When I first started watching streams I learned he was a very popular streamer. I tuned in and in about less then 2 minutes I was irritated by how much he was talking and talking about shit that didn’t matter. I feel like people watch the dude just to piss themselves off
@@JuanAntonioGarciaHeredia and they'll subscribe to him, (giving him money) then he bought a multi-million dollar home while complaining about rich capitalist americans as if he isn't also in the top 1%
Hasan claiming a defamation case has *NEVER* been won by someone in court is just hilarious. Especially after all the drama and everyone calling him out for misinformation now, aged like fine wine. I love it lmao.
Clearly he hasn't kept in tune with J.K. Rowling's use of lawyers to keep smacking down defamatory statements. Most of them haven't been in court from what I know, but it still happens.
The man made his living as a self-proclaimed "communist" who lives in a mansion, sleeps with istagram models, and drives super cars. He does pop-politics, what did you expect?
He loves to hear his own voice, he can never go back to his home country because of his career, and he is always talking trash about every government 😅
What’s very clear, some of these people who covered the verdict haven’t watched the entire trial, and do not understand the difference between the UK trial and this trial. Amber wasn’t part of the UK trial, she was a witness. So much of JD’s evidence couldn’t come in because it wasn’t Amber vs Johnny…it was Johnny vs The Sun.
Let alone that the UK has an entirely different system than the US. And the verdict in the UK wasn't "Guilty without a doubt" it was by a judge who ruled more guilty than not in his opinion. All Amber had to do was tell her side and the magazine just proved they had more reason to believe what she said
Yeah, and also the judge in the UK trial took into account the fact that Amber told him she didn't gain anything from the divorce. After that trial and verdict the testimony was proven not to be true.
The fact she would have gotten away with what she did if she hadn't opened her mouth blows my mind. I mean, she should be in jail for what she did to him, as well as other partners, so she still got away with it in a way, but at least now people know and she didn't get to put that money into her pockets.
@@Mysteryz-li2pwNope. He was never gonna reveal had she not opened her mouth. After the abuse, after his finger got cut off, after his former business manager took all his tax money, after her failed attempt to be a widow and take all his property, after his mother was sick he said that he will be divorcing her. Then he went to aid his mother who was dying at this point. She filed the divorce before he could , thinking that she would get him. On the funeral day, he was demanded by A.H team to be in court. Not only that she blackmailed him using her lawyer and extorted 14-20 mil (tax payment of the said amount included), penthouses, a black range rover and many extravagant gifts. He obeyed those conditions as he wanted to get over it not knowing it would backfire on him. The world thought j.d settled the case as he was guilty which was the exact opposite. After the divorce she went to dan Wooten and they formulated a draft defaming J.D. The original draft which she thought was weak and not enough to tarnish his image so she had to reword and rewrite it. And they published it calling him a wife beater. And then he sued dan and his company. She was shut for months cause she was afraid. Due to Dan's political connections and improper justice system in UK, JD's evidence wasn't even reviewed. They even brought up the 7 mil donation lie which she didn't pay a single dime(was all from Elon Musk and people from hollywood like James Franco James wan) and the judge literally said how dare you say such things to a lady. That same judge was caught having dinner with A.H. The case was reopened but they didn't change anything over the previous decision. And then she wrote the another oped which got him terminated from many unexpired contracts. Then only he decided to file a civil case in Virginia. He was supposed to get 10 mil but he settled for a million dollars I think. Now she can't open her mouth but still to this day she is testing him. If she had released the tell all book , the case would've been reopened and she would have cost him a lot more than 15 mil.
We knew it was all a damn lie when she had the nerve to get up there and say that he sa’d her with a broken bottle. But she didn’t have to go to the hospital. 🙄 I agree she should be in jail.
Well, yeah. She is a full on modern feminist in the highest ranks of the "influencer" sphere. Of course she is "The woman is always right even if all the facts are against her and she destroys people's lives in the process." You don't get a seat at the table with the Hasan and QTCinderella types by being rational.
Pokimane reaction basically:"woooow that's crazyyy, the man won a huge case against a female... okayyy this is so interestinggg, hmmm" *thinks about the public opinion of this case and how everyone backs Johny, decides not to defend Amber* "guys this is crazy mhmmm, such an interesting case!" Honestly, she is one of the only people who's reaction is so deprived from any form of happiness, celebration or congratulations towards Depp. This case was so unanimous within the court and outside of it yet she deliberately avoids any term that could point out her liking this verdict in this reaction. One of the most obvious words one could use to captivate this type of refusal and denial without making yourself a public enemy would be saying "this case was so... Interesting." At this point just say you generally hate men. You're not keeping it a secret anyway with yur behaviour on socials.
