Real Law Review: Kavanaugh v. Ford Hearing


Maurice Vega

100 Responses

  1. When you frame the argument you decide the picture in paints. Clearly, You don't like the choice of Kavanaugh. The Senators wanted to say things not get the truth. Much like your analysis. please keep putting out funny videos, maybe revisit My Cousin Vinny?

  2. 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.

  3. "The accused has no burden of proof at all." Looks more and more as though such a thing is no longer the case. I've seen far to many articles where the court has looked at popular opinion instead of the evidence.

  4. I know this a year after the hearings but I just now came across your channel.

    Objection: In the video, you state that if this had gone to trial, you have no idea which way it would go. If that's really the case, its only because a legal system in which Kavanaugh would have been charged is significantly different than the one we have in the US.

    Ford's account didn't include a date, begins with that she'd been drinking, ends with her not knowing how she got home and was contradicted by the other three witnesses, all of whom claimed that the alleged gathering never even took place. Also, Kavanaugh kept a calendar journal which means that on any given date, he can account for his whereabouts and provide an alibi.

    If Ford had gone to the police, not only would Kavanaugh not be charged but Ford herself would have been charged for making a false allegation (which is exactly why she didn't go to the police).

    Despite your claims to try to be otherwise, you are clearly and obviously biased against Kavanaugh.

  5. Objection: You skimmed over Ford’s hearing. She does not remember any detail of the alleged incident: day, place, and no witnesses.

  6. Objection: Are you actually a lawyer? He answered the questions you moron. If the question is asking for the opinion of what he thinks it is, he will give the opinion of what he thinks the answer is. Ford was inconsistent since day one.

  7. LeagleEagle for congress! I want to see you defending our democracy on a federal level! You would have been much better in the hearing than what we got.

  8. Ridiculous questions that have no relevancy to a confirmation hearing. in court such questions are thrown out as the woman have not made any claims about these questions.

  9. Maybe us laws are different from Canadian laws , but the woman had nothing to show for, in Canada her claim would not be taken by any district attorney and will be kicked out, but I can see you liberal bias clouded your judgement , I would not recommend you as an attorney to anybody because you have to analyze and parse every word in a case that was very simple, did the woman had any evidence provable that stands in court, the answer is NO.

  10. Lollll non partisan my ass. By asking whether kavanaugh committed perjury, without asking if ford committed perjury (which we have confirmed that she did, multiple times), is already incredibly biased framing of your video and questions you are addressing. There are so many critical questions you could be asking about ford, but you fail to do so.

    I've seen some other videos of yours, as well as some video review critiques from another lawyer vlogger, in which he points out the ways you are showing political partisanship and bias.

    You're a joke.

  11. You don't need to pass a bar exam to see that his behavior during the hearing was inappropriate at best, and that's exactly the problem. This whole discussion is a farce if any layman can see such glaring flaws

  12. Was 100%a political stunt and Ford and the fascist democrats illegally interfered in the process of judicial nomination. Ford and Pelosi both belong on death row as it is the same as when the mob used to buy juries.
    Ford is 100% a liar

  13. I have some questions.
    Are you really a lawyer? Prove it!
    Does Stella have any legal knowledge? Prove it!
    Is Stella really a beagle? Prove it! This one should be interesting.

  14. Your lack of actual legal concepts might qualify you to be a Democrat in Congress but for the sake of your clients, please dont try any real cases in a real court.

  15. I dont think he's biased as much as he is trying to appear unbiased. He wants to appeal to more viewers. Plus he's probably afraid to say the "wrong" thing. It's clear the attempt to try and make Ford's "testimony" or accusations, and the "case" against Kavanaugh seem somehow substantial when they are not. He may or may not be a good judge, but the hearings and all this was, well something else. Eh? Is that aboot correct?

  16. Two men and one woman having sex together at the same time is called a devils threesome or three way, never heard it called triangle.

