Not sure if anyone will be interested, but I found this video interesting so figured I’d post it here. I’m not a lawyer, so no idea if what this guy is saying is right, but it seems pretty good to me and really fills in a lot of the detail on what happened and what it means. I especially found the part about how the intelligence community has to jump through a lot more hoops for whistle-blower complaints, and how it’s pretty much unprecedented for someone from that community to do such a complaint against the President.
If any of the boards more legally oriented 'dopers can slog through the video and give thoughts, I’d appreciate it, either for or against or maybe pointing out what’s wrong or right with the video. If not, well, I figure if anyone is interested they can watch or not, as they choose.
I’m currently at work and not in a position to watch a “Long ass YouTube video”, but am interested in taking a look when I get a chance.
I just wanted to recommend to you (and others) the podcast All the President’s Lawyers. Attorney and former prosecutor Ken White’s legal take on all of the president’s issues, including of course this Ukraine stuff. It’s pretty compelling listening.
Don’t know if you got a chance to watch the video or not. Doesn’t seem much interest in the thread, but I thought I’d post a followup video by the same guy addressing the whistleblower complaint is hearsay (it’s bullshit), for anyone who wants to go through it. This is the narrative that is apparently being used to counter the issue.
I did watch the video. I thought it was a good (and humorous, I enjoyed his phone interruptions shtick) summary of the events, but maybe a little light on the legal analysis. I think Ken White does a more interesting job diving into the legal precedent and organizational cultural in order to analyze the potential outcomes of events …
But this guy was fun to watch. I wandered into his more “light entertainment” videos after this one (e.g. the legal analysis of My Cousin Vinnie and other shows) and found them pretty great. So thanks for the recommendation
Glad you enjoyed it. I know next to nothing about the law, so his arguments seem very compelling to me, but I fully admit it’s because he’s saying what I essentially want to hear and I don’t really know. I had hear a lot of this hearsay counter argument from friends and family this week, however, so I’ll be using some of this as a counter (to the counter :p) and see how that goes.
I will check out the video you linked too though as well. Appreciate that.
Someone linked this in the Elections thread. I had already watched a bunch of his movie/TV legal rundowns. Yeah, he doesn’t get too deep in the weeds, as you’d expect from a guy analyzing My Cousin Vinny. I liked when he did “Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia” so he could find out why he was always getting asked about Bird Law.
Yeah, I had seen the vid before because I stumbled onto his “lawyer’s view of movies” some months ago (during a binge of “medical view of House MD” vids. YouTube’s algos are on point) and YouTube remembered. While some of his shticks annoy me and he’ll sometimes state the obvious in a “and now you know” voice that grates my spine, he seems like a genuinely good and fun guy and I often enjoy his material. Which just goes to show how slimy and manipulating them lawyers are !
I also agree with you that he seems a bit out of his depths in this particular video and only skims the surface.
I learned things I didn’t know, and it helped me get all the things I did know organized so it all fit. That’s basically what I wanted, so I’m happy.
I’ve already seen his other videos. I’m debating whether it’s worth listening to a 15 minute video explaining why it isn’t hearsay, when I already know it isn’t. Hearsay is hearing someone else say that someone did something. And the transcript Trump released would make it all irrelevant.
I do still worry that this was all orchestrated to force the impeachment issue–not to actually get him impeached, but to try and hurt Democratic chances. Trump is just too gung ho about it, and is pushing the same “I can do whatever and you’ll never stop me” strategy–the same high risk, high reward strategy he tends to always use.
“It” - assuming you’re talking about the whistleblower complaint, is hearsay. In some places double or even triple hearsay. The point is it doesn’t matter that it’s hearsay.
