Real Lawyer Reacts To the Trial of the Chicago 7
⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
Finally a new legal thriller from Aaron Sorkin! Get AudiblePlus for only $4.95 a month for the first six months: www.audible.com/legaleagle
Extended version on Nebula! watchnebula.com/legaleagle
⚖️⚖️⚖️Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my PRELAW COURSE:
legaleagle.teachable.com/p/pr...
©©©©© Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you (15% OFF!):
www.copyrightcourse.com/yt
★ A Few of My Favorite Things★
🕵️♂️My Custom Suits: legaleagle.link/indochino
👔My Ties: fave.co/2ImLY9I
📎My Tie Clips/Bars: amzn.to/2WIQ6EE
🔲My Pocket Squares: amzn.to/2UfsKtL
💈My Hair Product amzn.to/2Ui2aQx
📸My Video Camera Setup www.amazon.com/shop/legaleagle
New episodes weekly! Subscribe here:
kzhead.info?su...
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
I get asked a lot about whether being a practicing attorney is like being a lawyer on TV. I love watching legal movies and courtroom dramas. It's one of the reasons I decided to become a lawyer. But sometimes they make me want to pull my hair out because they are ridiculous. Today I'm taking a break from representing clients and teaching law students how to kick ass in law school to take on lawyers in the movies and on TV. While all legal movies and shows take dramatic license to make things more interesting (nobody wants to see hundreds of hours of brief writing), many of them have a grain of truth. This is part of a continuing series of "Lawyer Reaction" videos. Got a legal movie or TV show you'd like me to critique? Let me know in the comments!
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ ➜ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta ➜ / stellathelegalbeagle
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: legaleagle@standard.tv
🍿What did you think of the movie? 📗Get the Holiday discount on Audible! www.audible.com/legaleagle
Had to cut a bunch for time. So there's a lot of stuff in the extended version on Nebula!
You should review Just Mercy.
please react to Law Abiding Citizen.
Lindon John did thee most feminist he made the popular Vite an issue. Anyone over 18 can vote and then he or women who voted for him send thousands of male voters to dying. This one reason Majority rule always always lead to tyrannical majorities what do expect giving the majority vote to people least affected by the vote
@@osmosisjones4912 What is this incomprehensible conspiracy theorist rambling? Try again, in English, with facts.
The movie gets an A- for legal realism. The trial gets an F- for legal realism.
I don't agree, that's exactly what the american legal system is all about
@@giantmoth1287 nah mans right in all legality no trial like this should have never taken place. If you get enough contempt’s of courts you can be kicked out asa lawyer… so yes political agenda. Senile judge literally all media if you look at 1960 papers. Trial was completely bogus.
Like the fact mans thinks law= reality is crazy. How can a movie follow laws but not? Bruh law off the crack
Theater is what the American legal system is about.
@@stephens.2468 I can't count the number of times LE said 'this was a SHOW-Trial." It's not the way the system works, generally but it is the way rights-based trials go. As it should be- the world should ALWAYS watch those. In real life? Criminal prosecution is like 90% closed door settlement, pre-trial or even during trial. Actually justice t should be if anything a lot MORE transparent.
Protestors being beaten by police? In America?! How times have changed...
Indeed. Nowadays they are shot directly...
@@podemosurss8316 love it or leave it baby
oh if only that was true lol
@@zJFGz, The fact that I love my country is why I’m not OK with that shit happening
Love your sarcasm
Saying Strom Thurman was "sort of a racist Senator" is the nicest thing ever said about him
He was proud of being a racist Senator.
He was a senile bastard
Also factually inaccurate. He was extremely openly racist
Nicest true thing
And horribly, he had a black illegitimate daughter. He paid all her expenses while legislating for her continued oppression.
"Not a shining moment for the judicial system". No kidding, and the even worse moment for the judicial system is that this man was permitted to continue be a judge afterwards.
💯
Until the day he died
@@seancasey535 A day that didn't come soon enough.
Seriously?? That’s insane
@@mirawenya Sadly, it's not. Judges are extremely powerful and taking them out is really hard. As hard as cops are to be punished.
"He was always worried that people thought he was racist, and he went out of his way -- in sort of a racist way -- to say that he wasn't racist." At least we know this isn't a new attitude lol
I'd bet a shiny penny that it wasn't new back then, either.
Totally agree. I think people have been trained to recoil at the word racism or being called racist. As a society we agree racism is bad. But in actuality a lot of people are comfortable with toned down racism and microaggression. Sure if you asked them point blank if white people are better they'd say no, but I bet you the same person would spout out some statistic that they are using incorrectly or without context to say something negative about minority groups. So in that way we are uncomfortable with blatant racism and being called a racist but not uncomfortable with racism or bigotry. Like my grandparents swear they "love" all people but also believe that immigrants are terrorists which in an incongruity. And you can feel conflicted that you dont want to be racist but hold racist beliefs so instead of opening their mind they choose to eliminate the conflict by justifying their views as not racist or problematic and they can continue to feel okay about themselves while harbouring hate for another person. It's hard listening to this case but without acknowledging the history and past we cant address and heal and be truthful with ourselves about the abuse that continues today.
The classic popular example, Hermann Göring: I've had many Jewish friends.
@@kchishol1970 well... the very loud quiet part in that sentence is "had".
lmao ikr 😂
Blows me away when a movie rendition is less crazy than reality.
It's actually quite common when film depicts very unusual or extreme circumstances or historical events that stand out by how crazy they were. And yes there is no lack of shit so crazy that happened that you either wouldn't believe, or you wouldn't want to know
RIGHT
@Rotten well I mean, how many people would want months worth of fake footage and to watch a movie that’s months long? Because that’s what it would be like if they put all detail in. I mean court proceedings take months. If they didn’t dumb it down, nobody would watch it to begin with, hence why governments can get away with a ton more now that they’ve dumbed the population down at mass, right? I don’t know guess that’s just how I see it as a 18 year old who grew up before IPhone blew up and before data leakage was bigger than we realized. In all honesty, I would call that an invasion of privacy and think we should get at least a 1/4 of what they make off of our information. Like if Amazon is going to know where I’m at all the time, maybe I should get some of that money. Pay me for my information? I feel like everyone should be getting paid for the information they put out daily? Anyways, just a concept.
