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:

  2. Calling it hearsay is not an attack on the process but a direct attack on the substance of the complaint itself, and that is not validation of the claim. Some hearsay may be true, but not all cases of hearsay are and that's part of the issue. There's no way to verify if those cases of hearsay are accurate depictions of what actually happened or was said, unlike the cases of video or audio recordings. To make the argument that they're calling it hearsay so it must be valid IS a weak arguement and you are basing it on a presumption of truth. We don't know if half of what the complaint states is true or even happened at all as described. To make matters worse Democrats are preventing Republicans from determining the veracity of those claims the whistleblower says other people made. The example you give in the video is not an accurate portrayal of what is happening here. In your example there was only one level of hearsay, that individual overheard something happening. If you wanted it to be accurate to this situation then you would have stated the person who overheard it happening then went and told someone else who then told the police but then refused to tell the police who it was that actually witnessed the crime or how to find them. If you were thinking like a lawyer you'd understand just how indefensible such a position actually is.

  3. if you pulled your head out sand, you would be lost. you don't even know what is going on, this unbelievable BS is great for BS listeners. Mumble Jumble, surely you don't even believe your own BS. maybe the whistle blower with all his connections with the Deep State. So many mistakes that you can't figure out.

  4. So I haven't heard every talking head in this debacle but I never heard any say they couldn't get an indictment as you kept stating based on Hearsay, which is not the same as being found guilty or anything. I don't think your seeing the reality of this situation. If the only evidence in this scenario is the transcript and the whistle blower, then how you read the transcript will determine what you think of it. Never does trump say on the phone call at any point anything which relates to what he is accused of, so the entire charge would be based on the tone of the call. So far we have only heard about that from the whistle blower, who heard from a guy, who heard from a guy, who read it in the new York times. This thing can still go either way. The only reason I bring this up is because your very biased in your opinion and its clearly effecting your judgement.

  5. Objection! The real problem is that just as there is no real way to enforce a Supreme Court ruling against the President, Congress doesn't seem to have any kind of thing enforcing them to impeach the President in specific ways, it amounts to a popularity contest where they simply need most of congress to vote one way. Similarly there is nothing enforcing Senate follow specific rules with how they vote, in the end congress is doing everything to prove this in the court of public opinion because although it is probably true, the same disingenuous (to put it politely) people (using that term pretty loosely) that are defending Trump on TV now are going to be the ones that decide the outcome legally. Pretty unlikely that he is going to get removed from office, guilty or not, because you need 45 Dems, 2 Independents and 20 (or 19, I am unclear if you need 66 or 67) Republicans to vote against him. But the Dems are trying to make it so that if they don't the court of public opinion will turn against those that don't vote to impeach.

