– Thanks to Skillshare for
keeping LegalEagle in the air. Learn to think like a lawyer
for free for two months by clicking the link in the description. The dominant counter-narrative against the whistleblower
complaint is that it is hearsay, and the critics’ claim that the whistleblower
complaint is hearsay is absolutely true. In places, it’s actually double hearsay, but this probably isn’t the criticism that you think it is. (stirring music) Hey, Legal Eagles, it’s
time to think like a lawyer, because certain American presidents and certain Republican
senators from South Carolina seem to have forgotten how to do that. Recently, Lindsey Graham and many others, including the President
of the United States, are disputing the veracity of
the whistleblower complaint and the readout transcript of the phone call with
the Ukrainian president on the basis of hearsay. You can find many prominent
Republicans going on cable TV and complaining that the
whistleblower complaint is hearsay, and therefore should be disregarded. – The whistleblower wasn’t on the call. The IG, Inspector General,
didn’t read the call. The president did nothing
in this phone call that’s impeachable. – You can also find them on Twitter basically recapitulating the same thing, that the whistleblower complaint and the readout and the
transcript should be disregarded on the basis that it’s hearsay. Lindsey Graham has gone so far as to say that you can’t even get a parking ticket in the United States on
the basis of hearsay, and that’s somehow the basis
for potential impeachment of the President of the United States. – This seems to me like a political setup. It’s all hearsay. You can’t get a parking ticket
conviction based on hearsay. The whistleblower didn’t
hear the phone call. – Recently, the White
House has been scrambling to counter the bombshell allegations of the whistleblower complaint
and the Ukraine transcript. As an aside, when
critics fight the process instead of the substance of an argument, it tells you a lot about the
weaknesses of their defense. You might have heard of
damning with faint praise. Well, this is praising
with faint damnation. Well, first, let’s talk
about the nature of hearsay. What is hearsay? Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in that particular statement. Out-of-court just means
it’s not under oath and not made in the particular proceedings that are occurring at the time, and offered to prove the
truth of the matter asserted is that you are relying on the veracity of the statement itself, as opposed to some other reason. So, for example, let’s say I testify in court
that Will from Knowing Better said LegalEagle is the
greatest YouTube channel that exists today. Now, if I were trying to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that LegalEagle is, in fact, the best YouTube channel out there, then that would be hearsay, ’cause I’m using the truth
of the matter asserted. – What does that mean? Basically, whatever you want it to. There is no, look. – However, if I am simply
using that as evidence to show that Will has seen LegalEagle or that he knows how to speak English, that’s not using the truth
of the matter asserted in the statement, and therefore, would not
be considered hearsay despite the fact that it is still evidence of something that someone
else said outside of court. Also, another thing that
trips up a lot of people is that photos, videos,
and audio recordings themselves are hearsay. They are recordations of statements that are made outside of court, so you need a hearsay exception if you’re going to admit
things like a video recording or an audio recording into court. As you’re probably aware, hearsay is often inadmissible in court, but it’s often admissible as well. It depends on the rules of evidence and it depends on the
exceptions to the hearsay rule. It also depends on the tribunal. In fact, my understanding is that in many civil law countries, hearsay is always allowed, and whether the evidence is
considered strong or weak is left to the trier of fact. There’s no blanket rule that hearsay needs to be excluded. But in the American judicial system and the American tradition, hearsay generally is not admissible because you can’t cross-examine the person who is making the statement. And you also can’t check the credibility of the person whose statement
is being elicited into court. Basically, it’s a due process issue more so than the common belief that hearsay is just bad evidence and should not be admitted. It’s more about not being able to cross-examine the declarant. On the contrary, the rules of evidence
in almost every state and the Federal Rules of
Evidence have tons of exceptions where you allow hearsay into evidence. American courts recognize that,
like any kind of evidence, hearsay can be very strong
or it can be very weak. It depends on the circumstances. That’s why, generally, you would look for corroboration
to the hearsay statement or you would try and find counter-evidence to the hearsay statement as well. There’s absolutely no
blanket rule that says hearsay is necessarily bad evidence, and is not probative to the issue at hand. You can imagine a circumstance
where a murder victim screams out, “Oh, my God,
Mike Myers is killing me,” right before Mike Myers kills them, and that would be pretty good evidence that that person actually did the killing. But you might also imagine