@@kkuwura he said that no one had ever lost a defamation case in the uk, and said Johnny was gonna loose the entire time until the end. He has more mouth than he has brains
@@HegemonicMarxism that Depp losing in the U.K. to the magazine/newspaper company is analogous to his case against Heard in a meaningful way or that it would have a similar outcome based on our laws on speech being less restrictive than UK's. He didn't know the company reporting story is intuitively allowed more protection due to the 2nd hand nature of how they report. I.e. Amber tells journalist the story then they tell the public. This is why they called her as a witness, to confirm what they said in the article was an accurate reflection of what she told them, and she confirmed that to be true. That would make Amber guilty of defamation, but Depp couldn't sue her in the UK so her admission just exonerated the newspaper/magazine from liability since it wasn't their own statement. So, Hasan, to anyone who understands the two cases, looks like he has no clue what he's talking about, yet for viewers that don't understand the cases he will appear to be informed and the result he predicted was an informed opinion but this trial verdict was an outlier that was completely abnormal and understood to be dead in the water. He even said in a separate stream that Depp was just doing it for the marketing and pr. The guy's "default" setting was install by someone with dyslexia, so his default position is always 'faulted'
@@HegemonicMarxismHis comparison of the UK trial to the US trial. It shows he has NO CLUE what he is talking about. The trial in UK was Depp vs the sun. Amber was just a witness. Lots of evidence couldn't be used BECAUSE it was depp vs Sun and not Depp vs Amber. He, as usual, has no clue about the topic he is talking on.
Hasan conflated the UK trial which was against the sun, not Amber Heard and the Defamation case because, like always, he is too lazy to actually watch something in it's entirety, skims highlights and makes uneducated guesses. @@HegemonicMarxism
Soda's reaction is 10/10 ahah footnote: I don't understand how Hasan says wrong things with such confidence, the UK trial was against The Sun, and it's almost impossible to win defamation cases against a newspaper (also that trial was a bit of a joke, if you followed it)
Hasan is a dumbass in pretty much all subjects. His knowledge on issues is almost always the bare minimum to form an opinion that he shits out on stream or social media lmfao.
Also it was decided by a judge and not by a jury and the rules for evidence were different. And by the way if you read the judge's statement, his decision was partly based on the grounds that she donated all of the money from the divorce to charity (therefore she wasn't financially motivated) , which as we discovered is completely false.
@@fumetsu-950Because Pokimane's brain is only hardwired for knowing how to manipulate her friends and her fans for her own benefit, she's not smart enough to understand legal proceedings
The problem is Amber knew she lost by the time they read the verdict. Earlier, the lawyers were at the judges desk when she had to send the jury back because they failed to put in a judgement Dollar amount. So amber had time to compose herself before this reveal.
That makes sense, both of her facial expressions and of the fact that she's wearing the same "sad victim black dress" that she wore when she showed up in front of the courthouse with the "bruise".
@@chrisneto , if they did not lose, there is no dollar amount. There would be no need to send it back to the jury to complete that amount. When the attorneys went up to the judge, they were told that both had lost and one or both needed amounts. I’m not sure if the attorneys told amber right away in the court room or privately after they left the room.
What is wrong with this Hassan guy? Is he like 60 IQ? He doesn't react to the actually big stuff, but overreacts to things that don't mean anything. We all know Amber wrote the text, what we didn't know was is if defamation could be proven. When they say "yes" to the defamation he doesn't flinch, doesn't even seem to understand the question, when they say "yes" to "Amber wrote it" he goes full thumbnail face-mode and then gasps xD
This 3rd dude, "how to you prove malice?" And he is right, usually its almost impossible to PROVE but in this case, the jury had weeks worth of seein AH lyin in the stand, and the only thing that consistent in her testimonys was the contempt on her face, every time she was talking about JD. With that, the possible malice, is not that hard to prove anymore..
You can prove malice if the perpetrator does an absolutely horrible job at lying that their intentions were good. If a liar is proven they are one, then the intention is clear as glass at that point.
The first amendment does NOT give anyone the right to defame anyone else with untruths. It was almost impossible for him to win and he did. This should tell everyone how bad she really was.
Wrong. The first amendment states that no government shall infringe the right to free expression, among other things as well. This was a civil trial seeking damages from speech, which is not the same thing at all.
@@kalashnikov1343 Freedom of expression includes the right to hold opinions and to express them and the right to the free flow of information and ideas across borders through any media. Expression means not only speech, but may include cartoons, artwork, musical performance, or displays. Nowhere in this intention does it include untruths rooted in malicious intent.
@@RU-vidreplies Wrong. You absolutely reserve the right to say mistruths. The government is not the arbiter of the truth. Again, this was a civil trial. Not government infringement.
One thing to note, malice doesn’t mean the typical use of malice. It just means whether the person who made the statement knew it was false, or acted in reckless disregard for the truth.
@@mlowentertainment The typical definition is the intent to cause harm. In a defamation case involving a public figure, they don’t have to prove that the statement maker intended harm, only that they either knew the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth.
@@sirflappington2484 it is still intentional tho, because she knew it was fake, but because of her hatred towards Depp she did not care if the things she said would hurt Depps life and livelyhood.