  6. Objection!!! Wait a minute, "Hearsay is "and out-of-court statement, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement."
    So first I see the term "statement" "offered" "to prove" "the truth" "the matter" "asserted". Yet you talk nothing about any of these "ingredients" (you can;t convince me or a jury that you have baked a cake if you cannot show me that you ever had, bought or used the ingredients for the cake not have an oven to bake it in nor a bowl, spoon or other mixing devises, a pan, etc)
    Also it "asserted in the statement" "the truth of the matter" what matter? and "offered to prove". How is a statement of an alleged statement of an alleged statement of a an alleged overheard statement of an unknown alleged hearing of innuendos of the president allegedly offering quid pro quo (exchange of something for something) which is NOT unlawful, is NOT a crime, is not "high crimes and misdemeanors" and NOT impeachable in the first place!! What the hell do you call negotiations?
    And you miss the most important part (seemingly on purpose considering your rhetoric is clearly biased against the president (makes you an accessory to the crimes of this continued Coup back up to the backup to the back up with surprisingly the same narrative and the first and second and third attempts)
    The important part missing is that even if it was "quid pro quo" it in no way benefits the president in a personal way but does conform to his duties as president to find corruption and weed it out! So you want to impeach a president for doing his job which By the way is supposedly why Muller was giving unlimited budget and a team of Trump hating libturds for two and a half years (which found no criminal behavior, high crimes, misdemeanors or impeachable offenses)
    On the other hand Joe Biden is recorded (outside of court, thus "hearsay" but admissible) that he was "extorting", "Forcing", "directly influencing", "pressuring" (which is very different from "quid pro quo" lawful exchange) for an investigator investigating his son (personal benefit) and the company he worked for, for criminal behavior. Sounds a bit like interference in an investigation with clear intent to do so, to prevent his son from possibly facing criminal charges.
    So all the nonsense of "quid pro quo" is just that! It's called negotiating a deal! What matters is what was the purpose of the deal! Criminal or not criminal? To negotiate, quid pro quo, leverage, even impose upon the government of one country to assist in investigating corruption, election tampering etc. engaged in or being engaged in, is not only acceptable and proper but part of "getting the job done". Which means all those who are using this to intimidate the president from doing his job are in fact interfering with government operation and duty of office.!
    So, the "proof" offered as "truth of the matter" is completely insufficient to cause any right minded person to even begin or open an inquiry or investigation! Thus on its own it is Bull Shite as is every action taken thereafter. Further, once the transcript was released then there is no other "evidence" or "proof of the matter" which needs to be considered. One can only then ask the one who did the talking if they "intended" there to be some extortion or criminal act and ask the recipient if they were threatened, intimidated or otherwise coerced to do something unlawful or that they did not want to do or might be harmful to them. That has been done and the answer was a resounding NO.
    Further still, it is impossible to cause someone to do something under duress, threat or withholding of something needed without the receiving party having knowledge of the threat, duress, or withholding. Thus if the president had said "I'm not going to release the allotted $1.2 billion loan you desperately need unless you fire the guy investigating my sons criminal activities and keep him from being investigated, then that would obviously be extortion for personal gain or other than for the good of the country for which the position they hold is obligated and duty bound "to support".
    However, the receiving party has stated (out of court) that there was "no pressure" and was without knowledge of the existence of anything being given which was now withheld. Hmm, kinda hard to "prove" quid pro quo" when there is no knowledge of any quid or quo being exchanged, withheld or used. And isn't it ironic that it is not in the transcript nor implied that Trump was going to "withhold" anything if the president of Ukraine did not abide, comply, abide, fulfill, perform or otherwise "quid" or is it the "quo"?
    Thus it makes all of this including the MSM piling on, interfering with government activities, sedition, Treason ("Section 3

    1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.") Slander of the man Donald John, slander of the President Donald Trump and slander of the position of president with intent to undermine the office its efficiency and effectiveness and engage in false narratives to impeach without cause for political gain and intent to harm, assault, batter, threaten, intimidate, extort and overthrow a sitting president.
    Funny how you missed all this… but libturds do that… you like the other idiots have outed yourself. Congratulations, another RAT of the Demon-rats. It is people like you that get people to take up arms to fight for their rights which you constantly step all over. Can't wait till he wins again and the arrests begin!! I'll "recommend" you be added to the list and this video (now in record) and your statements below it, (Admissible Hearsay) be entered into the record.

  7. This is not a Legal impeachment*** it is a coup** …****** there was not one vote ****on the floor votes for Pelosi to impeach.***** they are misleading the public
    A Coup and an impeachment … is a huge difference between them … have a good day !! thankQ

  8. If I was you I would stick with analyzing movies with lawyers because I watched a couple of your videos and laughed so much I was wondering if you got your lawyer degree by mail order. in Canada hearsay is rejected even in municipal courts, but I just checked the legal definition in the us and found it here : It is the same as in Canada and senator Graham was correct, you cannot get a ticket on hearsay. I am wondering why you are not practicing law instead of arguing your case on youtube, did you pass your bar exam??

  9. Can I ask the LegalEagle why congress hasn't subpoenaed the actual phone call and disregard the transcript except where the transcript misrepresents the substance of the call as deliberate obfuscation. Is the phone call inadmissible as evidence? Since congressional impeachment isn't a trial and regardless, he refuses to participate, does the president have a cross examination right.

  10. So that would mean that traffic cameras (red light, speeding) are technically hearsay. Is there a standard exception they rely on to get them to count as evidence, or is that totally hearsay that would be thrown out in court if we actually bothered to fight the ticket instead of rolling over and taking it?

  11. So Bidden bragging on TV that he extorted the Ukraine with a threat to withhold a billion dollar loan guarantee to get the prosecutor investigating he & Hunter Bidden's corruption is perfectly admissible?

  12. Objection, after today's testimony it's not only double or triple hearsay but it's double or triple hearsay based on conjecture.