another circumstance where someone simply
just makes up a statement that they claim they heard. It depends on the particular circumstance, and you have to take these
hearsay statements case-by-case to determine whether it itself is strong or particularly weak. It’s sort of like the difference between direct and
circumstantial evidence. Often, laypeople say that
circumstantial evidence is weak and direct evidence is very strong, where in actuality in the court, sometimes direct evidence
like eyewitness testimony is actually very weak, because people have false memories, they don’t remember
things particularly well. Direct evidence, often in the
form of eyewitness testimony, can be extraordinarily weak. On the contrary, DNA
evidence, for example, is 100% circumstantial. But DNA evidence can often be the strongest evidence that’s out there. So, just as the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence depends on the particular
evidence at issue, it can be weak or strong, so too can hearsay be weak or strong depending on the circumstances and depending on the
corroboration or lack thereof. And as you’re probably aware, there are a lot of exceptions
to the hearsay rule. In fact, the exceptions probably
swallow the rule itself. It’s actually kind of
hard for practitioners not to be able to get hearsay evidence into evidence in court proceedings. In the Federal Rules of Evidence, you can find the exceptions
to the hearsay rule in FRE 801, 803, and 804. Some of these exceptions are called non-hearsay for some reason, so if it falls into the
particular exception, it’s actually considered not hearsay. I don’t know why that distinction exists. Other hearsay exceptions actually rely on the declarant being unavailable. But in any event, if a hearsay statement falls
into one of these exceptions, then that hearsay statement
is admitted into court, and the fact finder is able
to consider the evidence whether it’s strong or weak. So, since my practice often involves the Federal Rules of Evidence, let’s take a look at the
most recent allegations and pieces of evidence under the rubric of the
Federal Rules of Evidence. Now, President Trump’s
incriminating statements to the Ukrainian President Zelensky are probably admissible on their face as binding admissions against him under Federal rule of evidence 801(d)(2), which are admissions by a party opponent. In this case, a prosecutor
would be able to use the statements made by a defendant, or in this case, the President
of the United States, against them. In fact, Federal rule of evidence 801 is one of those sections that considers something not hearsay. So, statements by a party opponent are actually not even considered hearsay in the first instance. And even if that wasn’t the case, that Donald Trump was not a
party to these proceedings, potentially, impeachment proceedings, the statements would still be admissible under the exception to
the hearsay rule 804(b), which is a statement
against someone’s interests. The declaration against interest exception stems from the idea that
if you say something that is against your penal interest, odds are, you’re probably
being pretty accurate, because why else would
you testify, basically, against yourself? Additionally, the things that
President Trump is accused of, which includes extortion, bribery, and abusing the office of the
presidency for personal gain, would almost certainly
be considered legal acts. Legal acts are things that occur using statements that carry with them their own kind of legal significance. For example, if you thought
about a written contract, well, those are just written
words that are on a page, and as I said before, documents themselves
are considered hearsay. But a contract is not considered hearsay because you’re not using it for the truth of the matter asserted so much as the legal act
itself of forming a contract. And the things that President
Trump has allegedly done would consist of words
that form themselves into a legal act. Like, how else would you commit the act of bribery, extortion, or abuse of power without using those words themselves? So, in that particular circumstance, those legal acts would not
themselves be considered hearsay. Apart from President
Trump’s statements himself, the readout or memorandum of the call between President Trump
and President Zelensky would probably be admissible under a number of separate
exceptions to the hearsay rule, including 803(1), the
present sense impression, 803(5), a recorded recollection, 803(6), a record of a
regularly conducted activity, or 803(8), a record of a public office. Business and governmental records are often admitted into court using one or more of those exceptions. Some of those exceptions require you to show a certain chain of custody, but in this particular case, the White House released it directly and has admitted the veracity
of the particular call, so I’m not sure that you would run into those particular issues in this case. Now, when you have
double or triple hearsay, like when someone says, “He said that this other
person said this other thing”, you can admit that, too, but you need exceptions for every level. So, that takes us to the
whistleblower complaint itself, which, indeed, would
be considered hearsay, as any document would
be considered hearsay, and it contains hearsay