I encourage everyone to buy & read the transcript. Insane
thank the movie industry and aaron sorkin's shitty politics fot that, seriously read the transcripts, its hilarious.
I received a pretty good education in high school, college, graduate school and after ... and I was angry when I watched this movie. Angry that I'd NEVER heard anything about this trial or the events that surrounded it.
I agree. I have to now go consume everything I can about it immediately!
I read about it in an encyclopedia when I was 17.
Hey, you, you're finally awake.
You should be angry about not learning a lot of things. Including this. But also finance. I wonder if they want us to be financially illiterate or something so we dont stop being poor. They need backs to walk on.
@@LukePalmer holy shit, is that the course material for a Yale class? Is there more stuff like this available for other courses?
Watching this without the knowledge of the real trial you could easily think it was heavily dramatised, the fact that its the opposite is absolutely mind blowing
When watching, I thought the 4-5 contempt of courts violations gives to Kunstler were movie dramatization... I was shocked when the credits show the real number was 24.
@@1998marijn1998 And it was all overturned and all the defendant was acquitted upon appeal.
@@ShadowMoon878 Great, better late than never. I knew the convictions were overturned, but I had thought the poor people still had to deal with contempt of court violations in any case. Nice to know
This is exactly what i thought, it is incredible that this actually happened
Despite a couple of things being out of order/wrong about the full historical accuracy, and me being a history student who loves historical accuracy, this movie was REALLY enjoyable to watch.
"The report showed the police started the riot" what a surprise that one is
I'm so completely -un- surprised
All I can say is that you can assume something like “of course the police started the riot” of you’ve ever studied history
@@ryant1506 says the trump supporter
In grand American tradition, of course.
I mean almost always throughout history you can look back and see a history of government being the agitator in US internal conflicts. As someone who first hand went to several of the riots these past few years who didn't take part in any level of violence I can tell you this still holds true, very often undertrained police escalate the situations by striking or gassing protestors who are already on edge and that sends them over the edge. I saw literally random people getting gassed or pepper sprayed or shot with rubber bullets. There was an off duty EMT who literally only showed up to help anyone who would be injured who got hit with a baton because she was trying to help someone and didn't clear out of an area in a timely manner according the the officer.
- Are you showing contempt of the court? - No, your honour, I'm trying hard to hide it.
Nice
The insane thing about this is that movies usually exaggerate historical events to make them more interesting. This movie dialed everything back to make them seem more believable.
sometimes reality is way weirder than fiction
@@aninfinitelyvixxedvip6 Often it is.
Like Missisipi burning. Boy, the real trial is waaaay crazier and gory!
search Joe Arridi trial . The most disgusting trial all time
@@goblincomic4522 Will I be able to sleep afterwards?
“He is here without legal representation” “I don’t care for your general tone” I’m with the Yuppies in this one. This judge is a joke.
I mean Yippies
@@arturoaguilar6002 To be fair, I’m pretty sure Yuppies agree with the sentiment too.
I will never understand how his law license by unknowingly and unjustly going directly against the Constitution by holding a trail while refusing a defendant’s right to a lawyer
This movie was a joke. It was very historically inaccurate.
@@NeoConNET7 ... oh sure yeah youbetcha. weird you don't offer any reasons why your post isn't shitty rando
This can probably go down in history as the most dressed up anyone has ever been to watch a movie at home.
What! You mean you don't dress in suit and tie to watch movies at home?
And you can relax in affordable style as well by using promo code legaleagle with Indochino.
@@therawrpie not unless it’s one of those T shirts with a suit and tie pasted on the front
@@adamplentl5588 Nice. XD
When you have comfortable clothes, being dressed up isn't.
I object to describing Thurmond as "sort of racist". There's definitely no "sort of" needed in this sentence. He was very racist.
To call him racist would be an understatement. He caused systemic racism to worsen exponentially
We are talking about someone who left the Democratic Party because it wasn't racist enough for him.
@@darkseid1975 he was a Goldwater Republican. Meaning when the Republicans took over the racist policies to take over the south, he switched to be a part of it. Racist af.
I'm not racist. I can't be racist. I have a Jewish lawyer. Also, my housekeeper is Mexican and my daughters math tutor is Oriental. And I like that one Louis Armstrong song.
Thurmond was sort of racist in the way Ostriches are sort of birds. Im sure you can find someone dumb enough to make the argument, but it's minimum the 3rd most obvious way to define them.
I cant tell you how mad that judge made me while watching this lol
@@FernandoTieppo same, I was literally yelling at my tv at how horrible he was
The fact this isn’t taught in schools is exactly the problem with our history. This deserves to be seared in to everyone’s brain forever so it can never happen again.
Our education system is so useless when it comes to teaching the new generations about parts of our history that really matters. Yeah they cover some stuff that matters but only the tip of the iceberg.
oh they banned CRT now ... I think the current supreme court is another movie in and on itself.
They are banning crt. America is a crazy country.
So the judge was so worried about people thinking he was a joke, that he made himself into a joke? It’s like the courtroom version of the Streisand effect.
Nixon: oh, and we’re out of time for this term, sorry I didn’t have time to end Vietnam! Just cast your ballot and make sure you tune in to my next term to see me end Vietnam!
Very underrated comment ^^
"Oh no, I'm convinced everyone thinks I'm racist! What can I do to make them believe I'm not a racist? I know! I'll take this black man and bind and gag him, dragging him to sit before me wearing chains and manacles! ...What do you mean that's blatantly racist?!"
Turns out, he also presided over a case of obscenity against Lenny Bruce, the famous comedian. I mean, I am not surprised tbh
It's rather insane that the people responsible for making this trial into a circus - the judge, the cops, etc. - never got duly punished for it.
It super is.
The most they did was that about a dozen years later the us district court ordered that Hoffman not be given any new cases due to age and reputation. But he was still allowed to preside over his existing cases right up until his death a year later.
