You do not mention that the police allowed these people in, you do not mention that there were no weapons, you do not mention that they were expressing their first amendment rights, there were some bad apples and not thousands that broke the law. You do not mention that there were secret Federal officers in the protest that encouraged people into the capital. You do not mention that many protestors have spent three years in prison for a misdemeanor. The DOJ is corrupt.
They’re discussing the charge used to convict. Not the actual event. They are establishing what the law means as a whole. The law was created bc a law firm was destroying evidence during a trial as the trial matured. Unbelievably, it was not against the law at the time. The attorneys for Enron used the loophole. Right after, congress drew up this bill. Hope that helps a little. This will get deleted, of course.
You're "baffled" on the science of say--aviation, just like you're "baffled" by the relevancy of quantum theory or The Theory of Relativity, so don't be down on yourself for being obtuse on the legal erudition of one of our most conversant Jurist. You as my fellow American, I sincerely appreciate the yellow lines you have been painting on our highways and roadways. So maybe you should just stay in your lane and leave jurisprudence to those in that lane.
Justice doesn't know meaning of justice and laws and order they just like Deer 🦌 in the headlights stuck in one place they don't work for the people they work for who ever put them on the bench my opinion
@@jonathansegraves8623So being a woman is base on context, really? I can't think of a situation where that would be true. Regardless of context, being a woman is simply a binary (XX) fact, and arguments to the contrary are just trying to rationalize around that simple fact. You can certainly use the word "woman" in different contexts, but that doesn't change the definition of a woman (a person).
I guess your ignorant of the fact that Joe is the one that told the DOJ he had them. Didn't try to hide them, didn't say it was his right to have them, didn't try to keep them or have his attorney throw them away to cover up the fact that he did have them. Same for Mike Pence.
Tell that to the 100+ cops that were injured that day or ask Pence's Secret Service detail that day or Josh Hawley running for his life. Drink some more kool-aid.
Exactly cause she is by definition a judge 😂😂 and jan 6 by definition was an insurrection 😂😂😂😂 🤡 words have meanings that is literally what they are discussing on this clip
@@elephantoflight3362 My girlfriend is a Biologist, Geneticist, and former Cornell Adjunct Professor (Retired). She indicates that females and males have different chromosomes. Some reptiles can spontaneously change sex due to environmental conditions. And yeah, she's also a staunch Democrat! Anyhow, she admitted that she wanted a Republican man, because those lefties aren't gender - secure on a daily basis.
Isn’t it interesting that everytime a supposed moderate Democrat gets to nominate- it’s always a far left radical that they nominate. Why is that? The country is not radical. There is something very shady going on!
The issue is that the law doesn't explicitly say evidence, as in doesn't explicitly say that it's directly related to a trial, as in can be applied more broadly to any government proceeding. Not that I agree with her.
Really nice selective editing of audio. Bigger picture- the DOJ is using a single vague line in the middle of an evidence law that is dependant on the lines before it... to totally rewrite the entire law. If that line means what the DOJ claims, then any protest (1st ammendment protected) can be charged! This was an Enron law preventing the destruction of all sorts of materials that would be used as "evidence". Simple put- if the sentence gives the DOJ the broad charging rights they claim, then but the rest of the law and the 1st amendment is eclipsed! Complete legal nonsense..
It doesn't "totally rewrite the law", it just takes a single clause out of context, several layers deep, to apply at a wider scope than the initial context seemingly suggested. And no, it wouldn't apply to "any protest", it would have to materially disrupt an official federal government proceeding. And it's not "an Enron law", it's a law that was instituted in light of what happened with evidence tampering in the Enron case but it's applicable at large. No, it doesn't eclipse the 1st amendment, not unless that free speech actually somehow disrupts an official proceeding. Having said that, I'm on your side.
Quite frankly, there really should be some kind of law making it simply illegal to obstruct an official proceeding outright (as is relevant here,) but I am also becoming increasingly convinced that this law does not apply to that situation… and thus there *may* be no such law. Seems like a pretty big loophole in how our government functions, and that should probably be addressed.
She is ignoring "otherwise" and focusing on "evidence", which is covered under "otherwise". I mean....if you are in trial, evidence is needed, regarded of it's composition. She is doing her usual word salad to obfuscate.
She's asking the attorney to cut the malarkey with theory and conjecture with word salad of his own which is " otherwise:, "if"," but" , "if I may judge," "wait now if you hold it this way upside down", etc. ad nauseam. What entity has the final say so on WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS ? Just because I say that an object is a dog, does that make the object a dog ? Or is it really a cat ? I say tomato you say toMAto. I say potato you say poTAto. Let's call the whole thing off. Which came first the chicken or the egg ?