in the form of things that other people said. So, in order to admit that into court, you would need to have an
exception for both levels. In here, the first-hand witnesses are probably conveying a
present sense impression into a recorded recollection,
business record, or record of public office. That covers those two levels, and to the extent that a
witness is conveying something that President Trump said, to the whistleblower, that’s
considered triple hearsay, but again, so long as you have
exceptions for each level, it would indeed be admissible. Here President Trump’s
statements are both legal acts, and therefore not hearsay, and admission by a party opponent, again, a non-hearsay/exception
to the hearsay rule. Now, you can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think anyone is disputing that the whistleblower
complaint would not be as strong as the more primary pieces of evidence that the whistleblower actually relied on. And as always, you would want to corroborate or disprove the statements of the whistleblower. And in fact, one such
piece of primary evidence is the transcript itself. What’s incredible here is that
the whistleblower complaint is so close to the transcript. It’s not 100% accurate,
but it’s damn close. So, now that we have the readout of the Trump-Zelensky phone call, there’s no reason to use the whistleblower’s secondhand
account of that phone call when we can just turn
to the readout itself. And if the verbatim
transcript or the audiotape of this particular phone
call ever comes out, we’d want to use that
instead of the readout. So, it’s absolutely true that
the whistleblower complaint contains hearsay and double hearsay. It’s all the more reason to talk to the intelligence
community Inspector General who did an investigation following up on the whistleblower complaint, or the first-hand witnesses that witnessed President Trump and President Zelensky either have the conversation or who witnessed other people
cover up that conversation. And it’s all the more reason
to examine the documents that were generated as a result of this conversation and others and that were potentially hidden in a code-word-secured database
away from everyone else. So, it’s odd, and perhaps
a little disingenuous to focus on the hearsay nature
of a whistleblower complaint when we already have evidence in the form of the transcript of the call itself that corroborate some of the allegations in the whistleblower complaint. So, the whistleblower-complaint-is-hearsay
argument is probably not as strong as
Lindsey Graham thinks it is, and it’s absolutely inchoate in the context of the
actual primary evidence, like the transcript. When the underlying evidence is out, focusing on the complaint is a little bit like the Wizard of Oz saying, “Don’t pay attention to the
man behind the curtain.” Oh, and by the way, even if hearsay weren’t
admissible in court, which it often is, hearsay is used all of the
time in front of grand juries to seek an indictment. Now, impeachment is not the same as a regular criminal indictment. We’ll talk about that in a second. But notwithstanding, prosecutors get indictments
using hearsay all the time. They’re not bound by those
same rules of evidence. But even if we were going to talk about the rules by which the Senate will conduct an impeachment trial, the Senate rules allow for the use of hearsay in an impeachment. It even went to the Supreme Court in Nixon v. the United States in 1993. That’s not president Nixon,
but a judge named Walter Nixon. And as you might recall,
since history repeats itself, the last presidential
impeachment was started by one of the most famous examples of hearsay in modern times. Linda Tripp secretly
recorded her conversations with Monica Lewinsky as she talked about her
affair with President Clinton. That was hearsay as well. So, critics are right that
the whistleblower complaint and some of the evidence contained therein is considered hearsay. It’s just not the defense
that they think it is. Now, if you wanna learn
how to make good arguments, or at least better arguments
than Lindsey Graham, you’ll probably wanna brush up on your public speaking skills. I’d recommend Simon
Sinek’s Skillshare class, Presentation Essentials: How to Share Ideas That Inspire Action. It’s a fantastic class from one of the world’s
great public speakers about making your next
presentation unforgettable. Sinek helps you banish
fears of public speaking and learn how to deliver
effective oral presentations. 45,000 students have
taken the course already and learned how to speak with conviction, master public speaking, transform nerves into natural energy, and articulate what you really need to say in a public speech. Skillshare is an online learning community that has tens of thousands
of classes on everything, like music, design,
technology, and business. A yearly membership is
less than $10 per month, but LegalEagles will get two
free months of Skillshare when you click on the link below. Plus, it really helps out the channel. The free premium membership
gives you unlimited access to must-know topics so you can improve your
skills and learn new things, all free for two months. So, improve yourself now so you can start making
non-hearsay arguments. Do you agree with my analysis? Leave your objections in the comments and check out my other
real law reviews over here where I will see you in court. Allegedly.