Insane, but completely unsurprising.
and what's even more insane is that the 'murrican judicial system is STILL based off the same core laws and rulings and people refuse to fix outdated notions and tailor the Law towards Justice, not illogical Power.
insane but unsuprising.
I'm fascinated by how Judge Hoffman doled out contempt charges in such a way to try to get defendants to spend YEARS in prison.
And yet we have members of Congress ignore Federal subpoenas to testify and nothing happens to them. smh
@@ktmggg The difference is the Chicago 7 are/were poor and Congress are rich asshole lawyers.
@@ktmggg Its amazing what you can get away with when you know you're above the law and have no shame in exploiting it.
That “America, love it or leave it” sign always blows my mind when i hear someone actually say that about the U.S., almost always they are talking about a person or group or movement that has seen an issue with our society and attempting to fight for change... yet “if you dont like it then leave” is always thrown up, as if it is a valid argument. Why is acknowledging a problem in our society and attempting to fix that problem viewed as unpatriotic by conservatives? Instead of fighting for the end of slavery should the abolitionists have just “left the country”? When women fought for the right to vote should they have all just moved to europe instead? Should the civil rights leaders have just given up and moved to canada? Fighting to make our country a better, more egalitarian society is in itself an act of patriotism because you are trying to improve the country. Yet, without failing, when attention is pointed at a problem, when people try to fix that problem, conservatives always say “if you dont love being in this country, then leave”... oh really? Why? Why do we not have the right to try and change the U.S. for the betterment of everyone? Should school kids keep their mouths shut while they watch their classmates and teachers be slaughtered by shooters? Should African Americans just sit by as unarmed innocents are murdered by police? Should parents who's children are born with a pre-existing conditions be okay with letting their child die because their insurance wont cover the treatment? Or should they try and solve an obvious problem?
That and also the government makes it super hard to leave. Ask any expat what they had to pay to renounce citizenship...oh wait they haven't....they're still paying taxes even though they no longer live here and have absolutely no representation. It's not as easy as "don't like it then leave" :/
So, this is a bit cringe but I love this quote so much, even if I don't remember it word for word. It's in one of the Young Avengers comics, Captain to his sucessor, and it's something along the lines of: I don't love America because of what she is right now, but I love her for her potential. For what this country could be. That's what patriotism is, fighting for a better version of what you have. It's stuck by me and honestly has changed the way I look at patriotism completely.
I really hated when that is used as if it is a valid argument. By that standard, any argument is a valid argument as long as it has people behind it, are those people necessarily going to fight you on a valid and concise basis? Nope, well, they usually don't. The people who would usually have better signs. I really hate how this sign is still prevailing, as it's simply an immediate show of how incompetent you are at understanding why something is being demanded to be changed, what is wrong with it, and that you're simply not making a good enough argument, hence you are incompetent. The solution in big social, economic, political, etc... Problems is never 'leave the country if you don't like it'. Heck, I'd say for platforms like Facebook, people saying 'leave the platform if you don't like the new update' might actually be invalid too, because so many people depend on being on the platform. Same with the United States. It is utterly stupid that someone would even put such a quote on the table, that I'm even trying to look into it to see if it actually has any more meaning than it is blatantly trying to tell you. If it was so easy to leave the country, you would've had an America divided up into so many self-made but eventually formal borders, that you'd realize that what used to be the federal government isn't relevant anymore (I bring this up because with the amount of people that could and would wanna leave the country just because something in the US is not right to them, it might just actually be better for them to start forcing their own independence and forcefully withdraw from the US).
It's said by bootlicking cretins that value nothing more than dominating their fellow man.
It is an intentionally deceitful false choice omitting the obvious third choice that those who say it dont want you to consider: stay and improve/change things.
It would be amazing if political activists were half as organized as they are prescribed to be by their enemies.
IKR, I was watching some DOJ redscare propaganda and it seems like everyone and their dog is a specially trained communist agitator
Abbie Hoffman was actually really successful with a lot of his protests.
If the so called "Radical Left" and generally political activists were even half as organised as the right wing constantly portrays us as, we'd constantly be in power, the right wing would be denied a voice and all would probably be right with the world. They need to be grateful we're not that organised loooooool!!!!!
Objection! Half? Try a hundredth. I would say 'like herding cats,' but that understates the difficulty of the issue. Protestors aren't unified by agreement, they merely share a disagreement.
@@30secondstomarsMBH You mean "all would be right with the world" as the democrats would start another Vietman war like they did before?
The fact that this judge still worked until his death after this trial is insane
it’s kinda crazy that people who hold federal and judicial office are allowed to work until their death, and don’t retire at the average age of 65
@@hotdogwater9060 There is something to say about a politician who no longer has to worry about re-election. Not that I necessarily agree with it.
@@elijahmonroe1367 being held accountable by the people should be the very basis for every government official. Judges should be voted on every 4-6 years. Supreme Court should be the same as well. Lifetime appointments are insane.
Indeed. Lifetime appointments are ludicrous. Our judicial system is corrupt at every level, especially SCOTUS. The ethical violations and judicial overstep that happens routinely in this country is horrendous.
@@grayson0916 Federal judges were given lifetime appointments precisely to avoid judges being vulnerable to public pressure. Court decisions on matters of law are almost never reversed, so they didn't want legal precedents being decided by political actors. Lifetime appointments made judges be able to act however they like without worrying about reelection. Of course, this was decided based on a time when the lifespan of the average person was less than 40. The founders probably never expected judges to last for 50+ years on the bench. Maybe the solution is to impose term limits, but make them longer than congressional seats. Like 10-12 years.
As someone who's pretty well versed in leftist history, I really only had one criticism of this movie. They essentially rewrote Chairman Fred Hampton's death to fit the plot better. The other changes to the real events were forgivable imo, but rewriting someone's death to give a character motivation is immensely disrespectful. Bobby Seale already *had* motivation to be angry--he was being mistreated, manipulated, and denied his rights throughout the entire trial.
