I liked the way he blew right past all the stuff Trump said about rigged elections in the speech getting his cult all riled up and repeating it for months prior. Or how Trump stated we might have to be NOT SO NICE to Pence or the other Congressmen spewing their BS along with Rudy
@@jamiefredrickson2560 i hope you know this guy is left leaning. Unfortunately you lean too far to the left to where you are entering extremist territory. Every word that is spoken by someone not on the extreme left is considered terrorism to you.
Tbf he basically sided with trump legally and said he didn’t cause criminal incitement. Then gave his political opinion at the end saying he thinks trump should still be impeached. No where near as biased as you guys making out .
@@lucasng4712 After dozens of videos with the message "Everything Trump does is wrong because Trump did it," I can make the assessment that his political motivations cloud his legal mind when it comes to Trump.
I recommended your channel to my mom so she could learn more about the American legal system, primarily your Electoral College video. She's not a native English speaker so she has to watch you at 0.75 speed with captions, but she says you're very educational and easy to understand.
This is fantastic and heartwarming to hear. I'm glad you're helping her out, and that LegalEagle is being useful to bridge that gap, even with the language barrier!
Lucky, my mom is a trump supporter. )8 she wants me to think about my future but simultaneously votes in a way that destorys the environment and hence my future. How am i supposed to study genetics if she and trumpers kill off thousands of species before i can study them...
@@aliceslab What sort of genetics are you studying? I know it's easier to say, don't stress too much of the irony of her actions. It's not something you can control only slowly influence through discussions and factual evidence.
@@aliceslab don't worry about them because seriously they aren't doing much for that. Both groups are shit even environmentalist who thought blowing a tanker train or whatever it is was a good idea
I'm curious how Rudy Giuliani declaring "We'll have trial by combat!" while standing next to a nodding Donald Trump affects the context. [EDIT]: It has been pointed out to me that I misquoted Rudy Giuliani. He actually said "Let's have trial by combat." which is actually very different from "We'll have trial by combat." because "We'll" is a prediction and "Let's" is a request, or, in other words, incitement.
Seeing how much these people get away with their actions, they’ll probably say “We didn’t incite a crime. We were just speaking out for a policy that would legalize trial by combat. Nothing wrong with that!”
My favourite was just pinning my brother to the floor. Got around my parents rule of not hurting him.. pain was ineffective at getting him to f off. But, he was 8 at the time ,so that's fair
I remember reading that Benjamin Franklin thought that a president should be impeached if he "rendered himself obnoxious", and whilst this was never implemented, Trump certainly has acheived that.
@@MrEddie4679 they already started going into the capital before Trumps speech was finished a mile and a half away. It was two separate groups all together.
@@MrEddie4679 the speech that was still going on during the “breach”. The breach in which capital police unlocked the doors and opened the gates. Yeah that breach
His viewership is going to go down when Biden finally becomes president Edit: alright you all can stop replying. I don’t care about this thread. You’re probably right, the channel will be fine. Thanks
@@pspaghetti6916 Doubtful. Trump's legal woes are only beginning. Also, law-categoried entertainment long preceded Trump, and will continue to exist long after he's gone.
What a wild ride 2021 has been already. Retail traders destroy a hedge fund, we get a use of an F bomb to *maintain* professionalism, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!
I support what they were doing, but seriously, that seems like a pretty explicit threat to me. And it's not like there was any white privilege to help them like there would be for, say, the KKK. I'm surprised the courts ruled that way.
Where I'm from, threats of violence in common usage are usually just hyperbole for being really angry at someone. Parents regularly say stuff like "I'm gonna kill you" and actually just mean you'll be grounded if you act naughtily.
He's like a school bully who says everything sarcastically so that when the teacher asks what the bully said, it sounds like he's being supportive rather than cruel.
He's like the mafia enforcer who says, "Nice place ya got here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it..." We don't stand around going, "WeLl TeChNiCaLlY hE dIdN't MaKe AnY tHrEaTs".
This is why gangsters would always say things like "take care of him" and not "murder him and hide the body" because their order was vague enough to not be explicitly illegal.
Ever since crime became organized, euphemism has been an important tool. Although, it's a level 1 tool. It's improved with secret meetings and hierarchical structures to limit witnesses, but any gangster worth their salt - and with experience dealing with courts - knows that the best directive to commit crime you can ever give is no directive at all.
@carnage wow The NJ and NYC crime families must have gotten soft. I am surprised that they didn't "take care of Trump" back in the 80's or 90's when he stiffed unions/contractors for payment on construction jobs that are normally blessed off on by one of the families.
That's a good point, especially if you look at the catalogue of whistle-blows and codes the alt-right applies to not get caught this wouldn't come with surprise.
I kept thinking about this during the video. Trump was likely not guilty of legal incitement but Giuliani flew FAR closer to the sun with that statement. I know we like to think Trumps stupid but he’s certainly smart enough to make sure he’s never the one getting his hands dirty.
@@UXBen That is arguably the only thing he's actually good at. Well, that and talking long enough for people to find the meaning they want, which in America generally benefits the rich white guy.
"The attacks of January 6th were intended to break our spirit. Instead we have emerged stronger and more unified. We feel renewed devotion to the principles of political, economic and religious freedom, the rule of law and respect for human life. We are more determined than ever to live our lives in freedom." Someone should seriously say this to Giuliani.
This is the political equivalent of kids being mean to you in school but in an indirect way, so when you tell the teacher you can’t actually explain HOW they are bullying you even though they are.
I agree. The division created between the American people is abhorrent! I may have my own opinions politically but if people want to blame Trump for incitement then they have to also blame every single Politician in DC and the Media. They are all guilty for the division we face as Americans!
@@RealDrTaco so violent and incitful speech is alright cuz everyone is using the medium in which the private speech is infringing on your 1st amendment rights
@@Noah-wv4td thats why we go to nebula in our indo chico* suits. *it's been a while since i've seen a plug for them. so generally unaware of its spelling.
In the NAACP case, how does "if we catch you ...we will break your damn neck" not construed as a threat? I guess it doesn't qualify as incitement, but it still shouldn't be allowed under the 1st amendment as it's a threat, right? I don't get how the judges came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of a direct threat of violence. The direct threat was right there.
because its a conditional statement. it doesnt say straight up we will break your damn neck. it says "IF WE CATCH YOU" by sticking a condition it becomes covered i think.
@@dantedeloden Maybe. I thought the conditional "IF you do this, I will do that" is what actually makes it a threat. If you call up the president and be like "if you show up at work tomorrow, I will kill you." That's not a threat? I'm pretty sure that comment would have secret service banging down the door an hour later. Would be nice if Devin could go into more depth about what constitutes a threat in common definitions.
@@dantedeloden I hear ya, but if somebody said the above you think they'd say it's not problematic? I think they would and I don't see a difference, that's where I get hung up.
@@b43xoit Probably veiled behind reasonable doubt that the action will be carried out. This is to protect people from getting sued if they say something like "Keep talking smack and I'll rip your tongue out". In this case the person must probably be brandishing a knife for it to be considered a threat.
if the consequences are jail time or loss of income then how is free speech? And how is it any different to the "freedom of speech" they have in oppressive regimes?
@@MrOod67 it’s freedom of speech, as in you won’t face consequences from the government so no, no jail time, but your employer is a private party and free to do whatever they wish, including fire you simply if they dislike what your saying. As another civilian that is their freedom too
I guess that's why context matters. If I say "eat this or I'll slap you" would mean two different things if we're friends at a party or you're a stranger I just met on the street. I guess the details on that case are relevant to truly understand the judgement.
kamala harris, nancy pelosi, maxine waters, michael browns step father....oh sorry, I'm just naming people who have at one point or another done more to incite a riot than trump did.
@Ace Pony Productions17 how has he not stopped. There’s a chance I’m misinformed and if so that I will be against his statements. But I’m almost positive that 99% of the comments that are being said are being said a long time ago. I haven’t heard any new racist or sexist comments from since he’s gotten into politics/potus.
Does personal responsibility mean that only people who personally engage in conduct are responsible and not people who were personally involved in organizing and encouraging circumstances that predictably led to what they did, or does personal responsibility mean people should be held personally responsible for their role in potentially implicitly encouraging the unlawful actions of others?
I don't know the average fitness of a Capitol rioter, but I do know that for me personally (a generally fit young person), walking a mile and a half over road is no real deterrent to my train of thought. Especially not if I'm surrounded by other people wearing reminders of that train of thought and getting each other hyped. If anything, it would boost violent feelings since they have a while to stew in their thoughts and get excited.
@cat magic I should come back and give you some video and picture links later. Did you see how many Trump supporters were there? How "zero" fires there were? How zero small businesses got torched in the name of idolizing a belligerent and then violent Wendy's parking lot guy... The guy, on video, beat up two cops, stole a cop's taser and ran, and turned around and pointed it at the cop before finally being shot... obviously because this violent man could have stolen the incapacitated cop's gun after he used the taser on him! And by the way I don't even like cops, and I think municipal Police are corrupt as f*** and need to be placed under each County Sheriff's power. But give me a break. I got the talk about fully complying with police in driver's ed, and I went to a small, almost entirely White Midwest town high school. My parents told us to do everything they say, or you risk getting in trouble. If the stakes are higher for black people, wouldn't the Wendy's guy have maybe wanted to cooperate with simply moving his vehicle out of the freaking way of people?? but still relevant. I'm finding out I argue to the entire worldview, rather than the argument within the worldview. Also, obviously I could have gotten some links by now, if I knew I was going to get this into talking to my phone. LMAO I know. BBL maybe.
@@FancyNoises I didn't grow up in a high crime ghetto. I'm guessing you didn't, either. So trying to frame the victim's psychology as though it's a carbon copy of our own is misrepresentation. Like saying "I don't have an addictive personality, so all these people with addictions are just choosing to think irrationally." We'll never know what the victim wouldn't move his car. After the fact, it's easy to say he just hated cops and wanted to hurt them, basically he's just an asshole. But we will never hear his defense. We'll never know what he was thinking. PTSD causes irrational behaviour. It can cause violence. Yet we will bend over backwards to assist veterans and victims of domestic abuse. We'll do our best to avoid hurting people we view as innocent. And that's the kicker. I would argue the stress of living in the ghetto can cause low-level PTSD. The economic strain, fear of police, and the constant presence of gang violence and alliances, contributes to these random shootings. But because it looks like a chosen life, although it very much isn't, society tends to write these victims off as merely violent thugs. I would encourage people to look into these victim's childhoods. Look into the history of police interaction in poorer neighborhoods through history, especially neighborhoods that are primarily populated by minorites. Ask yourself: have the police and government given the peoples in these areas any good reason to trust them? I'm gonna go look this shit up. Because right now it's just my own theory that I'm typing. But I KNOW, through my own mother's life and mental health, that poverty itself can cause similar symptoms to PTSD. Especially for children who grow up in poverty.
“If we catch any of yougoing in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your damn neck” “The court held that the statement was not a direct threat or an incitement to violence” Umm, what?
The statement comes across as a humorous approach to saying "don't go to the stores, or your daddy's gonna spank ya really hard for being a bad kiddo". Reinforced by context that no one took to violence
@@mattwoodard2535 I mean... if its "only" a threat of course no one got attacked. If someone got attacked you wouldnt sue for threats but for the actual violence that took place.