100 thoughts on “Is the Whistleblower Complaint HEARSAY? – Real Law Review”

  1. This isn't hearsay: Legal Eagles get 2 months of unlimited learning on Skillshare for FREE: https://skl.sh/legaleagle19

  2. It would be amazing to see an update of what’s come out so far, I’m not even sure if there’s really much change despite the growing evidence. I do appreciate a logical non-biased approach that you give. Thanks I’m glad I found your channel

  3. In many countries? Bro this is a garbage video. The actual whistleblower form says must have first hand knowledge so why defend all the left loons trying to dig up dirt when they are overlooking the obvious crimes?

  4. This makes little sense, since the US Constitution gives the House of Representatives “sole power of impeachment.” Effectively, the House has free rein to run an impeachment process the way it wants. Cipollone makes process complaints, pointing out that the House has not held an official vote to start an impeachment inquiry, that some proceedings have been held in secret, that transcripts of depositions haven’t been released, and that Trump wasn’t given the right to cross-examine witnesses. All this, he declares, makes the impeachment inquiry “unconstitutional.”
    More broadly, the letter is a challenge to the very concept of congressional oversight.
    The executive branch often pushes back against congressional requests for documents or testimony, but it usually happens on a case-by-case basis, and often deals are reached after some give-and-take. This, however, is a much bolder refusal to cooperate with any impeachment-related request for documents and testimony. And, as such could itself be grounds for impeachment.

  5. Can you cover the news that Blitzchung had his prize money revoked (by blizzard, won playing hearthstone) after he made a political statement. I'm wondering whether it's legal that his winnings are being revoked/withheld. I'm not sure which law applies, but would it be legal in the US? My thinking was that he earned the money, and it should be his, also removing someone based on political opinions sounds like it's against freedom of speech
    I am not a lawyer though, could we please get your thoughts?

  6. Hey LE, I saw this video on Because Science about if the Joker is legally insane and I was thinking that you can take a crack at this. Link to Because Science video below.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-YPZ1_h7gM

  7. TL;DW Yes it's heresay, and the facts show Trump's done nothing wrong, but I don't care, so we better have another 3 year long investigation into Trump over fake news, because reasons.

    If your attack against Trump is so weak that you have to explain how heresay is actually ok (but not first hand accounts), then you're not thinking like a lawyer, LegalEagle, because you missed the biggest fact here. Heresay implies someone else witnessed the act firsthand. If there was some alleged wrongdoing, then why didn't those firsthand witnesses deem it necessary to blow the whistle, instead of a partisan state official with TDS? We don't trust heresay because the person reporting the heresay doesn't actually know what they're talking about and we can't test their knowledge. I really like this channel. It's unfortunate you consistently let your political bias and TDS cloud your legal judgement.

  8. Can we get a video discussing the controversy over the new Joker movie and its use of "Rock and Roll part 2" ? I would love to hear about how the royalty laws would apply.

  9. I think what also might be an issue is it appears that congress uses rules as well as laws to further legal challenges. My understanding is that the House Democrats changes the rules to allow a Whistleblower to come forward without having first hand knowledge of the actual event (Hearsay). A Whistleblower who has no direct knowledge of an event but has a proven bias. That is a very dangerous precedent to set if we allow this kinda of "action" to take place.

    With the release of the transcript it further proves that this Whistleblowers motives were less than chivalrous. Nothing in their conversation proves a quid pro quo. Nothing in that conversation shows Trump going after a 2020 candidate. It shows Trump wants to know what OUR government did with a foreign government during the 2016 election. Was there a cover up? Weren't democrats interested in who meddled in our elections like for the last 3 years? I wonder why they don't want to get to the bottom of this?

  10. What was left out of this video clip, there is nothing to verify the hearsay. No transcript, no other witnesses, nothing. That is why it's such a huge factor in this case. You also have a "whistle blower" that would have motive to fabricate the statements.

  11. Hi, good afternoon. Question– does precedent exist on whether or not abandoning/betraying an ally would be considered treason to the United States? Asking for 327 million friends.