Seale was severed from the case before Hampton died so he wouldn’t even be in the trial anymore the movie is kind of a fictional alternate reality version.
yep, I believe they should've included his line from the transcript calling washington and franklin slave-owners. and kept hampton's death along factual timeline.
I just love the fact that Sacha Baron Cohen played a character on trial for crossing state lines to incite a riot when he has previously done that himself in order to film the ending of Bruno
“The closest to a show trial” that’s because it was a show trial
America. They have freedom. The same way Soviet Russia had happiness: On pain of death.
Read in Sacha Baron Cohen's voice
This movie seems tame compared to what really happen in the trial.
It also implies show/political trials don't happen often. I'm in the uk and have friends in prison for protesting legally that if was for any other reason than protesting, the idea of jail would be outrageous. States hate protesters and any trial around peaceful protestors is a political trial in my books.
@@chandler3616 you think that's bad, you should see the Assange trial, they haven't even convicted the guy for a crime and he's already in permanent solitary confinement.
I really wish they’d included the real life exchange where Abbie Hoffman insulted judge Hoffman in Yiddish
Ooooh, do tell more, that sounds amazing!
He called him a “shande far dee goyim”, i.e. a disgrace for the gentiles
Omg - SOOO much pure gold was omitted from this, I’m assuming because Aaron Sorkin probably got jealous that somebody ELSE was saying witty & clever dialogue, but it wasn’t written by HIM. haha Hoffman got an actual charge of Contempt for what the court called “Cursing in Yiddish” I recommend reading the actual transcripts over watching this. It’s not a BAD movie (it’s a tight courtroom drama, that’s very well paced), but it deviates from a lot of the most significant things that actually happened. And Sorkin just skipped over a ton of actually hilarious stuff, and replaced it instead with his own self-serious dialogue (you can always tell from the succinct banter exactly how clever & charming Sorkin thinks it is... in his mind, you just know he’s ALREADY won the Oscar for Best Screenplay, haha)
@@AwesometownUSA I wish the entire 'screw you judge hoffman' rant ending of the trial had been included, instead of the soldier speech.
@@Amitlu case in point: in real life, it was a list of all the American AND Vietnamese who had died... and Aaron Sorkin just can’t wrap his head around the point they were trying to make, and so he changed it to just be about *American soldiers* ... it shows a real self-centeredness, suggesting that the Vietnam war is BAD, sure, but it’s only bad because it’s *Americans* are dying
I was a 20 year old young man during this time and this trial had a lasting and permanent effect on me! I finally knew what kind of a government we had and still have. A great review!!
I know this is a 10 month old comment, but I'm still interested to ask. Has time since then managed to disappoint you even further, or did your expectations drop low enough that everything since fit your expectations? 20 would be an impressively young age to get a lifetime's worth of jaded (I think), but this does seem like an exceptional level of spiteful farce to be jaded *by*...
@@Dabordi I am not sure how to answer this or even what the question is? I will say that in the last 50 years or so, there has been some change but not nearly enough. Too many people who celebrate idiocy, shun the "others" and seek office for power not to implement ideas. I will do what I can locally among family and friends but until a larger percentage of people change how they look at the world, I don't see much hope
It is incredible. We talk about how openly democracy is under threat now, but this and the slew of political murders in the 60s was just as bad. Things haven't changed at all.
@@vanyadolly Even under a “liberal establishment” in the 60s we functioned with the same degree of authoritarianism as today, if not worse given the political climate often lended itself to authoritarianism. Now there’s at least somewhat of an elected opposition. But still, not enough for a governing majority.
I was 21. Maybe an exact description is "scarred for life."
Damn, it's insane and outraging how they treated Bobby Seale. The man was truly a funky, funky cat.
This really should have been a limited series, so much the people deserve to know.
Absolutely agree. I'm glad that Legal Eagle Inc. did the work and refered to all of the other events that the movie missed. For more info take a look at the below: Interview with Jon Wiener, the author of the book "Conspiracy in the Streets" about the trial and riots: www.npr.org/2020/11/18/936164085/author-says-the-chicago-7-trial-reflected-all-the-conflicts-in-america Interview with Aaron Sorkin on directing 'The Trial Of The Chicago 7' www.npr.org/2020/11/02/930380786/aaron-sorkin-on-the-trail-of-the-chicago-7
Agree. Netflix should have done something similar to Ava Duvernay's When They See Us and have at least 4 episodes
@@ashante190 Except Netflix didn't make this, they just bought it from Paramount Pictures.
Imagine if it was part of the “American Crime Story” anthology series. Ryan Murphy and Aaron Sorkin would’ve been an absolute powerhouse.
This channel is a perfect combination of fun and informative.
Really is one of the best of youtube
Yeah it confirms more on how majority rules leas systemic operations. Women Majority vote those ones in power. PERIOD. I blamed Lindon Johnson instead of Woodrow Wilson 19th amendment stop voting restrictions from being gender based but there were voter registrations. And now I just found it the democrats progressives feminist the very same guy put majority rule is one who sent millions of male voters to die. Legal doesn't want the mob for fall of Rome. Or Venezuela or North Korea or Cuba or This voting should be restricted to either or military or police registration Or net tax payers or IQ and judgment standards. Those who fight for contribute or understand not the least affected and easily manipulated
@@osmosisjones4912 wut
It quickly became one of my favorite content anywhere online, and is definitely one of the best channels on KZhead. Between LegalEagle, Corridor Digital/Corridor Crew/Node, Adam Neely, Rob Scallon, and Daniel Thrasher, that’s most of what I watch
This channel totally is a great mix of fun and informative... and remember, you can spell "informative" without "fun"!
So I found out that one of my favorite folk singers, Phil Ochs, was a witness for the defense at the real trial. I did a bit of Googling, and it turns out that some of his testimony concerns an earlier case in which he, six other people, and A PIG were arrested for disorderly conduct when they tried to nominate the pig for president. Kunstler asked him - and this is a direct quote - "Were you informed by an officer that the pig had squealed on you?"
Hee-hee! Thanks
The pig was named Pigasus and when they were arrested and taken to the jailhouse, the police came up to the cell and said, "I have bad news for you boys. The pig squealed"
Where did you find that out? I am curious because my folks had a couple Phil ochs Lps!