  17. If democrats only did this or that they could have forced him into being a perjurer!!!!!!!! Yeah, wonder what your actual "opinion" is. All this happened in 1982, so f*** both you and congress

  18. Kavanaugh vs. Ford hearing analysis… and yet, you did not take the time to bring up Ford's inconsistencies in her testimony. Your comments were strictly focused on Kavanaugh. I am uncertain how you can claim this is an unbiased review when you failed to analyze the other half of the case? Is Blasey-Ford immune from skepticism and effective analysis? Correct the record and provide the other half of this analysis.

  19. OMG, I'm not a Lawyer, but you missed the FACT Ford did a LOT of lying, and you didn't even touch on her "story" it clearly shows you are a male feminist, and you can hate me all you want, I just call it like I see it

  20. Why would she repeatedly hang out with these guys, if this is what what happening? She lied. She flat out lied.
    You don't know how a jury would come out on her testimony? Do you really think her testimony would convince 12 jurors?

  21. Objection (1 of 3) I've played The Devil's Triangle… with my friends from N.J. it has a consequence of drinking all three shots.
    Objection (2 of 3) and I grew up on long island and it was common to refer to vomiting in the late 70's to early 80's as Ralfing or Ralphing (depending on choice of spelling) it was referenced in shows like Zoom, many Nichelodeon (sp?) Shows and shows like Mork and Mindy and Happy Days.
    Objection (3 of 3) You infer that a Man accused of something he would never have considered does to a man… I have been shot twice over mistaken… identification… well actually false, and made up aligations. And, I lost access to my child for over a year when it was found out that lo, and behold were false aligations. And I know what it feels like to be struck with completely out of character aligations, it can shake you to the core.

    I do admit that this is a layman's opinion

  22. not really sure why you lied and said you weren't going to be biased… You should just put a CNN logo on the bottom… Bummed though, I was hoping for an actual unbiased review of it.

  23. Objection: learned in forensics class, memory is not invincible and is subject to change depending on situational and environmental factors. Specially when its this far back, it is radical to believe that this is sufficient evidence.

  24. Objection! Opposing counsel is an imbecile! And would someone please explain to him that Stella isn't a beagle… Or that whether or not the "analysis" was intended to be partisan, it was… as is most of the commentary related to political matters that I've viewed from this particular creator… Jeez!

  25. Wait, what? How do you review a total sham from beginning to end? I know you dont care about my opinion, but the fact that youre making a video about this lie ruins your credibiltiy regardless of what your opinions are.

  26. Really lost a lot of respect for you on this. Your bias seems pretty clear, I wonder if you'd argue those same points if the parties were flipped…

  27. “But if this were a court of law that would still qualify as particular evidence” Except most courts don’t hear 30 year old sexual assault cases

  28. You make some fair points, and I think Kavanaugh did an exceptionally poor job in replying to the questions. He probably would have been wise to simply refuse to testify in accordance with his 5th amendment rights. However, "pleading the 5th", no matter how wise for even an innocent person, has been stigmatized, so he was under pressure to testify. However, I think there is more to consider:

    1. The questions regarding Kavanaugh's teenage drinking/sex life were irrelevant to the specific accusations at hand. Even if he did engage in heavy drinking and lewd sex at parties, it is not evidence of what happened on a particular night. At best, it could demonstrate that it was plausible that he was at the party, which I don't think is something that was ever in question. In addition, it says little for his current character in the greater context of the confirmation hearing. Unless Kavanaugh opened the door to character questions by highlighting how good of a person he was in high school (which I'm not aware that he did, though I could have missed it), then those questions would not be permissible in a court of law, and in that context, Kavanaugh would not have been expected to answer any of them. While he certainly could have answered the questions with more poise, and he shouldn't have been so naïve to expect them not to come up, it's hardly surprising that a judge would be offended by them.