  13. Hearsay or not, this case is so marginal that Trump will not be removed unless irrefutable physical evidence is discovered during the inquiry. (Impeachment inquiry = pretrial. Impeachment trial = trial by Senate.) Dems know this too. What we have here is old fashioned political maligning of a party before the 2020 election. Don't forget the upcoming census, redistricting, and gerrymandering (yes both parties do it).

  14. Also, what about sholzin's assets being released and him freed of charges?

    If he was that corrupt would they have not have convicted him?

    Really, you only see what you want to see

  15. It isn't odd to focus on the hearsay nature of the complaint because believe it or not that's all that the democrats have here. You say that the fact that the transcript is released and partially corroborates the whistle blower complaint that we shouldn't question the lack of direct testimony. But that makes no sense. The version of events from the hearsay testimony is the incriminating thing. The transcript can be totally quid pro quo or not. Just because there was opportunity for quid pro quo doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about direct testimony.
    Also, a recording is clearly different than a man saying some one said some thing about what they felt lol.

  16. Legal Eagle says it shows weakness in your case to question the process of an argument rather than the substance of one. Ok so what would be the difference here? Seriously im curious what people say. Arguing the substance would mean saying its ok for trump to quid pro quo with Ukraine lol? What about we not impeach Trump based of indirect testimony hm? Also I consider a recording of a person speaking with enough context to be direct testimony.

  17. Biased as always.
    Sounds more like a Democratic party lawyer then an unbiased provider of information like he suggests to be.

  18. For them all that counts is that there supporter believe them. So they will shout hearsay knowing that their supporters are not that sharp.

  19. Uh, because hearsay isn't real evidence that's why they are bringing it up, as in it's literally a rumor so why should they attack the merits of a rumor? This is dumber than when you said any attempt to defend yourself from the accusation of racism is "tokenism" like you have the worst takes when you attempt to pass on stupid arguments as legal ones.

  20. Yeah, you tried to rob the bank and we caught you red handed thanks to a 911 call. However, we're going to let you go because we don't know who the 911 caller was.

  21. How can you say the whistle blower's complaint and the transcript released by the White House as being "damn close". Whistle blower says Quid Pro Quo, and the White House says no Quid Pro Quo. How is that remotely close?

  22. Could you try not to be so obviously biased in one of these videos please? I come here for the legal analysis, not to hear advocacy for the side you hope wins. I get enough speculation and artful spin from the news on both sides.

  23. But what The Whistleblower is climbing is he heard a guy say that he heard that Trump said but he's not even saying he heard it he heard gossip around the water cooler type of deal

  24. So the whistleblower confirms that the transcript of president Trump NOT committing a crime is accurate. Gotcha. I’m still concerned with how something something was moved to a different server… which I guess is illegal. Did I catch all that right?

  25. Honestly Trump really be charged with bribery (ie extortion) due to the fact that no such extortion actually took place. Likely, the best Democrats could hope to charge him with is conspiracy to extort, but the issue here is trying create a conspiracy charge over speculative means, and hearsay arguments. It's much harder to say "Trump wanted A to happen in exchange for B so C would happen".

    Impeachment might be able to be a one party process, but there are two chambers of congress for this reason. There's nothing damning enough to actually convict Trump on this matter.

  26. What's funny is the Ukranian president himself said it was nothing and the transcript of the actual call is public knowedge. Hearsay on what? The transcript? They are making fools of themselves.

  27. but for democrats….they "hear" one thing, and "say" something totally different from what they heard- that is their definition of "hearsay"……it's also falls into the category of: fake stuff, things made up, wishful thinking and bull poo poo.

  28. Objection! Simon Sinek is a total hack who propagates a bunch of BS about millennials. Check out "Millennials Don't Exist! Adam Conover at Deep Shift". Sinek is a nitwit.