@@sirflappington2484your actually wrong, it’s not harm but “do evil” and technically there is many ways to do evil without harm. Very different meaning and wide reaching words. So no your interpretation is technically textbook wrong. By definition even.
@@sphere117gaming You're right that it's evil, not harm, however that difference doesn't invalidate what I said. it remains true that the legal definition of malice differs from the conventional definition of the word. The conventional definition is intent to do evil but legally, evil has nothing to do with "actual malice", after all, if a lie was told with the best of intentions and no evil intended, it would still be considered actual malice in the eyes of the law so long as they knew it was a lie.
I know, but sadly between recording the chats, editing and rendering, it would have taken almost 2 days with my PC, and it was already at the temperature of the Sun with this 2 hours rendering.
100%, the first court stream she glazed over all the evidence and even talked slightly about Amber being a victim. After the beat down Depp's lawyer gave Amber at the stands, she switched to the "maybe they both abuse each other" and was on Johnny's side by the end of it.
I'm a woman and knew from day one the evidence was either staged or fabricated. Not every woman believed Heard. She just made it worse for genuine crimes against women to be silenced.
Another great thing that showed JD innocence. He didn't show up to hear about winning. He waited for the lawyer to call him . He didn't care about what he won. Just that his name was cleared .
@@BrandonDerrick-lj2zr He's back and he is plays King Louis XV in the upcoming Jeanne du Barry movie for your information. yeah its in french which he can speak it so its even better
It's another slippery slope in the US when a client can be charged for statements his attorney makes outside of court. In the past, it has always been upheld that an attorney is not an employee and therefore a separate entity.
That’s a really good point. I had never considered this until I read your comment, and now I’m completely rethinking my stance on Johnny getting hit with that. That is a legitimately scary precedent, because now what’s to stop an attorney who may not like their client from issuing defamatory statements on their behalf to get their client sued…
@@HeavyMorals Yes, they just hire a lawyer, they don't control them. It's always, until now, been considered that Lawyers are NOT employees and can't be confused with their clients. Two separate individuals, NOT interchangeable or controllable.
The fact that JD left the states to be with his friend Jeff Beck ( may be rest in peace ) and actually played with Jeff Beck in concert in Europe . That's how he relaxed from the Defamation Trial and his lawyers were authorised to represent him in court and they consulted with JD on the judgement .
For those who are still unaware as to where Johnny was during the verdict, he had already committed a concert in the UK the same day the verdict got pushed back to
He leached off of Cenk Uygur’s success and fame. Cenk Uygur is his uncle. They’re two of the biggest Hippocrates you’ll ever come across. Hassan however is exponentially more ignorant and full of himself. But as to why people watch and listen to his brain dead takes? I mean, I think it’s pretty evident that the left likes to glorify idiots who talk out of their asses, AOC, Whoopi Goldberg, Greta Thunberg, etc. As long as stupid people are being told what they want to hear, they’ll eat it up until they choke to death on it.
For everyone's knowledge, pokemaine was a amber supporter since the beginning but since majority of public supports depp she switched sides near the end
I swear to god as soon as I saw the thumbnail I was like “This Hassan dude probably has the shittiest take in the world, let’s check it out” and the video didn’t dissapoint😂
Pokimanes reaction be like: “damn they actually made a woman accountable for something. When I do this in the future I gotta avoid this bs, time to take notes”
I was worried about the case as well, but I was only worried that if he didn't win, many people would simply assume that JD is this cruel, abusive, psychotic monster regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
DEFINITELY NOT THAT WAS A MURDER TRIAL THIS WAS NOT BECAUSE NO ONE WAS MURDER. SHE IS NOT A VICTIM SHE A LIAR MAYBE IT'S BEST THAT YOU DO A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THE O.J SIMPSON TRIAL.🙄
@@marleymeuse653 no, her insurance company instigated a settlement where they paid him one million dollars & wiped the two million dollars he was expected to pay her for his lawyers comments.
Captain Jack wins again. Amber durrr will always remember this day as the day she almost beat Captain Jack sparrow! And why did he win...? Sea turtles mate....
28:05 THE UK Case was different. Amber literally dug her own grave and slipped up too many times. All the evidence got piled up, which never happened in the UK case. Johnny’s lawyer literally gave her heart and soul for this. That was crazy passionate. And In the end, Amber’s lies just caught up to her. One after another, everything fell like goddamn dominoes. I’m just glad Johnny doesn’t have to deal with this garbage any longer. And Johnny got a free $15 million. Nice
Just gonna say depp appeared in a new movie called jeanne du barry in France in 2023 which finally came to the US just a few days ago. Yes its all in french but Johnny speaks french so its even better.
Was just as fun as the Rittenhouse case where the one "victim" admitted Rittenhouse only aimed and shot at him once he already aimed at Rittenhouse, pretty much proving the defense's case (You can even see the moment where he realizes what he said)
@@ultranecrozma7449 Watch the case, the witness on stand just has a moment of "oh fuck" and the prosecuting attorney literally has his head in his hands of "Oh fuck this case is over"