  12. Yet you’re still wrong. And just Spinning.. you’re definitely anti-Trump.
    It looks like a law firm wrote the whistleblower report. Within the federal rules for whistleblowers, hearsay Is never been usable to gain whistleblower status. This was changed last month, prior to this attack. Adam Schiff lies about meeting with the whistleblower prior to his accusations. By doing this they covered themselves while attacking the President. The transcript proves Trump is innocent of any crimes. Asking a President to investigate a crime that Biden bragged about committing, is perfectly reasonable and not illegal. The President is the top cop. We should rid ourselves of corruption. And this is all just a distraction from the real criminals. The Biden’s … you’re just trying to frame the narrative and deflect from the Biden’s. Lack of integrity …

  13. LegalEagle was alright to watch without political context. Just looking at the thumbnail for this video, it dawned on me how clickbait and fake this channel is. What kind of person takes that picture of themselves and makes that the center focus of the whole composition? I don't know why but this just feels forced and fake

  14. Great Explanation though lengthy but needed. Will the whistleblowers complaint/testimony still be valid since the Ukraine govt re-opened the Burisma investigation in Feb 2019 ? Before Zelensky was even elected ?

  15. #Suggestion would be fascinating to hear your thoughts on the Mike Postle lawsuit that was filed – a poker player is accused of cheating by being able to see the cards of other players and all of his behavior is consistent with that but there's no 1 big giveaway(well, perhaps a hand being altered by the graphics operator)

  16. OBJECTION, within accordance of evidence presented, none said its hearsay therefore not evidence, rather it can't be proven with this. Let's investigate

  17. I like that you just explain it without interjecting your own opinion on the… I guess you could say case at hand, or matter I suppose would be a better word.

  18. @LegalEagle Great video. can you try not to punch in and out when you cut or move the lamp right into the shot it is quite distracting.

  19. I thought law enforcement was the executive branches job not the legislative branch… Occurrences like this almost make me want a role reversal to keep them doing only their job and not each-other's…
    Maybe things would run smoother if the supreme Court wrote the laws the Congress enforced the laws and the president interpreted the laws… 🤔 Who knows….

  20. Someone told me that their best friends third cousin twice removed saw someone sneeze in front of President Trump and he didn't say, "bless you". We must impeach now!

    Quick, cover up, your bias is showing very bad! You might have just a little credibility if you looked at this or any other situation from a purely legal perspective. I thought your channel was about interpreting law, not making a terribly failed attempt at sneaking in your own political bias into "analysis". Videos like this is why I unsubscribed. Wish this wasn't recommended from someone, and really wish sometimes I could be like you and not look at things objectively and get different views on the subject. Must be nice to be blissfully obtuse.

  21. There's a bigger issue that I dont think was covered or possibly even considered. The whistleblower complaint is not testimony. It's designed to trigger an investigation; which is what the House does; they investigate and look for evidence and build the case. The Senate is where the trial will happen. The whistleblower complaint is no different than an annonymous tip line that leads to arrest and conviction of normal criminals. The annonymous tip is just that, not a point of evidence for testifying in court, but to point the authorities in the right direction on where to look and what to look for.

  22. They just changed whistle blower requirements just before this. Which allows hearsay as a valid complaint doesn't raise any eyebrows? I am not a believer in conspiracy but the timing should at least be questioned.

  23. The fact Trump speaks in such a…unique…manner should be considered evidence against him since no intelligent human being could repeat or feasibly make-up the words and sentence structures that come out of his mouth or twitter.

  24. I can read the transcript for myself because I passed the 3rd grade and can pronounce words and sentences so any whistleblower complaint that comes out is entirely irrelevant to me.

  25. The argument that it's "just" hearsay is meant to discourage people from believing it's an issue anyone should take seriously. Can't have them turning on Trump or the Republican party so they'll keep being petty trying to demonize Dems. Not that Dems are any better about that tactic.

  26. Objection!
    Heresy or not, the witness cannot testify to events they were not personally witness to unless they're a professional witness.

  27. Are we going to pretend that notable whistle blowers made themselves public and didn't hide behind anonymity? This is already a red flag. Are we going to pretend there wasn't a transcript released of the call? Are we going to pretend the main witness in this "case" is the President of Ukraine who just reaffirmed again today that there was no blackmail or pressure put on him?

  28. It's an impeachment 'investigation' that has been started. As far as I know ANY investigation can be started on hearsay. Pity for Trump that he's so stupid, that right at the start of that investigation (maybe even just before it) he gave Congress the evidence that sunk him.

  29. I don't know. I was told by someone who stood close to Adam Schiff one time in 1990 that he heard that whistleblower complaint that Adam Schiff wrote and told the whistleblower to say was totally true because their magic 8-ball came up "It is certain."

