What do you want to bet that this guy also attended an Ivy League Law School

PurpleThrobber said:

HHusky said:

PurpleThrobber said:

HHusky said:

Kaepsknee said:

HHusky said:

RaceBannon said:

HHusky said:

Bob_C said:

Fuck, I even know what that is.

Now all the girls are going to pretend that a "Brady motion" is a commonly seen thing and a frequently used term so they can play gotcha along with Senator Kennedy.

It isn't, of course. A majority of Daddy's nominees are thankful Kennedy didn't ask them about it.

Must

Defend

Everything

But TRUMP

Daddy

The girls aren't nominated to be a judge

Guess you didn't know either

Matchbook law school grad

Race pretends he knew the term.

If he didn't know exculpatory evidence has to be shared with the defense, that would be surprising. That he didn't know the defense tool for challenging the prosecution's adherence to that principle is called a "Brady motion", is not that surprising. Most lawyers don't practice criminal law. He's never presided over a criminal case.

Sounds like a great nominee for Judge then.

Yeah he hasn’t memorized all US law. Unlike the rest of the judiciary.

Nominees for judicial positions should be able answer tougher legal questions than "how many people are on a jury?", Dazzler.

Though - how many people are on a jury, Dazzler?

It depends, Madam.

Didn’t ask what adult diapers you’re wearing, misogynist.

You thought you knew, didn’t you lady?

Don’t take it too hard. I still agree with all your takes on Cheetos.

PurpleThrobber said:

HHusky said:

PurpleThrobber said:

HHusky said:

PurpleThrobber said:

HHusky said:

Kaepsknee said:

HHusky said:

RaceBannon said:

HHusky said:

Bob_C said:

Fuck, I even know what that is.

Now all the girls are going to pretend that a "Brady motion" is a commonly seen thing and a frequently used term so they can play gotcha along with Senator Kennedy.

It isn't, of course. A majority of Daddy's nominees are thankful Kennedy didn't ask them about it.

Must

Defend

Everything

But TRUMP

Daddy

The girls aren't nominated to be a judge

Guess you didn't know either

Matchbook law school grad

Race pretends he knew the term.

If he didn't know exculpatory evidence has to be shared with the defense, that would be surprising. That he didn't know the defense tool for challenging the prosecution's adherence to that principle is called a "Brady motion", is not that surprising. Most lawyers don't practice criminal law. He's never presided over a criminal case.

Sounds like a great nominee for Judge then.

Yeah he hasn’t memorized all US law. Unlike the rest of the judiciary.

Nominees for judicial positions should be able answer tougher legal questions than "how many people are on a jury?", Dazzler.

Though - how many people are on a jury, Dazzler?

It depends, Madam.

Didn’t ask what adult diapers you’re wearing, misogynist.

You thought you knew, didn’t you lady?

Don’t take it too hard. I still agree with all your takes on Cheetos.

I'm not a lawyer. And apparently because you can't answer the question, neither are you, poopy pants.

I answered it. My answer was correct.

You just don’t know as much as you think you do, Mildred.

HHusky said:

PurpleThrobber said:

HHusky said:

PurpleThrobber said:

HHusky said:

PurpleThrobber said:

HHusky said:

Kaepsknee said:

HHusky said:

RaceBannon said:

HHusky said:

Bob_C said:

Fuck, I even know what that is.

Now all the girls are going to pretend that a "Brady motion" is a commonly seen thing and a frequently used term so they can play gotcha along with Senator Kennedy.

It isn't, of course. A majority of Daddy's nominees are thankful Kennedy didn't ask them about it.

Must

Defend

Everything

But TRUMP

Daddy

The girls aren't nominated to be a judge

Guess you didn't know either

Matchbook law school grad

Race pretends he knew the term.

If he didn't know exculpatory evidence has to be shared with the defense, that would be surprising. That he didn't know the defense tool for challenging the prosecution's adherence to that principle is called a "Brady motion", is not that surprising. Most lawyers don't practice criminal law. He's never presided over a criminal case.

Sounds like a great nominee for Judge then.

Yeah he hasn’t memorized all US law. Unlike the rest of the judiciary.

Nominees for judicial positions should be able answer tougher legal questions than "how many people are on a jury?", Dazzler.

Though - how many people are on a jury, Dazzler?

It depends, Madam.

Didn’t ask what adult diapers you’re wearing, misogynist.

You thought you knew, didn’t you lady?

Don’t take it too hard. I still agree with all your takes on Cheetos.

I'm not a lawyer. And apparently because you can't answer the question, neither are you, poopy pants.