@@mattwoodard2535 I mean threatening to murder someone is a crime but telling your brother you are going to kill him is rarely prosecuted. The threat was providing the list which is far creepier.
Which should tell you right there that he is either not a real lawyer, or such an incompetent one that he has to resort to making these videos where he is obviously only reading what someone else researched and wrote for him. His only clear talent is that he knows how to speak eloquently.
@@rhaeven Aside from your obvious trolling, right wingers and conservatives are being silent by the mass left controlled media for a couple of years and now it's becoming blatantly obviously with all the social media drama. You can ignore it all you want, it's gonna happen to everyone if you so much disagree in the slightest into their rhetoric.
@@bentowle3478 Not sure if you realise it but attempting a coup in a democracy is a very big deal. Nothing to do with burning cars in response to police violence.
I don’t know how much more clear “go and peacefully protest” is. I’m quite shocked... This should have been brought to the Supreme Court but that’s not happening any time soon :/
Not if the left has a say in it, oh wait what that? They have the only say. Yeah that's about right considering if you disagree with them now or try to expose them they'll just ban you from the internet and silence your voice one way or the other!! NWO sheeple, wake the hell up before it's too late!
My question here is, many members of the government (myself included when I was enlisted in the army) have diminished constitutional rights. For instance a service member can be subject to punitive action for attending a political even while in uniform. Given these instances, would it be possible that due to his office, the brandenburg test wouldn't be the proper measure of what constitutes incitement for the president individually, or what is/is not protected by first amendment rights. I might argue that given his office he has to be aware of the higher likelihood for his words to be taken much more literally, and followed with more fervor.
a service member gives up their right willingly to political allegiance when they take the oath to defend the Constitution and its ideals. the United States Constitution transcends political Outlook and the military as a whole are obligated to stay neutral in political fields.
@@musiclaboratory9694 the president takes the same oath, and legally speaking you're a bit off. We sign away our rights to PUBLIC partisanship while representing the government. That's why the "in uniform" part is important.
@@tyrael1983 I think that what Trump have showed is that oaths are meaningless, at least when they are taken by people in power, since no one is enforcing them.
@@Henrik_Holst Exactly. Anyone can take an oath, but it's just meaningless words. Judge: "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" Me, lying through my teeth: "Absolutely."
@@WisteriaDrake Just like the issue in this video, context matters. When you swear to tell the truth in court, you are promising to be truthful in your statements. Failure to do that will result in contempt of court or worse legal ramifications. Trump swore an oath to uphold the principals and laws of this country. Delaying essential votes based on nothing more than rumor and Faux Newz blowhards, and failing to mobilize defenses to the Capital building, I think arguably violates that promise in a legal sense.
Giuliani: "Let's have trial by combat." Trump: "Rudy, you did a great job. He’s got guts. You know what? He’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican party. He’s got guts, he fights."
Trump and Giuliani were sufficiently provocative to trigger attempted insurrection. If this doesn't result in successful impeachment & removal from office (retirement benefits in this case), then there is no point in having laws which forbid this. Had the insurrection been successful, civil war would likely be upon us.
The way the analysis flowed, it seems like the facts lead to a relatively obvious no, but you're keeping a flame burning for the answer you really wanted.
Lawyers do this a lot because they know how the system works and whether or not they agree with certain arguments they know those arguments can still work.
I agree - however, I have a lot of respect for LegalEagle for sticking to the legal facts in an emotionally charged situation. Plus, he kind of has to show both sides to avoid flak from half the country. I’ll definitely give the benefit of the doubt on this one.
TRUMP FINALLY MAKES A STATEMENT TODAY...HE STATED HE DID NOTHING WRONG AND IT'S THE DEMOCRATS FAULT FOR INCITING VIOLENCE BY IMPEACHING HIM AND NOT GIVING HIM THOSE 11,780 VOTES...STATING...THEY COULD JUST SAID THEY RECALCULATED...WHEN THE DEMOCRATS TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO TRUMP THAT IT WAS THE REPUBLICANS THAT WOULDNT GIVE HIM THOSE VOTES, HE SAID THEN WHY DIDNT YOU ... JUST LET US "HANG MIKE PENCE'...AND "KILL NANCY PELOSI" ON JANUARY 6TH?...YOU PEOPLE ARE THE BLAME...WE DID NOTHING WRONG!....LOL!
I guess the only way you'll have a clear cut case of incitement of a riot is if you're like Chit Sang from A:TLA who literally snatched the dude by the collar and said "Hey, RIOT!" and then everyone started rioting
Incitement requires you to actually be telling people to do something illegal. If March on the capitol etc was incitement then pretty much every politician would be guilty of incitement.
@@jesusjuice7401 right, legal eagle is biased, what some blm rioters did near the capitol, fine “trump shouldn’t have come after peaceful protest.” What some trump supporters did at the capitol, terrible and trump should be in jail.
@@jesusjuice7401 like Maxine waters who told ppl to make sure that if they see a trump supporter in public to make them know they are not welcome, that is closer to incitement than trump, but that has been ignored as always
Rudy should be charged under DC law. § 22-1322. Rioting or inciting to riot. (a) A riot in the District of Columbia is a public disturbance involving an assemblage of 5 or more persons which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons. (b) Whoever willfully engages in a riot in the District of Columbia shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 180 days or a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both. (c) Whoever willfully incites or urges other persons to engage in a riot shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 180 days or a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both. (d) If in the course and as a result of a riot a person suffers serious bodily harm or there is property damage in excess of $5,000, every person who willfully incited or urged others to engage in the riot shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.
I think the point is that legally it would be really hard to convict Trump based on the actual legal definition of incitement in the court of law. This video points that out, as well as mentions that a president can still be impeached for what happened since impeachment is a political tool.
@@Dan-zt7uj Yes however, Trump was Impeached by the House before he left office the only reason the Senate didn't vote on whether or not to persecute him whilst he was president was because senate REPUBLICANS filibustered it. Senate Republicans denied the Senate Democrats from the chance to make their case about whether or not to convict, so basically since the procedure started Whilst Trump was President shouldn't it be allowed to continue? In almost any other case I would be inclined to agree with your points about how Impeaching someone who isn't currently holding a federal position is unconstitutional, however in this case since the procedure began whilst Trump was still in office I believe that it should be allowed to continue to completion.
@@deadpilled2942 This is a metaphorical gun. To be clear, I'm against guns personally. The strength of a toddler can kill a fully grown adult, and guns are only capable of killing, threatening, and injuring. None of which is something I want done. We'd be better off if we get rid of all the guns in existance
Just trying to be unbiased, he clearly did not mean actual physical combat. It was hyperbole. He just meant He was willing to put His reputation on the line. Doesn't look great, but it doesn't seem like a crime. I'm not a lawyer though.
Don't know how that wasn't a clear threat. The explanation was basically "apart from the speech were he directly threatens violence, there is no evidence he threatens violence" EDIT: Ok according to wikipedia, the lawyers couldn't direclty relate any violent acts to the speech, so the speech did not incite violence. Have no clue how that works.
Exactly.. I had to read that that Brandenburg v. Ohio case transcript in my constitution class. The KKK member seriously said "we are going go bury those n*****" and so on... I had trouble understanding how that didn't incite violence, the saving grace might have been that they were on private property. But idk, these things get really complicated honestly and in the supreme court, when they go over a case they seriously go in depth on what each word means/the history etc.
@@Sunless1337 what do you mean exactly? Like whether or not they were inciting and then planning to execute right then and there ? My class seemed to come to the conclusion that for it to seem like something is truly inciting violence, there has to be some sort of structured plan... but all of this becomes even more complicated when it comes to people inciting violence online
It is his actions afterwards that define his contribution to those riots. If he would have responded immediately instead of denying a military response, he would not of looked as guilty as he does now.
1) the organizers of the rally at the WH Ellipse had applied for and received a permit for that rally at the WH Ellipse. They, however, did not apply for nor did they receive a permit for a march. They were not permitted to GO to the Capitol. Trump told them 8 times to break the law. The rally organizers in dark money ads prior-to spoke of the march: but they reserved no permit & took no necessary actions that would fulfill DC requirements to hold a march. 2) the organizers of the rally at the WH Ellipse had not applied for nor did they receive a permit to be on the premisis of the Capitol grounds. Police barricades had been erected 360° around the Capitol hundreds of yards away. The people were not lawfully permitted access to the Lawn in front of the Capitol. The first marchers to arrive at the East side of the Capitol became violent immediately, savaged & injured police in order to overthrow the barricades and gain the grounds. 3) Trump's social media director, Dan Scavino, held presence in pro-Trump media networks where the violent assault was being planned. Scavino is "closer to Trump than his children". He knew there would be violence and 8 times in his speech told them to go. On the illegal march, to the building which they had to brutally overthrow police barricades to reach.
Serious question: do you think airhead Legal Eagle will ever mention the fact that Bill Clinton pardoned left-wing terrorists who bombed the U.S. Capitol in 1983 in their attempt to assassinate Republican senators. And Clinton did so at the behest of AOC's colleague in the House - Democrat Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) - who is one of Trump's biggest haters and voted to impeach Trump. LOL, can't make this stuff up. thefederalist.com/2021/01/11/left-wing-terrorists-bombed-the-senate-in-1983-bill-clinton-let-them-out-of-prison-early-at-jerry-nadlers-request
Legal Eagle is extremely biased though, and his vids are for-profit. Left wing outrage can make money these days, just like right wing outrage can. While the beginning of his analysis was pretty objective, and he didn't leave out the part where Trump said to march peacefully the way many news articles are, he definitely showed his bias at the end as he started to grasp at anything to say he should be impeached. Trump literally said nothing to incite violence and called for it to be peaceful. To try to impeach him over this is just a demonstration of hate.
@@beayn I think what gets left out of the right wing analysis of the situation is that Trump has been undermining confidence in the electoral process nonstop since 2016. Before he won he called it fraud. After he won he called the popular vote fraud. Before the 2020 election, when it was becoming clear that there would be a large number of mail in ballots due to the pandemic he called that fraud while sabotaging the post office. He's conditioned his base to believe any outcome that he doesn't endorse is "fraud" for the past four years. So he barely had to do anything now to get them to bring the outrage and violence they did to the Capitol. The real incitement was done slowly, tweet by tweet over the last few years. He's conditioned his supporters to trust nobody but him and deny all realities that make him look bad. With that in mind, what happened on the 6th was pretty inevitable after he lost. And it was also completely in his power to stop. He could have accepted his loss gracefully and worked for a smooth transition. He could have spent the last four years doing something other than brainwashing his followers into trusting him and only him. But he didn't. He made the choice every day to perpetuate this false reality where the entire world is against him, where any threat to his power is a threat to his supporter's freedom. He made literally thousands of choices that led us up to this point. And if there's no accountability for that at all that bodes very poorly for our future as a functioning democracy. Just imagine a left wing Trump assembling a violent cult to take the wealth of the rich and distribute it to the poor or something like that. Imagine watching this theoretical politician drag his followers deeper and deeper into a fantasy world where violence is the only answer and every source that's not Dear Leader himself can't be trusted. And then imagine if those supporters planted bombs in the Capitol when they lost an election. Wouldn't you want to be able to do something about that? But because Trump appeals to the biases of many Americans (and because he brought many new voters to the GOP, something they've historically struggled with) his behavior has been allowed to slide by. That's not a good thing. If this becomes the norm every time one side loses an election the country is doomed.
