B
@lawyerbrent.bsky.social
Sometimes, I sits and thinks. Sometimes, I just sits.
Wannabe ski bum one day. I sue bullies until then.
Wannabe ski bum one day. I sue bullies until then.
I like the part where she says people can live how they choose, as if large portions of their agenda isn’t to stop people from living their lives. Like the entire LGTBQ community.
November 26, 2025 at 4:11 PM
I like the part where she says people can live how they choose, as if large portions of their agenda isn’t to stop people from living their lives. Like the entire LGTBQ community.
A confirmation hearing from whatever hack is next served up would be very interesting. Lots of fodder to ask about; potentially a less rubber-stamp majority.
November 25, 2025 at 7:06 PM
A confirmation hearing from whatever hack is next served up would be very interesting. Lots of fodder to ask about; potentially a less rubber-stamp majority.
This why the privilege must be asserted on a question by question basis. Blanket assertions don’t work. Bring her ass to the committee; work the topics. Some maybe there’s a privilege; others not so much.
November 23, 2025 at 6:56 AM
This why the privilege must be asserted on a question by question basis. Blanket assertions don’t work. Bring her ass to the committee; work the topics. Some maybe there’s a privilege; others not so much.
I’m 1,000 % on Stephanie and Joyce’s side on the overall topic. But my understanding of the privilege is that if she was convicted of crimes X to Z, she loses the privilege to the extent her answers could only go to X to Z. But if there’s an unindicted crime B, she might have the privilege.
November 23, 2025 at 6:54 AM
I’m 1,000 % on Stephanie and Joyce’s side on the overall topic. But my understanding of the privilege is that if she was convicted of crimes X to Z, she loses the privilege to the extent her answers could only go to X to Z. But if there’s an unindicted crime B, she might have the privilege.
He was a great businessman, a great community leader, a great friend, and most of all, a great husband and father. He did it all right. Too young, but one too emulate.
November 22, 2025 at 6:07 AM
He was a great businessman, a great community leader, a great friend, and most of all, a great husband and father. He did it all right. Too young, but one too emulate.
Woah. You must like to stomp on anthills too. Be careful; down that road there be dragons. But while you are at it, can a J.D. go by Dr.?
November 21, 2025 at 10:45 PM
Woah. You must like to stomp on anthills too. Be careful; down that road there be dragons. But while you are at it, can a J.D. go by Dr.?
They should recall the weighty words of Justice Robert H. Jackson at the Nuremberg Trials in his opening and closing. Especially: “If you were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would be as true to say that there has been no war, there are no slain, there has been no crime.”
November 21, 2025 at 2:52 AM
They should recall the weighty words of Justice Robert H. Jackson at the Nuremberg Trials in his opening and closing. Especially: “If you were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would be as true to say that there has been no war, there are no slain, there has been no crime.”
3 Trump Towers in Saudi Arabia? "Guess we can fuck up your skyline too." Cold blooded 9/11 joke.
November 20, 2025 at 11:11 PM
3 Trump Towers in Saudi Arabia? "Guess we can fuck up your skyline too." Cold blooded 9/11 joke.
So.... she is walking herself back into the missing transcript issue. If this was "repackaged" and it went back to the grand jury to be voted on, that would be reflected in the transcript of the grand jury. But it's not there. So she is making that an issue again. Idiot.
November 20, 2025 at 9:01 PM
So.... she is walking herself back into the missing transcript issue. If this was "repackaged" and it went back to the grand jury to be voted on, that would be reflected in the transcript of the grand jury. But it's not there. So she is making that an issue again. Idiot.
IOW, if 99.9% of ppl believe gravity exists, the statement "gravity exists" is not divisive because some weirdo believes otherwise. That's not division; that's consensus. The overwhelming consensus is that swastikas are an ugly symbol of hate. So there is no "potential" for it to be "divisive".
November 20, 2025 at 8:36 PM
IOW, if 99.9% of ppl believe gravity exists, the statement "gravity exists" is not divisive because some weirdo believes otherwise. That's not division; that's consensus. The overwhelming consensus is that swastikas are an ugly symbol of hate. So there is no "potential" for it to be "divisive".
Calling swastikas "potentially divisive" is an abuse of language. "Divisive" implies two legitimate camps w/ substantial support on each side - like debates over tax policy. Calling them "divisive" implies two legitimate sides of a debate; it normalizes deviancy that is near universally condemned.
November 20, 2025 at 8:31 PM
Calling swastikas "potentially divisive" is an abuse of language. "Divisive" implies two legitimate camps w/ substantial support on each side - like debates over tax policy. Calling them "divisive" implies two legitimate sides of a debate; it normalizes deviancy that is near universally condemned.
She probably had to practice that line in front of a mirror to make sure she didn't slip and say "uppity".
November 20, 2025 at 7:33 PM
She probably had to practice that line in front of a mirror to make sure she didn't slip and say "uppity".