Phil Ochs, absolute legend but a terrible tragedy. He was there at the riot in Chicago in 68 and it crushed him. His songs are still some of my favourites.
Police? Starting a riot? You don't say. - A Portlander
Except 100s of video prove the police started no riots in Portland.
Police started night after night of rioting for months on end?
@@JJ-nu8qi sure, buddy.
@@joshuamitchell5530 Using riot gear and aggressive police tactics is known to exacerbate the violence and antagonize protesters. Academia has said it again and again. Police do it anyways despite knowing that.
@@hihiz432 Or it’s just called police protecting themselves? Besides, you’re never going to convince me that just because police are wearing riot gear, somehow that means throwing rocks at police is justified.
I feel like this movie deserves a second video or maybe a video detailing the actual trial of the chicago 7
A TV movie covered it really well, and is a less flashy but more informative telling of the story: kzhead.info/sun/obizicuhg2R-nIU/bejne.html
@@christophermanley3602 appreciate the link
Interview with Jon Wiener, the author of the book "Conspiracy in the Streets" about the trial and riots: www.npr.org/2020/11/18/936164085/author-says-the-chicago-7-trial-reflected-all-the-conflicts-in-america Interview with Aaron Sorkin on directing 'The Trial Of The Chicago 7' www.npr.org/2020/11/02/930380786/aaron-sorkin-on-the-trail-of-the-chicago-7
allthingscomedy.com/podcast/the-dollop/452---abbie-hoffman---part-two This is probably the closest accurate telling of the trial and why Sorkin REALLY messed it up
That movie could have been so much more outrageous than it was. It felt like Sorkin was trying too hard to write and direct in a Hollywood-style
For a college history class on Hoover’s FBI, our group project used actual FBI files that the teacher got through FOIA. One report I couldn’t use for the paper but have not forgotten 34 years later was from a young agent who had been temporarily assigned to Chicago for the ‘68 convention since he was young and could blend in with the protesters. He starts out telling how he was walking down Michigan Avenue at 3 in the morning when he was approached by two members of the CPD. The rest of that page and almost all of the following page were completely redacted, except for the last line. That read, “Regardless of what happened to me, I do not feel that the CPD acted with undue force.” So, he was beaten up by Chicago cops who thought he was a protestor. Amazing what you can glean from a only a few lines of unredacted text!
That’s incredible! You must’ve had a cool college experience if this is one of many things you learned or found out.
And the agent's assessment after being beaten up by cops was that they weren't acting with undue force?? I'm flabbergasted by that conclusion!
you know it's bad when federal agent gets beaten "by accident" and nothing is done
"This was not a shining moment of our judicial system " Sir, our Judicial system rarely has any shinning moments.
Yes, now we are all very much impressed by your bitterness. How very very cool you are.
@@ValerieJNorse funny that you comment on my bitterness while spewing your own.
@@Cissablack708 -- Only toward you. I'm not spewing bitterness toward hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers, clerks, attorneys, recorders, bailiffs, judges, and jurors.
@@ValerieJNorse that's a lot of words for "I'm a boot licker"
no, I think our judicial system is consistently impartial and fair. that’s why trials like these get movies made for them
“Mildly racist for the time?”He was racist.
Does racism exists in degrees or as a binary categorization? He was racist, no doubt. Is it appropriate to qualify it by a relative comparison to the actions of his peers? Calling it mild is putting it mildly, agreed. I’m just interested in the question of relative vs absolute use of the term, that you seem to raise. Can someone be more racist than another when both exhibit racist behavior?
@@chemquests I guess it depends on how you'll want to deliver your point on 'how racist' someone is or if they're simply 'racist'. I always like to think that no matter how-absolute you think the definition of a racist person is, it's still to a large degree relative to a lot of things. A lot of things that can end up changing your perspective on one man being racist, but potentially not being racist by another person's standards of 'racist'. I guess my problem with the absolute approach is that it conflates the differing repercussions that many 'racist' people can have. Two different men can be racist in the absolute sense, but then it might harm one of them disproportionately if the absolute idea of racism is also tied to an absolute consequence, repercussion, or a meaning to society. Though I guess that's underestimating the fact that people will indeed look more into an individual's racist behavior, and make of it as they will. Overall I'd rather go with an absolute definition, but make sure not to tie any absolute ramifications with them, as the individual persons might be dealt with differently in regards to their individual racist behavior, but absolute racism.
@@jinsory5582 I appreciate the nuanced response. I was thinking about whether we’re focused on the extremity of the act or the attitude driving it. One might argue the more or less extreme behavior is driven by the same attitude & it’s the attitude being described. Perhaps they feel the same way & what differs is their propensity to violence, or other factor. Conversely the extremity of the behavior may indicate their commitment to those attitudes. It’s a morbid topic as all racist acts harm society, even minor acts create a hostile environment. If we’re talking guilt/shame ascribed by society, we are limited to punishing actual behavior & we can only appeal to people to change their attitudes. The majority of people I encounter have unconscious bias &/or lazy thinking/habits (parroting their surrounding culture). Those folks aren’t committed per se & tend to curb their behavior in an environment where those behaviors (including speech) are not tolerated. This is why it’s important to me to let other white people know when they’re being foul, because it’s most effective for changing attitudes if it comes from peers. I definitely agree that it’s on the perpetrators, not the victims, to fix the problem ultimately.
@@chemquests I think is more useful to think about racism in different types instead of different degrees; how is it expressed, how do people develop racist ideas, how do they justify it, etc. All sort of things can lead to a person to be prejudiced and associate negativity to a specific ethnicity. That way, we could contextualize the racism of a system, a person or a group and address them in their unique way. We can recognize that a suburban mom that gets anxious when she sees a black man walking in the same sidewalk as her and a violent member of the KKK are both racist, but we can also recognize that they are not the same. No less or more racist, just different.
There is no such thing as "mildly racist". A racist is a racist. A non-black person shouting the N-word to a dark-skinned guy is as racist as a person who murdered a non-white because of the color of his skin.
Nixon: oh, and we’re out of time for this term, sorry I didn’t have time to end Vietnam! Just cast your ballot and make sure you tune in to my next term to see me end Vietnam!
And look, just because I conspired with the vietcong to keep the war going and not enter a truce under my predecessor, and thus caused the deaths of countless American soldiers, I am still the best choice.
@Drew Engel America was no more involved in Vietnam in 1945 than they were anywhere else in Asia. From what I can tell, their involvement began in earnest in ~1950, with providing military supplies and equipment to the French. Furthermore, there is generally a distinction between the First Indochina War which was about French interests and ended in a 1954 ceasefire, and the Second Indochina War (Vietnam War) which was a proxy war between communists (North Vietnam, USSR, PRC) and anticommunists (South Vietnam, USA, et al.). Even then, the American involvement was mostly as supportive rather than combative until the early 60s. Call it 1950, or 1955, or sometime in the early 60s, but I don't think 1945 is a fair point to start from.
@Drew Engel by 1950, the United States was bearing 80% or more of the military burdens of Vietnam from the former French colony. Strategic withdrawal was Nixon’s defining message in the silent majority speach in 1968 to define his administration‘s policies in Vietnam versus the policy of the Jonson administration. Nixon got the protest backlash after the bombing campaign and the invasion of Cambodia.
United States presents was declining all across South East Asia in 1945 but switched by 1950 with the Korean conflict. We had some advisors in Vietnam since the 30s bought me really picked up the economic burden of supporting the declining republic in 1950.
@Drew Engel Arguably, American involvement in Vietnam started on December 11, 1941, when the US declared war on Japan, who was occupying French Indochina. There's no clear lines here.
Objection: I think they look very sexy in their Judge robes.
Oversustained - When you're not sure what to think about this comment
Sustained: Robes will always look awesome.
@Climate Change will Kill us All !!! Bot
Overruled
@@ilRosewood exemption!
Watching this movie with my lawyer fiancée was... something special. Realizing that a lot of this actually happened (especially Seale being gagged) left her almost speechless.
Judges get too much leniency in terms of contempt of court charges, you should be able to be rude to a judge as much as you want as long as you're not directly interrupting or disrupting the function of the court by a large amount. The name should even be different, something like disrupting court rather than contempt, there's no reason that judges deserve implicit respect.
Particularly if the court deserves contempt, and denying the constitutional rights of a defendant is a contemptuous act.
I mean, the idea is that judges represent the law itself, and respect is demanded of all members present in court to all other members present as well. It's less that judge deserve implicit respect and more that everybody else deserves implicit respect... that CAN be tested to the limit and revoked if held in contempt of said implicit respect to each other member. Such as it is, you shouldn't be allowed to be rude to the judge, just like you shouldn't be allowed to be rude to anybody else in court.
_"You're_ out of order! _You're_ out of order! The _whole trial_ is out of order! _They're_ out of order!"
People like that should wake up out of order. Because what the Seven have to say is very important, because nobody's ordering them to say it.
This damn judge is in contempt of court.
How can you be in contempt of court when the court is nothing but contempt?
It's amazing that in America they let judges do that. In Canada there was a judge who asked a rape victim why she didn't just close her legs. He was stripped of his robes fined and disavowed. In Canada, the integrity of the court matters. They don't give their judges free reign to turn them into personal circuses.
@@mikeshoults4155 For real? That's amazing. Do you remember the name of the judge or the case?
I can't speak to contempt of court as a legal matter, but this judge's court was certainly contemptible from a moral perspective.
@@juliec5151 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Camp
Not sure this is what you're looking for but I'd love to see you take on the Central Park Five debacle - too few people nowadays properly comprehend how bad procedure and media sensationalism synergized to convince most people into calling for the death of innocent kids.
thanks for the interesting history lesson
I have never heard of this case. Granted I’m a 22 year old Australian but damn it’s interesting, and disappointed I didn’t know but really interested to see the film.
I grew up in Chicago with a good education, and I've never heard of this either, not even in regards to the recent repetition of this type of thing in the US the last two years. Shocking.
@@hannahjoy4857 The US has a frustratingly bad habit of ignoring the parts of its past that are uncomfortable to tell.
Most of America didn't know (and some still choose not to) before this film. It's why Florida's attempts to erase Black history is so harmful: books like The New Jim Crow and Patriarchy Blues are being banned left and right, putting us in danger of going back to when things were far worse for us. It's easy to dehumanize a group of people when you take their history away
There are a lot of judges in this country who still act like that. They won't physically muzzle you, but they will abuse the law with their racism and disdain of the poor.
Judges and Suits in general...
It's hard to have faith in a judicial system that gives impunity to it's judges. Kind of destroys all of its credibility.
and two got put on the suprem court by the orange racist suprem, not to mention the hundreds of others he put in at all levels.
Do a longer version of this, id love to hear more about the actual trial
kzhead.info/sun/obizicuhg2R-nIU/bejne.html
There's so much to this trial, not only in terms of the trial itself but to the period of time it happened, that it deserved at least a miniseries rather than just a movie.
My ex wife was sexually assaulted by her ex. During the trial her attacker threatened her in court and the judge gave him 5 years for contempt in the first 20 minutes of the trail. The guy ended up being sentenced to 35 years for a shopping list of charges.
Well your ex-wife was incredibly lucky to have her case assigned to that udge in that courthouse. The system certainly doesn't veer towards these just outcomes, let alone guarantee them. Put even the biggest ass in a nice suit and your judge, more likely than not, might even describe them, even when obviously guilty, as a "nice young man" making a "misstep" or call for lenience from the jury. Seen this in too many transcripts and reports. So at least this asshole got what was coming - but SA, without accompanying obvious misbehaviour in court or other charges, renders a conviction, let alone adequate consequences, far too rarely. Glad there are some cases that go justly, even when the harm's already done.
@@kaywolf1520 well her class mates her own family claimed she was making it updespite the evidence the video tapes he took of his crimes people said all kinds of horrible things.
I wonder what year it was and whether her ex had priors. I had an outcry witness, a weapon used against me by 2 men as well as it qualifying as a kidnap but the cops doctored up the report ensuring it would never go to trial. I have never seen justice for the crime against me. But then I was not married and it was around the time of E. Jean's.
For those who want to know the outcome, all of the defendants were acquitted by the jury on the conspiracy charges and only 5 of them were convicted of inciting a riot. All those convictions were overturned on appeal on the grounds of denial of due process (being denied counsel and counsel being denied an opportunity to screen the jury pool for racial and cultural bias). The Justice Department decided not to retry the case and dropped the charges. In addition, all contempt charges issued by Judge Hoffman were also overturned on appeal with the Court of Appeals ruling that the personal nature of the contempt charges meant that they should've been tried by a separate judge, not Judge Hoffman. In the end, none of them served any jail time or fines for the contempt charges.
yay?
So all of that trial was, pretty much, a big waste of time for everyone involved? Just an excuse for the judge to flex his power? Yep. Show trial.
@@BigLord Just like the movie said, it was a political trial. A show of power.
@@BigLord -- No question that the judge "flexed his power," but you sound like you think the judge brought the charges and arranged the trial. Other people did that.
there were so many counts of Contempt Of Court because the court, itself, was contemptable, what else is to be done but to be contemptuous?
Sometimes, the correct responce to Zeus winding up to lightning bolt you dead is to spit in his face. From hell's heart, I stab at thee.
It reminds me of the famous Transformers court scene “I have nothing but contempt for this court”
All of the contempt citations over six months were reversed along with all of the convictions by the appeals court just seven months after conviction. Any contempt citation over six months was decided by appeals to require their own trial. The Justice Department took one look at that ruling and for once made the right move of not going anywhere that with retrials. Nothing ever got near en banc by the seventh circuit or a supreme court ruling; the entire prosecution and trial were just that bad. Also notable in the appeals ruling, the FBI was running surveillance on the defense attorneys the entire trial. Some of things the FBI did required warrants and they did not even apply for them. What a travesty.
Bleh, typo in the above. All of the contempt citations under six months were reversed. All the ones over six months needed their own trial; which never happened because the Justice Department wisely went "no way jose".
Me going to a college in the South and having Strom named after buildings... and now we're trying to change the name. Wish us luck
How has it gone so far?
Good luck man!
@@uwucentral8051 it’s going okay we're trying to repeal an act that was put in place that doesn’t make sense
@@edwardlapham5266 Thanks !!
LEZZZZZZZZGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
19:54 You should really check out the new movie Judas of the Black Messiah which tells what truly happened to Fred Hampton.
Truly excellent film. Robbed of the Best Picture Oscar
wat happened
@@sudiptaroy3200 watch the film
@@bothi00 just say haha
@@sudiptaroy3200 fred Hampton was drugged before the police raid that killed him by a police informer. He was drugged to make him "easier to arrest", but like Bobby says in the film, he was shot in the head. Some 90 bullets were shot into the house, only 1 shot was fired at the police
Question: Is there ever a case of a bailiff actually tackling a lawyer for approaching the well without permission?
When I was a vey fresh attorney (I am no longer an attorney), I took two steps beyond counsel desk and the Bailiff took a few steps to the side to block my patch to the judge. He polite reminded me to ask permission first. When I recognized my mistake, asked and was granted permission, he said ; "you may pass".
I would ask how this trial didn't end up in a mistrial for about 500 different reasons, but then I realize: 1960s, United States justice system.
Your daily reminder that you should _kill_ Nazis, not make them officers of the law or officers of the court.
@@JoshSweetvale hi
@@JoshSweetvale Maybe not kill, but lock away in some remote prison, sure
@@sirkiz1181 no, kill is good.
I find it interesting that usually, these reviews are showing how Hollywood tends to dramatize court proceedings, but that this was actually watered down from the real-life drama.
I would love to see you do a saga on historical trials. I eat this stuff up and I find you highly entertaining.
As far as I can tell, all 8 of those people where heroes
They were all traitors who were trying to overthrow the duly-elected government of the United States and destroy America.
@@robertodell9193 lol just like George Washington was a traitor?
@@robertodell9193 They were prosecuted in a political show trial to oppose the sending of troops to maintain a colonial empire in delusional beliefs about communism and a misunderstanding of why Vietnamese people hated foreign soldiers.
"It's like the Before Times." Great. 2021 is now officially post-apocalyptic. Swell.
"Man this movie is crazy, I wonder how much they exaggerated history." *Goes and reads the history of this trial* "Man, this trial was crazy, it's somehow an exaggeration of the movie!"
Funny that Hoffman is voiced by J.K. Simmons in that audiobook. “Hoffman!” “Yes?” Gives me major J. Jonah Jameson vibes
and YEAH, i shouted at the screen "THE BAILIFF WILL TACKLE YOU!" and my parents look at me like i'm crazy (perhaps for shouting in english being brazilian)
I was in theaters and said thos
He really needs to make a series about political theater in the courts. This can't be a completely isolated instant in time.
These videos are a tier above! thank you so much for not just describing what is on the screen but giving a real insight into the time in which it was occurring and offering tangible compare and contrast.
my ap govpol/law teacher really likes you (he also helps with our mock trial team--all trials are on zoom which is weird). this man is like 80 and has met Abe Fortas and was going to have a tour of the US SC building but it was postponed for weather. and the dude really loves your videos. So good job! Edit (fun fact): When Abe Fortas came to speak for his class, one student asked him what his first impression of Gideon was. My teacher was hoping for some great insight, but all Fortas said was "looked like a bum." makes sense because Fortas was known for his candid demeanor
The Dollop podcast did an amazing 3-part deep dive into the details of this case if people like comedy and history.
What's the name of the episode?
@@alishauvais3646 451, 452, and 453, titled "Abbie Hoffman"
This film was absolutely thrilling and equally as horrifying, and to see the accuracy from the perspective of a lawyer only serves to make it even more shocking. Thank you so much for your review!
I have been watching your videos for a couple weeks now; I enjoy how you break down the material in a way your viewers can digest it.