@@dadbodenvy4247 Sure, Trump undermined confidence in the election, and should be rightfully criticized for it however he did specifically say to be peaceful and let their voices be heard. Legal Eagle said it in the video, he really said nothing that directly incited it. And let's not pretend this isn't something both sides have done. Have you forgotten the "Not My President" movement, the accusations of Russian interference and Russian collusion (which turned out to be not true). Many prominent Dems have said Trump is not a legitimate President. They started an investigation aka witch hunt, tried to impeach him on nonsense (I completely disagree with his Ukraine phone call impeachment). But now this was somehow the most secure election in history and ANY questioning of it makes you a far right conspiracy theorist who is a threat to democracy. Dems are even calling for the Republicans who objected to the election results via constitutional rights to be expelled from Congress and the Senate. They've started a motion to abolish the electoral college, they've created "lists" of people who they intend to go after. Corporations who back them have started a mass internet purge of anyone with views they don't like. It should be a time of unity but instead everyone is just hating as hard as they can. Yes, Trump undermined confidence in the election, but the left is not innocent in this. They're being just as divisive as Trump was and it needs to stop coming from both sides if the country is to avoid civil war. Unfortunately it appears as though the left believes they are completely justified and honorable in all actions and in self righteous pride.. yet they are just as divisive if not moreso than Trump. I have friends from both sides, and I've never seen anyone but left wingers unfriend and block those who were good friends for decades because they said something they didn't like. What's more divisive than an ideology that demands you denounce friends and family for the most minor infractions? Anyway my whole point is that both sides are being extremely divisive, and I do not believe Trump incited the violence. Claiming it is just feels like grasping at straws because of partisan hatred.
@@Ryan-is-me I love this argument by conservatives, that only a few big tech companies control all speech. Like what a great argument against capitalism, sound like true commies, keep up the radicalization!
According to a former law PhD student I just asked, he'd probably be liable for incitement to riot under British law. In our system it just has to be reasonably foreseeable that you'll cause imminent harm, the exact wording of what you say doesn't matter
@@mnm1273 Maybe that's why none of their heads of state have been thrown off Twitter for inciting a riot. Or why their streets aren't flooded with, and I need you to pay attention here, LITERAL NEONAZIS.
In practice the laws in the UK aren't that different to the US, although not enshrined in a constitutional document, it is viewed as a qualified right: www.loc.gov/law/help/freedom-expression/uk.php
@@calthepal312 UK Human Rights Act 1998, Article 10: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
That Brandenburg story really caught me off guard. That's the name of a German federal state (and a city), and I didn't even consider he might be talking about a person until he mentioned a first name :D almost spilled my drink when he first mentioned it
Brandenburg Prussia, later just Prussia, later just the German Empire, later just The Weimar Republic, later just West germany and East germany and finally just Germany
@@hawkinradiation3549 better public healthcare policies exist. medicare for all isnt popular enough to fight for and we need reasonable healthcare asap
@@icychillgaming8494 You act like it's never been said before. You and some others making a big deal about it and not commenting on the actual content makes it look like childish behaviour..
@@catphish264 Since when do people have the freedom to forcefully overturn election results? Having their rights infringed upon? What they did was literally an attempt to infringe on the rights of other people who voted. What kind of bass-ackwards reasoning are you using here? Trump said for months that the only way for him to lose was fraud, and he lost, so it was fraudulent? No; that's based on a false premise. It's just a self-fulfilling prophecy. 80+ million people decided that his vision for the future of the US wasn't one that they wanted and they voted against him.
@@catphish264 nigga did you see what was goin down? Trump fuckin refused to send in reinforcements when his mob attacked the capital. That’s impeachable on it own. Why doesn’t every president who lost re-election do this? What’s the harm in letting your mob attack the capital and possibly kill some representatives while you hold the reinforcements back for them?
Damn. You know he's serious when he doesn't ask you to present your own interpretations in the comments. Proud of you for sticking passionately to your analysis here.
Interesting, I always thought it was "turbulent priest" but I googled and found versions with "troublesome," "turbulent" and "meddlesome". Apparently there is no authoritative cite.
He said we love you. What you heard though was I love that you are rioting. I love all you people doing bad things. That's not the same thing as saying I love what you are doing. You are not even listening.
@@dman7668 "That's not the same as saying "I love what you're doing"." Okay, fine, as per your request, he tweeted that he loved what they were doing. What they were doing was raiding the Capitol building looking for Congress. No variation of that tweet to the terrorists looks good.
@@Halinspark Of all the people there, you think he's only talking to the small few that went into the capitol building? So the BLM/Antifa protests are "mostly peaceful" but these ones, everyone present is a criminal?
The lawyer says that the crowd's reaction was "predictable". Did he predict it? Did the Capitol police predict it, and staff up accordingly? No one predicted it, just a few people on the internet were talking about it which isn't exactly the standard we usually base behavior on. Only Trump is being held to this higher standard.
Given that the crowd was told by Trump to march or walk to the Capitol and peacefully make their voices heard, and given that they did indeed walk peacefully to the Capitol, it would be very interesting to know more about exactly how the security presence at the Capitol responded to the growing crowd. There is more than one way to encourage an angry mob into "breaking through barricades".
I mean, when I say that, it usually means folks gonna' be getting drunk as hell, someone is going to be losing some clothes, some other stuff is gonna' happen... ... Wait, is it violence if someone asks for it and it's sexy violence and no one is dead or in the hospital in the end?
Wild can be Rowdy, as in Loud, Language is a funny thing, and based upon the examples shown here Incitement would be a Very difficult thing to make stick as a lot of it depends on the Ambiguity of what was said, and English is Brilliant for Ambiguity Films and Series about Mobsters are a brilliant example of how Term of Phrase impact the connection of ordering things done
@@TN-ci4ox if you're being ageist you should know that young people on average care more about policy issues than older people. So even if we just got here at least we started out with the right answers and good hearts. We just arent corrupt yet i guess.
Pretty obviously an exaggeration/joke, not a literal threat. Might as well lock up everyone who says "I'll kill you if you do that again" to their annoying little brother for threatening murder
@@BlueWoWTaylan how could you know like 70 years later in your house? It might have been misquoted for all we know as tonevof voice and context. The context is far more creepy and the actual threat...
Did Trump deny the movement of the Guard though? Or was that the Mayor of DC who is noted as wanting a "light police presence at the capital"? Dude seriously you state the Mayor of DC requested help and Trump denied it. I found the NPR article you put up as you mention that and the quote I put is from that article, it never mentions the mayor requesting guard except for a small unarmed amount to help with traffic (not enforcement) and no where does it state that Trump denied the movement of the guard.
@@thefirstboythefirstboy4315 Same i got one a few years ago thinking they're pretty centrist but my god they're like a newspaper version of Ben shapiro. Making good arguments by narrowing the parameters so that they look like they make a point. Indeed very biased.
He has his own law firm, I assume he has plenty of discretion with regard to how much of his time he invests into his RUclips business, which I'm sure also turns a decent profit for him.
@@thegrouch6666 I mean, it's excellent PR for his copyright and law school courses, I'm sure. I don't think the channel alone is all that profitable compared to his law firm and paid courses.
I think this goes to what he was saying about context being important. And also if its political speech. I.e. "Something bad could happen to your children if Democrats are elected" is very different to "Something bad could happen to your children if you dont gove me $50,000".
@@lewiswegner1820 Very different, but there's a pretty fine line between 'if my opponent is elected' and 'if you don't elect me'. In any case what Trump (and many conservative pundits, let's be honest) have been doing for years is fear-mongering that the Democrats are satanic pedophiles who want to turn the US into a dystopian communist police state, knowing full well that this sort of rhetoric can lead to violence, so it's more of a slow, long-term form of incitement that's probably subtle enough to get away with.
that is the problem I see with it, he could easily choose his words carefully to get the result he wants but without being accused of anything. but at the same time its possible he didn't expect people to just storm the capitol, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a fortunate accident for him. its the fine line between illegal and immoral.
If they had decent lawyers, they could all get off scot free. They are only guilty if a criminal mindset (mens rea) could be proven as well as the criminal act. The test for whether the mens rea is present is subjective (i.e. what did the accused think at the time of the criminal act being committed) but has to be proven using objective evidence. If I were a lawyer defending one of these clowns, I would argue that the fact that the president, congressmen and senators and plenty of attorneys general (top level legal officers on a state level) had been telling the country that the election was stolen and illegal, they truly believed what they were doing wasn't illegal. It doesn't matter that this was all political theatre and total BS, it is enough to show that the accused would believe it. Seems like a pretty damn solid defence to me.
How about Barack Obama letting the riots in Baltimore and telling that police done bad job telling the governor and police not to do anything... who's gonna bring those lives back?
It always comes down to "What did he know, and when did he know it. " The dialogue on social media well preceding that rally was about engaging in violence, and what many of those "protestors" brought along with them, and wore, makes it clear that was the case.
It brings up some interesting questions of, how responsible is someone for the actions of people who listen to them? We've seen this happen here on youtube before where one person will make videos criticizing another, then their audience goes to harass that person, oftentimes even when the person doing the criticizing tells people not to do that, or doesn't address the topic of harassment at all. Is Trump responsible for others who incited violence in support of him? I'd be interested in LE's perspective on that.
@@Ashnal HIs speeches sure say so. You can't "stop" the counting of votes without threat of force. You can't overturn an election that has already been certified by 50 states with mere protests. Telling Pence to "do the right thing" to stop the vote is inciting an unlawful, unconstitutional act. He is breaking the law both directly and indirectly.
@@Ashnal well if they did listen to him they would have been peaceful and just marched to the Capitol without all the nonsense that happened funny how manly times he said be peaceful and that part just gets skipped over by all the trump haters to further the agenda
HELP MY!!! My muscles are too big! I am a big tall man and my muscles are even BIGGER! I use them to get views but they HURT so much!!! Because they are heavy. Do you have any advice, dear dib
Chris Manuel I think he meant it is a relatively long distance for such a large group of people. Bound to have more join them along the way and it would no doubt be easily seen and noticed considering the vast number of people who walked together. But yea. That is not a long distance in general.
It's not a long distance and it doesn't take a long time to walk it. Like you, I walked farther than that to work everyday. They marched down a paved street in unison carrying flags in the middle of the day. It isn't like they had to climb a mountain at night to get there. It was all one continuous event that began as a political rally and ended in insurrection and murder.
Dude, mad props for you and your team for pumping so many videos out so quick.
With such good quality.
The only quick lawyer
Just started watching this channel. The first one I saw was about Trump's pardons. You should watch it. It might make you quite angry though.
Agreed. This is an incredibly well thought out examination and explanation of the facts, the law, legal precedence, and liabilities.
Raising expectations can backfire
Dude, that is actually the most beautiful tie i have ever seen.
I love it too
Honestly though
It looks very like some Michael Kors ties I bought my husband recently.
I had this same tie, in white, bought it at Kohls.
Shhhhhh indochino
Considering the passionate speeches Devin has made without a single swear word, hearing him swear even in a verbatim quote is still kinda surreal.
It's like hearing my dad say a swear (giggle giggle)
It is actually the way to make swearing more impactful. By not doing so it makes it a shock when it happens.
It's like hearing a posh English girl swear!
@@marcdraco2189 posh English girls swear all the time lmao what
@@febijaimon7466 Not usually in public and when the do, it just sounds wrong.