    2. As you highlighted, Congress should pass a law, is quite different from something like, judges should not allow, and seems to affirm that Kavanaugh has a good grasp of and respect for the separation of powers. Of course supreme court justices can interpret the constitution to mean whatever they think; it is a flaw in our current system of government. However, the expectation that a supreme court justice should not have any opinions on how the law should be written seems to be a ridiculous, and poor bar to set. Ideally a supreme court justice should have spent a great deal of time considering how the law is written. In the long study of any subject, it is only natural for people to form opinions and perhaps write about them. Second, there is no irony. Impeachment is not a criminal or civil case, and he was not advocating to remove the impeachment process.

    3. Yes, there is evidence, but let's not pretend that the evidence is more than what it is. Any time someone reports something to the police, that is evidence, but prosecutors don't jump on every police report. Why? Specifically, because the evidence is so weak or limited that they couldn't convince a judge to sign an warrant, or feel that they couldn't win the case. More broadly, because such a society would be absolute madness. Could you imagine a world where I could simply say that you punched me in a bar in New Jersey, and that would lead to you being arrested and indicted, without anything else? I wouldn't want to live in that place, and I doubt you would either.

    Your tone and demeanor say you're unbiased, but your arguments themselves say otherwise.

  29. You seem to be talking more about Kavanaugh instead of hearing Fords Testimony which to me your Biased . In fact Ford couldn't remember how she Got to this Party or what Kavanaugh was wearing she also never Reported her Assult to The Police Instead she reported this Phony Assult to a Senator she also never went to the hospital to get Checked out

  30. I take issue with your if a police officer said a guys robbed a bank analogy.

    This would not hold up without other evidence. For example, was he caught on camera? did a bank robbery even occur at the times stated? was he even in town or near the bank?
    Testimony is evidence on a legal level. What people argue is that her claims were baseless, and if you actually look back were recovered memories, which have been known to be rejected as evidence.

  31. Okay, with all due respect you are biased, plain and simple. If you wanted to give both sides of the argument you would have spoken about how the evidence applies to both Ford and Kavanaugh, and how her testimony was not corroborated by her own testimony, or by the witnesses she said were present, not to mention it changed no less than three times. Oh, and where was the place, date, etc?

    You also failed to mention the previous FIVE investigations he already went through where no evidence of sexual allegations came up.

    You also failed to acknowledge that his anger and emotionally charged state were a result of a legitimate reason. Seriously, his whole life, marriage, work, reputation, children, etc were all on the line thanks to an baseless testimonial from a CA Democrat.

    I could rant on with attacks you should have made on Ford, but I will stop there.

    Yes you think like a lawyer, but like a prosecutor of Kavanaugh, with no defence attorney. Classic case of not showing all the evidence, biased towards your client, and pointing out what you want others to see.
    No sub or future views from me.

  32. You came across extremely biased against Kavanaugh, regardless if that was your intent or not. You also either didn't bother or didn't know several of the key facts surrounding this farce of a hearing.

  33. Objection! So there was plenty of evidence when those black kids were hung at the testimony of 2 white women, right? By the way there were witnesses that contrdiced Dr. Ford but you don't mention those do you?

  34. Ford had not evidence. Something happend at someplace at some time at some house and I don't remember how I got home but I know it was Kavanaugh. Total horse shit.

  35. why do we even care what kavenaugh did in high school or even college??? Many of us did questionable things or unproven allegation or accusations during the high school years or college based on heresay. This was clearly a witch-hunt.

  36. if i sat on a jury regarding the alleged sexual assauly of Dr. Christine Ford, I would find the defendant , NOT GUIlTY,. She never reported it, until he was up for the supreme court hearings(very convienent), she was at a party in high school wanting to be with the cool kids having sex and drinking, and i think she is lying. No cum stains or DNA anywhere to be found, No solid proof that she got a beef injection or was playing "Hide the Salami"…………….