@@jonathansegraves8623 The judge is ignoring the very clear "otherwise" as if it wasn't there. Consider this: why did they explicitly use the word "otherwise" when Jackson’s interpretation would work just as well if the "otherwise" wasn't there? In all of the other clauses that are dependent only on their parent, independent of their siblings, do any of those lead with a "otherwise"? An "otherwise" is meaningful, implicitly means that it follows from the clause above. It's actually rather amusing to see you trying to deflect from that words, especially in law, have meaning.
Senator Marsha Blackburn: "Can you please provide a definition for the word WOMAN?" Ketanji Jackson: "No, I can't, I'm not a biologist." This tells you EVERYTHING you need to know..
Imagine being afraid of trans people, so much, that in a trial that has nothing to do with them you're still hung up thinking about them. Got them trans people living in your head rent free. ooooohhhhh scary ooOOOoOo
The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot remove a candidate from the ballot, while claiming insurrection in the way this was done. They did not rule on the potential insurrection itself.
@@TruthMan1963 no, that is not implied at all. The case itself was not on whether or not anyone committed insurrection. The case was about whether states had the authority to make those decisions as it applied via the constitution… especially in that instance. Or hell, whether a state could make such a decision without a trial even ruling insurrection [or actions that would be considered that, since even definitively calling something insurrection is in one hell of a murky little legal pond] occurred, which is also relevant in that situation.
@@djpaperplate did I say that? Because I’m pretty sure I just said that the Supreme Court didn’t rule on whether or not it was an insurrection. Please, go argue with the people actually saying the words you’re trying to put in my mouth. They’re not hard to find.
The law is pretty whack. Having it titled "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant" is problematic for both sides. Obstructing the election certification does none of those things, but how does shredding your own incriminating evidence either? Does jury tampering? And so the hierarchy of the document, or the context, is intrinsically flawed to begin with. And use of that word "corruptly" is just brutal.
@@MaxIsBackInTown Really, well I've seen her testimony before a nomination committee she could not answer what a woman was, her response " No, I can't, I'm not a biologist "!
@@poodledoodlequilter6479 yea and meanwhile the republicans that trump put in stated that roe v wade was established law and implied they wouldnt touch it yet here we are. also women isnt in a legal dictionary. when it comes to the law the definition of things can vary far differently than one not versed in the law would think. its why contracts are so difficult for the average person to understand and navigate.
The DEI justice can't even define what a female is. So, no doubt she's totally perplexed by the legal definition of what evidence is, as well. Another poster child for why Didn't Earn It, hiring policies are totally wrong. 3:32
Seriously. There a very strong arguments for his position. However he does not do them justice. They may have found the most inept lawyer possible to make a very important case.
He's a poor speaker to be sure, but his argument is solid. And, frankly, while Jackson speaks with more confidence, her analysis sounds idiotic. Like she doesn't understand what the word "otherwise" means in it's application in context within the hierarchy of a legal document.
Ummm yeah the justice keeps using the word "evidence" because it's in the section about witness tampering and every single time it's been applied in the past is in relation to tampering with evidence in a trial. This is literally the first time that it's been applied relative to any government proceeding at large. This application gives the government the power to imprison anyone who disrupts absolutely any government proceeding in any way up to 20 years.
Very few people commenting here understand the legalese spoken here (myself included). Glad Forbes is releasing these kinds of clips for transparency, but most of us need to interpretation and context in order to make sense of the arguments.
Yeah. Everybody in the comments seems to think she doesn’t know what evidence is, but rather they’re discussing a law around obstructing an official proceeding and the lawyer is trying to limit that definition to a trial setting and to obstructing evidence. But that’s not what the law says and she is nailing him on that. His arguments are weak and he’s getting destroyed in this clip by Justice Jackson. But all these commenters think she sounds dumb because they cannot grasp the faintest outline of what’s happening in the clip.
forbes is cherry-picking these clips to paint a picture. If you listen to the complete exchange the defense's position is much more clear. For example. while he DOES use the word "evidence" when that word is not present in the law itself, his inference is more clear when you get the full context of the exchange.
The argument between the two sections is irrelevant, the statute is about destruction of records, it’s the sole reason the legislation was even passed in the first place if you read the full text. They are arguing over 1 line quoted out of context and against the original meaning of the legislation.
She knows that the word means, the issue is that the word "evidence" is not in the law itself, which is why they argue that it is not limited to court cases in application.