  29. I suspect Lindsey knows full well that this is not a legally sound argument. They just count on the lack of information amongst the general population to get their way, not the legal system

  30. The matter of the fact is that, the statements of the whistleblower opened the window of opportunity to make an investigation, that actually rendered results. The Republicans's position is just a way to create diversion, discredit the accusations, and a very LAME way to justify the unjustifiable. Whether one is Rep or Dem, the US Constitution is one and for every body to respect, and defend. My personal opinion: He is a TRAITOR, that should be judged as ONE. He have sold our democracy, our principles, and values for a few bucks, to our historically recognized adversaries: It is really disgusting to watch Ronald J Trump praising the North Korean Dictator, as well as the Russia's Putin. It makes me sick just the thought of Americans believing all the lies that were obvious during his campaign, and still are: bunch of ignorant?? or is there a new stream of neo fascists, growing within our Country that needed just the right leader to appear at the presidential podium to show their teeth??? The disappointing mas of Americans, that have being living in constant stress due to low family budgets though the last 25 years, while the rich and powerful becomes more. Thousand of Americans have lost their business, jobs, and properties because of the constant deterioration of life in this Country. The old American Dream has become a nightmare for many. So in times of desperation The People needed a Miracle, and he sounded like one: but reality was that there were only lies!!! He says what people want to hear, but I knew He could not deliver. I am not naive. No president can be perfect, to the point of having every one happy and content. But in our society model there was alway the push of freedom of will and ingenuity, for the better of the Americans, sure pride to be a roll model for the world to follow. But what are we now really?? A sad flock of fulls that dance to the music of a clown?? just watch Trump's rallies. It is very funny to see the faces behind him. Well… I am not, that is why I will post this comment on my Facebook!!!

  31. Way to be, like Genesis I, wrong from the start.
    'The dominant counter-narrative in the WB complaint' is not that it's 'hearsay', but that there was no quid pro quo.

    But 'hearsay', i.e., gossip, plays a role in this folderol, too. Hearsay statements are, at a minimum, 'second-hand' reports, i.e. not direct ex-source and therefore, in this current context, of no probative value at all.

    In essence, hearsay evidence is like this clip – mere opinion. Just as when LE brings 'truth' into the discussion [02:39] knowing full-well that truth is relative and that there's no such thing as an 'absolute' truth. Conjoining gossip and opinion and calling it evidence is laughable.

    As for not needing the evidence of the WB because the transcript is evidence of malfeasance enough to impeach, that, too, is an opinion. There are many people who hold the contrary opinion that Trump had a 'perfect' discussion, was presidential is not releasing the funds until he was as sure as he could be that the funds would be used for purpose and embarrassed by Biden's evident bullying quid pro quo You Tube clip.

  32. Unbelievable! You compare an actual tape recorded call. To a BIAS MEMO, about a TAPE RECORDED call!! Really!! Morons! Everyone who thinks Legal Eagle gives actual Law advice, hire him if you are ever charged with a crime, see how that works out for you!!

    Hey dipshit, here’s a question… Did anyone take those recorded calls from Flowers, interpret them in their own way? Then tell people, the actual recordings are of less value than the MEMO, written about the recordings?? Just believe me! Hahaha

    As I stated before, MORON!! That’s what you are, if you believe a word of what this guy is saying!! Think for yourselves!!

  33. Lindsay Graham makes better political arguments than he does legal ones. Because of the emptiness of the Russia Collusion investigation which the media harped on about for years, I was sceptical of this as JUST being another way to attack Trump regardless of veracity of the claims, and distract us from the years of wasted time. It still is, but Trump also appears to have done something impeachable here. Great video!

  34. I like how McCarthy in the same breath claimed the whistleblower and the IG didn't hear the call so it's all hearsay, but then himself states factually that there was nothing impeachable in the call.. and somehow HIM we should believe? Do explain, sen McCarthy how do you magically have first hand knowledge of this call?

  35. Hearsay: legal definition – Report of others words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence; dictionary definition – Rumor

  36. What LegalEagle is saying, "I'm a lawyer and I'm acting as if I were an attorney for the Democrats, thus making arguments worded to make the inadmissable heresay evidence admissable because it serves the political purposes of my Democrat clients." Senator Graham is also a lawyer, served in the US Air Force as a judge advocate, makes the correct assessment that the whistleblower testimony is inadmissable testimony. Another wrong thing going around is the false notion that the Whistleblower Statute "guarantees the anonymity of the whistleblower." FLASE! Nothing in the statute protects against public disclosure of the whistleblower's identity. The statute only protects the person from official retaliation "for blowing the whistle."

  37. It's evidence when it's directed at the orange man, but it's hearsay when it's about Hollywood pedos and the Clintons, funny how that works.

  38. Objection: You are describing rules of evidence as they apply to criminal proceedings. But a presidential impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. I would like to see a researched video on what the real constraints of a US Senate presidential impeachment trial are.