This honestly gives 50 times more information on this matter than news channels.
I liked the way he blew right past all the stuff Trump said about rigged elections in the speech getting his cult all riled up and repeating it for months prior. Or how Trump stated we might have to be NOT SO NICE to Pence or the other Congressmen spewing their BS along with Rudy
Like it or not saying an election is rigged is protected speech.
And now the mainstream media are outright admitting it that they "fortified the election to ensure the right outcome" and no-one can talk about it.
People don’t tune in to CNN or Fox for objective analysis. They want to hear what that their party is right.
@@jamiefredrickson2560 i hope you know this guy is left leaning. Unfortunately you lean too far to the left to where you are entering extremist territory. Every word that is spoken by someone not on the extreme left is considered terrorism to you.
I hadn’t realized how much I needed a legal opinion on all of this rather than a political opinion.
When it comes to Trump, this guy only has political opinions.
@@PvblivsAelivs watch the video
@@lucasng4712 I did and I'm glad he ain't my lawyer
Tbf he basically sided with trump legally and said he didn’t cause criminal incitement. Then gave his political opinion at the end saying he thinks trump should still be impeached. No where near as biased as you guys making out .
@@lucasng4712
After dozens of videos with the message "Everything Trump does is wrong because Trump did it," I can make the assessment that his political motivations cloud his legal mind when it comes to Trump.
This dude speaks english so clearly that the automated subtitles are always on point.
Holy sht I haven't noticed it. Damn that's awesome for someone with hearing problems
Where was he when over 60 people died in the riots over the summer. I am so glad we cam now all agree that violence and riots are bad.
I aim to be as good of a speaker as he is
Attorneys need to be clear when communicating! He does an amazing job 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
@@jwatson181 Where did you see him condoning violence or riots, or are you just imagining that?
I recommended your channel to my mom so she could learn more about the American legal system, primarily your Electoral College video. She's not a native English speaker so she has to watch you at 0.75 speed with captions, but she says you're very educational and easy to understand.
This is fantastic and heartwarming to hear. I'm glad you're helping her out, and that LegalEagle is being useful to bridge that gap, even with the language barrier!
Lucky, my mom is a trump supporter. )8 she wants me to think about my future but simultaneously votes in a way that destorys the environment and hence my future. How am i supposed to study genetics if she and trumpers kill off thousands of species before i can study them...
@@aliceslab What sort of genetics are you studying?
I know it's easier to say, don't stress too much of the irony of her actions. It's not something you can control only slowly influence through discussions and factual evidence.
@@aliceslab don't worry about them because seriously they aren't doing much for that. Both groups are shit even environmentalist who thought blowing a tanker train or whatever it is was a good idea
That’s so delightful!
1:00 - Chapter 1 - Constitutional limits of "Incitement"
2:30 - Chapter 2 - What is "Incitement" ?
4:05 - Chapter 3 - Imminent danger test
7:10 - Chapter 4 - 2016 Trump Incitement Case
9:55 - Chapter 5 - President Trump
16:20 - Chapter 6 - Is Trump off the hook ?
Daddy
I'm curious how Rudy Giuliani declaring "We'll have trial by combat!" while standing next to a nodding Donald Trump affects the context.
[EDIT]: It has been pointed out to me that I misquoted Rudy Giuliani. He actually said "Let's have trial by combat." which is actually very different from "We'll have trial by combat." because "We'll" is a prediction and "Let's" is a request, or, in other words, incitement.
“Trial by combat” is a colloquialism.
Seeing how much these people get away with their actions, they’ll probably say “We didn’t incite a crime. We were just speaking out for a policy that would legalize trial by combat. Nothing wrong with that!”
Locker room talk
@@CatalystNetwork Also: it's a call to violence!
@@CatalystNetwork that’s like saying “let’s see some heads roll!” and defending their words with “it’s just a colloquialism!”
This is why "I'm not touching you " is so effective as a sibling torture.
Fantastic.
My favourite was just pinning my brother to the floor. Got around my parents rule of not hurting him.. pain was ineffective at getting him to f off. But, he was 8 at the time ,so that's fair
🤣🤣🤣🤣
That’s why I give myself two black eyes so I can’t see it
What is that? Can someone explain?
Be honest, "Incitement to Riot" makes a great name for a metal band.
Sounds more like a punk rock band to me
@@lincolnjezek4370 hardcore punk 😎
also a great album title
I was in a punk band called "Incite to Riot"... we were sooo cool😑
@@morganwhitev8212 And now it's what a right wing 74 year old is doing on his lawn...
I remember reading that Benjamin Franklin thought that a president should be impeached if he "rendered himself obnoxious", and whilst this was never implemented, Trump certainly has acheived that.
Well that's relative, not objective.
Trump is not obnoxious. He tells truth to power, powerful can't handle. Powerful (media) then disseminates misinformation to get sheep on their side.
But can Rudy Giuliani be charged with incitement? The dude literally said 'TRIAL BY COMBAT' during the rally and guess what we got.
I can see a situation where he could be charged but not Trump.
That’s what I’ve been thinking about, honestly as much as It hate trump I feel like he’s not guilty of this, but Rudy definitely should be.
@@aquaticllamas28 I think he can be morally guilty, even if he isn't legally guilty.
@@aquaticllamas28 I feel like it’s questionable but as long as there are other articles, he could be impeached still
@@aquaticllamas28 could one argue that Rudy represents Trump. Therefore by extension, he is responsible for Judy's output by "proxy" ??
“By now we’ve all seen what happened at the capitol riots on January 6th” this would be a really awkward time to come out of a coma, huh
Put me back in! PUT ME BACK IN!
Imagine if someone was in a coma for 2020 then they hear all the stories and think it's a huge prank.
@@lisahenry20 You are right. I would think it is a prank. I would need to see it to believe it.
You know what, you can just put me back ill pay when its all over.
@@alexandertownsend3291 I saw it all, and believe it, but only because I saw it all happening. Would be a disconnect otherwise.
Legal Eagle dropping an F bomb is the highlight of my day.
Zoned out for a sec and that caught me well off guard 😂
Wait, I need a time stamp
not an Fbomb if it is a quote. but it is concerning how naturally it came out of his mouth.
@@graceho7479 4:45 :)
@@TesseraCraft he talks about how in court curses are said in quotes all the time, I'm willing to bet hes said much worse in quotes
Moral of the story: People are going to interpret it however they want.
yes. but only socially inept could say he didnt add any fuel to the fire.
@@MrEddie4679 they already started going into the capital before Trumps speech was finished a mile and a half away. It was two separate groups all together.
@@shibblesshalzabot6320 you mean the speech that was a hour before the the breach?
oh and also was done some minutes before the breach?
@@MrEddie4679 the speech that was still going on during the “breach”. The breach in which capital police unlocked the doors and opened the gates. Yeah that breach
@@shibblesshalzabot6320 you mean when the 100 mob broke barricades, windows and assulted so over 50 officers were injured, Yeah That Breach
This has been a busy start of the year for you.
His viewership is going to go down when Biden finally becomes president
Edit: alright you all can stop replying. I don’t care about this thread. You’re probably right, the channel will be fine. Thanks
LoL
The viewership of a lot of RUclips videos and news are going to go down
@@pspaghetti6916 Doubtful. Trump's legal woes are only beginning.
Also, law-categoried entertainment long preceded Trump, and will continue to exist long after he's gone.
@@pspaghetti6916 he will prob go back to making fun law videos
This is why mobsters say "something bad could happen" not "we are going to break your legs".
Yup, ensure things are getting Done without any troubles and with reasonable deniability
Or the way Trump says, "Bad things are gonna happen to [name of person]"
He talks like a mob boss.
That's a nice capitol building you have there, would be a shame if something... bad... happened to it.
This is why RICO laws exist.
You can't yell "THEATER" at a crowded fire.
Of course not, the speed of sound in a fire doesn't work well with our vocal cords
you’ve got the right spirit!
You also can't yell "Crowded!" in a theater fire.
@@BenjaminCronce Fire can't go through sound, dummy, it's not ghosts.
@@foxymetroid cant theatre "crowded" in a fired yell either
This guy looks like Abraham Lincoln, Ryan Reynolds, and John Krasinski at the same time
Yeah it's crazy
He does!
What a wild ride 2021 has been already. Retail traders destroy a hedge fund, we get a use of an F bomb to *maintain* professionalism, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!
LMAO 🤣😆
...and Petrocelli
Today I learned that the phrase "...we're going to break your damn neck" is not a direct threat or an incitement to violence.
Yeah I found that one surprising
I support what they were doing, but seriously, that seems like a pretty explicit threat to me. And it's not like there was any white privilege to help them like there would be for, say, the KKK. I'm surprised the courts ruled that way.
I’m pretty shocked by that. I’d think that would be a pretty blatant threat but I guess not.
How many times have you said "I'm going to kill" someone without meaning it? That's why it's not considered a threat on its own.
Where I'm from, threats of violence in common usage are usually just hyperbole for being really angry at someone. Parents regularly say stuff like "I'm gonna kill you" and actually just mean you'll be grounded if you act naughtily.
He's like a school bully who says everything sarcastically so that when the teacher asks what the bully said, it sounds like he's being supportive rather than cruel.
That's literally the case when I was in the elementary school
@@fos1451 same lol
He's like the mafia enforcer who says, "Nice place ya got here. It'd be a shame if something happened to it..." We don't stand around going, "WeLl TeChNiCaLlY hE dIdN't MaKe AnY tHrEaTs".
@@dominicwilson564 better to be a snowflake than a poop stain!
@@juliankirby9880 Come on, you can think of better comeback than that.
This is why gangsters would always say things like "take care of him" and not "murder him and hide the body" because their order was vague enough to not be explicitly illegal.
Ever since crime became organized, euphemism has been an important tool. Although, it's a level 1 tool. It's improved with secret meetings and hierarchical structures to limit witnesses, but any gangster worth their salt - and with experience dealing with courts - knows that the best directive to commit crime you can ever give is no directive at all.
@carnage wow The NJ and NYC crime families must have gotten soft. I am surprised that they didn't "take care of Trump" back in the 80's or 90's when he stiffed unions/contractors for payment on construction jobs that are normally blessed off on by one of the families.
I always thought that the most successful gangsters in the world are those we never even heard about.
@carnage wow police cracked encryption...
"Cracked encryption" is like saying "cured cancer". Neat. Which one??
That's a good point, especially if you look at the catalogue of whistle-blows and codes the alt-right applies to not get caught this wouldn't come with surprise.
I have learned more about landmark cases from this channel than my Constitutional Law courses.
Riiight!?? 😂
Do you attend Liberty University? 😃
@@katandmouseyt *oof* 🤣
Giuliani literally said "Let's have a trial by combat" to an angry mob.
I smell a pardon on the horizon
Oh, I'd looooove to trial little Rudy by combat. They should be really careful what they wish for...
I kept thinking about this during the video. Trump was likely not guilty of legal incitement but Giuliani flew FAR closer to the sun with that statement. I know we like to think Trumps stupid but he’s certainly smart enough to make sure he’s never the one getting his hands dirty.
@@UXBen That is arguably the only thing he's actually good at. Well, that and talking long enough for people to find the meaning they want, which in America generally benefits the rich white guy.
"The attacks of January 6th were intended to break our spirit. Instead we have emerged stronger and more unified. We feel renewed devotion to the principles of political, economic and religious freedom, the rule of law and respect for human life. We are more determined than ever to live our lives in freedom." Someone should seriously say this to Giuliani.