@@madjiofcimmeria watch it again. Listen. And try to grasp what’s actually being discussed. I’m feeling generous. So I’ll help. They’re discussing the chafe of obstruction. The lawyer is arguing that you can only obstruct congress by altering, withholding, or destroying evidence. Justice Jackson is correctly pointing out that you can obstruct in ways that have nothing to do with evidence. Like, say, storming the Capitol building and forcing Congress to stop work and go into hiding. That would be obstruction and have nothing to do with altering or destroying evidence. The only reason evidence is being discussed is because the lawyers wants to fundamentally alter the law because their clients are cooked.
The DEI supreme court judge who could not define what a woman was as she was not a biologist cant understand a legal argument because she is not a lawyer either despite getting a law degree as an affirmative action student.
Oh god tell me this isn't the woman who couldn't say what a woman is because she wasn't a biologist....tell me she is not a judge of the supreme court.
And now, after listening to KBJ for 3 minutes and 31 seconds, I’m confident that I’ve lost 750K brain cells and I’m walking around dumber for the rest of my life!
@@SweetJustice11 Well, your answer could either be correct or wrong, and you had 50-50 chance of getting it right, but the answer is wrong. Improvement nonetheless.
Any question she asked me, I'd just reply with "I'm sorry, a woman says what?" Since she can't define what a woman is, she wouldn't be able to respond.
For anyone who is wondering, KBJ has more experience in law than a majority of all Supreme Court justices. So check yourself before you make a comment based on her ethnicity.
There was no insurrection But there are Americans incarcerated in political persecution under the disguise of insurectionist (that did not occur) charges
By DEI, you mean Deserving Educated Individual, yes? Also, she was NOT a “hire”. She is appointed by the President of the United States upon the advice and consent of the Senate.
Well no, they aren't criminals if the Supreme Court overturns the lower court's decision that hinged on the prosecution's novel application of the law. That's how it works.
Alright, I'll bite. She is nailing down a weasely lawyer making an absurd argument that trying to interupt an official procedure isnt against the law by redefining the word 'otherwise' in the law. Regarding the can you define woman question, she immediately recognized that it was a bad faith question that has nothing to do with her experience or qualifications as a judge, and diplomaticaly sidestep it by rightly stating shes her to be a judge, not a biologist.
@SweetJustice11 Are you talking about fire alarm batteries? What does that phrase even mean "change their...basis"? People who are responsible or tired??
How exactly is he "redefining" what the word "otherwise" means? He's detailing a clause that begins with "otherwise" when none of the other independent clauses do, and she's acting as if the clause doesn't begin with an "otherwise", as if the word isn't there, as if the clause is independent. Quite literally, the first time this law has been used outside the scope of evidence tampering with a trial, now with respect to obstructing any official proceeding, is J6 convictions. What's absurd is that you think it's absurd to challenge the prosecutions use of the law in a completely novel way. And it's downright scary that people who perceive themselves to be liberal and who champion civil liberties think that it would be a good thing for the law to prevent even peaceful protest on any government proceeding if it in any way and for any amount of time disrupted a government proceeding. Didn't those people who protested in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing break this law then? Isn't that 20 years? Regarding her being asked to define a woman, this is pivotal to her job as she will will have to interpret gender laws in the future and so she is being asked what her position is. You people don't really think things through. The truth is that you are more interested in J6 convictions than in protecting civil liberties for everyone at large and you get your interpretations from a media that does the same.
J6 was a peaceful protest? Where a mob egged on by the loser of an election broke into the capital, smashed windows, stole documents and property, all to stop the certification of the election and peaceful transfer of power? Where people where injured and someone killed? Where there were pipe bombs planted? Where the crowd erected a gallows and chanted hang Mike Pence? No, the real scary thing is people trying to gaslight everyone that what we saw with our eyes didn't happen.
You do not mention that the police allowed these people in, you do not mention that there were no weapons, you do not mention that they were expressing their first amendment rights, there were some bad apples and not thousands that broke the law. You do not mention that there were secret Federal officers in the protest that encouraged people into the capital. You do not mention that many protestors have spent three years in prison for a misdemeanor. The DOJ is corrupt.
They’re discussing the charge used to convict. Not the actual event. They are establishing what the law means as a whole.
The law was created bc a law firm was destroying evidence during a trial as the trial matured. Unbelievably, it was not against the law at the time. The attorneys for Enron used the loophole. Right after, congress drew up this bill.
Hope that helps a little. This will get deleted, of course.
