USA news & politics

[dirty harry]

Ooooohhhh


So he runs an online Law school, called a scam by some lawyers, uses outdated materials and is overly expensive. Who knows, seems Andrew Taity to me.

He's a devout Democrat who endorsed Kamala because she has a law background, isnt interested in her previous oppressive actions though.

He's sued the government a few times, in the run up to the 2020 elections, and again after the 2024 elections hahaha

He is funded by 1000 Patreon members (please Ragey say it isnt so), who helped fund his thrown out 2020 lawsuit, and this current FOI request suit.

Interesting fella, clearly more activist than lawyer searching for truth, nothing in what ive found has convinced me hes anything other than a Democrat weapon, im not sure why this would make me watch?

I will say, he was seeing a lot more views when he was doing movie stuff, a 6/7 million per video at the time, which is interesting because I assumed he was hardcore farming with the Trump stuff, but these videos only get 500k and less on a lot of occasions, so I was wrong there. However that brings up another point, why would you go from 12m views on a video reacting to suits, to 300k about stormy Daniels, and 200k for Manafort?

Thats a pretty sharp U turn for a content creator, actively giving up a successful series, for political commentary... so the question really isnt why did he U turn into anti Trump rhetoric, and forego the law end, and successful react series?

 

[dirty harry]

You know what, since I have literally nothing on for the next hour, im going to watch his video, and give him the benefit of the doubt...

 

[Welsh Exile]

You know what, since I have literally nothing on for the next hour, im going to watch his video, and give him the benefit of the doubt...

You watched that Haviv Rettig Gur lecture I posted so you can watch something else you might not have watched previously. Mind you I can’t talk as I haven’t watched it. Lol.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Not sure why you keep knocking down the strawman about their political views, they are very open and all of that. You keep talking as if they pretend they are impartial, they openly state they aren't.

Again, bias is not evidence of falsehood. Everyone is biased to some degree.

 

[dirty harry]

Right I'll make a quick brief:

Claim 1. Courts appointed a career prosecutor in Habbas place.

Thats a funny way of saying the Assistant AG who was selected by Habba when she started her role, temporarily took on AG duties, once the interim time limit expired.

Not a lie, but a language tool to make it sound like the courts went out and headhunted the right person, and installed them over Habba. Its not the case.

2. This procedure challenges boundaries of executive power, just another day in Trump's second term.

Again, making it sound like this is out of the ordinary, EVERY president challenges the boundaries of executive power, Biden bypassed Congress, and enacted emergency powers etc... framing is manipulative.

3. Habbas pick (as temporary AG) was controversial due to her lack of experience and deemed political.

Again, a lot of AG picks (permanent) are controversial, infact Every Bush pick was controversial, didnt he appoint a 30 year old with no prosecuting experience, and Obama selected Holder who was defending terrorists. Every AG selection is opposed, this is SOP for AG selections surely, well except that this is interim to acting.

4. Uh, that phrase again. 'What sounds bad to an ethics committee is music to Donald Trumps ears'.

If you cant figure out why this intentionally judgemental and value based rhetoric is designed to manipulate you, I cant help you! There is no reason to use the language (throughout) like this, if not to draw on your emotions. This isnt a factual statement, its a warm fuzzy statement for you to pat yourself on the back, like the entire video.

5. Losing a court case might not look good on a conventional resume.

Losing a court case is on every potential AGs resume, losses are common and even expected. Why is the pretence that this is original to Habba.

6. Oooohhhh 3 minutes later they acknowledge Habba chose Grace. Bravo.


7. Habba moved up from interim, to acting AG for 210 days without senate confirmation.

Omg, Trump used the law to put someone in as acting AG for 210 days, the thing he can absolutely do without Senate approval, and the max he could do without senate approval.

Why is this framed like the Senate was bypassed? I've read this in 2 different sources, and in fact Obama did the same with Sally Yates, Trump's done it previously, Nixon...

This is an absence of information, I cant watch on because hes about to deep dive into 3 sets of case law he doesnt need to, because hes just manipulated the first descriptions of inferior and principled officers to only include permentant AG picks, and hasnt made a very easy distinction that both Acting and Interim AGs can be appointed by the president without Senate confirmation, as Obama did.

Even the controversial way in which Habba was removed, allowing Bondi to fire Grace seems questionably legitimate. I mean theres no presidence, but technically I cant find any reason Trump cant remove Habbas nomination, or Bondi firing Grace, or Habbas acting role.

Infact the FVRA is only in place because of how Clinton abused the system, naming an Acting AG and 3 years later making him permanent by default. So not only is presidents pushing boundaries common, breaking those boundaries seem common as well, Trump seems to be acting in a legal way when you look at actions singularly, but put them together and they are questionable at best?

The idea Habba is inexperienced or political is laughable, or that Trump needs senate approval for selecting temporary AG too, these are par for the course for presidents apparently.

Caveat, im obviously no law expert, im a moron Wales rugby supporting dumbo sat in my pants, I've just googled and used chat gpt to point me to legalities and presidence in previous presidential actions, to highlight inaccuracies in this video. When he dived into legislation at 210mph, I was too confused to understand, and almost went into a daze.... I suspect thats the point of this, instead of simplifying the answer to 'yes, Obama also did it'

But my point is, this channell could have easily referenced previous actions in line with this, they could have simplified the answer of can Trump appoint an Acting AG without the senate, a simple 'yes, its happened before, but let's look more in depth'. To reiterate that he hasn't got senate approval he doesnt need, to continue to use emotive language, and terminology is not an honest way to present.

 

[ncurd]

Harry's now a legal expert!

Why am I not surprised....

 

[big ginger 8]

As an actual solicitor, the major LLMs are terrible for legal research, particularly if you’re starting from a low knowledge base.

 

[dirty harry]

You watched that Haviv Rettig Gur lecture I posted so you can watch something else you might not have watched previously. Mind you I can't talk as I haven't watched it. Lol.

That was a lecture, not an algorithmically designed weapon against a political individual.

You know going in to a lecture the parameters, you know what your getting, information, education and persuasion. There is a consensual contract implied in that...

A youtuber is very different, they dont care about the education element, they want to persuade, mobilise and build a community by any means necesary.

One is an entertainer, one is an educator.

But I am biased against YouTube, it shouldn't be a place to gain your political information or opinion, most of what I attempt to watch is raw material.

For example, Biden in 22 gave a speech of the battle for the nations soul, ominous dark red background, military personell etc... too many morons pretending to be legitimate were calling him Nartsee, dictator, likening him to rocket man...

 

[dirty harry]

Harry's now a legal expert!

Why am I not surprised....

Well this is embarrassing...

I bet you cant figure out why!

 

[dirty harry]

As an actual solicitor, the major LLMs are terrible for legal research, particularly if you're starting from a low knowledge base.

Awesome, my knowledge base is as low as can be. I read the same, so had to use chatgpt to signpost me to presidence and go and read on from there.

Are you versed in this specific issue, id love a proper take!

 

[Welsh Exile]

That was a lecture, not an algorithmically designed weapon against a political individual.

You know going in to a lecture the parameters, you know what your getting, information, education and persuasion. There is a consensual contract implied in that...

A youtuber is very different, they dont care about the education element, they want to persuade, mobilise and build a community by any means necesary.

One is an entertainer, one is an educator.

But I am biased against YouTube, it shouldn't be a place to gain your political information or opinion, most of what I attempt to watch is raw material.

For example, Biden in 22 gave a speech of the battle for the nations soul, ominous dark red background, military personell etc... too many morons pretending to be legitimate were calling him Nartsee, dictator, likening him to rocket man...

I tend to try and stick with academics when I want to learn something. To be fair this guy is an actual lawyer so he’s clearly an expert in what he’s talking about. But I also take your point about him as well.

 

[Ddanno]

Gosh, what could cause anyone to take a stance against Donald the incestuous nonce felon Trump

 

[dirty harry]

I tend to try and stick with academics when I want to learn something. To be fair this guy is an actual lawyer so he's clearly an expert in what he's talking about. But I also take your point about him as well.

He may well be a law expert, i have no reason to doubt that, but there is about as much chance as him being honest to his audience as a MAGA loving country bumpkin shooting (EDIT!!!!! Vids not kids) kids on the farm...

And thats the danger. Using legitimacy to manipulate, im not a fan I watch 10 mins of this video and dont like the emotive language, repetition, appealing to authority, polarisation, hyperbole, and rhetorical questions.

Now I can take some points on board, but thats the point of these videos, and im not singling this guy out (although I am), it happens across the board on both sides of the isle. For me, Legal Eagle is about equivalent to Charlie Kirk, or Ben Shapiro, they all want and do the same thing. Hell go look at Kirks videos, the thumbnails and titles are exactly the same, shocked faces and alarmist language lol

 

[Welsh Exile]

He may well be a law expert, i have no reason to doubt that, but there is about as much chance as him being honest to his audience as a MAGA loving country bumpkin shooting (EDIT!!!!! Vids not kids) kids on the farm...