  37. Objection: regarding evidence of testimony you mention near the end of your video, it could also be evidence of an angry pathological liar. Words are not tangible evidence, otherwise anybody could make up stories to get somebody locked up.

  38. Yeah. You clearly saw the two sides of the discussion. The side who loved how democrats handled the trial, and the side who said democrats should have been better at smearing. Yup, very impartial.

  39. I'm less than a minute and a half into your video and your bias already is showing in your 5 questions. Maybe instead of asking things that arent relevant to the allegations you should just look at the allegations and evidence presented. Though I gotta say it must sting to know now that nearly everything was made up and wasnt true to begin with, but I guess listen and believe is a thing huh?

  40. The left/Democrat/LGBT incapacity for forgiveness coupled with their sadistic delight is destroying a person for the slightest of missteps (smugly setting a standard that they themselves never meet) makes their opinions irrelevant.
    Ford is soaked in the sweat of Satan and one day she will be held accountable for her deviousness (as will everyone who encouraged, defended and supported her deceit).

  41. Have you ever considered running for office. We should have someone like you in office rather then the idiots we have now.

  42. The thing is this isn’t a criminal trial it’s a hearing on whether or not to allow kavanaugh to rule in the highest court in the land. It’s essentially a job interview, Ford has no obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did what she alleges, she only has to show that kavanaugh is unworthy of a very lofty position. If you went to a job interview and were accused of rape as well as acted the way kavanaugh did, do you think you’d get the job, let alone one of the highest positions in the company?

  43. My questions were
    1) did ford appear truthful (not at all. She lied about inability to take airplanes for example, and why she has a second front door.)
    2) did ford have any witnesses who backed up her story
    (No. They all denied it happened or didn't remember any such thing)
    3) was any evidence presented
    (Nothing at all)
    4) why did this come out at the last minute
    (Political reasons)
    5) should this be allowed to deny the appointment
    (No, because if that's all it takes all appointments can be easily blocked)

  44. Hilarious examination of Kavanaugh's answers. I'd love to see your analysis of Balsey Ford. Do you actually think that not stating outright that you a a lib hides it from us?

  45. Perhaps you should ask Balsey Ford if her fear of flying is so debilitating, how often does she fly. Where does she fly? How did she get to DC? Seems pretty plain you're a liberal fanboy.

  46. It's pretty hard to ask good questions, and trap a witness to admit something that didn't happen. That's why the demonrats didn't do a very good job, that din't have good material to work with in the first place.

  47. You use the word “seems” a lot. LegalEagle, I have not come here for your own personal readings on body language. Nor do I care about your intuition on whether something sounds like a drinking game from the 70s. You think your opinion about Kavanaugh’s temperament means anything when he has a long career without any issues? Look at the circus the democrats dragged him and his family through! How would you like to be accused of gang rape? This is so laughably biased from the get go. Having listened to so much news on this, I can’t believe how much you left out of this fiasco.

  48. I thought you going at this in an unbiased fashion. You make conclusions which were never proven. You inferred that it was a lie concerning "the devil's triangle" being a drinking game played with quarters. Often things can have two meanings, but you made an opinionated decision that one meaning was incorrect because there is another.

  49. 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.

  50. Does he have the judicial temperament? If you prefer to have a person more concerned with the apparatus and minutae of legal procedure than whether or not an accused is guilty then your preference is bad.

  51. Objection: You failed to be objective.
    By the way “I don’t remember when and if something happened but it is convenient for me to make up a story now so I will” is a joke not an evidence. Even a bank robbery has more evidence like missing money.

  52. What’s is the relevancy of what some of these words mean from 40 years ago as high schooler. Serious adults investigating this? And sit here as a SCOTUS nominee to be asked about some irrelevant high school sh$t from 40 years ago. This is peak stupid. This is not adult behavior. It is juvenile behavior or rabid partisan behavior seeking to smear. I go with the latter. You are a f$cking idiot. Trash analysis.