3 years of wrongful confinement is way more than enough time served!!!
I am baffled at how this woman is on the Supreme Court, or any court at that.
DEI=Didn't Earn It.
You're "baffled" on the science of say--aviation, just like you're "baffled" by the relevancy of quantum theory or The Theory of Relativity, so don't be down on yourself for being obtuse on the legal erudition of one of our most conversant Jurist.
You as my fellow American, I sincerely appreciate the yellow lines you have been painting on our highways and roadways.
So maybe you should just stay in your lane and leave jurisprudence to those in that lane.
@@readynowforever3676word salad from someone who knows nothing
@@ventriloquistmagician4735 I “knows” that you hate the American idea, the American promise, the American experiment.
She never even argued a case in a courtroom before being here.
The black guy who pulled the alarm did exactly the same thing. He gets to walk.
Utter nonsense.
Duh blatts
The white guy who tried to steal a free and fair election is still walking free.
Black privilege
@@stevenjamison5896not really 70% of j6 defendants did nothing other than enter the capitol
I'm not a veterinarian so I'm not qualified to tell you what a dog is.
Clarence Thomas
Justice doesn't know meaning of justice and laws and order they just like Deer 🦌 in the headlights stuck in one place they don't work for the people they work for who ever put them on the bench my opinion
No one in congress that day witnessed any ballot counting.
Is it not concerning that a judge doesnt know what the word evidence means?... or woman?
Not really, when one considers that words CAN BE and indeed ARE used in different CONTEXTS to mean different things.
@@jonathansegraves8623 like bloodbath?
@@billnyethesciencedenier1516 Like Eyeroll?
She knows, he doesn't
@@jonathansegraves8623So being a woman is base on context, really? I can't think of a situation where that would be true. Regardless of context, being a woman is simply a binary (XX) fact, and arguments to the contrary are just trying to rationalize around that simple fact. You can certainly use the word "woman" in different contexts, but that doesn't change the definition of a woman (a person).
Are illegal documents in joes garage not evidence? Please explain
I guess your ignorant of the fact that Joe is the one that told the DOJ he had them. Didn't try to hide them, didn't say it was his right to have them, didn't try to keep them or have his attorney throw them away to cover up the fact that he did have them. Same for Mike Pence.
True, under this regime. The truth is a conspiracy, and the lie is now the truth lol
Being he gave them back, No! t-RUMP lied to keep them!
it’s been explained - you can’t comprehend is all 💙💙
@@annadeen6437"Too old and senile to charge with a crime" is the official explanation. So...
Calling Jan. 6 an insurrection is like calling Ketanji Jackson a Judge.
She is a more qualified judge than any of Trump’s.
Tell that to the 100+ cops that were injured that day or ask Pence's Secret Service detail that day or Josh Hawley running for his life. Drink some more kool-aid.
@@howtheheckru8102That's a riot you 🙊 Coerced and setup by the fbi and cia. Why isn't kamala talking about the pipe bomb? Sit down.
Called KBJ a judge is like calling you a racist. True.
Exactly cause she is by definition a judge 😂😂 and jan 6 by definition was an insurrection 😂😂😂😂 🤡 words have meanings that is literally what they are discussing on this clip
If you want to baffle Justice Brown, ask her to define what is a woman...
Just stop
@@mnguardianfan7128 For what??? For Being Truthful???
@@benvarela4472 It is a overly simplified and way over blown take on whether Justice Jackson should have answered that question.
@@benvarela4472 It also leads into charges of DEI... which is only thinly veiled racism.
She should have never been confirmed.
CZcams with their usual misinformation bar under the video.
Gee, why are you so concerned ? Did you attend the party ?
I wish they had a love button, I am sick of seeing these misleading misinformation bars, they themselves are misleading on certain videos!!
A sitting justice, that doesn't even know what a woman is!
Says a person that doesn’t know what a man is…
@@elephantoflight3362 My girlfriend is a Biologist, Geneticist, and former Cornell Adjunct Professor (Retired). She indicates that females and males have different chromosomes. Some reptiles can spontaneously change sex due to environmental conditions. And yeah, she's also a staunch Democrat! Anyhow, she admitted that she wanted a Republican man, because those lefties aren't gender - secure on a daily basis.
Isn’t it interesting that everytime a supposed moderate Democrat gets to nominate- it’s always a far left radical that they nominate. Why is that? The country is not radical. There is something very shady going on!
How convenient....@@upyorkstate5541
Someone who won’t date you??🤷♂️
Wow, who would have thought that evidence had any bearing on a trial ? Is this REALLY a Supreme Court Justice ...???