  39. There is not likely an audio recording of the telephone call. This is one reason why there are multiple people from different agencies who listen to such calls and then contribute contemporaneous notes to what becomes, normally, a summary version of the call that is distributed, normally, to cabinet members. There may also be a word for word transcript, and it has be alleged that such a document is what has been improperly stored in the code-word level system designed for high-level national security documents.

  40. As an engineer who's geeking out over the legal world in the past few years, thanks for your whole channel. This has been great.

  41. When the whistleblower statement leads to direct, non-hearsay testimony, that direct testimony stands on its own, even though the investigation was started on hearsay testimony. The existence of the hearsay does not taint the direct evidence.

  42. Whistleblower: I have heard from several white house officials that the president did a thing.

    The president's chief of staff: The president did the thing. We do the thing all the time. Get used to it.

    The president: I did the thing and I'll do it again. Also I was wondering how my daughters tits would look when she was one year old.

    Several white house officials who were present while the president did the thing testifying under oath: The president did the thing. We were there and watched it happened.

    Nunes and Graham: Who is this whistleblower though? What's their social security number? What is their address and what school do their children go to? It would be a shame if anything were to happen to this person or the people they care about, or to anyone else who is considering reporting blatantly illegal acts committed by the current administration.

  43. Hearsay, or the hearsay rules to be more exact, is so very complicated that law students can spend nearly a whole term in evidence law studying, yes, the hearsay rules. Thank you for trying to educate us all on this topic. Not the easiest legal topic to teach.

  44. Objection: If you want to impeach a president, you can't do it based on ones personal feelings! You need to do if Donald Trump has done something serious. A perfect example is the Watergate scandal that was done by Richard Nixon. Nixon basically faked an attack on himself, lying to his supporters and basically all of the US. Nixon was immediately impeached after he admitted that he staged the attack on himself.

  45. tRumptards, If my neighbors friend calls the police to report a crime that my neighbor told him I committed, I'm not going to be exonerated just because someone with firsthand knowledge didn't report me. The police will investigate it and determine if there is evidence of a crime. Just like the IG did.

  46. I have not watched the video.. but met me guess.. LE goes around in circles to come to the conclusion that something that is clearly hearsay is somehow not. Or that it is hearsay but that doesn't matter bcoz hearsay is BETTER than direct testimony from the first hand witness. As the moron Schiff said.

  47. this is so stupid ,he argues the whistleblower report is so close to the actual transcript… so? saying "i really like eating meat" is very close to saying "i really like eating human meat", one is potentially a crime and the other is not…

  48. The whistle blower didn't hear the call 🙉 The witness didn't see anything 🙈 the Ukrainian president didn't raise an issue 🙊

  49. Pictures and videos are NOT hearsay. Rule 801(a) defines a statement as a PERSON's oral or written or non-verbal assertion. Courts everywhere are having a hard time dealing with things like surveillance videos or data gathered automatically by a computer.

  50. This guy has to be the worst attorney in America. I wouldn’t hire him to defend a blind man from jaywalking.
    His understanding of the law is zero.
    Nice suit and tie though.

  51. Does anybody else feel that Trump is being chastised for actually trying to get rid of corruption rather than being a part of it? Personal gain my butt. It’s for the good of the American people and the people in the Ukraine to remove corruption. Take Trumps wishes and compare it with what Biden did when he was VP and in the Ukraine and used a Billion Dollars to strong-arm the Ukrainian President at the time to get that investigation into Barisma stopped and the person investigating them fired? Tell me, who’s using power for personal gain?

  52. Is there no reason if the whistleblower was the one who started this whole thing? Make sure they’re politically unbiased…..the stuff Adam Schiff said was more vindictive than what was actually said

  53. NOTHINGBURGER, they know it , we know it and worse of all YOU KNOW IT TOO. hahahhahahaha. going to move to a channel where I can find some TRUTH, like how the FISA were manipulated by the DEMON RATS, and talking about weaknesses of defense, the most interesting part will be to see SCHITT testify, sorry about the typo, nothingburgers are annoying.

  54. Objection: Sondlin released a revised written statement of his testimomy. Paragraph 2 is very interesting as Its hard to read and understand.

  55. Do a video about the Joe and Hunter Biden scandal in Ukraine. Or are you just another political hack trying to sound objective?

Leave a Reply

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