  30. Ummmm…. The Democrats announced impeachment inquiries of the phone call before the transcript was released, based solely on the "whistleblower's" complaint. They were totally going on hearsay, so the President and Sen. Graham were completely right to call the Dems out on that. Especially since the transcript revealed there was no wrongdoing in the phone call.

  31. I've been hearing lately that Trump could potentially be impeached, removed from office, & potentially win the 2020 election, is there any truth to this? I would like to know to know the laws that surround it, either it being true or not. Could you make a video on if it's possible & the laws &/or rulings surrounding this?

  32. I feel like the US tradition regarding "hearsay" is for the good of the judicial system as we approach a more technologically capable future. It can be more easily transformed into a law that combats deepfakes and audiomodulation, once the technology and AI utilization matures, than most European traditions can.

  33. Objection! Failure to use the example of Jason Voorhees in place of "Mike Myers" and playing the clip from Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter in which Erich Anderson's character, Rob, dies while screaming "He's killing me!" over and over again.

  34. Does it matter that this is more of an investigation than a hearing? It's not as if they're taking the whistleblower's complaint straight to the Senate floor and saying, "This is all we have. Now, adjudicate;" they're using it to open a House investigation, which I imagine, would involve trying to track down the primary sources who spoke to the whistleblower.

  35. I think the talking heads making the hearsay argument on television know that it wouldn't hold water following the rules of evidence. I don't think it's about using that defense at trial or an impeachment hearing. Its more likely intended to be used as a defensive argument only in the court of public opinion.

  36. You keep prefixing your shows with "Thanks for XYZ Company for keeping LegalEagle in the air". "In the air" means flight. Typically one would use "on the air" meaning broadcasting, unless LegalEagle jets around the world a lot?

  37. Unless those records are made by the government. And your no longer neutral. I still enjoy your channel. Even if i think you twist things to suit your own views. But most of us do that. I still like your DP channel. Sadly I guess your entertaining.

  38. Except that they Ukrainian president did not know that there was no money issues. He did not even know that it had been delayed. So what he is being accused of at worst is a Wednesday in D.C. and finally you regrouped and used the term "Allegedly" committed. So thats new from your last video.

  39. I heard the whistle blower is a really partisan person. Apparently she bad mouthed Trump before he got elected, and after he got elected. We need to wait until the indentity gets revealed to see if this is true.

    This may contradict your political opinions since it seems you are a Democrat or Independent based on your video history. However bias from the whistle blower is not permissible in the justice system. It prevented Microsoft from getting split up, so this may be a false allegation or hyperbolized allegation.

    I could see where you might start to think this is sketchy, but when you see Hunter pulling this off twice then something needs to get looked at. Would you investigate Trump if his son immediately got 1.5 billion dollars from Ukraine after meeting with Trump? We should investigate corruption, in the system. Whether it includes Trump and Biden. We can’t let people magically getting rich after meeting another country with no credentials.

    I also heard the current Ukrainian president is against corruption.

  40. DNA evidence can actually be pretty shit. If you walk past someone on the street, you've just potentially left DNA evidence on their body. I wouldn't even consider DNA to be evidence in trial unless the one presenting it knew EXACTLY what they were talking about. As a juror.

  41. I found your channel a while ago and then forgot about it, I am sorry!! Now subscribed. I can't wait till you do an update on this topic including the two arrests the feds just made regarding people linked to Giuliani that were digging up dirt and/or spreading false info in the Ukraine. They were arrested for campaign finance violations. Also, the former ambassador's testimony.

  42. Not an objection but a question. Would it be accurate to say that the actions of the whistleblower in this case are the legal equivalent of a 911 caller who reports, let us say, that a friend contacted them saying that they (the friend) had heard what sounded like screams and gunshots from the house next door? The accuracy of the report, and for that matter the way in which the caller came by this information, is not at issue legally. The police (assuming that they do what they should) will respond to the location to investigate and if they find reason to believe that crimes have been committed, detectives and prosecutors will take the appropriate follow-on steps.

    Investigation and prosecution (if any) will result from information developed by the police. The caller provided, at most, probable cause for the initial inquiry. The question of hearsay never really enters into it because, so far as I know, information provided by a 911 caller (read:Whistleblower) is never used as evidence unless corroborated by other evidence. What the whistleblower reported and how they came by that information is not relevant because any evidence used will come from other sources.