This is why litigation is left to lawyers who know what they are doing in court. She’s just bumping around in the dark. The Comments to ABA Model Rule 1.1 on Rules of Professional Conduct make clear she acted unethically by undertaking this task without the requisite competence.
November 20, 2025 at 2:01 AM
This is why litigation is left to lawyers who know what they are doing in court. She’s just bumping around in the dark. The Comments to ABA Model Rule 1.1 on Rules of Professional Conduct make clear she acted unethically by undertaking this task without the requisite competence.
In the law this is known by the Latin phrase “clusterfuck.”
November 20, 2025 at 1:23 AM
In the law this is known by the Latin phrase “clusterfuck.”
Great line. I'm confused though, what does this have to do with Business? It's website states, "FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street." So... why is this on there?
November 20, 2025 at 12:21 AM
Great line. I'm confused though, what does this have to do with Business? It's website states, "FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street." So... why is this on there?
Crime/Fraud exception? Sure seems like they are perpetuating a fraud on the court.
November 19, 2025 at 4:18 PM
Crime/Fraud exception? Sure seems like they are perpetuating a fraud on the court.
“These people did awful things with this awful person, but the whole thing is a hoax and not true.”
November 18, 2025 at 6:13 PM
“These people did awful things with this awful person, but the whole thing is a hoax and not true.”
But wait... does it involve Democrats who did stuff on Epstein island? Or is it all a hoax and nothing bad happened at all? Did Clinton, Reid Hoffman, etc. have underage girls trafficked to them? If so, then why is Trump personally letting Maxwell off if she did that bad stuff for Democrats?
November 14, 2025 at 3:43 PM
But wait... does it involve Democrats who did stuff on Epstein island? Or is it all a hoax and nothing bad happened at all? Did Clinton, Reid Hoffman, etc. have underage girls trafficked to them? If so, then why is Trump personally letting Maxwell off if she did that bad stuff for Democrats?
Surely he asked the obvious follow up question, "How is this different than Texas?" Right? I mean, right?
November 14, 2025 at 2:49 AM
Surely he asked the obvious follow up question, "How is this different than Texas?" Right? I mean, right?
Everything I have seen is that it has to go through the usual route of Senate -> White House. But not sure what the operative text of what they are voting on is. I suppose it could be to approve a House Subpoena required DOJ to give to House, but Trump can tie that up in court contesting.
November 12, 2025 at 10:19 PM
Everything I have seen is that it has to go through the usual route of Senate -> White House. But not sure what the operative text of what they are voting on is. I suppose it could be to approve a House Subpoena required DOJ to give to House, but Trump can tie that up in court contesting.
Agree, but there's no chance we will know until after 2028. Even if the House takes up the discharge petition and passes something, it has to pass the Senate + filibuster. Will it? Who knows. But there's about a 2,432% chance Trump vetoes the thing if it clears both chambers so this is all DOA.
November 12, 2025 at 8:56 PM
Agree, but there's no chance we will know until after 2028. Even if the House takes up the discharge petition and passes something, it has to pass the Senate + filibuster. Will it? Who knows. But there's about a 2,432% chance Trump vetoes the thing if it clears both chambers so this is all DOA.
Timing suggests a tactical release. Defendants always do this in civil suits. Dump a lot of junk; withhold the really damning stuff. After complaints, they point to all the stuff they already produced. Watch for if they say discharge petition/vote no longer needed because files already released.
November 12, 2025 at 6:14 PM
Timing suggests a tactical release. Defendants always do this in civil suits. Dump a lot of junk; withhold the really damning stuff. After complaints, they point to all the stuff they already produced. Watch for if they say discharge petition/vote no longer needed because files already released.
As a lifelong Cowboys fan, I cannot imagine a greater thrill than beating our most hated rival in a stadium named for my most hated person.
November 8, 2025 at 6:06 PM
As a lifelong Cowboys fan, I cannot imagine a greater thrill than beating our most hated rival in a stadium named for my most hated person.
As a jurisprudential matter, this is just ridiculous. The Court is not required to wade into these waters at this stage. I'm shocked at how little Roberts cares about his legacy. He has to know history will not look kindly upon what the Court has doing. Guess he's cool with being Taney-light.
November 6, 2025 at 9:29 PM
As a jurisprudential matter, this is just ridiculous. The Court is not required to wade into these waters at this stage. I'm shocked at how little Roberts cares about his legacy. He has to know history will not look kindly upon what the Court has doing. Guess he's cool with being Taney-light.
Maybe he is going to use this to argue for killing the filibuster and reopening government? Shutdown hurting R’s would advance his demand to do so. But does seem off-message; thought his message would be 100% fraud/rigged elections to justify electoral restrictions.
November 5, 2025 at 3:34 AM
Maybe he is going to use this to argue for killing the filibuster and reopening government? Shutdown hurting R’s would advance his demand to do so. But does seem off-message; thought his message would be 100% fraud/rigged elections to justify electoral restrictions.