What on earth are you blabbing on about? It seems like you have zero understanding of what’s happening in this audio.
Thank dei for that
A token judge says what?
The issue is that the law doesn't explicitly say evidence, as in doesn't explicitly say that it's directly related to a trial, as in can be applied more broadly to any government proceeding. Not that I agree with her.
“…it could cover…. Whatever the Dems want to make up to try to win in November.” There. I fixed it for you.
Snappy title their Forbes, totally convinced me that the emperors new clothes are slick and fashionable!
*there
Your intelligence is showing
Ketanji didn't know what the First Amendment meant either...
But she is a rare case of the left knowing what a woman is and rolling her out like she is a victory for women.
Can’t even describe a female. Thanks Joey
Refusing to take the bait of a trick question. Blackburn is frequently wrong but never in doubt.
@@lamadamadingdong1926it’s not a trick question, next time just tell us you wear a helmet.
@@lamadamadingdong1926Defining the word Woman is NOT a trick question. 🤡
@@lamadamadingdong1926How is it a trick??? Just admit that you're ignorant and move on.
She can describe the law to you.
Really nice selective editing of audio. Bigger picture- the DOJ is using a single vague line in the middle of an evidence law that is dependant on the lines before it... to totally rewrite the entire law. If that line means what the DOJ claims, then any protest (1st ammendment protected) can be charged!
This was an Enron law preventing the destruction of all sorts of materials that would be used as "evidence".
Simple put- if the sentence gives the DOJ the broad charging rights they claim, then but the rest of the law and the 1st amendment is eclipsed! Complete legal nonsense..
It doesn't "totally rewrite the law", it just takes a single clause out of context, several layers deep, to apply at a wider scope than the initial context seemingly suggested. And no, it wouldn't apply to "any protest", it would have to materially disrupt an official federal government proceeding. And it's not "an Enron law", it's a law that was instituted in light of what happened with evidence tampering in the Enron case but it's applicable at large. No, it doesn't eclipse the 1st amendment, not unless that free speech actually somehow disrupts an official proceeding. Having said that, I'm on your side.
Quite frankly, there really should be some kind of law making it simply illegal to obstruct an official proceeding outright (as is relevant here,) but I am also becoming increasingly convinced that this law does not apply to that situation… and thus there *may* be no such law. Seems like a pretty big loophole in how our government functions, and that should probably be addressed.
The bigger problem is that what ever law they pass and interpretation they agree on will not apply to anyone doing the bidding of the Uniparty...
She is ignoring "otherwise" and focusing on "evidence", which is covered under "otherwise". I mean....if you are in trial, evidence is needed, regarded of it's composition. She is doing her usual word salad to obfuscate.
She's asking the attorney to cut the malarkey with theory and conjecture with word salad of his own which is " otherwise:, "if"," but" , "if I may judge," "wait now if you hold it this way upside down", etc. ad nauseam. What entity has the final say so on WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS ? Just because I say that an object is a dog, does that make the object a dog ? Or is it really a cat ? I say tomato you say toMAto. I say potato you say poTAto. Let's call the whole thing off. Which came first the chicken or the egg ?
@@jonathansegraves8623 i hope you are a bot.
@@jonathansegraves8623 The judge is ignoring the very clear "otherwise" as if it wasn't there. Consider this: why did they explicitly use the word "otherwise" when Jackson’s interpretation would work just as well if the "otherwise" wasn't there? In all of the other clauses that are dependent only on their parent, independent of their siblings, do any of those lead with a "otherwise"? An "otherwise" is meaningful, implicitly means that it follows from the clause above. It's actually rather amusing to see you trying to deflect from that words, especially in law, have meaning.
Senator Marsha Blackburn:
"Can you please provide a definition for the word WOMAN?"
Ketanji Jackson:
"No, I can't, I'm not a biologist."
This tells you EVERYTHING you need to know..
Hahaha, killer clowns at large hahaha
Imagine being afraid of trans people, so much, that in a trial that has nothing to do with them you're still hung up thinking about them. Got them trans people living in your head rent free. ooooohhhhh scary ooOOOoOo
And this person sits on the Supreme Court!?? Wow.
@@chrishoyt0917 Corrupt Joe Biden's only contribution to the Supreme Court and it really shows the Joe's distain and lack of respect for America
@@chrishoyt0917 How is that difference from the rest of the people who sit on the Supreme Court?
What is a woman?