I think Rudy is far more guilty than Trump. Trump still contributed though and should be impeached.
This is the political equivalent of kids being mean to you in school but in an indirect way, so when you tell the teacher you can’t actually explain HOW they are bullying you even though they are.
👏👏👏👏💯💯💯💯
I'm not touching you! (Your finger a quarter of an inch away from their face)
I can’t tell what you’re explaining even though you are
This just makes me hate Trump even more.
What is that even supposed to mean? I think I might understand what your trying to say, but I don't follow your analogy...
Most youtubers “I bleep everything cuz I need my money”
This lawyer: “yea I’m not gonna bleep that out its a quote and relevant to my discussion”
Hes also got a job so RUclips isnt his main source of income
@@Sip_Dhit really? What does he do?
He already makes 120,000 USD because he is a lawyer, so yes, he is not dependent on RUclips.
@@kamanashiskar9203 unless he has a 120,000 a year cocaine habit.. not that he does.. that's just a hypothetical..
@@TormentedPenguin How can a proper lawyer be a drug addict? Stop asking stupid questions.
Like many Americans, my heart aches for what is happening to our nation.
I agree. The division created between the American people is abhorrent! I may have my own opinions politically but if people want to blame Trump for incitement then they have to also blame every single Politician in DC and the Media. They are all guilty for the division we face as Americans!
4:40 wow that was like hearing your teacher swear for the first time.
Literally! It took me by surprise LOL
@@abigailward5117 me too. But, it’s refreshing. Plus, he’s hot anyway, lol!
Was looking for this comment and if I couldn't find it was going to make it
I was shook
Misspelling at 2:15 -- should be "receives"
“If this is not impeachable conduct… nothing is.”
I’ve been hearing that for the last 4 years. It terrifies me.
Big tech billionaires forming monopolies and regulating speech should terrify you more.
@@DomiAngel Both. Both is bad.
@@DomiAngel Baby crying that his violent speech is being blocked by a private company.
@@aoikemono6414 when that private company owns the public square of communication, then yes, that is infringement of people’s 1st amendment rights.
@@RealDrTaco so violent and incitful speech is alright cuz everyone is using the medium in which the private speech is infringing on your 1st amendment rights
Never censor quotes. Give me all the swears.
@@Noah-wv4td thats why we go to nebula in our indo chico* suits.
*it's been a while since i've seen a plug for them. so generally unaware of its spelling.
@@cmdraftbrn If it's still useful, is Indochino
We live is a scary speech control time, brethren.
In the NAACP case, how does "if we catch you ...we will break your damn neck" not construed as a threat? I guess it doesn't qualify as incitement, but it still shouldn't be allowed under the 1st amendment as it's a threat, right? I don't get how the judges came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of a direct threat of violence. The direct threat was right there.
because its a conditional statement. it doesnt say straight up we will break your damn neck. it says "IF WE CATCH YOU" by sticking a condition it becomes covered i think.
@@dantedeloden Maybe. I thought the conditional "IF you do this, I will do that" is what actually makes it a threat. If you call up the president and be like "if you show up at work tomorrow, I will kill you." That's not a threat? I'm pretty sure that comment would have secret service banging down the door an hour later. Would be nice if Devin could go into more depth about what constitutes a threat in common definitions.
@@MrSlowestD16 for any conditional statement to be taken at value, the condition must be met first either way for the threat to even be applicable.
@@dantedeloden I hear ya, but if somebody said the above you think they'd say it's not problematic? I think they would and I don't see a difference, that's where I get hung up.
@@MrSlowestD16 yeah i dont get it either
5:27
Man: We're going to break your damn neck.
Court: Doesn't sound like a threat of violence to me.
Ass-backwards lawyering for you
Was told a veil threat isnt a threat unless its acted in physcal violence. But usaly its to late and your ether dead or severly injured.
@@jacobanderson6551 Veiled behind what?
@@b43xoit Probably veiled behind reasonable doubt that the action will be carried out. This is to protect people from getting sued if they say something like "Keep talking smack and I'll rip your tongue out". In this case the person must probably be brandishing a knife for it to be considered a threat.
literal meaning =/= real meaning. Should you be arrested for telling someone to "go to hell"? that would certainly be horrific.
On a video someone made a good point: You have freedom of speech, but you're not free from the consequence of that speech.
(can't recall video)
if the consequences are jail time or loss of income then how is free speech? And how is it any different to the "freedom of speech" they have in oppressive regimes?
@@MrOod67 it’s freedom of speech, as in you won’t face consequences from the government so no, no jail time, but your employer is a private party and free to do whatever they wish, including fire you simply if they dislike what your saying. As another civilian that is their freedom too
The video was by Russell Howard as far as I'm aware mate
@The Hittite 🎯👏👏👏
Maybe from Beau Of The Fifth Column? I think I heard that too in his videos
Devin: Says the f-word
Me: Surprised Pikachu face
😮
Wrong meme usage but honestly I felt the same way
Don't trust people who don't swear.
he said Fancy ?
@@coldwynn lol wut
How could this go either way? You just cited 3 times Trump said to act PEACEFULLY!
*No "See you in Court" outro
Me: Holy crap, LE's pissed.
He doesn't want court. He wants to take it outside right now...
@@aoikemono6414 A "trial by combat," you might say.
Law Dad mad.
I have to be in court tomorrow. Now I don’t know who I’ll see there.
Rightfully so.
Well, if "we're going to break your damn neck" isn't an incitement to violence, boy do I have things to legally say now
I guess it's more the circumstantial part of it the "If A Than B" instead of "He did A do B"
Basically a threat that could well be a term of Phrase,
I guess that's why context matters. If I say "eat this or I'll slap you" would mean two different things if we're friends at a party or you're a stranger I just met on the street.
I guess the details on that case are relevant to truly understand the judgement.
kamala harris, nancy pelosi, maxine waters, michael browns step father....oh sorry, I'm just naming people who have at one point or another done more to incite a riot than trump did.
to prove that u need logic level 10, something u and i dont have, so leave it to the court
@@mylestrumbore5382 None of them ever advocated for the violence that ensued.
0:52 - "President Trump is facing some pretty serious allegations."
So, it's Tuesday.
@Ace Pony Productions17 - Since when does Trump keep a reasonable schedule?
Ahh liberals dogging on trump with no real evidence, must be a day that ends with Y
@Ace Pony Productions17 Mk and type in Biden racist comment and you will get plenty of results that don’t come from over 5 years ago
I’m not saying I support anything sexist he’s said, but I do think they’ve been unfairly taken out of context. He’s also apologized for most of them
@Ace Pony Productions17 how has he not stopped. There’s a chance I’m misinformed and if so that I will be against his statements. But I’m almost positive that 99% of the comments that are being said are being said a long time ago. I haven’t heard any new racist or sexist comments from since he’s gotten into politics/potus.
No. We need to bring back PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!
Amen
Does personal responsibility mean that only people who personally engage in conduct are responsible and not people who were personally involved in organizing and encouraging circumstances that predictably led to what they did, or does personal responsibility mean people should be held personally responsible for their role in potentially implicitly encouraging the unlawful actions of others?
Can we also talk about how our "crazy uncle" Rudy stated we should have a trial by combat before Trump took the podium?
Apparently the laws of the seven kingdoms apply?
He may do a video on that separately. It wouldn't have to do with this case, I'm thinking, because that's Rudy's speech.
Okay but just to check deciding the result of the election by a duel between Biden and Trump is definitely off the table?
He should have a trial by combat with that karen he brought to that state hearing lmao
1 12 21 Hey @@kapitankapital6580, Dang, I was counting on that duel. Let's hope. lol Stay safe, keep calm, & be well. v
Hearing Legal Eagle swear uncensored fills me with a strange joy.
weird
weird
I don't know the average fitness of a Capitol rioter, but I do know that for me personally (a generally fit young person), walking a mile and a half over road is no real deterrent to my train of thought. Especially not if I'm surrounded by other people wearing reminders of that train of thought and getting each other hyped. If anything, it would boost violent feelings since they have a while to stew in their thoughts and get excited.
@cat magic I should come back and give you some video and picture links later. Did you see how many Trump supporters were there? How "zero" fires there were? How zero small businesses got torched in the name of idolizing a belligerent and then violent Wendy's parking lot guy... The guy, on video, beat up two cops, stole a cop's taser and ran, and turned around and pointed it at the cop before finally being shot... obviously because this violent man could have stolen the incapacitated cop's gun after he used the taser on him!
And by the way I don't even like cops, and I think municipal Police are corrupt as f*** and need to be placed under each County Sheriff's power. But give me a break. I got the talk about fully complying with police in driver's ed, and I went to a small, almost entirely White Midwest town high school. My parents told us to do everything they say, or you risk getting in trouble. If the stakes are higher for black people, wouldn't the Wendy's guy have maybe wanted to cooperate with simply moving his vehicle out of the freaking way of people??
but still relevant.
I'm finding out I argue to the entire worldview, rather than the argument within the worldview.
Also, obviously I could have gotten some links by now, if I knew I was going to get this into talking to my phone. LMAO I know. BBL maybe.
But could you travel backwards in time and get there before you imagined trump telling you to go there and riot?
@@FancyNoises I didn't grow up in a high crime ghetto. I'm guessing you didn't, either. So trying to frame the victim's psychology as though it's a carbon copy of our own is misrepresentation. Like saying "I don't have an addictive personality, so all these people with addictions are just choosing to think irrationally."
We'll never know what the victim wouldn't move his car. After the fact, it's easy to say he just hated cops and wanted to hurt them, basically he's just an asshole.
But we will never hear his defense. We'll never know what he was thinking.
PTSD causes irrational behaviour. It can cause violence. Yet we will bend over backwards to assist veterans and victims of domestic abuse. We'll do our best to avoid hurting people we view as innocent. And that's the kicker.
I would argue the stress of living in the ghetto can cause low-level PTSD. The economic strain, fear of police, and the constant presence of gang violence and alliances, contributes to these random shootings. But because it looks like a chosen life, although it very much isn't, society tends to write these victims off as merely violent thugs.
I would encourage people to look into these victim's childhoods. Look into the history of police interaction in poorer neighborhoods through history, especially neighborhoods that are primarily populated by minorites. Ask yourself: have the police and government given the peoples in these areas any good reason to trust them?
I'm gonna go look this shit up. Because right now it's just my own theory that I'm typing. But I KNOW, through my own mother's life and mental health, that poverty itself can cause similar symptoms to PTSD. Especially for children who grow up in poverty.
4:42
devin: curses uncensored for the first time
me: **shocked pikachu face** 😳
Yeah you seem a little to young to be here fam
What are you, 9?
@@akinschalkwyk8998 what are you? 4? :^P
@@abehdts5170 older than you, thats for sure 🤷🏽♂️
Rudy Giuliani: The lawyer you need when you want to turn your traffic violation into an admission of double homicide.
Well he also took down the mob, swings roundabouts
lol
Lmao im dead
"trial by combat"
He is like Anti-Perry Mason
“If we catch any of yougoing in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your damn neck”
“The court held that the statement was not a direct threat or an incitement to violence”
Umm, what?
