Loading summary
Transcript122 lines
- [00:01]
Joyce Vance
With the five dollar meal deal at McDonald's, you pick a McDouble, or a McChicken.
- [00:05]
Jill Wine Banks
Then get a small fry, a small drink, and a four piece McNuggets. That's a lot of McDonald's for not.
- [00:11]
Barb McQuaid
A lot of money. Price and participation may vary for a limited time only.
- [00:16]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Oh, hear that?
- [00:18]
Unknown
Ah. Okay. Thank you.
- [00:20]
Etsy knows these aren't the sounds of holiday gifting.
- [00:23]
Barb McQuaid
Hmm.
- [00:25]
Unknown
Well, not the ones you're hoping for. You want squeals of delight? Happy Te.
- [00:33]
Jill Wine Banks
How did you. How did you know?
- [00:35]
Unknown
And spontaneously written songs of joy.
- [00:37]
Jill Wine Banks
I so happy.
- [00:39]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Oh, yeah.
- [00:40]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, yeah.
- [00:42]
Unknown
Hmm. Okay, this song needs a bit of work. But anyway, to get those reactions, make sure everyone on your list feels heard with handmade, hand picked and designed gifts from small shops on Etsy. Gifts like personalized jewelry, custom artwork, cozy style items, vintage pieces, and home decor to celebrate all of your favorite people and their specific kind of special. For original gifts that say I get you, Etsy has it.
- [01:21]
Barb McQuaid
Welcome back to SistersinLaw with Joyce Vance, Jill Wine Banks and me, Barb McQuaid. Kim's away, but don't worry, she'll be back soon. It was great seeing so many of you last week in New York at the 92nd Street Y. If you missed it, don't worry. We'll have more live shows soon. And don't forget to check out the new T shirt at our merch store. It's perfect for any season and we love seeing you wear them out and about. It really is fun to see them out in the wild. Just go to politicon.com/merch. Now let's get on to the show where this week we will be discussing the immunity Brief in the January 6th case, the indictment against New York City Mayor Eric Adams and charges against Donald Trump's would be assassin. But first, I just want to catch up with you guys about our trip last week to New York. It was so great to see you live and in person. The 92nd Street Y is a legendary place. I was so honored to be there and it was just great being with you, having dinner with you and, you know, being out on the town with.
- [02:25]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
All of you, it was so much fun. You know, it's never long enough when we're together, right? It's, it's like you get, you know, 24 or 48 hours and I just want to stay with y'all for a week. But we had a fabulous dinner after the show. The production team picked a great restaurant. It was Italian place called. Was it Elio Is that right, Elio? Just really delicious food. I had a blast, Jill. And you even brought a friend along.
- [02:52]
Jill Wine Banks
I did, and I think you all enjoyed my friend Paula. But, yeah, I agree with you. Being at the 92nd Street Y is like a dream come true. It's so prestigious. I loved it. But I think for me, it was. I also saw Suffs, the play, which I loved and was depressed by. I saw Law School Friends. That was terrific. But the best thing that happened to me was I had about one hour free and I went window shopping on Madison Avenue, which is just glorious. And I'm walking along, looking in windows, and a policeman stops me and says, excuse me, miss. And my first reaction was, oh, my God, what did I do wrong? I'm not even driving. What could I have possibly done?
- [03:35]
Barb McQuaid
Sign of a guilty mind.
- [03:37]
Jill Wine Banks
It absolutely was. There's no question. And he looks at me and he says, I just wanted to tell you that I was at your show last night and it was terrific.
- [03:45]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, that's great.
- [03:46]
Jill Wine Banks
That was just the best. And I'm so dumb, I didn't even take a selfie of us. So, Mr. Policeman, if you're listening, I'm so sorry. Next time I'm in New York, I want your picture.
- [03:55]
Barb McQuaid
The sisters are friends of law enforcement.
- [03:58]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
You know, I have something along those lines, too, because after the show, this wonderful woman who was in the front row gave me this great coffee mug with chickens on it that I've been using all week, and she gave me a card with her name, and somehow that got in the shuffle. So I'm hoping if you're out there, if you'll please just tweet at me on. On Twitter or send us something. What's our email address? Is it Sisters? Sisters in law, Politicon.com get in touch with me so I can thank you properly.
- [04:38]
Barb McQuaid
Well, guess what, guys? I just found out that I have once again been the subject of a data breach. My personal information. But good thing. Yeah, you know, it seems like it happens every few years. I sometimes say, well, they already have all my data, but it's still important to protect it. And we wanted to tell you about Aura, which is so important because it's crazy out there. Hackers may have just executed one of the largest data breaches in history, potentially compromising every single Social Security number. Another 2.9 billion plus records were stolen in an attack on National Public Data, a company that provides personal information to employers, private investigators, staffing agencies, and others conducting background checks. The stolen data includes full names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, phone numbers and even alternate names and birth dates. Alarmingly, reports suggest that the hacker group responsible is putting this information online for free.
- [05:41]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
So if safeguarding your personal information wasn't a priority before, these incidents should serve as a critical wake up call. And it really is always something when it comes to keeping your personal data safe. The risks to personal security have never been more severe. And that's why we're thrilled we get to partner with Aura. Aura offers comprehensive protection by monitoring the dark web for users, phone numbers, emails and Social Security numbers. And Aura delivers real time alerts if any suspicious activity is detected. Additionally, in the event of a worst case scenario, Aura provides up to $5 million in identity theft insurance to give you and your family a robust safety net.
- [06:23]
Jill Wine Banks
That's pretty impressive, Joyce. And Aura goes the extra mile by scanning the dark web for your sensitive information and alerting you instantly if anything is found. When ID theft strikes, don't panic. Aura's US based 247 Fraud Resolution Team works around the clock to fix it fast and to get you back on track. Aura truly is the complete online safety toolkit thanks to credit and transaction monitoring, virus protection, a vpn, a password manager, parental controls and more. For a limited time, Aura is offering our listeners a 14 day trial plus a check of your data to see if your personal information has already been leaked online. All for free. When you visit aura.com sisters that's aura.com sisters to sign up for a 14 day free trial and start protecting you and your loved ones again, that's aura.com sisters certain terms apply, so be sure to check the site for details. You can find the link in our show notes.
