[Here's my "statement" to the floppy police:]
This is the most clearly protected form of freedom of speech (qua "fair use") under American law and youtube's own policies: short quotations from a primary source are juxtaposed for the purposes of political critique. Court transcripts are quoted aloud, with quotations from interview videos (that are very much on the public record and involved in a high profile court case, etc.) for the clear purpose of political and ethical discussion. At a glance, it will be immediately apparent that this use of short quotations (in the context of commentary) qualifies as "transformational content" by youtube's standards, and that it could not possibly violate the standards of fair use (i.e., it could not replace the purchase of the original film quoted, etc.).
The principle that has stood since 1841 (Folsom v. Marsh) in the United States of America is that a "reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism."
If we did not have the right to quote the people we would criticize (or disagree with), freedom of speech in politics would cease to exist (along with discussions of religion, morality, science and many other fields) . This is not a trivial matter.
Correspondence with Charles Debarber demonstrates that he is aware his copyright claim is neither legally valid nor morally coherent: he has cynically threatened to follow up this (false) copyright claim with allegations of harassment and doxing (that are equally false) "if" his first claim should fail to get my videos banned. You may read both sides of that correspondence here: