She's clearly somewhat intelligent - it's hard to imagine she can figure out how to become a billionaire through social media and reality TV and all of these businesses but can't remember the difference between attempted murder and conspiracy after 5 years of practice.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49409664)

And if we don’t have a social media post from her by 5:05 PST it’s PP confirmed

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49409988)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49411230)

https://x.com/tmz/status/1987273266008850686?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49412958)

I remember reading a couple years ago how Delaware was revamping their exam, which I think was the hardest to pass in the country, with California, to make it easier because they weren’t getting enough minorities

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49413058)

They're all billionaires and have successful businesses, Kim is hosting SNL and getting acting gigs, Kylie has a song, etc. Kim is fighting for criminal justice reform with the president and visiting prisons.

They produce their own show now so the narrative is that they're all super hard working, smart business women.

Turns out - no, they're not. Kim can't pass the bar exam after studying for 5 years. Her successful "business" is just ripping off Spanx and promoting it on her social media. She's not that great - turns out, when she has to do something anonymously on merit - she's in the bottom 1/3 of idiots taking the bar exam in California.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49413199)

https://imagez.tmz.com/image/ac/4by3/2025/08/28/acb10df826464eae9ef39d0cae67699f_md.jpg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49413912)

https://x.com/PopBase/status/1988107487606980882?s=20

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49429933)

par for the course for a major developer. no POTUS has ever had the business dealings or the business successes Trump has. that's just an objective fact.

and oh by the way he's also had massive success in building golf courses. and in running a wildly successful tv show. and in jumping into politics and winning his very first race -- the 2016 POTUS race.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49432843)

https://x.com/dom_lucre/status/1990926042232447230?s=61

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49442492)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G6E9DhPWwAA928Y?format=jpg&name=900x900

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49442757)

https://x.com/kepochnik/status/2052029414959911354?s=46

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49869361)

Is it really possible that some of this shit is just unpassable for a tepid IQ person no matter how hard they try? Is it more likely she's too busy taking drugs and selfies and shit to really study, or is she simply incapable of passing?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49869404)

Nearly all of those people are in that right tail.

Still, I wouldn't overly discount that Kim (and many others who fail) probably weren't concentrating and working hard on passing 40 hours a week, without phones, without distractions, going through flash cards, writing out practice essays, critically thinking about mistakes, etc. All of that stuff is hard and takes time and sustained effort.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49869505)

(As an aside, Kim should have taken the Illinois bar or something else. IIRC from my bar-taking days, in Illinois, you could get a bottom 5% score on all essays and still pass if you answered 80% of MBE questions correctly. Several other states were like that, too. Answering 80% of MBE questions correctly wasn't outlandish for a smart bro who studied hard for a few weeks.)

Just 9% of California bar takes from unaccredited schools pass. (https://publications.calbar.ca.gov/law-school-profile/california-bar-exam-pass-rates) The number rises to 27% for California accredited schools and 67% for ABA acreddited schools.

The Cal accreddited schools have median LSATs in the 140s. E.g., University of La Verne College of Law had the most Bar takers among Cal accreddited schools. (https://www.calbar.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/July-2025-CBX-Statistics.pdf) Its LSAT 25-50-75 is 142-145-147. (https://law.laverne.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ulv_01_61617a_.pdf) Nearly everyone who takes the LSAT has graduated or will graduate from a 4 year college. A 145 LSAT probably correlates to a 90-100 IQ. 37% of first-time Bar takers from La Verne passed. 0 of 41 repeat takers passed.

The big caveat in your poast is the taker applying himself/herself for 6 months. I think a lot of the people who fail would pass if they worked diligently for 6 months. But they aren't doing that due to life commitments (work, family), a general inability or unwillingness to do so (putting down the phone and concentrating for several hours every day is hard), or both.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49869494)

My dad *refuses* to believe--and I have sworn up and down to him--that there are criminal defendants who cannot under any circumstances, no matter how much time is invested, be prepped to a +EV state as a witness on their own behalf.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49869497)

What do you think the relationship is between IQ and likeability (or EQ or rizz or something like that) in terms of getting a defendant to be +EV for testifying?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49869515)

The problem is that applying the filter of "on trial for serious federal felony [x]" is pretty brutal. By which I mean, why is this high-IQ dude charged, and why is he going to trial? The answer is probably not good.

I also say this about factually innocent clients. Obviously on a pre-indictment representation, factual innocence is great. But when you're picking up a CJA appointment for an already charged factually innocent client... why did this dude get charged? There are several common reasons--because he's a total fucking scumbag, because (in a sex case) he's got 413/414 material, because he gave a statement and acted weird/guilty/creepy as fucking shit, because he was factually guilty of some other crime, etc.--and none of them are particularly conducive to getting a jury to push the NG button. I had a case several years back where the government's proof totally collapsed, they lost one count at halftime and the judge seriously considered tossing the whole case, and we pled the dude right before closings; we talked to the jury, and literally all 14 were 100% for G (the way juries work is that they go from NG to G during deliberations, not the other way around, sidney lumet fantasies notwithstanding) and were pissed off at the deal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5794550&forum_id=2#49870828)