- [07:43]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
So important to timestamp before we start our conversation about the special counsel's immunity brief because it's now Friday, September 27th at 3:30pm in East coast time. And I bet my sisters, like me, waited all day yesterday, Thursday for Jack Smith's opening brief on presidential immunity in the District of Columbia prosecution of Donald Trump. This is Smith's attempt to convince the court he still has a case to try after the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling. And that brief never came. It was due last night. Smith is not the kind of guy who misses deadlines. So Barb, what happened? I mean, it's still not there. There was reporting it was filed but nothing has been made public. Although we do, I see, have a new order from Judge Chutkan.
- [08:33]
Barb McQuaid
Yes, it was filed under seal. And you know, this really was pursuant to Judge Chutkan's order. But I didn't think most of us, at least didn't appreciate that that meant all of it would be filed under seal. She had said that to the extent his opening brief, which recall what this is all about.
- [08:50]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Right.
- [08:50]
Barb McQuaid
The Supreme Court had said Judge Chutkan needs to do fact finding about each and every allegation in the indictment and any additional evidence that the prosecution plans to use following its immunity decision to make sure that it doesn't include any official acts or even evidence of official acts. And so in order to do that, she has directed the Justice Department or Jack Smith, the special counsel, to submit a brief with his outlining his evidence. But she said anything that's sensitive should be filed under seal, at least in the first instance, so that she can review it and then decide whether it ought to be publicly released. And I suppose she's thinking about a lot of things, you know, just about the impact of the evidence on Donald Trump's right to a fair trial. Maybe she's thinking about the impact on the election. Maybe she's thinking about witness safety. Whatever it is, she wanted to review it first. So it turned out, however, that they just filed the whole thing under seal. She included some pretty broad categories. Anything about, you know, personally identifiable information, grand jury transcripts, government reports, electronic recordings, witness interviews, would all be included as sensitive information. And so it appears that all of it is at least meets that broad definition. So what's going to happen next, and in this order is Jack Smith has said he'd like to file an unredacted, not, not sealed version of this with the public. And Judge Chutkan has asked the Trump team to respond by October 1st, which I think is next Tuesday, as to whether they oppose the idea of filing this publicly. And my guess is, my guess is the answer will be yes. So that's not a guess for sure.
- [10:37]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
So, you know, Jill, what do you expect we will see if we do see it at some point? I mean, how much of it do you expect will become public? Does Jack Smith have an interest in making the information public, or might he, too, like Trump, want to keep some of it sealed? And do you think that they'll reach an agreement, or will the judge end up having to decide what happens here?
- [10:58]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, I'll take the easy question first. Do I expect them to reach an agreement? No, I would say that there's no chance that they will agree on that. Donald Trump's middle name should be Delay. He will fight everything tooth and nail, as he has been throughout this case, to make sure. That the public doesn't see the facts ever. Of course, he doesn't want them seen before the election, which is, of course, already. The voting has already started in some states. My state starts next week, but there's states that have already started. And he doesn't want people to know the truth because the truth is very bad for him. So he is going to keep on fighting this. Do I think we will see some of this before the election? I do. Judge Chutkan has set, first of all, a pretty strict schedule. She said that Trump only has until Tuesday to file any response to the motion that Jack Smith filed to say that he wanted to file a public redacted version where he takes out the very confidential things, and then apparently his appendix is where the bulk of it is. And Trump has until October 10th to file objections to a redacted version of the appendix. And her history has shown that she acts quickly, so I expect that she will rule quickly enough on this that we could see it. And she pretty much shot down all of his arguments on everything. So I am thinking that we will see a pretty good summary of what the facts are that relate to the superseding indictment and why the things that he still has in the charges are all either completely unofficial acts, personal acts of candidate Trump, or why they are rebuttable, official acts, rebuttably immune, and he will establish that they are not subject to immunity in the way that the court said conversations with the attorney general are. Even though I think that was a really bad decision with really bad consequences.
- [13:22]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Yeah. So, Barb, what do you think? What do you expect to see in the part that ultimately gets made public? Do you think that there will be anything? Do you think that there will be a whole bunch? I mean, how do you see this playing out?
- [13:34]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, you know, it's interesting. I guess. If I were setting about to do this task, what I would do is take the four counts in the indictment, and I would list out each and every element of each of the four counts. Right. Because that's what you have to prove to a jury at trial. And then I would list out my evidence for each of those elements. So, you know, for example, conspiracy to defraud the United States about, you know, falsely claiming that the election had been stolen. What is the evidence of that? Well, you've probably got public statements by Donald Trump, so those can be listed. Right. That won't. Look, maybe it's a. Maybe it's a tweet. Maybe it's a speech, maybe it's a statement on a television interview or something like that, I think that will show up. But I also imagine it will include things like conversations between Donald Trump and Mike Pence where he's pressuring him to block certification of the election. And it may be that we get some testimony from Mike Pence that has never been shown publicly before. That is the part that might be considered sensitive information, a witness statement. Maybe it was elicited at the grand jury. It may be that it gets redacted, that, you know, we plan to present the testimony of witness one and the witness one will say the following and then that stuff gets redacted. So I think ultimately we'll see a mix of a list of evidence that we've kind of seen before. Maybe it was with the House committee on January 6 on the attack or other things like that that will be publicly disclosed and then lots of black bars redacting the parts that remain sensitive about witness testimony and grand jury material.
- [15:18]
Jill Wine Banks
Can I just add to that? I agree with you completely about that, but I. The thing I worry about is how he is going to establish that these conversations with Mike Pence, with any of the staff, that he had conversations with any White House staff, were not official conduct. And in part, that relies on. Because they were about the election and his role as a candidate. And so some of this is really tricky, not just because of being sensitive and therefore redacted, but because it goes to the heart of whether it is immune conduct or not.
- [15:59]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. The other thing that I think is super tricky, Jill, is remember that order also says you can't look at the president's motive.
- [16:07]
Jill Wine Banks
Yes.
- [16:07]
Barb McQuaid
I mean, if you can't look at his motive, that's the one, I think that has caused a lot of people to say you've essentially made it impossible to prove a case against a former president about conduct while he was in office. I hope that's not the case. But the inability to look into his motive, it makes it pretty hard because motor, I guess intent is an element that's not quite the same thing as motive. But if you can't consider motive, it might be difficult to prove up intent. And so I think that's going to be a little tricky to see what that looks like.
- [16:37]
Jill Wine Banks
It is.
- [16:37]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Can I make an astonishing prediction here? I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that if Donald Trump loses the election, I don't think that this goes back up on appeal to the Supreme Court before the election is decided.
- [16:49]
Jill Wine Banks
Right.
- [16:49]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
There's no chance if Trump loses, I think we'll see the Supreme Court say, what's wrong with y'all? You overread our opinion. Of course. We meant that any conduct that was, you know, involved in the election and in campaigning isn't immune. How could you silly lawyers in lower courts have ever thought we meant anything else? I mean, I. I really do. And I guess this is part of this whole just sort of mood at the moment about the court. You know, I, I did my other podcast, the insider podcast with Dalia Lithwick last week, and we talked about the court, and I had thought maybe she would talk me off this ledge about thinking that the court has become just a. A political actor in many ways. And sadly, she was even more into that than I was. And, And I really do. I think that their interpretation of their own opinion will depend on the outcome of this election. So call me super cynical, but I would not be surprised. I expect Trump to lose the election. I hope the courts will hold. If they do, and then this case goes back up to them for appealing. You know, six months from now, when we're sort of back on an even keel, I really do think that they'll say, oh, no, no, no, you. You over read our opinion.
- [18:05]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, then Amy Coney Barrett did, too, because remember, even she couldn't go along with the full scope of the limitation of evidence.
- [18:14]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
I do remember that.
- [18:15]
Jill Wine Banks
So I do hope she'll be writing that opinion. I hope you're right. I'm. I. I would love to see the Supreme Court not be as political as it obviously is. But even what you're saying, political that they would. Oh, well, if he loses, then we can be honest and true and go back to what is sensible.
- [18:35]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
You know, it's like, where is Kim when I need her to be out on the ledge with me? So. So, Jill, before this brief got filed, Trump took a stab at derailing the process. The judge had decided on, you know, where. Where Smith got to write this opening brief about immunity. There had been controversy about who got to go first. And we learned something in Trump filing about his true intentions here. What did you divine from that earlier brief he filed?
- [19:01]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, again, his middle name should not be John. It should be Delay, so he should be DDT. Oh. Oh, that's a good one. DDT, a poisonous substance.
- [19:13]
Barb McQuaid
That's such a 70s reference, Jill.
- [19:16]
Jill Wine Banks
Sorry. Well, I was just a young person then. Yeah, I mean, we learned that he wants Delay. He doesn't care about anything except keeping this secret for now. And I think Judge Chutkan's opinion is so subtly Nasty to him because, I mean, she talks about his incoherence and his raising over and over and over again, repetitively the same issues that she has thrown out multiple times. And in, in his answer to the motion, he basically only had one sentence that had anything to do with the over length brief that Smith wanted to file. And the rest of it was addressing issues that were not before the court. So I think we've, we, we didn't learn anything. We just saw repeated the bad behavior of Donald Trump and his lawyers, which I am at the point where I think they're unconscionable and are sanctionable.
- [20:20]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Yeah. You sensed that Judge Chutkan was really running out of patience too. Right. I mean, her language, it was never inappropriate, it was never not judicial. But she really smacked those arguments away, even though they weren't in front of her. She actually went to the trouble of pointing out why they were wrong in every regard. So it was well done.
- [20:40]
Jill Wine Banks
She was very nuanced, you're right. I mean, it was, you know, she said that the extra pages are consistent with what SCOTUS ordered us to do, which was to have this very clear, close fact finding hearing. She said that he was incoherent. She did say incoherent.
- [20:58]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
She did say incoherent.
- [21:00]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah. I mean, so there were, if you picked. But it was in a nice sentence. It wasn't just, you are an incoherent mess. No, I mean, she made it as a nice a.
- [21:10]
Barb McQuaid
As Nicholas would say, you're incoherent.
- [21:12]
Jill Wine Banks
Yes, I guess so. It was all appropriate, I would say.
- [21:16]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
So. Barb, this is sort of, in some ways a question that's unrelated, but in many ways it ties up in a different matter. We see more evidence that DOJ is really focused on preventing foreign actors from trying to influence U.S. campaigns.
- [21:32]
Barb McQuaid
Right.
- [21:32]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
That's the theme that exists in the Eric Adams prosecution. There are now new criminal charges in the alleged Iranian hack of the Trump campaign emails. It's hard for me to see all of this and not think about 2016 and Russia. Is DOJ trying to send a message here?
- [21:52]
Barb McQuaid
I don't know if it's trying to send a message, but I will say that they are becoming much more aggressive in filing criminal charges against foreign actors who are attempting to interfere in our election. As you say, in 2016. We didn't even know about the Russia investigation into connections with the Trump campaign because they were so protective. You know, he talks about how he was the victim of the Justice Department. We knew about the Hillary Clinton investigation. But what we did not know is that the FBI was already investigating connections between Trump and Russia because they kept it very quiet so as not to interfere in any way with the election. I think what we're seeing now is a much more aggressive approach where the Justice Department is filing charges. We've seen charges against Russia in recent weeks and now this week, as you mentioned, Joyce, this case against Iran, who is charged with hacking into computers to steal emails, including debate prep information from the Trump campaign and J.D. vance vetting profiles and then shopping it around to media outlets. It also references, not notably enough, that there was also an attempt to hack into the Biden Harris campaign that was unsuccessful, but, you know, pretty, pretty big indictment charging them with material support to the Iranian Guard, which is a designated terrorist organization, computer hacking, identity fraud, a number of serious charges. The other thing that I think is significant about this is it really helps, I think, to refute the idea that the Justice Department is being weaponized against Donald Trump. This is a case that is protecting his interests, a hack against him and charging those people who committed that hack.
- [23:55]
Jill Wine Banks
This episode is proudly brought to you by Lola V, an award winning hair care line founded by the fabulous and iconic Jennifer Aniston. Frequent coloring, heat styling, relentless sun and humidity put our hair through the wringer. Jen was fed up with the incessant damage and being forced to decide between products that worked and those that are genuinely healthy and natural and beneficial for your hair. So she created Lola V to do both at once.
- [24:24]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
So listen, since her products are in my shower and we're spending some quality time together, I feel like we're on a first name basis with her now. So I'm going to tell you that Jen worked with industry leading chemists to develop a Chia seed derived proprietary bond technology called BE Pro 3. So the Lola V lineup could deliver naturally derived ingredients with high performance results. It constructs a new protective cuticle around the hair where damage begins to keep it healthy and looking its best for an all around defense against signs of aging and damaged hair. And now for a limited time, you can get an exclusive 15% off your entire order at lolavie.com with code SIL15 at checkout for hair care advice, listen to the woman who gave us the Rachel and of course your sisters in law and their friend Jen. Spending the summer outdoors means your hair needs a rescue now that it's fall. So try the intensive repair treatment. According to Jen, using it just once a week is an absolute game changer. The intensive repair treatment is clinically proven to repair and rebuild all three types of bonds found in hair for truly stronger hair from the inside out. It's the ultimate hair savior for all seasons, especially summer and early fall. Outdoor chores in the sun used to leave my hair feeling dry and very straw like. But our friend Jen, she's right now my hair stays soft, sleek and strong no matter what.
- [25:52]
Barb McQuaid
I love that Joyce. You're always soft, sleek and strong. Check out all Lola V products at your local Ulta Beauty location to experience their luxurious scent for yourself or head directly to their website@lolavie.com as our loyal listeners. You'll get an exclusive 15% off your entire order when you use code SIL15 at checkout. That's 15% off your order at Lola V I E.com with promo code SIL15. Please note that you can use only one promo code per order and discounts cannot be combined. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you your hair will thank you. Look for the link in our show notes.
- [26:49]
Jill Wine Banks
As a proud Chicagoan who wants Chicago to win every title, there are two this week I'm happy to cede to other cities. One is that no Chicago mayor has ever been indicted. Suburban mayors, yes, governors galore. But the honor of having the first big city mayor to be indicted goes to New York this week. So we're going to talk about the indictment of Mayor Eric Adams, who's facing some pretty tough charges. But first, I have a question for you, Barb, which is about another city title, and this involves baseball, so it's right up your expertise. The Chicago White Sox are likely to win the record for the most losing games in a season. They're wearing bags over their head in the bleachers, but they had a surprise sweep against Los Angeles this week and are now facing your beloved Detroit team for three games in Detroit. So will the White Sox clinch the title for the worst win loss record ever in your city?
- [27:51]
Barb McQuaid
Well, I certainly hope so, Jill, because meanwhile, the Tigers have come from obscurity to be battling for a wild card position currently in tied for third in the wild card race and they take three. So as long as the Tigers win one of these games this weekend, they will make the playoffs, which is incredible considering how far back they were just in August. They've had an amazing run. They've gone something like, you know, 31 and 11 or something crazy like that. But Jill, I'm sorry to tell you that the White Sox have already tied the record with 120 losses to the 1962 New York Mets. And one more loss would give them the record.
- [28:33]
Jill Wine Banks
Right?
- [28:34]
Barb McQuaid
So I say let's go for the best. Let your team have the title of most losses in a single season and let the Tigers make the playoffs and everybody will go home happy.
- [28:44]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Can I just note that something unprecedented is happening here? Jill Wine Banks is talking about sports.
- [28:51]
Barb McQuaid
Love it.
- [28:52]
Jill Wine Banks
I am. Not only is it shocking, I'm talking about sports, but I'm in that sort of undecided category of do I really want to win the worst title ever? And I sort of do because what's the point of tying it? Let's go for worst. I mean, let's just. And then next year we can come back into something fantastic. But anyway, okay, so back to Eric Adams. Joyce, let's talk about the charges and the elements of the crimes that he's charged with, because it's pretty dramatic stuff.
- [29:24]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
It, you know, it really is. It's a five count indictment. There's a wire fraud charge. There's a soliciting campaign donations from foreign nationals charge. Actually two counts of that. There's a bribery charge and then there's a conspiracy charge to do each of those things. One conspiracy charge, Jill, I think we should say, and something that we've all been talking about is this may not be everything, right? It's very possible that we'll see more. There was this search of Gracie Mansion the morning that the indictment was announced. So who knows what else is coming? But these charges fit together as a sort of cohesive package because what's happening here is this scheme involving Turkey where the Adams people are using straw donors to give them illegal campaign donations and they're getting public matching funds in very large amounts of money. That means stealing from the people of the city of New York who fund that. It's wire fraud because they're using, in essence, computers and phones to execute their scheme. And then there's a bribery charge at the bottom. And that's the one that I think we should focus on a little bit because the Supreme Court's trajectory for the last two decades has been to very strictly narrow the sort of conduct that qualifies for prosecution. Here we are about at the point where it has to be a quid pro quo kind of bribe. Everyone will remember the governor of Virginia was successfully prosecuted and then the Supreme Court reversed that conviction, saying, no, it wasn't official action. He was just being asked to set up meetings. Something similar happened when some of Chris Christie's aides were successfully prosecuted in connection with Bridgate and those convictions were reversed. The same thing happened in your state. You mentioned Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. There was this notion that it was okay for Blagojevich to offer to trade his ability to appoint someone to Barack Obama's newly vacant Illinois Senate seat in exchange for some sort of a promise of a government job that wasn't seen as misconduct or public corruption. It was seen as the sort of log rolling that goes on in politics. So we've watched the Supreme Court narrow it. That tells me that prosecutors in the Southern District of New York who are really very good at this, I mean, I assume that this indictment was very carefully fly speced by some very experienced people. They believe that they can prove that Adams took bribes and in exchange for those bribes committed official act. So it will be very narrow.
- [32:07]
Jill Wine Banks
Right.
- [32:07]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
It has to be bribes, not gratuities.
- [32:11]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah. And it has to be something that is given before the official conduct happens, because if it's after, it is a gratuity under court rulings. So Barb, do you want to comment more about some of the evidence and why you think that even the bribery charge might have enough support to be prosecutable and sustainable on appeal?
- [32:35]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, I, I, I'll speak to that. First, the legal issue, and as Joyce says quite correctly, there has to be a quid pro quo of an official act. And we have seen these cases fall APART like the McDonnell case, the Virginia governor who, you know, held events favorable to somebody who was paying him and we saw Bridgegate, where they shut down lanes, was not enough in a corruption case. I think this one though, I would make the argument that it is sufficient here because one of the things that was the quid pro quo in exchange for all of this lavish travel was directing the fire department to issue a certificate of occupancy for a high rise building. I think that's an official act that is not just promoting something that is a decision. It's either a yes or a no. The building gets certified as safe or not. And even though it was unsafe, the mayor pressured them and they were concerned they would lose their jobs if they did not comply and they did. So I think that allegation is going to be sufficient for bribery. But I've been wrong before about the Supreme Court and Joyce is absolutely right that they have definitely cut away at the way that public corruption cases can be charged. But back to the evidence. You know, this is a, I think it's a 57 page indictment and if you read it There's a lot it. You know, you reading the tea leaves here, there are a lot of direct quotes of things that were said, which says to me that they have text messages and email messages because you don't otherwise directly quote things like that. So direct quotes, that's impressive. It sounds like they have bank records and travel records to corroborate this travel and the receipt of funds. We know there was a search executed at two of his fundraisers, his chief fundraiser and somebody who is a big donor. Search warrants were done there. And so presumably they've got campaign contribution records. And there's also a lot of references to other individuals who are helping him. Like there's reference to the Adams staffer, and there's the Adams liaison. There is the promoter. And so there are all these different people. And in light of the way they're described, I have to believe that at least some of those people are cooperating. Like, there's one exchange that's amazing about obstructing the investigation where they say that an Adam staffer was being questioned by the FBI. She excused herself to use the bathroom, and while she was gone, she deleted all the encrypted messaging apps from her phone that she had used to communicate with Adams. And then somebody said that Adams, when his phone was seized, he. He claimed that he couldn't remember the password, and so they weren't able to open it. The stuff about the staffer strikes me as the kind of thing that they could know only if the staffer themselves were talking, I think. So it seems to me that they've got evidence in the form of witnesses. I heard Damian Williams, the US Attorney in Manhattan, yesterday, during his press conference also say, we plan to hold everyone accountable in this case who's violated the law. And if you haven't talked with us yet, you should turn yourself in before it's too late. So, again, agreeing with Joyce, where there's been reports of other avenues of investigation in this case, including the schools, the commissioner has said he's going to resign. The police commissioner recently resigned. There is something involving a health commissioner. So there are potentially other schemes here that have not yet been charged. And so something tells me they are continuing to investigate those other strains of potential crimes here. And as Joy said, we may see more before we're done here.
- [36:25]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Well, you know, Barb, did you notice that when he was doing the press conference, Damian Williams at the end did something very unusual? Maybe I'm over reading this, but he said there, you know, words to the effect that there would be more coming. And I have often said in a press conference, you know, investigation is ongoing. But he was much more definitive about it, which made me think the one thing he would be certain was about to happen was that either they would be superseding the indictment to add additional defendants, or they would be taking guilty pleas from defendants who are going to cooperate with them. And that's, I suspect, what we'll see next.
- [37:04]
Jill Wine Banks
I think we're unanimous on that, that there is going to be more. My favorite piece of evidence though, was the texting about, well, how much should we charge for this ticket? And the person issuing said a dollar. And the person on the staff said, well, that's ridiculous. No one would believe that you have to charge more than that. And so they ended up agreeing that he would putatively pay $1,000 for like a $15,000 flight. And I mean, I just think that it was so the evidence there is so clearly laid out and so blatant that more is going to come. But, you know, this raises a really serious issue. He is the sitting mayor. He's obviously going to have to spend some time defending himself. And there has been a lot of talk about whether he should resign, a lot of pressure at his own press conference. There were people in the audience yelling, resign, resign, resign. Or whether he can and should be removed either by Governor Hochul, who has the power to do that, or this special review committee that can do that. And then there's this interesting thing about who then becomes the acting mayor. So, Joyce, you want to talk about that?
- [38:21]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Well, I think it's really an interesting sort of an issue. You know, Kathy Hochul, who is a Democrat, her husband is a former United States attorney, one of Barb's and my colleagues, and she herself is a lawyer. So I assume she has a pretty sophisticated understanding of how this works. It's a lengthy process that's never been used before. But she technically does have the ability to remove the mayor. And, you know, she suggested that he should take very seriously his situation and think about it over the next couple of days, it almost sounded as though she was suggesting that she might pursue this process. Of course, that would mean that New York City would be in the hands, at least temporarily, of the current advocate, who's quite liberal. He's described himself as a democratic socialist. So whether Hochul, who is a moderate, will want to do that, I think is up in the air. I'm very interested to see how this shakes out.
- [39:18]
Jill Wine Banks
Barb, any thing to add?
- [39:20]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, it's very interesting. You Know, when someone is simply accused of a crime, that is not a conviction, they are presumed innocent. And so in some ways, I feel like the people of New York who elected him to this position ought to have their votes fulfilled by his service. On the other hand, these are very serious allegations that are going to occupy a lot of his time. In some ways. If they are going to get the benefit of a mayor of a big city, don't they need his full attention? And I just don't see that they're going to get that from Eric Adams in the next six to nine months before this case goes to trial. And looking at this indictment and knowing what I do about how indictments are obtained in the federal system, the evidence appears very, very strong. And so, you know, this is not just a wild, frivolous allegation against somebody. This is an indictment that's been returned by a grand jury. And so I think that if I were an advisor to Governor Hochul, I would tell her that her duty tells her that the people of New York deserve better and he should be removed.
- [40:28]
Jill Wine Banks
You know, there's just one other thing. We've already mentioned that the Department of Justice has been accused of weaponization by the Trumpet administration and by the Republicans in Congress who have had weaponization subcommittees of the Judiciary, now known as the Lawfare Subcommittee. But here's another case of DOJ bringing charges against a Democrat. They have brought many cases against Democrats. And so doesn't that sort of put an end to this discussion of, you know, Menendez, the senator, was indicted, the representative from Texas, Cuellar was indicted. California' Cox, Mayor Gillum from Florida, this most powerful Democrat in Illinois, Michael Madigan, was indicted. So there are a lot of Democrats indicted. And there are charges that Trump took money from Egypt when we're talking about foreign things, and nothing's happened about that. So does that put an end to this weaponization nonsense?
- [41:35]
Barb McQuaid
Well, yes, absolutely. Where have you been?
- [41:37]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Oh, yes. I mean, you saw Donald Trump's response, right? He jumped right back in and said, these are bad people who are going after Mayor Adams. It's, it's like, you know, I wonder if we're going to see Adams, who, interestingly enough, by the way, is an elector for the state of New York. Will we see him and Donald Trump cozy up to each other as people who are subject to this horrible lawfare by the Justice Department. It sort of boggles the mind, right?
- [42:07]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. I think you are confusing logic with statements, Jill. That does make a lot of sense. You know, in Trump world, I can imagine someone saying, well, that's just to throw you off track. That's what they want you to think. They don't care about those people. They're willing to charge those people, but they're weaponizing against me. No, I mean, you know, those of us who've worked in the Justice Department of the three of us know that to be able to indict somebody is such a big deal. You need approval. Throughout the chain of command at the Justice Department, it has to go through a grand jury of real US Citizens who review all of the evidence and decide whether there's probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. Then the case goes to court, defense attorneys get a chance to file motions to dismiss for selective or vindictive prosecution, and then the case goes to trial in front of a jury who has to convict beyond a reasonable doubt unanimously. And so the idea that, you know this is all being done for politics is just nonsense. But I don't imagine that all of the evidence you have just ticked off, which is a lot, will in any way change the talking points from the Trump campaign.
- [43:20]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
With HelloFresh, get farm fresh proportioned ingredients and seasonal recipes delivered right to your door. There are no trips to the grocery store, no wasted ingredients, and no menu planning or grocery lists. You can count on HelloFresh to make home cooking easy, fun and affordable. In fact, that's why they're America's number one meal kit.
- [43:41]
Barb McQuaid
With HelloFresh, you get everything you need to make delicious meals and it comes right to your door, pre portioned and fresh. The step by step recipe cards that are included make cooking so simple. It's a game changer. You'll forget those unhealthy takeout places in no time thanks to an ever changing menu of 50 recipes to choose from every week. Plus you can easily customize your meals with protein or veggie swaps, which I do all the time. And don't forget to check out the HelloFresh Market for more delicious add on items to jazz up your weekly deliveries. There's something for everyone. I often add soup or garlic bread or chili. Makes for a nice little side meal or a compliment to your main meal.
- [44:25]
Jill Wine Banks
I love their add ons, I love their salads, I love their chicken wings. And that is a whole extra meal all by itself. I really do love HelloFresh and you'll love it too. And you'll love that HelloFresh works with your schedule. Their plans are flexible and you can change your meal preferences, update your delivery day and change your address With a few taps on the HelloFresh app, imagine how great it will be getting fresh, seasonal produce that goes straight from the farm to your kitchen. Just don't forget the desserts right now.
- [45:00]
Barb McQuaid
They have a great deal. For free breakfast for life, go to hellofresh.com free sisters. That's one free breakfast item per box while your subscription is active. Again, that's free breakfast for life just by going to hellofresh.com freesisters. You can also look for the link to HelloFresh, America's number one meal kit in our show notes. Well, earlier this week, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida returned an indictment against Ryan Routh, the man who attempted to assassinate Donald Trump on his golf course. First, I just have to ask this. Did you guys see which judge this case was assigned to?
- [45:49]
Jill Wine Banks
Oh, my God. What are the chances on a random draw that Judge Cannon would get this? But I'm willing to bet she sees this case differently, where the victim instead of the defense defendant is Donald Trump.
- [46:06]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
It's crazy, right? I mean, what are the odds that she would draw it? But here we are.
- [46:12]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. What. What are the chances? Well, I guess that's the way it goes in the Southern District of Florida. Jill, can you just tell us what's in this indictment, what's charged, and maybe your views of these charges?
- [46:23]
Jill Wine Banks
Sure. There are a five counts, and one of them is attempted assassination of a presidential candidate, which of course, carries a very serious penalty, potential life. The others are possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, which would be, of course, the violation of 351, the attempted assassination. Then there would be assaulting a federal officer. There would be a felon in possession. And this is sort of under the same statute, not the same exact subset as Hunter Biden was charged with, which was his was for a drug user in possession of a firearm and ammunition. And then lastly, having a gun with an obliterated serial number. So you have a bunch of gun law violations, and then you have the. Which is what he was held under originally without an indictment, but just by complaint. And then they got enough evidence after the arrest to show that it was, in fact, not just possessing a gun randomly, but that it was intended as an instrument of assassination. And the evidence of that was pretty stark.
- [47:41]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. So we know that. Joyce, let me ask you this. Initially, prosecutors filed a complaint, as Jill said, just as to those gun crimes, felon in possession and possession of a gun with an obliterated serial number. And Trump argued that DOJ was going easy on Ralph, and he said he wanted the case handled by Florida state prosecutors instead. What do you make of that claim?
- [48:05]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Oh, my God, I love this so much. Right? I mean, we all know that this is just Trump playing politics. The feds filed these rather slender gun charges so that they could arrest Ralph and keep him in custody. From the day that they arrested him, they were investigating everything else. They didn't have enough to charge immediately. Donald Trump certainly knew that or was advised of that by the people around him. But, you know, this is so Donald Trump. Here's my favorite thing about this, though. Trump would be complaining, too, if the state was prosecuting this case, because, y'all know, this is in the jurisdiction of our good friend and MSNBC colleague Dave Ehrenberg, who is the local district attorney. Dave was busy working on charges the day that this happened, and I just think it's utterly fascinating because he's been an outspoken proponent of decency and common sense in politics, which is to say that he's been critical of Trump and Trump's conduct. I don't really think Trump would have been happy with this case in Dave's hands, either.
- [49:13]
Barb McQuaid
Jill, you had some thoughts about the gun charges in this case, too. What struck you about those charges?
- [49:18]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, of course, the first thing that strikes me is that it was a way to hold this person immediately because the guns were quite obvious, and his fingerprints were on the tape attaching the scope to the rifle so that there was good evidence to hold him and to keep the former president safe from any further attempts while they investigated whether he was actually planning an assassination, whether he was acting alone or not, and to find the evidence of a letter he had written and stored at a friend's house and another letter found nearby. The letter at his friends basically said, this is an assassination attempt. You can't find any better evidence of intent than a letter written in advance saying that he intended to. But I think what I was thinking about the gun charges is that, you know, if we had better gun laws, this felon, and he is a convicted felon, wouldn't have a weapon. And we know it was transported from out of state because one of the letters that the FBI affidavit said was that the state of Florida does not manufacture this type of weapon. And so it had to come from out of state. And so I just think it raises the question again of when are we going to pass better controls on firearms, particularly long guns that are of this dangerous magnitude. And you might think that Republicans, looking at the potential killing of their candidate for president might start thinking that there should be some sensible gun safety rules, and we don't have those. And so that disturbs me. But I'm glad that at least there were such laws that he could be held initially to keep the rest of the public safe.
- [51:22]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. Joyce, this idea about Florida charging this case. If Florida state authorities wanted to, could they file charges in this case? And even if they could, would that be wise?
- [51:37]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Yeah, I mean, you know, they could. Right. We've been involved in situations where there have been two sets of charges, and essentially you do it for insurance, just so that if something goes wrong in the federal case, the state has filed charges in plenty of time. And often what they'll do is there will be an agreement that the federal case will go forward first. The state case will stay on pause while that happens. So, you know, I guess I'm sort of agnostic on that here. I don't think it's necessary because I think the federal charges are particularly strong. They seem to be in front of a judge who will be highly motivated to move the case forward and see that justice is done in this particular situation. And so I just don't know as a practical matter that we'll see charges. I did actually get to talk to Dave as all of this was happening, and he told me he had had a conversation with the feds, and he was comfortable that they had better statutes and a better path forward than he did. And that's often the case because a federal prosecution, because of the Speedy Trial act, can move a lot more quickly, can have a heavier sentence. And also in state courts, defendants often serve much less of their sentence than they do in the federal system. When defendants essentially serve all of the sentence, they might get about a week, a year off for good time, but that's about the extent of it. Often in the state, they serve just a small fraction of the sentence, and the remainder is suspended. So I think everybody involved clearly felt like federal court was the place to be.
- [53:14]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. And, you know, when I was a federal prosecutor in my district, what we would do when there was a situation where there was overlapping jurisdiction and either the feds or the state could charge the case, we'd get on the phone, we'd call and say, hey, we're looking at this case. Are you looking at it? What makes more sense? Should we stand down? Should we go forward? What is the potential penalty? Sometimes the state wanted to do it because it was grouped with, you know, some co defendants they wanted to charge. There are all kinds of different factors, and it makes sense to coordinate that effort. And, you know, based on the statements, I mean, it sounds like the local prosecutor you're describing was on board to be cooperative. But, you know, the way Trump was talking about it and Governor DeSantis was talking about it is, you know, the, the feds want to just give them a slap on the wrist. Let us take it. You can imagine them just stepping all over the case and creating discovery and interview records and all kinds of things that could actually trip up the federal prosecution if they're both doing it at the same time and stepping on each other. So cooperation really is the key to effective law enforcement, and the citizens deserve nothing less. Well, now comes the part of the show that we really enjoy the most, answering your questions. If you have a question for us, please email us at Sisters in law@politicon.com or tag us on social media using SistersInLaw. If we don't get to your question during the show, keep an eye on our feeds throughout the week where we'll answer as many of your questions as we can. The first question, we actually have two that I'm going to join together because they're quite similar, comes from Dorothy in Ohio and Debbie in Bend, Oregon. And they're kind of related, wondering about how private citizens can seek criminal charges against Donald Trump and J.D. vance in Ohio regarding threats to Haitian immigrants. And the other question is about civil liability for the claims against Haitian immigrants. Jill, what do you say about those?
- [55:20]
Jill Wine Banks
It's such an interesting question. And first of all, there is a law in Ohio that lets private citizens asked the government to file criminal charges. And so that's what's happened. A civil rights organization has asked that charges be filed against the former president and his running mate, J.D. vance, for the false lies that they have. I guess false and lies is tautological against the lies they've told about Haitian immigrants that have caused harm to the Haitian community. And I doubt that the state of Ohio is going to file those charges. But that brings us to the second question, which is from Debbie and Bend, which is I've never been to, but it's supposed to be an absolutely beautiful place that I do want to go someday. And she asks about the First Amendment and whether that gives freedom to Trump and Vance to keep spreading damaging lies. And I would say the answer is no. I mean, look at the amount of damages that Fox News paid and that another lawsuit has been settled for the false statements about the manufacturers of voting machines. You can't keep lying about people. You do have to prove damages. So if anyone in the Haitian community can show that their business was put out of business, that they suffered damages because of this, then I think they could file a civil case against the two of them for their knowing lies. And I think it's quite clear that even if at their first reference they didn't know it was a lie, they certainly soon learned that there was no truth to these allegations, that there could be, you know, in the same way that poll workers have been able to recover from Rudy Giuliani millions of dollars, I think that this could happen here, too. So I think there's probably not going to be criminal charges filed on the request of civilians, but that there could be civil suits filed by the people of the Haitian community.
- [57:39]
Barb McQuaid
All right. Our next question comes to us from Lawrence in Massachusetts. Joyce, I'll send this one your way. Will the new doctrine of presidential immunity have any impact on congressional investigations like impeachments?
- [57:54]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
You know, this is really a great question. I think it's fascinating, and I've thought a lot about what the impact of the Supreme Court's immunity decision on future impeachment proceedings will look like. I mean, I suspect expect that the initial concern is that, say, a future President Trump would try to argue that he's immune from impeachment, too. And, of course, I wouldn't put that past him. But I think, in fact, the expanded legal immunity doctrine makes impeachment proceedings more urgent. They're the last remedy left for a miscreant president. And we heard Mitch McConnell say in the aftermath of January 6th that he didn't need to vote for impeachment because Trump could still be prosecuted. And now that that is largely off the table, there is clearly presidential conduct that is not subject to prosecution that really erodes the justification for not impeaching. So maybe the cowards of the world like Mitch McConnell will always find a way out. But I think it's made it that much more difficult for him because the Founding Fathers created impeachment as the check on the power of the presidency, and it's really the last one standing.
- [59:07]
Jill Wine Banks
And it doesn't require that you violate a criminal code, that it is just a high crime and misdemeanor, undefined, and it doesn't require that you violate a specific statute of the United States.
- [59:21]
Barb McQuaid
Well, and now that it's clear, you know, Mitch McConnell had said there's criminal prosecution available, now that it's clear that that's not available, maybe that means we breathe new life into impeachment. But I'll believe it when I See it because it seems to me that senators have been very reluctant to convict members of their own party. Our last question comes to us from Christine and she asks, have any of you read Ketanji Brown's autobiography? And if so, what did you think of it? Yes, I have. Although I did not read it, I listened to it and I highly recommend listening to it because it's read by the author and it's absolutely amazing. It's just lovely. One of the things I really like about it is she is an unabashed striver. She talks about striving for personal achievement and for family legacy and for racial legacy that, you know, her ancestors would be so thrilled to see that all of the work they have undertaken for centuries have led to a seat at the table for an African American woman on the Supreme Court. And so I loved it. I thought it was just lovely. She comes across as, you know, super smart and hardworking, but also a fallible, normal human and really, really likable. Nerds everywhere. You will love this book. Thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Jill Wine Banks, Joyce Vance, and me, Barb McQuaid. Follow SistersInLaw on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, and please give us a five star review. It really helps others find the show. And please show some love to this week's sponsors, Aura lola V and HelloFresh. Their links are in the show notes. Please support them because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode. Have hashtag Sisters in Law.
- [61:15]
Jill Wine Banks
First of all, what does being put through the ringer mean? Does anybody even know what a ringer is?
- [61:20]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Yeah, like a clothes ringer.
- [61:21]
Barb McQuaid
I know.
- [61:22]
Jill Wine Banks
That's. That was like when I was a kid. You weren't even alive when there was a ringer.
- [61:26]
Barb McQuaid
I know the phrase.
- [61:26]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
I say that all the time.
- [61:28]
Jill Wine Banks
Do you really?
- [61:28]
Barb McQuaid
Okay, yeah.
- [61:29]
Jill Wine Banks
All right, I'll tell you a funny story about it. My sister actually tried putting her hair through the wringer and literally got caught with her scalp against the ringer and couldn't go any further. And I don't remember how my father saved her and unwound her hair from the wringer, but. Okay.
- [61:48]
Barb McQuaid
Was it really your sister Jill, or is that like asking for a friend?
- [61:52]
Jill Wine Banks
No, that was really. It was true. My sister also put a bobby pin, if you know what a bobby pin is.
- [61:57]
Barb McQuaid
Sure.
- [61:57]
Jill Wine Banks
Into an electric outlet and almost electrocuted herself.
- [62:00]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, you're not supposed to do that.
- [62:02]
Jill Wine Banks
She did all sorts of.
- [62:04]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
That's funny.
- [62:05]
Barb McQuaid
Anyway, kids, please don't try this at home.
- [62:11]
Unknown
When you think about businesses that are selling through the roof, Allbirds or Skims. Sure, you think about a great product, a cool brand and brilliant marketing. But an often overlooked secret is actually the businesses behind the business making selling and for the shoppers buying Simple. For millions of businesses, that business is Shopify. Nobody does selling better than Shopify, home of the number one checkout on the planet. And the not so secret secret with Shop pay that boosts conversions up to 50%, meaning way less carts going abandoned and way more sales going. So if you're into growing your business, your commerce platform better be ready to sell wherever your customers are scrolling or scrolling on the web, in your store, in their feed and everywhere in between. Businesses that sell more sell on Shopify. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout Skims uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com audioboom all lowercase go to shopify.com audioboom to upgrade your selling today. Shopify.com audioboom.
- [63:23]
Joyce Vance
Black Friday is coming. And for the adults in your life who love the coolest toys, well, there's something for them this year too. Bartisian is the premier craft cocktail maker that automatically makes more than 60 seasonal and classic cocktails each in under 30 seconds at the push of a button. And right now Bartisian is having a huge site wide sale. You can get $100 off any cocktail maker or cocktail maker bundle when you spend $400 or more. So if the cocktail lover in your life has been good this year, year or the right kind of bad, get them Bartesian at the push of a button. Make bar quality Cosmopolitans, Martinis, Manhattans and more all in just 30 seconds. All for 100 off. Amazing toys aren't just for kids. Get 100 off a cocktail maker when you spend 400 through Cyber Monday. Visit bartesian.com cocktail that's B A R T E S I A N dot com cocktail.