I agree. Maybe the court didn't see it as a direct threat since no one was attacked? Maybe? sm
The statement comes across as a humorous approach to saying "don't go to the stores, or your daddy's gonna spank ya really hard for being a bad kiddo". Reinforced by context that no one took to violence
@@mattwoodard2535 I mean... if its "only" a threat of course no one got attacked. If someone got attacked you wouldnt sue for threats but for the actual violence that took place.
@@mattwoodard2535 I mean threatening to murder someone is a crime but telling your brother you are going to kill him is rarely prosecuted.
The threat was providing the list which is far creepier.
Lol, u dummy
Legal Eagle went from "Reacting to Lawyer Memes" to "Is the president guilty of inciting a riot" in an comfortably short time.
Which should tell you right there that he is either not a real lawyer, or such an incompetent one that he has to resort to making these videos where he is obviously only reading what someone else researched and wrote for him. His only clear talent is that he knows how to speak eloquently.
Edward Cook to everyone reading this take a moment to be grateful that you were not born as stupid as Edward Cook 😌
@@edwardcook2973 Ah yes. The Chewbacca defense. I believe Legal Eagle has covered that in one of his previous videos. Thank you for reminding me!
@@edwardcook2973 thanks for the laugh. That made me chuckle pretty hard
@@edwardcook2973
Ha! What an idiotic claim.
amazing, informative videos like this are why legacy media is terrified of new media like youtube, thank you for this!! 👏🏼👏🏼
I’m very interested in what could/should happen to Giuliani for his “trail by combat” comment
Same here
There's talks of him losing his licence to practice law in the State of New York
Me too.
Where is this combat trail? I'm an avid walker.
Isn't it weird the guy who said "trial by combat" looks like the kind of person to get taken out by stubbed toe?
Can the media be charged with this? Because that's been like the past 15 years.
right wing media definitely has something to answer for here, yes
i'd say that the president doing it is a bigger issue though
@@rhaeven Left-wing media doesn't have anything to answer for? Are you kidding? How many times did they support BLM/antifa riots?
@@rhaeven Aside from your obvious trolling, right wingers and conservatives are being silent by the mass left controlled media for a couple of years and now it's becoming blatantly obviously with all the social media drama. You can ignore it all you want, it's gonna happen to everyone if you so much disagree in the slightest into their rhetoric.
@@bentowle3478 Not sure if you realise it but attempting a coup in a democracy is a very big deal. Nothing to do with burning cars in response to police violence.
@@pikaso6586 ok but what about the capital riots in 2020 that was supported by democrat officials?
If you have not heard, I remember a professor of Law once saying, "The law is practical in its intent, but fatal in its application."
I don’t know how much more clear “go and peacefully protest” is. I’m quite shocked... This should have been brought to the Supreme Court but that’s not happening any time soon :/
Weren't they already working on breaking into the capital before the speech was over? Meaning they were not present for the speech?
@@jarberwoks8399 I am not sure about that. I'll have to check if that is true or not
@@jarberwoks8399 Yes! They very much were, and it is not difficult to verify.
@@jarberwoks8399 clearly must've been if they already had weapons, restraints and such ready to go.
Not if the left has a say in it, oh wait what that? They have the only say. Yeah that's about right considering if you disagree with them now or try to expose them they'll just ban you from the internet and silence your voice one way or the other!! NWO sheeple, wake the hell up before it's too late!
My question here is, many members of the government (myself included when I was enlisted in the army) have diminished constitutional rights. For instance a service member can be subject to punitive action for attending a political even while in uniform.
Given these instances, would it be possible that due to his office, the brandenburg test wouldn't be the proper measure of what constitutes incitement for the president individually, or what is/is not protected by first amendment rights.
I might argue that given his office he has to be aware of the higher likelihood for his words to be taken much more literally, and followed with more fervor.
a service member gives up their right willingly to political allegiance when they take the oath to defend the Constitution and its ideals. the United States Constitution transcends political Outlook and the military as a whole are obligated to stay neutral in political fields.
@@musiclaboratory9694 the president takes the same oath, and legally speaking you're a bit off. We sign away our rights to PUBLIC partisanship while representing the government. That's why the "in uniform" part is important.
@@tyrael1983 I think that what Trump have showed is that oaths are meaningless, at least when they are taken by people in power, since no one is enforcing them.
@@Henrik_Holst Exactly. Anyone can take an oath, but it's just meaningless words.
Judge: "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"
Me, lying through my teeth: "Absolutely."
@@WisteriaDrake Just like the issue in this video, context matters. When you swear to tell the truth in court, you are promising to be truthful in your statements. Failure to do that will result in contempt of court or worse legal ramifications. Trump swore an oath to uphold the principals and laws of this country. Delaying essential votes based on nothing more than rumor and Faux Newz blowhards, and failing to mobilize defenses to the Capital building, I think arguably violates that promise in a legal sense.
I’m going to forward this to the House and Senate in order to save them all some time.
No need, they've already made up their minds
@@andyh4518 Res ipsa loquitur
@@andyh4518 this time the republicans are not being whipped, we'll see how many republicans really think of trump
Giuliani: "Let's have trial by combat."
Trump: "Rudy, you did a great job. He’s got guts. You know what? He’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican party. He’s got guts, he fights."
This. This really should put into context of what Trump refers to when he uses the word "fight".
Trump and Giuliani were sufficiently provocative to trigger attempted insurrection. If this doesn't result in successful impeachment & removal from office (retirement benefits in this case), then there is no point in having laws which forbid this. Had the insurrection been successful, civil war would likely be upon us.
@@5tr41ghtGuy you’re naive
@@Alkezo1 context is from his current speech not referring to some other convo...
@@VitoD226 You do realize this is from the same exact speech
The way the analysis flowed, it seems like the facts lead to a relatively obvious no, but you're keeping a flame burning for the answer you really wanted.
Lawyers do this a lot because they know how the system works and whether or not they agree with certain arguments they know those arguments can still work.
I agree - however, I have a lot of respect for LegalEagle for sticking to the legal facts in an emotionally charged situation. Plus, he kind of has to show both sides to avoid flak from half the country.
I’ll definitely give the benefit of the doubt on this one.
my dude be rocking that tie tho! cheers brotha, thanks for the no-nonsense style of content that you make, i always love hearing your take on things
You are a Fan!....
He looks like a character from a World-building RTS game.
@@b3at2 yeap
I want that tie!
TRUMP FINALLY MAKES A STATEMENT TODAY...HE STATED HE DID NOTHING WRONG AND IT'S THE DEMOCRATS FAULT FOR INCITING VIOLENCE BY IMPEACHING HIM AND NOT GIVING HIM THOSE 11,780 VOTES...STATING...THEY COULD JUST SAID THEY RECALCULATED...WHEN THE DEMOCRATS TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO TRUMP THAT IT WAS THE REPUBLICANS THAT WOULDNT GIVE HIM THOSE VOTES, HE SAID THEN WHY DIDNT YOU ... JUST LET US "HANG MIKE PENCE'...AND "KILL NANCY PELOSI" ON JANUARY 6TH?...YOU PEOPLE ARE THE BLAME...WE DID NOTHING WRONG!....LOL!
I guess the only way you'll have a clear cut case of incitement of a riot is if you're like Chit Sang from A:TLA who literally snatched the dude by the collar and said "Hey, RIOT!" and then everyone started rioting
I always appreciate a deep cut ATLA reference
Incitement requires you to actually be telling people to do something illegal. If March on the capitol etc was incitement then pretty much every politician would be guilty of incitement.
@@jesusjuice7401 right, legal eagle is biased, what some blm rioters did near the capitol, fine “trump shouldn’t have come after peaceful protest.” What some trump supporters did at the capitol, terrible and trump should be in jail.
@@sageale isn’t it weird how suddenly walls work to protect people from breaking into places?
@@jesusjuice7401 like Maxine waters who told ppl to make sure that if they see a trump supporter in public to make them know they are not welcome, that is closer to incitement than trump, but that has been ignored as always
What about Rudy Giuliani? He literally said “we need trial by combat” he stood up in front of that crowed just the same as Trump
Rudy Giulliani is technically a civilian, subject only to normal laws, not impeachment.
@@johndododoe1411 still should be sued i guess
Cause he did say to fight
Well it did incite violence i guess
idk, however it does help me understand "Game of Thrones" better.
Rudy should be charged under DC law.
§ 22-1322. Rioting or inciting to riot.
(a) A riot in the District of Columbia is a public disturbance involving an assemblage of 5 or more persons which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons.
(b) Whoever willfully engages in a riot in the District of Columbia shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 180 days or a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.
(c) Whoever willfully incites or urges other persons to engage in a riot shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 180 days or a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.
(d) If in the course and as a result of a riot a person suffers serious bodily harm or there is property damage in excess of $5,000, every person who willfully incited or urged others to engage in the riot shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or a fine of not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, or both.
So incitement at the end of the video is just based on feelings, not legal definition
I think the point is that legally it would be really hard to convict Trump based on the actual legal definition of incitement in the court of law. This video points that out, as well as mentions that a president can still be impeached for what happened since impeachment is a political tool.
@@TheTomyJazz well, since he isn’t a president or in politics anymore, he can’t be impeached
@@mcarrowtime7095 he covers that in this video. ruclips.net/video/Tc3H4woraHc/видео.html
@@Dan-zt7uj Yes however, Trump was Impeached by the House before he left office the only reason the Senate didn't vote on whether or not to persecute him whilst he was president was because senate REPUBLICANS filibustered it. Senate Republicans denied the Senate Democrats from the chance to make their case about whether or not to convict, so basically since the procedure started Whilst Trump was President shouldn't it be allowed to continue? In almost any other case I would be inclined to agree with your points about how Impeaching someone who isn't currently holding a federal position is unconstitutional, however in this case since the procedure began whilst Trump was still in office I believe that it should be allowed to continue to completion.
@@lucyla9947 that would be a good argument if the first impeachment trial had any feasable grounds to convict him on
This entire thing is like looking down the barrel of two guns, no matter what decision is made a trigger will be pulled
Yeah, either decision will have massive consequences, now and in the future. And both consequences look grim.
Sad but true
But one of those gunmen, have a gun to their head. And if we choose that one, the gunman also is killed. So lets pick that option.
@@shanelawrence7438 no one has a gun to their head. Get serious, no one wins a civil war, with or without guns.
@@deadpilled2942 This is a metaphorical gun. To be clear, I'm against guns personally. The strength of a toddler can kill a fully grown adult, and guns are only capable of killing, threatening, and injuring. None of which is something I want done. We'd be better off if we get rid of all the guns in existance
Can you do a review of Rudy Giuliani saying "Let's have trial by combat"?
Legal Eagle vs Loose Cannon Lawyer Giuiliani plz.
@@DarkestKnightshade maybe Judge Roy Moore could take Eagle's place? He's not old enough to gain oldman crazy powers.
And does Trump share any responsibility for that by sharing the podium with him?
Does it need an intense review? The line itself is evidence enough. Unless Rudy has a different definition for the word “combat”
Just trying to be unbiased, he clearly did not mean actual physical combat. It was hyperbole. He just meant He was willing to put His reputation on the line. Doesn't look great, but it doesn't seem like a crime. I'm not a lawyer though.
man literally said "we're going to break your neck" and the courts said "nah that's not incitement"
That's what i was surprised about too.
Yes, courts and even law enforcement is extremely deferential to threats made by Americans. If you’re overseas or foreign, on the other hand....
"WE'LL KILL ALL TRAITORS"
"Mmm, nah, he didn't really specify whom they'll kill..."