    True or not?

  43. I'm sure you don't want to make this into an impeachment/current events channel, but I think the… the best term I can think of that would be permissible in court is bananas, letter by WH counsel Cippolone, deserves a bit of a deep dive. I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the people who wrote that weren't either….

  44. What I think you’re overlooking here, and what I think Graham & Trump are trying to accomplish: Impeachment is a political act. They don’t need to convince lawyers & judges that Trump & Co. didn’t commit any crimes, they just need to convince the constituents of more than 34 US Senators that Trump & Co didn’t commit any crimes. As long as enough Senators think it’s more politically beneficial to acquit in a potential impeachment trial than it would be to convict, it won’t matter what Trump does (there’s a possibility that if the offense is so blatant & egregious, it might sway them regardless of public opinion, but FWIW I personally am not holding my breath)…

  45. The whistle blower knew less about the situation than we know now. We actually have the transcript of the call and know for certainty that Trump didn't propose to restrict federal funding from Ukraine if it didn't investigate Joe Biden. He mentioned that they should investigate Biden, but there wasn't any threat. LegalEagle i can say for certainty that your bias clouds your judgement and quite honestly can't watch you anymore without this leftist dogma devoid of key details coming from my speakers.

  46. Hey dude i know u probably have a million n 1 comments coming at ya back can u take a look af the 1978 U.S Higher Ed Act specifically the Undue Burden standard for Student loan Debt n the court created certainty of hopelessness!!! PLEASE!!!

  47. This channel is hilarious. Was it first hand testimony of an event? No? Did they change the form to allow non first hand accounts to be reported? Yes. Did the whistleblower work in the office of the vice President under Biden? Yes. Who gives a damn if it is hearsay or not when they literally made the complaint up out of thin air and changed the rules to do so?

  48. I find it funny that the defence is focusing on the whistleblower's report as hearsay except that it corroborates the transcript of the actual call. The transcript is direct evidence. He's guilty.

  49. The picture you used of Lindsey Graham defending the legal principle of presumption of innocence unless proven guilty during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings make it clear to any fair-minded person how biased your point of view is.

  50. When I now go and try to explain this to other people, and they inevitably reply, "Are you a lawyer?", I'm going to respond, "No, but I'm a Legal Eagle!"

  51. i guess you are going to ignore the fact that the whistle blower worked directly for/with then VP Biden right? lets just overlook that potential conflict of interest. But hey orange man bad right? He is not entitled to the same presumption of innocence. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7561015/Joe-Biden-worked-whistleblower-vice-president-say-sources.html

  52. Thankfully the rule about hearsay rule in whistleblower complain legislation change 1 mounth before the Ukrainian hoax… Don't worry we are investigating here too

  53. Objection! If this was truly about legality then they would know better than saying anything on the record let alone releasing the “evidence”. This is about politics using legality as their means to hurt the opposition.

  54. I remember back when Legal Eagle mainly talked about the validity of pop culture's depiction of lawyers and the law.
    I'm loving the shift to discussing what's happening today, but I hope we can one day go back to talking about how awesome "My Cousin Vinny" is.

  55. There is No whistleblower. Then no one can get in trouble, Why do you think Blazay Ford couldnt name one name or remember where Kavinaugh raped her? And no one she could find or name could remember either. ITS ALL A HOAX!

  56. Thank you for this video. I don't like when politicians try to convince the public with complicated legal concepts. They try to sound as smart as possible and use the most complicated words so regular people just agree because it sounds competent. Now I understand what the evidence contains and why their argument is not very good.

  57. Answer for this partisan is simple.

    Does the hearsay benefit Democrats? Then believe

    Does the hearsay harm Republicans?
    Then believe

    For everything else disregard.

  58. So stupid, how can the "whistleblower" be receiving death threats when he/she is anonymous? ….. no one knows who he/she is?
    I'm not even sure there is a whistleblower, I think this is all made up, fake, invented by the crooked democrats.
    Anyway, there hasn't been a vote so this isn't an impeachment, it's another democrat fake "investigation" AGAIN.

  59. I'm sure one of the other 4,000 comments is asking this but; could you do a real law review on the letter from the White House asserting non-compliance with the Impeachment Inquiry? There's a lot of legalese in that document and I think people really need to hear what it's saying in plain english (and with legal errors debunked!)

Leave a Reply

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