  53. That’s right dumb ass. He says-she says is NO evidence. Even less so given the context, can’t remember place, date, no corroborating witness, etc. Anybody can accuse anybody this way. And media amplified. This amounts to a slimy smear. And your comparison with a police office evidence is a very bad analogy. Exhibit A your IQ is below 80. Go back to grooming your beard soyboy.

  54. "Think like a lawyer". I've tried that but every time I do I get the urge for salt water and an unsuspecting swimmer. That and sacrificing my first borne.

  55. Objection: The senate judiciary committee is who would hold an investigation in this circumstance, not the FBI (who did 6 inquiries prior to Harris' question to Kavanaugh), thus asking him to request an investigation into himself for a process that had already happened and to the wrong political body is misleading and inaccurate.
    This would be akin to asking the janitor at your work for a raise instead of your boss.

  56. You should really tame your bias. It's easy to say you're not biased but perform with a clear bias. Don't hate nor like ya. But it's something we all should brush upon.

  57. Hehe. He says "Democrats would argue" but then "THE Republicans would say". I wonder what legal eagle thinks about all the accusers of Kavanagh admitting that they lied? it's been a year now, how about a follow up?

  58. Legal Eagle, Objection!

    1: You seem to have a predetermined definition of the terms "devils triangle" and "ralphing" that differ from Kavanaughs as per his testimony. Is it not possible that Kavanaugh used those words in a different context than the one you attribute to him, thus proving his version of events and not the version the Democrats insist happened?

    2: Kavanaugh was 100% correct when he cited the entire case was the Left and Democrats was throwing a tantrum. The media all came together to blast Kavanaugh based Dr Ford's version of events.

    3: There is no proof to prove that Dr Ford's version of events ever happened.

    4: The Democrats gave many improper questions seeped with bias and outright falsehoods.

    Also, Legal Eagle, devils triangle is not a sex act between 3 people. Some might refer to it as that but Kavanaugh and many others refer to that as a game, not at all sexual in nature. Ralphing is and always has been since the 1980's at least a term used to describe throwing up, or vomitting. Kavanaugh did not lie when he defined those terms for the Democrats just because those are not the answers the Democrats wanted to hear. The Democrats asked those questions not knowing the answer and they didn't like the answers that were given. That does not mean Kavanaugh lied, it just means the Democrats are using different definitions that were not used within the context of the events they are having the hearing about.

  59. So many right wing nut job drones in your comments section. Anyone that could defend this vile piece of trash on the supreme court is a true piece of trash. What else would you expect from today's GOP?

  60. isn't the fact that everyone she claimed to be at the party denied being there including her best friend who also claimed she was pressured to lie relevant?

  61. I can't watch anymore. Part way he says that he would like a line of questioning that would catch him in falsehoods down the line. This is clearly partisan and not really trying to find the truth. This guy is why I hate lawyers. You have to know all the definitions of everything, remember everything, and answer all of his tricky questions properly or you are guilty of one of the most gross crimes like rape.

  62. After watching his coverage of impeachment, I came back to this and YEAH, where is the critique of Blassey's testimony? This guy is so smart, likable and informative, but even he can not be objective when something rubs against his political leanings.

  63. Doesn't perjury have to be material as well? How does throwing up have anything to do with whether or not he tried to rape CBF?

  64. I think it shows that Kavanaugh with a professional background in law can outperform these Senators. I see this as well when they try to grill engineers and scientists while having little knowledge of the subject matter.

  65. Aren't a police officer's assertions compared to what's been documented at the crime scene? It's He said/She said because there's no crime scene and no evidence. Also the question of whether he has the temperament of a judge or not seems irrelevant to an alleged rape. To me, it seemed like Bret was someone who felt like there's a political conspiracy against him, being assumed guilty and was being very careful about what he said knowing it would be a trial of public opinion filtered through media that doesn't like him. I also imagine he probably felt a little silly having to defend drinking in college being used as evidence of rape.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment