bc she’s a strong wahmen!!

[@voltron8375]

He wasn't found guilty of sexually assaulting her. She wrote a book saying he did it, and he said he didnt. That's the defamation

[@TheMadYetti]

who defamed who? becasue what you are saying is "she wrote a book" and somehow the book is now an evidence.

[@johnj.spurgin7037]

Wouldn't that be libel?

[@swickens930]

​@@TheMadYetti Lol the case is absolutely insane. He had to pay her for calling her a liar. Effectively she said he rpd her, he said she was a liar, and she sued him for defaming her (because he called her a liar) and she won lol.

[@TheKeefeStone]

@@swickens930 Precedent has been set. Like much of the lawfare dems have used, I think they will come to regret this in the coming years. Their own policy has made it far easier to sue their talking heads.

[@TheMadYetti]

@@swickens930 exactly. i think they don't understand that this also makes another terrible precedence: woman can say whatever she wants, man can't even deny this , because then woman can simply says he is "defaming her" and he can get in additional troubles. Insane. The quadruple tier justice system.

[@dangrimes388]

If legal eagle was a good lawyer, he would practice law, not KZbin. The guy has no big cases to his name except the Trump ones and he lost those. I'd sooner take legal advice/analysis from Bob Odenkirk.

[@nozack5612]

ABC settled to avoid discovery.

[@justincoleman9946]

One hundred friggin percent this. They have a lot of skeletons in the closet.

[@alittlelooney5361]

The whole civil trial was a joke. It was supposed to have happened more than 30 years ago and they had to change the law in NY just so she could sue. She is a known liar and said she was wearing a dress that hadn't even been made until years after the supposed incident. The Judge also has no right to say he thinks it was rape after the Jury said it was not. That's not how civil jury trials work. On a side note, BC settled because they did not want to go through discovery because way more would have come out and it would have been way worse for them. Legal Eagle has TDS. If it were his client he would be screaming foul from the rafters.

[@VespoLiveGaming]

Legal Eagle ignores the fact that accusation of a crime (like grape) is defamation Per-Se - which means it can be assumed there are damages - those damages may be worth $1or $1,000,000,000 - but the Per-Se designation means that you do not have to show damages to get past a motion to dismiss. (The other criteria such as publication, and actual malice if the plaintiff is a public figure still apply)

[@dmitriguy5759]

I view Legal Eagle like I view Neil deGrasse Tyson, you can trust them to talk about their profession until it becomes politically adjacent. And, unfortunately, both of them are obsessed with politics.

[@e.corellius4495]

so true, even bill maher ragged on tyson for his political derangement.

[@Revys_Husband343]

Legal Mindset>Legal Eagle *CHANGE MY MIND*

[@KnightmareOX]

Also Nate the Lawyer > Legal Eagle

[@CQchaos7474]

Practically the entirety of lawtube is better than legaleagle

[@dqverify6797]

Bruce Rivers, he’s the criminal lawyer.

[@Lowlightt]

There's a reason the entirety of lawtube make fun of Legal Eagle.

[@CrissyMoss]

They could not find that he actually did anything with that woman, they couldn't even prove that he ever met the woman, they just found a way to convict him of something then charge him without any evidence.

[@Proud_Knight]

I used to like LegalEagle, but all this really showed his true colors...

[@AYFKMRN]

He lost his marbles a very long time ago.

[@rykerhoppe4789]

I stopped watching after the trump impeachment and he went full liberal believing the Russia hoax so much he told trump in Russian head to russia

[@carsandsports123]

I feel like Rittenhouse was beginning of the end

[@rykerhoppe4789]

@carsandsports123 Trump was the first nail Kyle was the last

[@johnschwalb]

@@rykerhoppe4789his first viral video was claiming a child defending his home from two adult men who made threats against his life was committing felonies and was worse than the men trying to kill him while he was Home Alone.

[@S1rSlippy]

If he did it it should have been done in criminal court. They do civil court because it's not proving he did it but convincing a group of people that he did it. Hence liable instead of convicted. Liable doesn't prove anything.

[@BenCarverGraphics]

remember when legal eagle said he wanted to sue Trump to get discovery to get the proof to sue Trump and thought this was a legit legal strategy?

[@lightnvongola7649]

Noooooo 🤣

[@lightnvongola7649]

That sounds wonky and should have a lawyer sanctioned

[@Jobocan.]

Ain't no way he said that was his plan. Dude should be disbarred.

[@S1rSlippy]

The legal definition of grape sucks because it's used as systemic discrimination against men. Example: two people get drunk and hook up. -> neither can consent but in court the man will be labeled a grapist.

[@auronsbaradock5217]

The worst thing about all this is that “since there is a possibility of him being able to have done that, we declare him guilty” so now if there a possibility you are guilty even if you didn’t commit, and people wonder why man don’t approach woman anymore

[@sentinel7672]

It's not even that, the NYC subway case was politicized to the point where the prosecutor basically said "if we think you did something with malicious intent and for racially-motivated reasoning, it doesn't matter what the context is, who you were protecting, or who was helping you, we *will* try to destroy you." New York courts have basically become about politics first and justice second and the implications of what they choose to prosecute and what they ignore should be concerning to everyone

[@ivanelugo]

​@@sentinel7672 what's the NCY Subway Case?

[@sentinel7672]

@@ivanelugo I forget the names, but a homeless man was threatening some women on a subway and a former vet put him in a chokehold with the help of some other people. Homeless man died and because of his skin color (both the homeless man and some of the women he were threatening were black while the vet was white) the prosecutor made a big thing about doing everything they could to get him convicted while the vet's defense was he didn't mean to kill the guy, he was still alive when first responders (who refused to provide livesaving care, mind you) showed up, etc. The jury couldn't give a unanimous vote after hours of debate and several attempts, so the judge forced them to vote on a lesser crime that they found him not guilty on in like an hour, iirc. Depending on who you ask the trial and the outcome has *vastly* different meanings and implications, but for parts of the right the takeaway was that if he was found guilty it'd basically be a sign that self-defense and protecting others can get you thrown in jail in NYC.

[@genevievec.8002]

I agree with the spirit here, but he wasn't found guilty of SA. He was found guilty of defamation based on the premise that the SA seemed more likely to be true than not. Civil court and criminal court have very different levels of evidence, and people should stop treating it like he was found guilty of SA because he was not.

[@mononaut]

​@@ivanelugo Daniel Penny

[@Blasterbot-ye2uk]

A jury of Floridians would be politically motivated to find a certain verdict. Not like a jury from NYC where 70% of people hate Trump.

[@TurtleChad1]

It's incredibly sad how many people take Legal Eagle seriously.

[@pirbiphx3017]

He's a youtuber IN A SUIT AND TIE! How many of those people dress up? Even put on pants?

[@carsandsports123]

​@@pirbiphx3017 LoL true

[@allenstanley3418]

I thought I he was pretty good until I saw his TDS

[@TheAznul]

There is a difference between defamation and defamation per se. Accusing someone of of a crime (such as rape) or of having an infectious disease, is defamation per se, which does not require proof of malice. Kind of wild that a supposed lawyer would just gloss over that.

[@genevievec.8002]

I was wondering about that, because I hadn't seen that mentioned looking into this previously as a requirement.

[@justinkimmel5464]

Anything that involves Trump causes a portion of Legal Eagles brain 🧠 to shutdown due to his rampant case of TDS.

[@jonnyreb3032]

Carol crude absolutely nothing it was literally her word against his and she couldn't even give a date when it happened. It is hard to say what you were doing instead of what they claim you were doing when you have no idea of the date that it happened 30 years ago. That's why there are statutes of limitations. Prove 15 years ago that you didn't speak to a certain person or touch them in any way. Oh by the way you don't know what day it was so you don't know what you were doing that day even if you had receipts. That was the standard he was held to prove you didn't do it.

[@karlgrimm3027]

I remember the old days when “Legal Eagle “ did stuff like looking at courtroom scenes in movies.

[@chrismoseley4828]

The best character defensive Trump was Carol herself, her story was laughably unbelievable.

[@marmyeater]

A few years ago I never could have imagined myself happy to see Legal Eagle unhappy.

[@ondrahavran6539]

I had no clue that Legal Eagle was so far down the TDS route. Yikes

[@Underworlddream]

If you watch his Captain Marvel legal take , it shows how far he gone down the progressive hole that it warp his perspective. Other people, even lawyers and police officers, were calling him out on how crazy or corrupt he sounded with how he interpret the law.

[@tarrantwolf]

Oh yeah, he's ways down that hole

[@ZiggyJr]

Im sorry... Whats TDS? total downward spiral?

[@Underworlddream]

@ZiggyJr It stands for Trump Derangement Syndrome.

[@tarrantwolf]

@ZiggyJr people that just believe every scrap of government propaganda on the "news" without thought or question and now hate Trump because of their inability to think critically, or at all, and just listened and believed.

[@oblitusunum6979]

If you actually look at the case and the evidence there is no way he actually committed the assault either. The narrative didnt make sense and was changed several times, the dress didnt even exist back there, there were no witnesses that a famous person named trump who owned the hotel next door was even there that day,the cops refused to charge the first time because of thw lack of evidence, the government then illegally changed the law for just 1 week to specifically let her file the bs claim in their courts despite the statue expiring years ago. Oh and lets not forget the fed that quit dc to go straight there and mysteriously help her file and run the case. The more you look into it the worse it gets. Also trump was sued for defamation for calling her a liar because she was going on shows and still accusing him of rape AFTER HE WAS FOUND NOT GULITY OF IT. They then claimed he slandered her when she was openly slandering him. Typical bs from bew york courts

[@shade0180]

Eagle actually went so left he looked insane to me. I was a subscriber about 10 or so years ago. But his TDS is so fucking bad that he literally using his law knowledge and giving false shit at some point.

[@pdpgb]

Basically the Dem's lawyer arguing for their side no matter what the facts or law actually. Always gonna come up with some (fake) legal reason why Trump is in the wrong and his client (Democratic party) is always right.

[@AYFKMRN]

He waded up to his neck into Trump Derangement Psychosis and is now literally drowning in it- I wouldn’t watch him if my life depended on it.

[@scottishwarrior3547]

I found out it was even worse every law thing he talks about is amature loyer hour

[@schorltourmaline4521]

I think he lured in a ton of people with his movie reviews, but then did a hard turn into weaponized legal politics. It was a real turn off for me and I left when Trump ran against Biden, mostly because I hate politics to begin with.

[@carsandsports123]

​@@schorltourmaline4521100% agree. The movies made him viral and then youtube liked his brand so he got a mega push. However once he started talking about real court cases we discovered why youtube is his primary job and not being a lawyer

[@Chumpess_X]

Trump was found guilty in a civil case (where the balance of probabilities for a guilt verdict is much lower), in a Dem state, with a jury that was highly likely to be majority Dem voters. …and then there’s the evidence that the woman involved was delulu (in my opinion). The dress she claimed to have worn that night not been created until 4 years after said assault…but perhaps she remembered incorrectly because it was so long ago… but then there’s the fact that she went on the news and did a weird interview where she started talking about certain fantasies involving such cases “some women” have. It was very all very strange. Allegedly, in my opinion, there’s a chance, on the balance of probabilities, that Legal Eagle has a strong case of TDS.

[@JamezGrimm]

2:55 Well see, Nux. Just because someone is a lawyer. Doesn’t mean they’re very smart. You can graduate bottom of your class and still be a lawyer. I mean, look at leagleagle, he obviously passed the bar without a brain. 😂

[@Dracoaurion]

Well other examples are James and Bragg in New York and Fanni and Wade in Atlanta.

[@Ve-om7lf]

What do you call the person who graduated last in their medical school class? Doctor.

[@danny87573]

I don’t know if that’s the case with legal eagle but that’s definitely a thing. There was once a physician who was bottom of the barrel who illegally gave experimental drugs to cancer patients lost his license due to malpractice. Then he made the wild claim that cell towers cause covid. His explanation was that cell towers make your cells poop and poop is not good for you. I have no idea how someone with even a basic understanding of the immune system or infections could make us such a stupid storyline. Makes no sense to no one who knows a thing about medicine.

[@sarafontanini7051]

well actually the law is convoluted and complicated with lots of weird ins and outs and "buts" and "if sos", you DO Need to be smart to be a lawyer. I get it, you disagree with his stance cause it comes from a place of anti-trump. But that doesn't mean he's stupid XP especially since he broke down a lot of the legal shit for you.

[@carsandsports123]

​@sarafontanini7051 I feel legal eagle in Dnd terms would be above average intelligence, but his wisdom is very low as we see on how he is a propergandist for his side on anything illegal

[@Bentley7Cruize]

The funny thing is that they had no proof that the sexual assault happened. They say he was found liable for gingering bmher but have never proben it. Just her word vs his from 20 years ago lmao

[@DomAnthony89]

29:13 that same argument applies to the jury that found Trump liable in New York. Legal Eagle can't sit there and say one jury may be biased while the other got it right 100%.

[@JerkyMurky]

It was a civil case. The court does not find you guilty or innocent in civil cases. This is the most important distinction, since civil cases do not have the strict measure of absolute proof needed like criminal courts do. So he was NOT found guilty of rape, he was found liable. Saying he was found guilty is a disregard of the truth. End of discussion.

[@ClokworkGremlin]

He was found liable for *sexual battery,* which is a legally distinct charge. ABC's talking head did say "liable," but for the wrong charge. It's similar to saying someone was found guilty of "murder" when they were found guilty of "manslaughter."

[@fancygiraffe3340]

@@ClokworkGremlin No he was found guilty of defamation for saying that Carol was a liar.

[@LiberPater777]

Legal Smeagol is a joke.

[@michaelcarney6280]

Legal Smeagol 👏👏👏 love it.

[@raifthemad]

Ever since I saw this ambulance chaser, I've called him Legal Beagle.

[@Tyrian3k]

@@raifthemad Don't insult the poor beagles!

[@arachnabell]

question : “what was the proof in the Trump Carroll case” answer : “she said it happened. Then she told 2 of her friends who weren’t even there that it happened.” solid evidence here..

[@jenns1483]

I think Trump's big mouth following the mistake he made with the photograph. It was just enough for the jury to grab onto.

[@arachnabell]

@@jenns1483 that is true, his mouth has always been a problem

[@ravinhud4979]

I used to watch Legal Eagle until he went full TDS.

[@LucVNO]

That Carroll woman couldnt prove she was ever in the same place at the same time as Trump ever in her life.

[@foxgeist3129]

Oh good, everyone's finally starting to see how deranged legaleagle is. He's always been this biasedly deranged. Starting to think in order to be a lawyer, you have to be some sort of deranged, or morality lacking in certain areas. The only time im qorried about what a legal expert thinks is when they're defending me 😂

[@xylonpesquera8605]

Also, one thing to remember. Convincing a jury is not a matter of objective fact. It is a matter of having 12 people agree that someone is guilty. Notably, that would be convincing 12 people in New York City that Trump was guilty.

[@Wacdonaldnoneyt]

“I don’t consider myself a political content creator but I do consider myself making fun of douchebags.” That’s what a Political Content Creator would say…

[@scottphillips8607]

Nah, his content is political right now, but he flips around to all sorts of stuff. Right now it just so happens that the biggest dramas/craziest stuff is political. To be fair though, with what I said in mind, he might very well be a poltical channel for the next 4 years

[@cloudyfromtpotreal]

​@@scottphillips8607I misread that so bad, I thought you were calling him right-wing LOL

[@fasddfadfgasdgs]

Problem nux he was found guilty for DEFAMATION of sexual assault and even then she couldn't remember any key facts at all. She couldn't remember what she was wearing she couldn't remember where the SA took place. She couldn't remember if he even penetrator her. But the judge lied and should be liable for all the people calling him a SA of the penetrative type.

[@evilmandrake]

Look, Legal Eagle is a guy who said it was legal for Captain Marvel to break a guy's arm and steal his motorcycle because he touched her map. His understanding of the law is tenuous, at best. I wouldn't take his word for it if he told me the sky was blue.

[@TnT_F0X]

Ever since like 2018 my standard for Trump Drama has been: Would it still be valid if it happened to Oprah... or any other celebrity. In this defamation case, yeah it would still be wrong if someone said someone was liable for something horrible that wasn't true.

[@elitejeffrey3719]

The Electoral College is the representation of your rural votes when they're talking about taking away the Electoral College they're talking about trying to take away citizens votes. You can look it up it is literally the representation of your rural vote.

[@elitejeffrey3719]

And I think America should be Nuremberg coated for the crimes of the Nazicrats.. for those of you that don't know Nuremberg coded is what we did to the Nazis, which is the representation of what your Democrats have become🤣

[@azouitinesaad3856]

this is so chaotic 1 episode nux is cheering legal eagle up and the one right after it roasting him lmao.

[@Shazam1998]

That's because he cheers on whatever person is seen in a more favorable light at any give moment. He doesn't have his own opinions, he just says the things that he knows most people will agree with.

[@Gabriel-HeavenlyKing]

@@Shazam1998or, a more realistic take is that you can AGREE and DISAGREE with people on DIFFERENT THINGS. Yeah, I know, shocker buddy. You can agree for the honey scam and disagree for the political stuff. Stop being purposefully obtuse.

[@mmaaoorr]

​@@Shazam1998 Nux literally said that when legaleagle doesnt do politics slop he does good videos. This video is politics slop. So nux roasts it

[@emeraldfinder5]

@@Shazam1998 says the one hating on Nux for having no opinion, the most overused take

[@1Gogeta1]

Subscribe for more chaos😂

[@xerokitsune]

The last thing ABC/Disney wanted was for this case to go to discovery. If it made it that far, then ABC would need to turn over a LOT of information to Trump's team. Fun things like their internal emails and messaging system logs, considering how against Trump the media has been I imagine it would be fairly easy to find grounds for motive of slander.

[@Gfan-yi7tm]

Missed opportunity to make the intro “lawyers and non-Jews.”

[@malachigamingandtalk9970]

The one guy here focused on nux 🤟

[@joeschmoe7324]

His producer and then the legal department warned him multiple times not to say it. So it was not careless.

[@LuciferArc1]

He was never found guilty of the rape. He was found liable in civil court. They had no evidence. Just that she said he did it

[@Nemesis-1431]

Nux: I don’t like that he became political. Also Nux: proceeds to make a shit ton of political videos over the past 2 months. Love you Nux. 😂

[@ItIsYouAreNotYour]

LegalEagle was a C- graduate. Awful on just about any take.

[@thetoasterisonfire2080]

Kinda checks out. I mean, he's out here doing youtube and not actual lawyer activity's. Must have not been a good lawyer.

[@realitystrikes1998]

Really. So why is Nux partnering with him to sue Honey you dolt?

[@darklelouchg8505]

@realitystrikes1998 It's a class action, likely not going to be able to get around the binding arbitration that Honey has. Oh and their first go, failed to state a claim. Congrats, maybe you can learn more from better lawyers like Uncivil Law.

[@yamatonoryuujin4871]

​@@realitystrikes1998meh to be fair eagle is a grifter just about in anything at least both he and Nux have that in common but one of them is openly a grifter and the other is a lawyer no one in lawtube really respects.

[@ozzysherrod2604]

@@realitystrikes1998 you mean the massive class action lawsuit of witch legal eagle is not one of the lawyers but part of the lawsuit?

[@SSXVegeta]

I like that the excuse for him winning stuff right now is "its because he is going to be president again" - Like we have all forgotten how they treated him the FIRST time he was president....

[@METALDEMON502]

Dude. This is the lawyer you want to go in with the class action lawsuit against Honey??

[@TheJum]

I’ve heard that he had been specifically told to *not* say that he was found “liable of rape”.

[@khyronkravshera7774]

The lady couldn't even remember what year it happened FFS! That plus she went on tv and talked about how she thought Grape was "Sexy"?!?!?!?!

[@NirvanaFan83]

WE ARE REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY

[@Dziaji]

I have been calling out legal eagle for immoral twisting of news stories for years now. This is why Nux is the best. He’s right on the money almost 100% of the time with his beautiful Jew brain.

[@michaelcooper9819]

I unsubscribed when he claimed that that kid protecting himself was not self defense.

[@kazineverwind5267]

If he's gonna say that Cpt. Marvel was justified in snapping a man's wrist and stealing his wheels for touching her newspaper, then why was Rittenhouse not justified when he was chased by a LITERAL ARMED MOB? Oh, because he's a partisan. Checks out.

[@Dziaji]

@@michaelcooper9819 which kid?

[@DonFatherTrump]

She is literally a random lady with ZERO evidence making wild accusations against a famous man she can't prove she ever met. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

[@BeastGuyver]

the populace is sick of news organizations lying to them and want to punish them, yeah they would have raised the amount as high as possible.

[@chadwickpuffington]

He blocked me on Twitter for asking if he can do a lawyer reacts video to a Law and Order SVU episode (S13 E11) aptly named Theater Tricks. If you dont know, that is the episode E. Jean Carroll claimed to happen to her damn near verbatim.

[@skarlock5257]

"Words mean whatever we want them to mean." - The News "No. LOL. LMAO EVEN". - The Courts

[@banjokazooie370]

Most of the other KZbinr lawyers don’t like Legal Eagle because his takes are so bad. They started to dislike him when hi though captain marvel was justified in using her strength against a normal human who just touched her map.

[@CatOnDeWall]

-grope women -pay 2 million in damages -wait till news site defame you -sue them and get 16 million in damages now you have 14 million in profits dude is truly business minded /j

[@Jobocan.]

Trump playing that 4D chess.

[@Nikolasz1173]

Trump: The Art of the Deal

[@schorltourmaline4521]

@@Nikolasz1173 If it all happened as OP said, wouldn't it be "The Art of the Feel"?

[@Alondro77]

They had to settle, because bringing this up in court again could force Carroll to testify, and her story would change again drastically as it has every single time she tells it. It would blow her legal case out of the water and let Trump appeal the civil judgement and potentially get it overturned. ABC couldn't risk that.

[@parkerlarson6692]

Legal Eagle used to be a educational channel…