I answered it. My answer was correct.

You just don’t know as much as you think you do, Mildred.

Channeling your inner @MelloDawgFS by refusing to answer or use big words.

Fuck off.

Go work on your Russian State narrative homework.

creepycoug said:

2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.

Why would we taken legal advice from you, Dazzler?

You still didn't answer or explain the jury number question.

Or finish your Russian state narrative brief homework.

HHusky said:

PurpleThrobber said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.

Why would we taken legal advice from you, Dazzler?

You still didn't answer or explain the jury number question.

Or finish your Russian state narrative brief homework.

I know you thought it was 12.

Not always.

Sorry, Mabel.

Now you’re a fucking mind reader. You know what I thought

Still unable to answer the question.

Cereal box top lawyer.

HHusky said:

PurpleThrobber said:

HHusky said:

PurpleThrobber said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.

Why would we taken legal advice from you, Dazzler?

You still didn't answer or explain the jury number question.

Or finish your Russian state narrative brief homework.

I know you thought it was 12.

Not always.

Sorry, Mabel.

Now you’re a fucking mind reader. You know what I thought

You're not complicated, Delores.

Still can’t answer the question.

Still a cereal box pretend lawyer

creepycoug said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.

Of course I wouldn’t know, but something tells me that’s not right.

I’ve now officially over-invested in this.

It's a stupid gotcha designed for the stupid in the stupid party. As you suspect, it was never a thing in law school, bar review, etc.

Our crooked cops on the bored know it from experience.

Your over investment is nothing compared to mine.

The lengths you’ll go to run cover for the Biden admin is commendable.

Any prosecutor or defence atty knows this. It is not unreasonable to expect a federal judge appointee to know it as well.

You and mello are incapable of making an honest argument. Keep goose stepping and make sure you lick those boots clean, you fucking muppet.

The difference between the dazzler and me is that I want educated elite attorneys who will follow the written law and apply equal justice as federal justices. The dazzler and the people he votes for want political hacks that act as democratic operatives. Same with their "journalists". An elite educated attorney who had already sat on a federal bench would know about the Brady case. I did. Our mythical attorney didn't. I respect education and balance. Our mythical attorney resents it. We are upset that the Biden administration and federal prosecutors clearly violated giving exculpatory evidence to the defendants attorneys. The dazzler has not expressed the same view, just engaging in defending an affirmative action appointment as he still views January 6th as an armed insurrection. Where is Ray Epps is a question that doesn't concern the dazzler or mello.

creepycoug said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

2. I would fully expect a judge or judicial candidate to know precisely what it is and be able to explain it.

I would expect a judicial candidate to know the principle involved. I doubt there are more than handful of civil practitioners (including judicial candidates) who knew the term "Brady motion" refers to that principle. All the dirty cops know it, apparently.

Of course I wouldn’t know, but something tells me that’s not right.

I’ve now officially over-invested in this.

It's a stupid gotcha designed for the stupid in the stupid party. As you suspect, it was never a thing in law school, bar review, etc.

Our crooked cops on the bored know it from experience.

Your over investment is nothing compared to mine.

I think everyone knows those hearings are a performative circus no matter who is at the table. I'm just saying that if I were being nominated for a federal district court seat, I would have studied up hard on all aspects of being the referee in a trial, particularly the procedural rules and all things related to the motions practice. I can't opine on whether "Brady motion" is a common term or not, but it would seem to me that a fairly substantive procedural requirement that applies to the government and is named after a SCT case is probably a term that is thrown around commonly in those circles. But again, I don't really have independent knowledge of it because I operate 100s of miles from that practice.

It's pretty clear that the federal prosecutors and the US AG know about the Brady motion and decided to violate federal law to over prosecute many of the January 6th defendants. Same with the federal judges that sat by and watched the defendants being held without bail and over prosecuted. January 6 is a huge deal for the left who wants antifa funded but wants inordinate punishment for January 6. This appointment is clearly an AA appointment of a person not qualified for the position.

HHusky said:

thechatch said:

The lengths you’ll go to run cover for the Biden admin is commendable.

Any prosecutor or defence atty knows this. It is not unreasonable to expect a federal judge appointee to know it as well.

You and mello are incapable of making an honest argument. Keep goose stepping and make sure you lick those boots clean, you fucking muppet.

Why are the stupid so likeable?

Despite what the scorecard says, Your guy is doing great, HH. We’re just not as smart as you which is why we can’t understand that it’s not about outcomes. It’s about the symbolism along the way.

Keep licking those boots