#SistersInLaw: Episode 210 - Risible Released on November 16, 2024 by Politicon

Introduction

In Episode 210 titled "Risible" of #SistersInLaw, hosts Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuaid, and Kimberly Atkins Stohr delve into the tumultuous landscape of Trump’s cabinet appointments, the ongoing special counsel case concerning Mar-a-Lago documents, and the potential role of the Supreme Court as a check on Donald Trump’s next administration. The discussion is enriched with legal insights, political analysis, and critical examinations of the current governmental processes.

Trump’s Cabinet Appointments

1. Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense

Barb McQuaid opens the discussion by scrutinizing Trump’s nomination of Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense. Jill Wine-Banks expresses deep concerns about Hegseth's qualifications, emphasizing his lack of substantial management experience within the Department of Defense.

Jill Wine-Banks [08:41]: "He has no past management experience... He would be supervising more than a million active duty members, and that says nothing about all of the civilians and contractors who work for the department."

2. Matt Gaetz as Attorney General

The nomination of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General raises significant alarm among the hosts. Joyce Vance and Barb McQuaid highlight Gaetz’s controversial background, including allegations of misconduct and his potential agenda to undermine the Justice Department.

Barb McQuaid [13:05]: "This is Donald Trump trying to get everybody to light their own hair on fire and run around and talk about how horrible he is. We shouldn’t treat this like a legitimate nomination. It isn’t."

3. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services

The nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is critiqued for his anti-vaccine stance and promotion of conspiracy theories, which could have detrimental effects on public health policy.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr [18:27]: "He is one of the most prominent anti-vaccine activists in the United States and globally... This is bad news."

Confirmation Process and Potential Bypassing

The hosts discuss the traditional confirmation process outlined in the Constitution, which involves presidential nomination followed by Senate approval. They express concern over Trump’s expressed interest in using recess appointments and acting officials to bypass this process.

Jill Wine-Banks [24:16]: "Normally, it's a really simple system... But there have been three cabinet nominees that were rejected since 1900."

Barb McQuaid warns against Trump’s potential misuse of recess appointments and acting officials, which could undermine the established checks and balances.

Barb McQuaid [26:06]: "We really can't have any assurances that Trump will use this in the way it's intended to be used."

Special Counsel Case: Mar-a-Lago Documents

1. Jack Smith’s Appeal

Barb McQuaid provides an update on Jack Smith’s filing in the 11th Circuit appeal concerning the dismissal of the classified documents case against Trump. The discussion centers on the constitutional challenges posed by Judge Aileen Cannon’s dismissal of Smith’s appointment as special counsel.

Barb McQuaid [35:30]: "We're talking about the future commander in chief taking over government again, with no accountability for mishandling classified documents."

2. National Security Implications

Joyce Vance underscores the national security risks associated with the mishandling of classified documents, highlighting potential strains on international intelligence sharing.

Joyce Vance [41:02]: "If other countries think Trump is just going to take all of the secrets they share with us and store them in some bathroom, they are not going to share with us anymore."

3. Comparison with Jack Teixeira’s Case

The hosts compare Trump's actions with those of Jack Teixeira, an Air National Guard soldier who was sentenced for mishandling classified documents. While acknowledging differences, they agree on the gravity of both cases.

Joyce Vance [67:17]: "What Trump did is a crime. It is probably of a degree lesser than what Jack Teixeira did, but certainly still, if anybody else had done it, would have been prosecuted and punished."

Supreme Court as a Check on Trump

The conversation shifts to the role of the Supreme Court in potentially curbing Trump’s actions. With a conservative supermajority, the hosts debate whether the Court will uphold the Constitution against any overreach by Trump.

Barb McQuaid [62:33]: "This court's gonna have to make a believer out of this girl if they want my trust back."

Joyce Vance expresses a cautious hope that justices like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett may uphold legal principles despite the Court’s conservative tilt.

Joyce Vance [58:36]: "I think Roberts and Barrett show glimmers of hope that they care about the legitimacy of the court."

Conversely, Jill Wine-Banks remains skeptical about the Court’s willingness to check Trump effectively.

Jill Wine-Banks [58:42]: "If I had to answer will or won't, I'd say won't."

Listener Questions

1. National Abortion Ban and State Protections

Tamara from Colorado asks how a national abortion ban would affect states with existing constitutional protections for abortion. Kimberly Atkins Stohr explains that while a nationwide ban is unlikely due to Senate requirements, existing laws like the Comstock Act could impede abortion services across all states by restricting necessary medical supplies.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr [66:44]: "They'd be denying doctors the care and tools they need not only to safely perform an abortion but also safely perform health care."

2. Comparison Between Federal Document Mishandling and Jack Teixeira’s Case

Megan from North Carolina draws parallels between the sentencing of an Air National Guard soldier for document mishandling and Trump’s actions with Mar-a-Lago documents. Joyce Vance differentiates the cases by noting that while both involve unauthorized retaining of classified information, Trump's case lacks evidence of deliberate disclosure to foreign adversaries.

Joyce Vance [67:17]: "What Trump did is below that [disclosing to a foreign adversary]... it is still egregious to take and retain information that belongs locked up."

3. Presidential Immunity

Siri poses a question about whether presidential immunity extends to individuals executing Trump’s orders. Barb McQuaid clarifies that presidential immunity does not automatically grant immunity to those subordinates and anticipates legal challenges aimed at expanding immunity beyond the President himself.

Barb McQuaid [70:03]: "Presidential immunity is just for the President. But... people trying to claim derivative immunity because of their interactions with the President."

Final Thoughts and Call to Action

As the episode wraps up, the hosts express a sense of urgency and pessimism about the current political climate. They emphasize the importance of civic engagement, legal advocacy, and public pressure to uphold democratic principles and the rule of law.

Barb McQuaid [51:27]: "This feels like rock bottom... but I'm prepared for the fight that's ahead and committed to it."

They encourage listeners to remain vigilant, participate in upcoming elections, and support organizations working to protect democracy.

Conclusion

Episode 210 of #SistersInLaw provides a comprehensive and critical examination of the challenges facing the U.S. government amidst Donald Trump’s potential return to power. Through in-depth analysis and spirited discussions, the hosts highlight the pressing issues related to cabinet appointments, legal accountability, and the integrity of the Supreme Court, urging proactive measures to safeguard democratic institutions.

Notable Quotes:

• Jill Wine-Banks [08:41]: "He has no past management experience... He would be supervising more than a million active duty members, and that says nothing about all of the civilians and contractors who work for the department."

• Barb McQuaid [13:05]: "This is Donald Trump trying to get everybody to light their own hair on fire and run around and talk about how horrible he is. We shouldn’t treat this like a legitimate nomination. It isn’t."

• Joyce Vance [67:17]: "What Trump did is a crime. It is probably of a degree lesser than what Jack Teixeira did, but certainly still, if anybody else had done it, would have been prosecuted and punished."

• Joyce Vance [58:36]: "I think Roberts and Barrett show glimmers of hope that they care about the legitimacy of the court."

• Barb McQuaid [70:03]: "Presidential immunity is just for the President."

For more insights and discussions, follow #SistersInLaw on your preferred podcast platform and visit politicon.com.