Not super surprised. While them trying to question Johnny's original lawyer didnt get them a ton (because attorney-client privilege was invoked for damn near everything Amber's team asked), one of the few things they did get out of him was that, oh hell yes, he was absolutely talking to Youtubers for getting info to the public. And scuttlebutt is that a lot of the media people and Amber's lawyers were absolutely seething over that fact, because how very dare he go to anyone but journalist.
That sounds to be a rumor that will likely never be proven either way. There are other possibilities at play here that others have pointed out in the tweet replies.
One is that there could have been some bad actors mass reporting the livestream. Another is youtube's algorithm selectively shut down streams covering the trial (which I believe also happened during other widely watched live events like one of the 2020 presidential debates).
This guy got his start on Rekieta's livestream of the Rittenhouse trial, complained that youtube was taking away subscribers when actually they left because he's just annoying, and now was restreaming Rekieta's stream and talking over it, which is a dick move.
So I don't give a shit whether his stream got shut down or why.
Same deal with Legal Bytes, got known for being on Rekieta's stream, went off and copied it and gets promoted because it's far left version (she and her panel are pro-Turd).
...although Rekieta dropped the ball by reading superchats instead of actually talking with his guest lawyers, which is what people actually wanted to hear.
Same deal with Legal Bytes, got known for being on Rekieta's stream, went off and copied it and gets promoted because it's far left version (she and her panel are pro-Turd).
Legal Bytes and nearly her whole panel have been pro-Depp and anti-Heard from the start.
Uncivil Law has a weakness for women and a tendency to play devil's advocate, so I'm sure there was a point where he could have been considered pro-Heard, though I doubt it was very long.
Somehow the two times I popped on they were pro-Turd for tens of minutes, one time with some woke nurse on Dr Curry that it was 'inappropriate' to use medical diagnoses in court because medicine is for helping people and so on, with lots of pro-Turd superchats. Other time I scrubbed to some discussion parts and the takeaway was Amber heard's testimony was so bad they couldn't take her side anymore, and lots of pro-Amber superchats.
You can’t just take down an Elven Prince like Runkle!
Not super surprised. While them trying to question Johnny's original lawyer didnt get them a ton (because attorney-client privilege was invoked for damn near everything Amber's team asked), one of the few things they did get out of him was that, oh hell yes, he was absolutely talking to Youtubers for getting info to the public. And scuttlebutt is that a lot of the media people and Amber's lawyers were absolutely seething over that fact, because how very dare he go to anyone but journalist.
That sounds to be a rumor that will likely never be proven either way. There are other possibilities at play here that others have pointed out in the tweet replies.
One is that there could have been some bad actors mass reporting the livestream. Another is youtube's algorithm selectively shut down streams covering the trial (which I believe also happened during other widely watched live events like one of the 2020 presidential debates).
This guy got his start on Rekieta's livestream of the Rittenhouse trial, complained that youtube was taking away subscribers when actually they left because he's just annoying, and now was restreaming Rekieta's stream and talking over it, which is a dick move.
So I don't give a shit whether his stream got shut down or why.
Same deal with Legal Bytes, got known for being on Rekieta's stream, went off and copied it and gets promoted because it's far left version (she and her panel are pro-Turd).
...although Rekieta dropped the ball by reading superchats instead of actually talking with his guest lawyers, which is what people actually wanted to hear.
Legal Bytes and nearly her whole panel have been pro-Depp and anti-Heard from the start.
Uncivil Law has a weakness for women and a tendency to play devil's advocate, so I'm sure there was a point where he could have been considered pro-Heard, though I doubt it was very long.
That's good, my mistake then.
Somehow the two times I popped on they were pro-Turd for tens of minutes, one time with some woke nurse on Dr Curry that it was 'inappropriate' to use medical diagnoses in court because medicine is for helping people and so on, with lots of pro-Turd superchats. Other time I scrubbed to some discussion parts and the takeaway was Amber heard's testimony was so bad they couldn't take her side anymore, and lots of pro-Amber superchats.
So I guess I just sampled poorly then.
What?
What answer?