When I heard that, I was like "WTF. What's wrong with you, America?"...
Don't know how that wasn't a clear threat. The explanation was basically "apart from the speech were he directly threatens violence, there is no evidence he threatens violence"
EDIT: Ok according to wikipedia, the lawyers couldn't direclty relate any violent acts to the speech, so the speech did not incite violence. Have no clue how that works.
Man I love watching this im studying for the big test and I’m hoping to get accepted in a school next year :)
law school im assuming?
Good luck!
did you do it? did you get accepted?
I didn't scroll too far down, but it is nice to see everyone being civil.
Civil... war
This channel usually has good discourse. It's a rare sight on the internet, let alone RUclips comments.
If you want to see some true filth click through the comments on any news clip. It's usually a bunch of Trump idiots screaming nonsense
[insert baseless ad hominem insult here]
Moderators and the all-mighty algorithm may be contributing to the civility of the discussions
As an aspiring first amendment lawyer, these analyses are so cool to watch!
tbh once you get into "maybe it was a metaphor" territory, it's hard to see how incitement to riot could ever be tried.
Exactly.. I had to read that that Brandenburg v. Ohio case transcript in my constitution class. The KKK member seriously said "we are going go bury those n*****" and so on... I had trouble understanding how that didn't incite violence, the saving grace might have been that they were on private property. But idk, these things get really complicated honestly and in the supreme court, when they go over a case they seriously go in depth on what each word means/the history etc.
@@SleepyCity0001 I think the courts there pinned the entire case on the "immediate" aspect of inciting violence.
@@Sunless1337 what do you mean exactly? Like whether or not they were inciting and then planning to execute right then and there ? My class seemed to come to the conclusion that for it to seem like something is truly inciting violence, there has to be some sort of structured plan... but all of this becomes even more complicated when it comes to people inciting violence online
@Ryan Sheridan ok but also every politician should be in prison
It is his actions afterwards that define his contribution to those riots. If he would have responded immediately instead of denying a military response, he would not of looked as guilty as he does now.
1) the organizers of the rally at the WH Ellipse had applied for and received a permit for that rally at the WH Ellipse. They, however, did not apply for nor did they receive a permit for a march. They were not permitted to GO to the Capitol. Trump told them 8 times to break the law. The rally organizers in dark money ads prior-to spoke of the march: but they reserved no permit & took no necessary actions that would fulfill DC requirements to hold a march.
2) the organizers of the rally at the WH Ellipse had not applied for nor did they receive a permit to be on the premisis of the Capitol grounds. Police barricades had been erected 360° around the Capitol hundreds of yards away. The people were not lawfully permitted access to the Lawn in front of the Capitol. The first marchers to arrive at the East side of the Capitol became violent immediately, savaged & injured police in order to overthrow the barricades and gain the grounds.
3) Trump's social media director, Dan Scavino, held presence in pro-Trump media networks where the violent assault was being planned. Scavino is "closer to Trump than his children".
He knew there would be violence and 8 times in his speech told them to go. On the illegal march, to the building which they had to brutally overthrow police barricades to reach.
A comperent lawyer to explain things to us is exactly what people need right now. So happy this channel exists.
Serious question: do you think airhead Legal Eagle will ever mention the fact that Bill Clinton pardoned left-wing terrorists who bombed the U.S. Capitol in 1983 in their attempt to assassinate Republican senators. And Clinton did so at the behest of AOC's colleague in the House - Democrat Representative Jerry Nadler (D-NY) - who is one of Trump's biggest haters and voted to impeach Trump. LOL, can't make this stuff up.
thefederalist.com/2021/01/11/left-wing-terrorists-bombed-the-senate-in-1983-bill-clinton-let-them-out-of-prison-early-at-jerry-nadlers-request
Legal Eagle is extremely biased though, and his vids are for-profit. Left wing outrage can make money these days, just like right wing outrage can.
While the beginning of his analysis was pretty objective, and he didn't leave out the part where Trump said to march peacefully the way many news articles are, he definitely showed his bias at the end as he started to grasp at anything to say he should be impeached.
Trump literally said nothing to incite violence and called for it to be peaceful. To try to impeach him over this is just a demonstration of hate.
@@beayn I think what gets left out of the right wing analysis of the situation is that Trump has been undermining confidence in the electoral process nonstop since 2016. Before he won he called it fraud. After he won he called the popular vote fraud. Before the 2020 election, when it was becoming clear that there would be a large number of mail in ballots due to the pandemic he called that fraud while sabotaging the post office.
He's conditioned his base to believe any outcome that he doesn't endorse is "fraud" for the past four years. So he barely had to do anything now to get them to bring the outrage and violence they did to the Capitol.
The real incitement was done slowly, tweet by tweet over the last few years. He's conditioned his supporters to trust nobody but him and deny all realities that make him look bad.
With that in mind, what happened on the 6th was pretty inevitable after he lost. And it was also completely in his power to stop. He could have accepted his loss gracefully and worked for a smooth transition. He could have spent the last four years doing something other than brainwashing his followers into trusting him and only him. But he didn't. He made the choice every day to perpetuate this false reality where the entire world is against him, where any threat to his power is a threat to his supporter's freedom.
He made literally thousands of choices that led us up to this point. And if there's no accountability for that at all that bodes very poorly for our future as a functioning democracy.
Just imagine a left wing Trump assembling a violent cult to take the wealth of the rich and distribute it to the poor or something like that. Imagine watching this theoretical politician drag his followers deeper and deeper into a fantasy world where violence is the only answer and every source that's not Dear Leader himself can't be trusted. And then imagine if those supporters planted bombs in the Capitol when they lost an election. Wouldn't you want to be able to do something about that?
But because Trump appeals to the biases of many Americans (and because he brought many new voters to the GOP, something they've historically struggled with) his behavior has been allowed to slide by. That's not a good thing. If this becomes the norm every time one side loses an election the country is doomed.
@@dadbodenvy4247 Sure, Trump undermined confidence in the election, and should be rightfully criticized for it however he did specifically say to be peaceful and let their voices be heard. Legal Eagle said it in the video, he really said nothing that directly incited it.
And let's not pretend this isn't something both sides have done. Have you forgotten the "Not My President" movement, the accusations of Russian interference and Russian collusion (which turned out to be not true). Many prominent Dems have said Trump is not a legitimate President. They started an investigation aka witch hunt, tried to impeach him on nonsense (I completely disagree with his Ukraine phone call impeachment).
But now this was somehow the most secure election in history and ANY questioning of it makes you a far right conspiracy theorist who is a threat to democracy. Dems are even calling for the Republicans who objected to the election results via constitutional rights to be expelled from Congress and the Senate. They've started a motion to abolish the electoral college, they've created "lists" of people who they intend to go after. Corporations who back them have started a mass internet purge of anyone with views they don't like. It should be a time of unity but instead everyone is just hating as hard as they can.
Yes, Trump undermined confidence in the election, but the left is not innocent in this. They're being just as divisive as Trump was and it needs to stop coming from both sides if the country is to avoid civil war. Unfortunately it appears as though the left believes they are completely justified and honorable in all actions and in self righteous pride.. yet they are just as divisive if not moreso than Trump. I have friends from both sides, and I've never seen anyone but left wingers unfriend and block those who were good friends for decades because they said something they didn't like. What's more divisive than an ideology that demands you denounce friends and family for the most minor infractions?
Anyway my whole point is that both sides are being extremely divisive, and I do not believe Trump incited the violence. Claiming it is just feels like grasping at straws because of partisan hatred.
@@beayn thank you some people are so blinded to justify their side they become blind to reality
"Unlawful methods of terrorism" as opposed to lawful methods of terrorism.
IllegalEagle seems to conveniently forget Seattle, Wisconsin, etc.
Lawful methods of terrorism:
-Big Tech controlling speech
-News media running narratives that make people hate each other
@@MisterHeroman again just for clarity. There were over 14000 arrests over the summer because of the protests and riots. Quit lying about that.
I.E drone strikes lol
@@Ryan-is-me I love this argument by conservatives, that only a few big tech companies control all speech. Like what a great argument against capitalism, sound like true commies, keep up the radicalization!
According to a former law PhD student I just asked, he'd probably be liable for incitement to riot under British law. In our system it just has to be reasonably foreseeable that you'll cause imminent harm, the exact wording of what you say doesn't matter
@@mnm1273 Maybe that's why none of their heads of state have been thrown off Twitter for inciting a riot. Or why their streets aren't flooded with, and I need you to pay attention here, LITERAL NEONAZIS.
@@mnm1273 british law doesn't protect speech at all
@@mnm1273 You mean like the concept that corporations and their donations to politicians is considered "free speech" by the US Supreme Court?
In practice the laws in the UK aren't that different to the US, although not enshrined in a constitutional document, it is viewed as a qualified right: www.loc.gov/law/help/freedom-expression/uk.php
@@calthepal312 UK Human Rights Act 1998, Article 10: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
That Brandenburg story really caught me off guard. That's the name of a German federal state (and a city), and I didn't even consider he might be talking about a person until he mentioned a first name :D almost spilled my drink when he first mentioned it
Brandenburg Prussia, later just Prussia, later just the German Empire, later just The Weimar Republic, later just West germany and East germany and finally just Germany
I know, I know, democracy is in danger but hey silver lining...folks are actually watching my Brandenburg v. Ohio video again.
Mr beat what's your opinion on Medicare for all
LMFAOAO hi Mr. Beat
a wild Mr Beat
MR BEAT. Love the videos, don't ever stop!
@@hawkinradiation3549 better public healthcare policies exist. medicare for all isnt popular enough to fight for and we need reasonable healthcare asap
Nobody:
Me hearing legal eagle swear: This just got real...
Technically he was saying a quote
@@katyungodly I know, it's a joke.
@@icychillgaming8494 You act like it's never been said before. You and some others making a big deal about it and not commenting on the actual content makes it look like childish behaviour..
@@Rage_Harder_Then_Relax Bro chill. I was only making a joke, comments don't need to be all political on this channel my dude.
@@icychillgaming8494 JOKES?!?! THIS IS UNFORGIVABLE!!!
"Inflamatory and scandalous harangues" is now my new BDSM safe-phrase.
lmfaoo
That's a tough one to say through a ball gag
@@hobomofofosho Amateur.
@@hobomofofosho I'll just have to mime it.
Learn how to say it in ASL for any ball-gagging purposes, or by blinking it in morse-code for any other bondage adventures.
Really weird when someone says "don't hurt them" it could mean "hurt them" to some people
I mean, sarcasm does exist, and people use it quite frequently.
Y'all could blame anything on the Trump. What that was, was Americans wanting to stay free and keep their rights from being infringed upon.
@@catphish264 Since when do people have the freedom to forcefully overturn election results? Having their rights infringed upon? What they did was literally an attempt to infringe on the rights of other people who voted.
What kind of bass-ackwards reasoning are you using here?
Trump said for months that the only way for him to lose was fraud, and he lost, so it was fraudulent? No; that's based on a false premise. It's just a self-fulfilling prophecy. 80+ million people decided that his vision for the future of the US wasn't one that they wanted and they voted against him.
@@catphish264 nigga did you see what was goin down? Trump fuckin refused to send in reinforcements when his mob attacked the capital. That’s impeachable on it own. Why doesn’t every president who lost re-election do this?
