Real Law Review: Kavanaugh v. Ford Hearing


  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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"…………….

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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?

  10. 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).

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

  12. 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?

  13. 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)

  14. 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?

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. I thought you were 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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?

  27. 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.

  28. 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?

  29. 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?

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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?

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. Ralph has always been a nick name for vomiting… We had all kinds of weird names for drinking games or games in general… I don't know why it can be assumed he is lieing about that.

  36. You can say that Ford's testimony evidence. But if there is not a shred of evidence to back any of her testimony, then, to me, it reduces her testimony to NOT being evidence at all.

  37. Kavanaugh has the temperament of a judge its just hard to appear non partisan when one party's literally trying to ruin your reputation and career.

  38. What the hell is a devils triangle? I never heard of it. And why should it be something with sex? And regarding the Ralph comment.. Ralph I have heard of in the context of throwing up. I've never heard of it in the context of sex.

  39. A police officer just saying something should NEVER lead to a conviction. To say Ford is evidence in any credible way, 35 yrs after the fact, is insanity. LE is the worst at hiding his political bias.

  40. It's a moral question when it's a Republican, when it's a Democrat it would be good legal advice to not ask for an investigation. My name is LE, I give unbiased legal opinions!

  41. 1:30 Yeah Right . You're just going to pick questions that serve to cast doubt on Kavanaugh. The man is a Scholar and a Saint and you are an emotional soyboy masquerading as an adult.

  42. I OBJECT…you’re obviously a Trump hating Democrat. I have no problem if you want to voice an opinion, but don’t present yourself as unbiased. You lied in the first minute, good thing you weren’t under oath…lol. CNN can’t use the creepy porn lawyer anymore, maybe you can get a job! Thank god he made it…and “Weekend at Ginsburg” can only go on for so long!

  43. Can any of us ever exclude our biases? He did seem to let his biases play a part this video. Wish he would have done Ford as well.

  44. I get you dont like kavanaugh but serously

    Ford had no one willing to back her story and tried to use a polygraph test a debunked test that most countries courts exclude from evidence due to it being psydo science

  45. perception of a statment being strong doesnt change that its just a statent unless backed by solid evidence basic criminology refutes the validity of testament anyone with even a basic understanding of conformity or schemas can ooint pit several studies and evidence that even eye witness testimony is comoletly unreliable when looked at through proper psychology.

    ach proved you can make somne believe a fake answer against their own knoledge through simply changing the people around

    The auto kinetic effect study found even the memory of a ilusion can be altered by conformity

    a study into police brutality found peoples subconsouse stereotypes altered their perception of situations when under stress or time restraint

    A study found under controled conditions created a crime scene unknowing participants acused the wrong person of a crime based purly on their subconsousd.

    Thats only a minimal of studies linked to perception, tastament being evidence is a slipery slope their is a good reason we dont just lock people up over acusation

  46. Ok but what about the alleged perjury Kavanaugh committed when testifying about his time in the Bush White House during his approval hearing for his seat on the Appellate Court?

  47. @LegalEagle at 20:00 your comparison to he said she said cases is completely false cause first of we know form the fact the q bank got robbed money would be missing second of all you need time, place , most she said he said dont so thats completely false

  48. Dude sure seems to know an awful lot about Devil triangles, probably because he is the second guy, aka the cuckold. Lots of partisan fuckery by this "lawyer".

  49. Objection-
    Your bias is showing. I was in the freaking army, we had no filters- to ralf means to puke, doesn't matter if you were drinking. None of his word definitions sounded screwy in the slightest as slang terms take on a new meaning for basically every group. You can literally look up your name in a slang dictionary and it will be there with a definition that involves sex, another that probably involves fighting and another that is completely harmless. You're good at law, but- part of me feels you wouldn't be this bad at language if there were a democrat on trial here.

    "My degree is law not language"
    Then objection-
    100% of what you said about the democrats being able to catch him was speculative. Would it not be a good idea, in legal practice, to not try to pin someone down on a definition you yourself don't know?

    "It doesn't sound right"- so? It either is or isn't, it doesn't sound right that every multiple of 9 is an equation that equals nine, but it's still true. It doesn't SOUND right that you shouldn't plug holes on a water heater if your house is flooding- but if you have the impulse to plug all those holes- either call a plumber or get right with God before you- basically end your life by turning your house into a science project on water pressure.
    If you were knuckle headed enough to try to pin me on a word like that, I would ask the judge if Google was admissible- if he said yes I would just show you this and show the jury the caliber of the prosecution by showing that the definition you seems to be going for does not even appear on the first page of the main slang dictionary-

    In other words, you definitively either a- don't know what you're talking about or b-you're just making stuff up ie lying. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's probably a no no for lawyers.

  50. Unsubbing on both channels. It's okay to be partial, it's not okay to act like you're not. I felt like your opinion on the trump case for impeachment 2 days ago and this one show a clear left lean. That's the way I see it. People can disagree, that's fine. I just cant take you seriously anymore.

  51. "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.

  52. Objection: 20:15 in his analogy he assumed the title for the defendant as “bank robber” although to be analogous with this case the title for the accused would be – an accused high ranking federal judge – so in full: A police woman, accuses a publicly well known political figure who is a high ranking federal judge

  53. Interesting and enjoyable channel. Can you do a review on the the NY Gun Control case which is about to make its way to the Supreme Court? Thanks.

  54. objection: lack of context is a lawyer's bread and butter when attempting to prove a point, in this case, omitting the fact of death threats to his family for false allegations lead to his state of mind.

  55. This is ridiculous…when he states what he believes you cannot then say that is wrong without proof, he is to be believed until proven wrong. This so called lawyer is so bias its comical, and this whole video is a waste of time. Do this to Ford please, she blatantly lied, has no proof, and colluded with the democrats prior to this whole sham.

  56. I thought this was about the law? I thought lawyers were to be impartial as well? Your sounding a lot like a prosecutor because your presenting only one side of the argument, how is that fair?Another thing to remember the democrats had a lot to lose if Judge Kavanaugh was confirmed. I also anticipate another smear campaign for the next justice to be confirmed. Believe me when i say smear campaign, do some research on Ford and you will find out that her university proclaims high status for her, check it out

  57. 4:18
    Objection: you can’t have been 17 at one point since you say “jive” shortly afterthat statement. That indicates you are, in the public vernacular, a boomer.

  58. Kreepy Rapey Kavanaugh at the feast of Ste-ven
    He put rufies in the punch, so he could do some didd-ling
    Kreepy Rapey Kavanaugh
    boned some wasted co-ed's
    He did didd-le, said co-ed's
    while his friends app-lau-ded
    Then he wept and blubbered forth
    Screaming we were meeee-anies
    He likes beer an awwwwwful lot, do you like beer to-ooo?ok

    Kreepy Rapey Kavan-aaaaaaaugh
    Made a devil's tri-angllllllleeee
    On the feast of Steeeeeeee-ven…

Leave a Reply

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