I for one remember the tapes of the protests that chanted "Hey Hey LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?"
6:56 *Objection!* For being a smarty pants by using "who" and "whom" correctly in the same sentence.
Objection! You failed to mention how much I love this film and how happy I am you took my request seriously. Thank you, Legal Eagle!
I just saw this movie today and my initial reaction was, "I want Legal Eagle to react to this". Do you realize you live in some people's minds, rent-free?
Squatters Rights? He owns your mind now?
Binding and gagging a nonviolent Black man in the middle of a court room. WTF AMERICA.
The police also murdered Fred Hampton with some other Panthers while this was going on. Then the police hammered nails into the door to make it look like the Panthers shot at them, but the only shot from a panther was a reflex when he was murdered
Also, Fred Hampton was 21 and lying in bed when they shot him
@Hudson Donald you're saying that like it has anything to do with him being gagged in a courtroom and denied legal counsel
Historian: Johnson admin had a chance to broker a peace deal. But Nixon went behind their back and tried to sabotage any peace deal until he took power.
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461
Yeah, I watched Ken Burns' doc on the Vietnam war, and he touched on that
Interesting. Thanks for the link!
Johnson literally had to be talked out of having richard nixon charged with high treason,
I was waiting for this video from LegalEagle! Love this film, watched it several times since it came out on Netflix. LegalEagle doesn't disappoint!
The movie was absolutely amazing and all the info you added made it even more interesting and incredible!
William Kunsler came to my high school in the 80s. I asked him about Abby Hoffman. Interesting guy. Freaky tall.
@Hunter D Sacha Baron Cohen is 6'3. Was Hoffman like 7 feet or something?
@@noeldown1952 lol, Kunsler was freaky tall, not Hoffman. 🤘
I would love to see a longer episode of you just describing and commenting on this trial. It sounds fascinating.
this just shows how much us judges need to face jail time for their actions. any judge against holding judges accountable is a murderer.
Yesss, I have been asking you to cover this for so long! Thanks!
Pre trial just doesn't seem to be commonly shown in movies. That's so sad. I remember reading groklaw and being fascinated by the legal procedures going on in the Oracle vs IBM case.
There was a serie in the late or early 90's which was in real time over a year, showing everthing that happen before a trail.... Can't remember the name though.
Murder One it was.
You can see the film, "Denial," with the libel suit David Irving inflicted on one of his opponents. Pre-trial has some screen time in it.
It’s not sexy
I want a whole series on this case.
I loved this film for it's spot on portrayal of Hoffman and Rubin, and I was so glad to learn from your video how spot on the legal aspects were as well. Of course it wasn't that Hoffman didn't take the proceedings seriously, but that he understood how to use the moment for his cause. I heard him speak on this issue once after he came out of hiding. He spoke about the effort to "levitate" the Pentagon and how to choose your battles. Sacha Baron Cohen's portrayal was brilliant and spot-on.
“Strom Thurmond, a sort of racist senator” is the understatement of the century lol
I have a question: if you distract someone from doing CPR on someone who is dying, are you then charged with murder?
that's a very specific question, what did you do?
It should depend on if you're distracting them with the intet of killing the person, if you are then maybe it would count as murder. My guess would be that it falls under manslaughter though
Not a professional lawyer, but a healthcare professional. First point (and this is significant and not pedantic) a person receiving CPR is dead. Something happerend before the time CPR started which caused them to die. Assuming both the rescuer and the distracting person had nothing to do with that, then they are not guilty of causing the deceased to die. Second point, if you live in a region covered by good Samaritan laws, then you have no duty to help the patient. Third point, related to the enforcement of Good Samaritan laws, the care provided is only required to be at a standard that a reasonable person with your training and experience would be able to perform. So a person distracting you while providing care would factor in to your response. Final point, with regards to the distracting person, it would be the task of prosecutors to prove that your distraction caused the CPR to result in a negative outcome. This is impossible to prove due to the low levels of success inherent in any CPR attempt. In conclusion, even if there was malicious intent with the distraction, it would be almost impossible to prove that it caused the CPR to fail.
@@JohnSmith-jp5bj @John Smith 1. The Uniform Determination of Death Act disagrees. Cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions is death only if it is irreversible. If CPR can work, the person is not dead. 2. Good Samaritan laws protect someone who helps from liability. They do not protect someone from liability for not helping. Plenty of factors other than causing the harm can lead to liability.
i suppose it can depend on mans rea
Regarding the contempt of Court charges, particularly against Mr Seale... "I have nothing but contempt for this court." -Hot Rod
Excellent! You do such amazing work. Thank you
I learned so much history watching this. I appreciate this. Thank you.
Hovered my mouse over the thumbnail and it said, "The Bailiff Will Tackle You!"
You have been warned.
This is a prime example of why judge’s power of contempt charges should be limited. There’s no reason anyone should ever be sentenced for more than like, a month. It’s a violation of our right to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
I just finished watching Philadelphia with Denzel Washington and now I’m interested in seeing you do a video about it. I didn’t see it in your past videos. Whether it’s been done or not, I’d really appreciate seeing it. I binge watch your stuff. It’s so good!!!
Will you please do a more in-depth review of this. I would love to hear more about this trial.
I literally just finished watching the movie when you posted this 😊 Utterly gobsmacked by this one, a disgrace of a show trial. Thanks for your take 🙂
I was in this movie!!! As a student protestor. Was filmed here in Chicago 😌🤩
I never submitted. Felt that they would probably say no as there wasn't a lot of bald asian dudes walking around back then.
Yay! I just watched this movie and really wanted you to do a reaction video. It's so crazy!!
Thank you. Good vid, good info. Enjoyed the move.
This movie sounds so condensed, it seems like it would have benefited greatly from being a miniseries somewhere (FX, HBO, Netflix) instead so it had more room to let the story breathe.
Can you do the legality of the Tim Allen movie, The Santa Clause?
Yes please 😂
Wish I learned about this in school, that's why I appreciate this channel!
I remember trying to understand this trial when I was young. So convoluted and crazy...