I've never seen anybody ever so unqualified
Claiming you have evidence with out actual evidence is not evidence 😂
Says the entire Democratic Party in regards to trump
@@donfarrington3240 Democrats + Digital lives + digital volts = phake army 💪😂
TRUMP 2024 💪😘👍
@@donfarrington3240 TRUMP 2024 💪😘👍
😂😂😂excacly😂😂
@donfarrington3240 so what evidence do you have child?
Like she cares.
Like Donald Trump cares!
These people abuse defenseless, powerless, children.
I thought the Supreme Court already ruled it wasn’t an insurrection?
The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot remove a candidate from the ballot, while claiming insurrection in the way this was done. They did not rule on the potential insurrection itself.
@@bellowingsilencesame thing…implied!
@@bellowingsilence so basically you are still believing that a group of unarmed people tried overthrowing the most armed Country in the World.
@@TruthMan1963 no, that is not implied at all. The case itself was not on whether or not anyone committed insurrection. The case was about whether states had the authority to make those decisions as it applied via the constitution… especially in that instance. Or hell, whether a state could make such a decision without a trial even ruling insurrection [or actions that would be considered that, since even definitively calling something insurrection is in one hell of a murky little legal pond] occurred, which is also relevant in that situation.
@@djpaperplate did I say that? Because I’m pretty sure I just said that the Supreme Court didn’t rule on whether or not it was an insurrection. Please, go argue with the people actually saying the words you’re trying to put in my mouth. They’re not hard to find.
Foot meet mouth.
I would think things like jury tampering would fall under c2.
The law is pretty whack. Having it titled "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant" is problematic for both sides. Obstructing the election certification does none of those things, but how does shredding your own incriminating evidence either? Does jury tampering? And so the hierarchy of the document, or the context, is intrinsically flawed to begin with. And use of that word "corruptly" is just brutal.
Affirmative action at work here folks!😂
Have you seen her resume it’s incredible?
@@MaxIsBackInTownsome people are sheep. Her resume is IN FACT incredible! 💯
@@MaxIsBackInTown Really, well I've seen her testimony before a nomination committee she could not answer what a woman was, her response " No, I can't, I'm not a biologist "!
@@poodledoodlequilter6479 yea and meanwhile the republicans that trump put in stated that roe v wade was established law and implied they wouldnt touch it yet here we are. also women isnt in a legal dictionary. when it comes to the law the definition of things can vary far differently than one not versed in the law would think. its why contracts are so difficult for the average person to understand and navigate.
@@lurker616Yes some people are sheep like the people who thought her nomination was a good idea!
This lawyer sounds idiotic.
The DEI justice can't even define what a female is. So, no doubt she's totally perplexed by the legal definition of what evidence is, as well. Another poster child for why
Didn't
Earn
It,
hiring policies are totally wrong. 3:32
Seriously. There a very strong arguments for his position. However he does not do them justice. They may have found the most inept lawyer possible to make a very important case.
He's a poor speaker to be sure, but his argument is solid. And, frankly, while Jackson speaks with more confidence, her analysis sounds idiotic. Like she doesn't understand what the word "otherwise" means in it's application in context within the hierarchy of a legal document.
None of these people are guilty and should sue the government pants off.
It doesn't have to necessarily be evidence. It could be, say, the pulling of a fire alarm to delay offical proceedings.
wow.
So we can add evidence to the list of words the DEI hire doesn't know.
Ketanji "I am not a biologist" Jackson... The fact that she is on the SC is insane.
she got her job on the SC via the application of disparate impact, aka percentages represented. that's it.
Remember this Justice doesn't even know what a woman is!
Witnesses ARE evidence!
So much lies & corruption on ALL sides . Even misuse of words like mobs, attacks, etc .
This cannot be real? Forest Gump would be a better Justice.
If that is the case, then Forrest Gump should have been our 45th president.
This coming from a justice who can’t even define what a woman is, let alone define what she is herself. Enough said.
Good observation.
Please explain to the class the definition of a woman. Please spare us your Google search results.
Bless her ❤
Unbelievable
Ummm yeah the justice keeps using the word "evidence" because it's in the section about witness tampering and every single time it's been applied in the past is in relation to tampering with evidence in a trial. This is literally the first time that it's been applied relative to any government proceeding at large. This application gives the government the power to imprison anyone who disrupts absolutely any government proceeding in any way up to 20 years.
Very few people commenting here understand the legalese spoken here (myself included).
Glad Forbes is releasing these kinds of clips for transparency, but most of us need to interpretation and context in order to make sense of the arguments.