And thats the danger. Using legitimacy to manipulate, im not a fan I watch 10 mins of this video and dont like the emotive language, repetition, appealing to authority, polarisation, hyperbole, and rhetorical questions.

Now I can take some points on board, but thats the point of these videos, and im not singling this guy out (although I am), it happens across the board on both sides of the isle. For me, Legal Eagle is about equivalent to Charlie Kirk, or Ben Shapiro, they all want and do the same thing. Hell go look at Kirks videos, the thumbnails and ***les are exactly the same, shocked faces and alarmist language lol

I agree with a lot of what you say. The problem is, 90% of people have an agenda and manipulate information. Also, there are sometimes, and topics, when being one sided is probably the right thing to do. I personally don’t see much merit in both siding the Russia/Ukraine conflict for example or a lot of the stuff Trump does as a lot of these things are pretty clear cut to me (even without YouTube analysis) but then there are other subjects that do require a lot more critical thinking and nuance.

 

[dirty harry]

I agree with a lot of what you say. The problem is, 90% of people have an agenda and manipulate information. Also, there are sometimes, and topics, when being one sided is probably the right thing to do. I personally don't see much merit in both siding the Russia/Ukraine conflict for example or a lot of the stuff Trump does as a lot of these things are pretty clear cut to me (even without YouTube analysis) but then there are other subjects that do require a lot more critical thinking and nuance.

I'd argue its incredibly important to 2 side things like Ukraine Russia for example. To take one side, and refuse to listen to mitigating factors, or reasoning i think would only escelate the issues.

I wouldnt say im anti Russia, its a complex situation spanning a long time, difficult history, and ultimately I dont have the hubris to determine who is right and who is wrong. I can condemn actions I dislike, and we can investigate who did what and why, but realistically hindsight will be the best provider of the story, as it always is. Same with Trump, same with Isreal. These are hugely popular issues, because of social media, not because they are stand out world changing stories. Is whats happening in Gaza the largest human rights abuse going on right now? Probably not, i think the Sudanese situation is probably much worse numbers wise (I may be wrong) so why is there not a peep of that on these boards?

I want to read about reasons and mitigating factors, it fleshes out actions and reactions, without doing so is simply picking a team, and social media is great at convincing people which team to be on... Russia bad, Trump bad, Isreal bad...

 

[Welsh Exile]

I'd argue its incredibly important to 2 side things like Ukraine Russia for example. To take one side, and refuse to listen to mitigating factors, or reasoning i think would only escelate the issues.

I wouldnt say im anti Russia, its a complex situation spanning a long time, difficult history, and ultimately I dont have the hubris to determine who is right and who is wrong. I can condemn actions I dislike, and we can investigate who did what and why, but realistically hindsight will be the best provider of the story, as it always is. Same with Trump, same with Isreal. These are hugely popular issues, because of social media, not because they are stand out world changing stories. Is whats happening in Gaza the largest human rights abuse going on right now? Probably not, i think the Sudanese situation is probably much worse numbers wise (I may be wrong) so why is there not a peep of that on these boards?

I want to read about reasons and mitigating factors, it fleshes out actions and reactions, without doing so is simply picking a team, and social media is great at convincing people which team to be on... Russia bad, Trump bad, Isreal bad...

Woukd you say the same if it was 1939 and the Nazis?

You may think that is an extreme outlier but just trying to gauge if you think there are any conflicts that are quite clear cut and don’t require both siding it as there is clearly a good guy and a bad guy.

 

[Saintjay]

looks like a chicken, clucks like a chicken , has an ornithologist explicitly telling you that it's a chicken"

 

[dirty harry]

Woukd you say the same if it was 1939 and the Nazis?

You may think that is an extreme outlier but just trying to gauge if you think there are any conflicts that are quite clear cut and don't require both siding it as there is clearly a good guy and a bad guy.

Of course, atrocities happened back then, but if we dont look at it now from the Nazi POV, how do we know what the reasoning and factors were that led to those atrocities?

There were genuine emotions leading to the rise of the party, living standards, hardships and valid sentiment of issues. Why would we not look at it from their side? Even the party themselves. We can absolutely condemn what happened, and by viewing through a lense of who did it, we learn lessons.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Right I'll make a quick brief:

Claim 1. Courts appointed a career prosecutor in Habbas place.