What’s the harm in letting your mob attack the capital and possibly kill some representatives while you hold the reinforcements back for them?
Damn. You know he's serious when he doesn't ask you to present your own interpretations in the comments. Proud of you for sticking passionately to your analysis here.
""Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?""
I love historical reference.
Two knights, recently returned from crusade...
We got a stochastic terrorist in the White House.
EXACTLY! 🎯
Great analogy, I will be stealing this like it was millions of Republican ballots.
Interesting, I always thought it was "turbulent priest" but I googled and found versions with "troublesome," "turbulent" and "meddlesome". Apparently there is no authoritative cite.
I wonder how calling the rioters "special" and saying "we love you" factors into this?
He said we love you. What you heard though was I love that you are rioting. I love all you people doing bad things. That's not the same thing as saying I love what you are doing. You are not even listening.
@@dman7668 "That's not the same as saying "I love what you're doing"."
Okay, fine, as per your request, he tweeted that he loved what they were doing. What they were doing was raiding the Capitol building looking for Congress. No variation of that tweet to the terrorists looks good.
@@dman7668 He's calling the Capitol terrorists "very fine people" - we hear it perfectly.
@@dman7668 You are very special. I think he meant they are *special* people. You, too are certainly a very "special" person.
@@Halinspark Of all the people there, you think he's only talking to the small few that went into the capitol building? So the BLM/Antifa protests are "mostly peaceful" but these ones, everyone present is a criminal?
The lawyer says that the crowd's reaction was "predictable". Did he predict it? Did the Capitol police predict it, and staff up accordingly? No one predicted it, just a few people on the internet were talking about it which isn't exactly the standard we usually base behavior on. Only Trump is being held to this higher standard.
Given that the crowd was told by Trump to march or walk to the Capitol and peacefully make their voices heard, and given that they did indeed walk peacefully to the Capitol, it would be very interesting to know more about exactly how the security presence at the Capitol responded to the growing crowd. There is more than one way to encourage an angry mob into "breaking through barricades".
Every time I need to curse I'm going to quote someone so that they're not my words.
"Fuckin A"
Peter Givins
That's a cracking tie you've got today mate.
I've got a burgendy paisley tie just like that, beautiful.
Yet people who had ties when they went to talk to their senators in DC peacefully, they were hated for having them
@@abparker9971 Yeah, nah. Pass on that nonsense bait.
"We'll be wild" does that mean that the protest might incite violence or that "wild" is an exaggeration of speech?
I mean, when I say that, it usually means folks gonna' be getting drunk as hell, someone is going to be losing some clothes, some other stuff is gonna' happen... ... Wait, is it violence if someone asks for it and it's sexy violence and no one is dead or in the hospital in the end?
Wild can be Rowdy, as in Loud,
Language is a funny thing, and based upon the examples shown here Incitement would be a Very difficult thing to make stick as a lot of it depends on the Ambiguity of what was said, and English is Brilliant for Ambiguity
Films and Series about Mobsters are a brilliant example of how Term of Phrase impact the connection of ordering things done
Will* be wild.. as in saying the event will b loud and high energy, not as in “we will” burn the whole place to the ground as so many ppl think
@@insiditious6203 yes, this is arguing from a conclusion instead of towards a conclusion.
That Traitor Donald J Trump actually said "Will be wild" not "We'll be wild".
I’d like to see a collaborative effort between _Legal Eagle_ & _Judge Mills Lane, Judge Judy, or Judge Joe Brown_
"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome democracy?"
...aren’t you a little early to get involved in politics?
Or how about from Rocky Horror, "I grow veerry of this planet!"
Dammit rogal!
My thoughts went there as well.
@@TN-ci4ox if you're being ageist you should know that young people on average care more about policy issues than older people. So even if we just got here at least we started out with the right answers and good hearts. We just arent corrupt yet i guess.
Evers: "...we're going to break your damn neck."
Court: "...no evidence...that Evers...directly threatened acts of violence."
Me: lolwut?
Pretty obviously an exaggeration/joke, not a literal threat. Might as well lock up everyone who says "I'll kill you if you do that again" to their annoying little brother for threatening murder
also, you can just say the thing you want to say. don't need a me:. we know it's you talking
@@cashnelson2306 given the context it was said in, I would say it was NOT pretty obvious.
@@cashnelson2306 The context it is said in does not indicate it was a 'joke' or 'exaggeration'. It was clearly a threat.
@@BlueWoWTaylan how could you know like 70 years later in your house? It might have been misquoted for all we know as tonevof voice and context.
The context is far more creepy and the actual threat...
Breaking news: Mitch McConnell says he's open to impeachment, per NYT.
Lol like he'd ever actually have integrity.
@@wanderlustwarrior Fair point
@@wanderlustwarrior You don't have to have integrity if you're thinking about your own skin.
@@doctormo
Good point
The Republicans are dumping him now because 1. they never liked him, 2. he lost the election so he's useless to them.
Did Trump deny the movement of the Guard though? Or was that the Mayor of DC who is noted as wanting a "light police presence at the capital"? Dude seriously you state the Mayor of DC requested help and Trump denied it. I found the NPR article you put up as you mention that and the quote I put is from that article, it never mentions the mayor requesting guard except for a small unarmed amount to help with traffic (not enforcement) and no where does it state that Trump denied the movement of the guard.
he said pentagon denies the request
Getting an Epoch Times ad before this video is truly the cherry on top.
lol, I got a subscription...... they pretty biased. Thinking of canceling it.
@@thefirstboythefirstboy4315 Same i got one a few years ago thinking they're pretty centrist but my god they're like a newspaper version of Ben shapiro. Making good arguments by narrowing the parameters so that they look like they make a point. Indeed very biased.
They are run by and promote Falun Gong. A spiritual group from China.
And yeah, they are obviously extraordinarily biased.
@@thefirstboythefirstboy4315 they're supposed to be biased... They are pretty open about that.
@@Miglow spiritual group is putting it mildly, they’re a literal cult
Bro, are you still a working lawyer? If so, how the hell are you cranking out videos this fast??
He has his own law firm, I assume he has plenty of discretion with regard to how much of his time he invests into his RUclips business, which I'm sure also turns a decent profit for him.
He makes better money on this youtube channel than he does as a lawyer...
@@thegrouch6666 no lawyer would want to have a yt channel is just not that beneficial
@@thegrouch6666 he does this to inform the public
@@thegrouch6666 I mean, it's excellent PR for his copyright and law school courses, I'm sure. I don't think the channel alone is all that profitable compared to his law firm and paid courses.
Hearing LegalEagle swear is like hearing your teacher talk about real life shit.. So surreal.
Yeah that really threw me off lol. So out of character for him
I bet this youtube channel is just as educational for LegalEagle as it is for us.
So the classic "it would be a shame if something happened to your children" approach actually works to keep you out of legal trouble?
Not everywhere, but it seems definitely in the USA.
that one may be a well known enough threat to not actually avoid it.
I think this goes to what he was saying about context being important. And also if its political speech. I.e. "Something bad could happen to your children if Democrats are elected" is very different to "Something bad could happen to your children if you dont gove me $50,000".
@@lewiswegner1820 Very different, but there's a pretty fine line between 'if my opponent is elected' and 'if you don't elect me'. In any case what Trump (and many conservative pundits, let's be honest) have been doing for years is fear-mongering that the Democrats are satanic pedophiles who want to turn the US into a dystopian communist police state, knowing full well that this sort of rhetoric can lead to violence, so it's more of a slow, long-term form of incitement that's probably subtle enough to get away with.
that is the problem I see with it, he could easily choose his words carefully to get the result he wants but without being accused of anything. but at the same time its possible he didn't expect people to just storm the capitol, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a fortunate accident for him. its the fine line between illegal and immoral.
I love how EVERYONE who broke in and was on grounds during this thought they could go home after this happened. Yeah, good luck with that.
And many live streamed it, or bragged about it on social media or even to on-scene reporters. As Forrest Gump said, "Stupid is as stupid does."
Maybe if someone was covered head to toe and got out of there fast before police showed up
@@richchappell it was forests mom that said that, gump was quoting
And they said they "got caught up in the moment". BS. Some of them flew across the country to riot. It was definitely premeditated!
If they had decent lawyers, they could all get off scot free. They are only guilty if a criminal mindset (mens rea) could be proven as well as the criminal act. The test for whether the mens rea is present is subjective (i.e. what did the accused think at the time of the criminal act being committed) but has to be proven using objective evidence.
If I were a lawyer defending one of these clowns, I would argue that the fact that the president, congressmen and senators and plenty of attorneys general (top level legal officers on a state level) had been telling the country that the election was stolen and illegal, they truly believed what they were doing wasn't illegal. It doesn't matter that this was all political theatre and total BS, it is enough to show that the accused would believe it. Seems like a pretty damn solid defence to me.
"Let's have a trial by combat!" - Rudy Giuliani
How about Barack Obama letting the riots in Baltimore and telling that police done bad job telling the governor and police not to do anything... who's gonna bring those lives back?
It always comes down to "What did he know, and when did he know it. " The dialogue on social media well preceding that rally was about engaging in violence, and what many of those "protestors" brought along with them, and wore, makes it clear that was the case.
It brings up some interesting questions of, how responsible is someone for the actions of people who listen to them? We've seen this happen here on youtube before where one person will make videos criticizing another, then their audience goes to harass that person, oftentimes even when the person doing the criticizing tells people not to do that, or doesn't address the topic of harassment at all. Is Trump responsible for others who incited violence in support of him? I'd be interested in LE's perspective on that.
Well we obviously cannot tell for ourselves now that Twitter is hiding what he actually said.
"Washington Politicians and Presidents: What Do They Know? Do They Know Things?? Let's Find Out!" hosted by Mr Peanutbutter
@@Ashnal HIs speeches sure say so. You can't "stop" the counting of votes without threat of force. You can't overturn an election that has already been certified by 50 states with mere protests. Telling Pence to "do the right thing" to stop the vote is inciting an unlawful, unconstitutional act. He is breaking the law both directly and indirectly.
@@Ashnal well if they did listen to him they would have been peaceful and just marched to the Capitol without all the nonsense that happened funny how manly times he said be peaceful and that part just gets skipped over by all the trump haters to further the agenda
Ur political intelligence is nuts dude, I feel leveled up after I listen to you. Thanks buddy.
HELP MY!!! My muscles are too big! I am a big tall man and my muscles are even BIGGER! I use them to get views but they HURT so much!!! Because they are heavy. Do you have any advice, dear dib
@@AxxLAfriku u on de shrooms?
you should look into law and politics its pretty interesting
Well he got Bachelor of Science degree in political science, before geting his law degree. He shloud be pretty knowledgeable in this area
Its not political knowledge, its legal knowledge. They are separate and extremely different.
liz lemon: boy, what a year
jack donaghy: what are you talking about? it's january
A mile and a half is a long distance? In what universe? I walk two miles to work, do a full shift, and walk two miles home every day.
Chris Manuel
I think he meant it is a relatively long distance for such a large group of people. Bound to have more join them along the way and it would no doubt be easily seen and noticed considering the vast number of people who walked together. But yea. That is not a long distance in general.
It's not a long distance and it doesn't take a long time to walk it. Like you, I walked farther than that to work everyday. They marched down a paved street in unison carrying flags in the middle of the day. It isn't like they had to climb a mountain at night to get there. It was all one continuous event that began as a political rally and ended in insurrection and murder.