This is why I like this channel. You actually get the source of the clip without clickbait that gives actual information.
Yeah. Everybody in the comments seems to think she doesn’t know what evidence is, but rather they’re discussing a law around obstructing an official proceeding and the lawyer is trying to limit that definition to a trial setting and to obstructing evidence. But that’s not what the law says and she is nailing him on that. His arguments are weak and he’s getting destroyed in this clip by Justice Jackson. But all these commenters think she sounds dumb because they cannot grasp the faintest outline of what’s happening in the clip.
It’s not that deep , the I hate Trump and all those that agree with him MUST be stopped at any and all costs…..
forbes is cherry-picking these clips to paint a picture. If you listen to the complete exchange the defense's position is much more clear. For example. while he DOES use the word "evidence" when that word is not present in the law itself, his inference is more clear when you get the full context of the exchange.
Putting a robe on a turd is a turd in a robe and the evidence is you
The argument between the two sections is irrelevant, the statute is about destruction of records, it’s the sole reason the legislation was even passed in the first place if you read the full text. They are arguing over 1 line quoted out of context and against the original meaning of the legislation.
Drown Jackson spitting facts! Thank you, President China Joe Briben, LLC!
Ohhh look its Miss Affirmative Action
Say the word "woman" over and over. It confuses the hell out of her.
Has she figured out what a woman is yet.?
1776
Purposefully not admitting witnesses !
Because she doesn't know what the word " Evidence" means.
I think you have zero idea what’s happening in the audio. Your ignorance is showing
@allenbower1431 do you not consider records or documents as pieces of evidence?
She knows that the word means, the issue is that the word "evidence" is not in the law itself, which is why they argue that it is not limited to court cases in application.
@@madjiofcimmeria watch it again. Listen. And try to grasp what’s actually being discussed.
I’m feeling generous. So I’ll help.
They’re discussing the chafe of obstruction. The lawyer is arguing that you can only obstruct congress by altering, withholding, or destroying evidence. Justice Jackson is correctly pointing out that you can obstruct in ways that have nothing to do with evidence. Like, say, storming the Capitol building and forcing Congress to stop work and go into hiding. That would be obstruction and have nothing to do with altering or destroying evidence.
The only reason evidence is being discussed is because the lawyers wants to fundamentally alter the law because their clients are cooked.
StaTUTE! "statue" lol adios
The DEI supreme court judge who could not define what a woman was as she was not a biologist cant understand a legal argument because she is not a lawyer either despite getting a law degree as an affirmative action student.
Did he us the word "evidence" or was he answering questions of hypotheticals where the object happened to be evidence?
He did indeed use the word "evidence" where the law in question does not use that word.
From a woman who could not define "what is a woman" now needs the word "evidence" defined.
The prosecution's house of cards are in the middle of a hurricane.
I know that the "evidence" depends upon what your definition of is, is.
And, What exactly is a brown woman Justice. anyway?
She's easily confused, doesn't know what a woman is either
According to some leftist channels, she is the best choice. 🤔
They want the ability to use the “Law” whenever and however they want, AGAINST Anyone they want.
AND NOT USE IT … DENY ITS USE whenever they want.
Oh god tell me this isn't the woman who couldn't say what a woman is because she wasn't a biologist....tell me she is not a judge of the supreme court.
And now, after listening to KBJ for 3 minutes and 31 seconds, I’m confident that I’ve lost 750K brain cells and I’m walking around dumber for the rest of my life!
Remember if your moms a dee and your dads a dee , don't have kids cuz they'll grow up to be a dee de dee !!
Katanji is a DEI hire, useless
Really y'all?
This creature does not deserve a seat on this court.
What is a woman judge 😊
What is a judge ?
Clarence Thomas
@@SweetJustice11
Well, your answer could either be correct or wrong, and you had 50-50 chance of getting it right, but the answer is wrong.
Improvement nonetheless.
Remember they are allowed through colleges with a much lower GPA
At least "they" are through in college. Liar!
Any question she asked me, I'd just reply with "I'm sorry, a woman says what?" Since she can't define what a woman is, she wouldn't be able to respond.
Your destiny has been changed to not reflect on the Bible...
Loving our black queen 👑💞
Gorsuch was the star of the day though. Not sure if I should mention his race like you did?
Lawyer double talk.
It isn't double talk at all, they are quite literally going over the language of the law and its context.
She can’t define what’s a woman?
IF THAT BLACK MAN WOULDN'T MADE IT IN FOR HIS VOTE THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN 🤬🤬 THEN YALL WOULD HAVE REALLY HAVE BEEN MAD.