Thats a funny way of saying the Assistant AG who was selected by Habba when she started her role, temporarily took on AG duties, once the interim time limit expired.

Not a lie, but a language tool to make it sound like the courts went out and headhunted the right person, and installed them over Habba. Its not the case.

2. This procedure challenges boundaries of executive power, just another day in Trump's second term.

Again, making it sound like this is out of the ordinary, EVERY president challenges the boundaries of executive power, Biden bypassed Congress, and enacted emergency powers etc... framing is manipulative.

3. Habbas pick (as temporary AG) was controversial due to her lack of experience and deemed political.

Again, a lot of AG picks (permanent) are controversial, infact Every Bush pick was controversial, didnt he appoint a 30 year old with no prosecuting experience, and Obama selected Holder who was defending terrorists. Every AG selection is opposed, this is SOP for AG selections surely, well except that this is interim to acting.

4. Uh, that phrase again. 'What sounds bad to an ethics committee is music to Donald Trumps ears'.

If you cant figure out why this intentionally judgemental and value based rhetoric is designed to manipulate you, I cant help you! There is no reason to use the language (throughout) like this, if not to draw on your emotions. This isnt a factual statement, its a warm fuzzy statement for you to pat yourself on the back, like the entire video.

5. Losing a court case might not look good on a conventional resume.

Losing a court case is on every potential AGs resume, losses are common and even expected. Why is the pretence that this is original to Habba.

6. Oooohhhh 3 minutes later they acknowledge Habba chose Grace. Bravo.


7. Habba moved up from interim, to acting AG for 210 days without senate confirmation.

Omg, Trump used the law to put someone in as acting AG for 210 days, the thing he can absolutely do without Senate approval, and the max he could do without senate approval.

Why is this framed like the Senate was bypassed? I've read this in 2 different sources, and in fact Obama did the same with Sally Yates, Trump's done it previously, Nixon...

This is an absence of information, I cant watch on because hes about to deep dive into 3 sets of case law he doesnt need to, because hes just manipulated the first descriptions of inferior and principled officers to only include permentant AG picks, and hasnt made a very easy distinction that both Acting and Interim AGs can be appointed by the president without Senate confirmation, as Obama did.

Even the controversial way in which Habba was removed, allowing Bondi to fire Grace seems questionably legitimate. I mean theres no presidence, but technically I cant find any reason Trump cant remove Habbas nomination, or Bondi firing Grace, or Habbas acting role.

Infact the FVRA is only in place because of how Clinton abused the system, naming an Acting AG and 3 years later making him permanent by default. So not only is presidents pushing boundaries common, breaking those boundaries seem common as well, Trump seems to be acting in a legal way when you look at actions singularly, but put them together and they are questionable at best?

The idea Habba is inexperienced or political is laughable, or that Trump needs senate approval for selecting temporary AG too, these are par for the course for presidents apparently.

Caveat, im obviously no law expert, im a moron Wales rugby supporting dumbo sat in my pants, I've just googled and used chat gpt to point me to legalities and presidence in previous presidential actions, to highlight inaccuracies in this video. When he dived into legislation at 210mph, I was too confused to understand, and almost went into a daze.... I suspect thats the point of this, instead of simplifying the answer to 'yes, Obama also did it'

But my point is, this channell could have easily referenced previous actions in line with this, they could have simplified the answer of can Trump appoint an Acting AG without the senate, a simple 'yes, its happened before, but let's look more in depth'. To reiterate that he hasn't got senate approval he doesnt need, to continue to use emotive language, and terminology is not an honest way to present.

I'll respond in full when I get home but there are key bits missed off here

 

[Welsh Exile]

Of course, atrocities happened back then, but if we dont look at it now from the Nazi POV, how do we know what the reasoning and factors were that led to those atrocities?

There were genuine emotions leading to the rise of the party, living standards, hardships and valid sentiment of issues. Why would we not look at it from their side? Even the party themselves. We can absolutely condemn what happened, and by viewing through a lense of who did it, we learn lessons.

You can do those things without both siding things. I mean, you’re not seriously suggesting that anything Hitler and thenNazis did was legitimate are you?

You know it is possible for historians to looks at the facts and go from there. You can recognise the treaty of Versailles and harsh economic climate and a million other things without going “well, you know, the Nazis kind of felt cornered and it was understandable they felt that way” just as it would be compete and utter rubbish to do something similar with Putins invasion of Ukraine.