Then show evidence that is what happened. You cannot just throw that out there without any proof.
Im not a Shepard so i can't tell you what a sheep 🐑 is. 😂
This obviously had nothing to do with trespassing. She is a dei hire
Way to go Joe. FJB
For anyone who is wondering, KBJ has more experience in law than a majority of all Supreme Court justices. So check yourself before you make a comment based on her ethnicity.
Uh, she couldn't define what a woman is. My 7 year old nephew knows more about biology than Justice KJB. So...
The ignorance is so thick, they just don't want to be wrong. Even watching it live.
The president picked her based on her ethnicity 😂😂😂😂
@@kimberlyyoung3971ignorance is bliss huh? Her record is horrible.
And all the white men picked since 1790 were picked based on what?
There was no insurrection
But there are Americans incarcerated in political persecution under the disguise of insurectionist (that did not occur) charges
Ketanji is what you get by a DEI hire.
Don’t hate this black educated lady!! How far did you get in school
Voting against you own interests. Trying to be racist
By DEI, you mean Deserving Educated Individual, yes?
Also, she was NOT a “hire”. She is appointed by the President of the United States upon the advice and consent of the Senate.
@TomekaWeathersby by "voting against your own interests ", do you mean voting for government handouts or what is best for every hardworking American?
@@CarbideSix it's HILARIOUS you created a new acronym to explain weakness!
The pandered in judge...
Free the political prisioners
The biggest embarrassment on the bench.
No, that would be you. Oh wait, you are not educated as a judge. My bad!
What is a woman.
Thomas should have recused himself because of his wife’s involvement on JAN6..
sure just like Trumps judge whose daughter is a nutzo anti Trump activist will recuse himself right?
If yur a Biden nominee you might be a Commie... here's yur sign😂😂 allegedly
We can determine the law with our eyes, moral and reason.
We all saw what Jan 6 rioters did.
No matter what they're criminals.
Well no, they aren't criminals if the Supreme Court overturns the lower court's decision that hinged on the prosecution's novel application of the law. That's how it works.
DEI folks, DEI
BS.
Awesome!! Now do the Marxist Solicitor General's testimony where she got completely wrecked...😂😂
Of course you won't.
This is a going to be a 6-3 vote for the good guys. Huge potential win for Donald Trump.
She is dense
Alright, I'll bite.
She is nailing down a weasely lawyer making an absurd argument that trying to interupt an official procedure isnt against the law by redefining the word 'otherwise' in the law.
Regarding the can you define woman question, she immediately recognized that it was a bad faith question that has nothing to do with her experience or qualifications as a judge, and diplomaticaly sidestep it by rightly stating shes her to be a judge, not a biologist.
Are you not sure if documents or records are evidence?
...they are.
You can't explain logic to those who needs to change their batteries on a frequent basis.
@SweetJustice11 Are you talking about fire alarm batteries?
What does that phrase even mean "change their...basis"? People who are responsible or tired??
How exactly is he "redefining" what the word "otherwise" means? He's detailing a clause that begins with "otherwise" when none of the other independent clauses do, and she's acting as if the clause doesn't begin with an "otherwise", as if the word isn't there, as if the clause is independent. Quite literally, the first time this law has been used outside the scope of evidence tampering with a trial, now with respect to obstructing any official proceeding, is J6 convictions. What's absurd is that you think it's absurd to challenge the prosecutions use of the law in a completely novel way. And it's downright scary that people who perceive themselves to be liberal and who champion civil liberties think that it would be a good thing for the law to prevent even peaceful protest on any government proceeding if it in any way and for any amount of time disrupted a government proceeding. Didn't those people who protested in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing break this law then? Isn't that 20 years? Regarding her being asked to define a woman, this is pivotal to her job as she will will have to interpret gender laws in the future and so she is being asked what her position is. You people don't really think things through. The truth is that you are more interested in J6 convictions than in protecting civil liberties for everyone at large and you get your interpretations from a media that does the same.
J6 was a peaceful protest? Where a mob egged on by the loser of an election broke into the capital, smashed windows, stole documents and property, all to stop the certification of the election and peaceful transfer of power? Where people where injured and someone killed? Where there were pipe bombs planted? Where the crowd erected a gallows and chanted hang Mike Pence?
No, the real scary thing is people trying to gaslight everyone that what we saw with our eyes didn't happen.
DEI ignorant
BUNCH OF CLOWNS THE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME. COURT.. AND WE PAID THEIR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PAY CHECK