214: Misprision

Summary

#SistersInLaw Episode 214: Misprision
Release Date: December 14, 2024
Hosts: Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barbara McQuaid, Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Published by: Politicon

---

1. Holiday Preparations and Personal Stories

The episode kicks off with the hosts sharing their personal holiday preparations, setting a warm and relatable tone before delving into more serious topics.

• Jill Wine-Banks [00:10]: Kicks off the show by mentioning the holiday merch store before transitioning to the main discussions.

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr [01:20]: Shares her experience of decorating with both artificial and live Christmas trees, highlighting the emotional boost from holiday decorations:

  "Putting on some Christmas music, putting up some lights and things around the house. Hanging mistletoe actually did lift my mood."

• Joyce Vance [02:17]: Describes her creative approach to tree decoration to keep her cats away:

  "Instead of a tree skirt, I couldn't find my tree skirt. So I got on Amazon this pink fuzzy cat tunnel... it's like a little tunnel around. I'll take a picture."

• Barbara McQuaid [03:47]: Recounts a family anecdote about losing a phone in the snow, emphasizing the shared experiences during the holiday season.

• Jill Wine-Banks [05:11]: Shares a heartfelt story about losing her engagement ring stone and its miraculous recovery, reinforcing the theme of holiday miracles.

---

2. Luigi Mangione Arrest and Extradition Processes

The hosts transition to discussing the high-profile case of Luigi Mangione, the alleged assassin of a United Healthcare CEO.

• Barbara McQuaid [10:07]: Introduces the case details:

  "Police arrested 26-year-old Luigi Mangione as a suspect in the assassination of an Insurance Co. CEO outside the Hilton hotel in midtown Manhattan."

• Jill Wine-Banks [10:52]: Explains the complexities of extradition within the U.S. legal system:

  "Extradition is actually in the Constitution. It is one of the parts of Article 4... The reason for extradition is to make sure that fugitives from the law in state one can't flee to another state and just escape."

• Joyce Vance [13:06]: Speculates on Mangione's motives for fighting extradition, suggesting he aims to use the courtroom as a platform:

  "My sense is that he is someone who has a platform and who has an agenda that he wants to push... an opportunity for expanding his platform and getting his views out in public."

---

3. Surveillance Cameras and Ghost Guns

The discussion pivots to the role of surveillance technology and the emergence of ghost guns in criminal activities.

• Barbara McQuaid [18:33]: Questions the effectiveness and ethical implications of surveillance cameras:

  "Surveillance cameras in this case is what allowed those McDonald's customer and employee to recognize him."

• Jill Wine-Banks [19:34]: Highlights the balance law enforcement must maintain when releasing suspect photos:

  "But in this case, I think the balance was used in the right way."

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr [30:45]: Defines ghost guns and their impact on law enforcement:

  "A ghost gun is simply one that is assembled at home, usually from parts that have been bought online without a background check... It has become quite popular."

• Joyce Vance [32:40]: Emphasizes the challenges ghost guns pose for tracing and enforcement:

  "They are not traceable, because that frame that you've 3D printed has no tracing marks."

---

4. President Biden’s Clemency and Pardons

A significant portion of the episode delves into President Biden's controversial use of clemency and pardons, sparking debates on justice and fairness.

• Barbara McQuaid [38:15]: Criticizes the pardons granted to nonviolent but serious offenders, particularly those involved in white-collar crimes:

  "These are rich people crimes... They are people who are deserving of lengthy prison sentences."

• Joyce Vance [41:10]: Supports the initial steps of the clemency program, advocating for broader criminal justice reform:

  "I think as long as this is the first step and not the last step, it'll be a good thing."

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr [43:28]: Discusses the need for case-by-case evaluation of clemency petitions:

  "Do a lot more of it. Right. But we are better off as a community when we don't lock people up in prison because the reality."

• Barbara McQuaid [50:29]: Argues that ending the death penalty should be achieved through legislation rather than executive pardons:

  "I think that we should require Congress to change."

---

5. DOJ Developments: FBI Director Resignation and Civil Rights Division Nominee

The hosts analyze recent changes within the Department of Justice, focusing on the FBI Director's resignation and the controversial nomination for the Civil Rights Division.

• Barbara McQuaid [53:49]: Expresses concerns over FBI Director Chris Wray’s resignation and its implications for DOJ norms:

  "I kind of feel like if somebody's going to bust a norm here, make Trump do it, don't make it easy for him."

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr [32:59]: Reviews the Supreme Court case on ghost guns and predicts continued regulation:

  "I don't think the Supreme Court is going to buy that. I think these will be regulated even if the Biden executive order is rescinded."

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr [57:53]: Criticizes the nomination of Harmeet Dhillon for the Civil Rights Division, questioning her commitment to protecting voting rights:

  "She's putting in place someone whose whole claim to fame is doing the exact opposite right now."

• Jill Wine-Banks [60:43]: Addresses the DOJ Inspector General's report on January 6, debunking conspiracy theories and affirming no FBI involvement:

  "It absolutely says there was no FBI involvement in this event on January 6th."

---

6. Listener Questions and Panel Responses

The episode features a segment where the hosts answer listener-submitted questions, providing expert insights on pressing issues.

• Stephanie from Cleveland, Ohio:
  Question: "Is anyone legitimately investigating the election results? It seems that neither side trusts them. How can we fix that?"
  Response (Kimberly Atkins Stohr [64:22]):

  "Yes, the election results have been very, very well vetted... widespread voter fraud in a presidential election is very, very difficult to impossible... People spread disinformation about fraud."

• Fred:
  Question: "Would the speech and debate clause protect members of the January 6 committee and their staff from threats made by Donald Trump and Cash Patel?"
  Response (Barbara McQuaid [67:31]):

  "The speech or debate clause... means that anything a member of Congress does in their capacity as someone focusing on legislation or investigation is insulated... but it would not stop the FBI from initiating an investigation."

• Thalia:
  Question: "Would any of you ever consider running for office?"
  Responses:

  • Joyce Vance [69:25]: Reflects on the challenges and expresses openness to advisory roles or local positions.

    "I'm going to give a different answer than I would have given a year ago... I wouldn't rule out maybe serving on an advisory board or maybe running in my county."

  • Kimberly Atkins Stohr [71:26]: Decisively declines.

    "Nope. Nope. No Nope. Nopety Nope. Nope. Nope. Never. We'll never run for office."

  • Jill Wine-Banks [71:27]: Shares a past experience running for a delegate position and expresses willingness to serve in various capacities if circumstances change.

---

7. Closing Remarks

The hosts wrap up the episode by encouraging listener engagement and reiterating the importance of staying informed on DOJ developments.

• Joyce Vance [63:37]:

  "We are all lawyers by nature. We are DOJ watchers. But I suspect we will be doing an even more tightly focused DOJ watch for the next four years than we have up until now."

• Jill Wine-Banks [69:06]: Concludes by emphasizing the necessity of active participation in democracy:

  "It is important... for all of us to consider how we can best serve. Whether it's on your local library board to make sure that books aren't banned, your school board, or at a state or federal level."

---

Notable Quotes

• Jill Wine-Banks [05:11]:

  "It was a Christmas miracle."

• Joyce Vance [27:38]:

  "I have seen people have been referencing a David French article in the Times that suggests that there's a benefit to doing it this way."

• Barbara McQuaid [38:15]:

  "These are rich people crimes... They are people who are deserving of lengthy prison sentences."

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr [64:22]:

  "People spread disinformation about fraud."

---

Key Takeaways

• Extradition Complexity: Understanding the constitutional and legal frameworks governing extradition within the U.S. highlights the due process afforded to suspects like Luigi Mangione.

• Impact of Surveillance and Technology: While surveillance cameras aid in capturing suspects, issues like privacy concerns and the rise of ghost guns pose significant challenges for law enforcement.

• Clemency and Justice: President Biden's broad clemency grants spark debate on fairness and the prioritization of which offenders deserve leniency, particularly in white-collar crimes.

• DOJ Leadership and Civil Rights: Recent changes within the DOJ, including the FBI Director’s resignation and controversial nominations, signal potential shifts in the enforcement of civil rights and election protections.

• Public Trust in Elections: Misinformation undermines public trust in election integrity, necessitating robust communication and transparency from election officials and law enforcement.

• Active Civic Engagement: The importance of participating in democratic processes, whether through running for office or supporting protected institutions, is emphasized as vital for maintaining a fair and just society.

---

Conclusion

Episode 214 of #SistersInLaw provides a comprehensive exploration of critical legal and political issues, from high-profile criminal cases and technological implications to executive clemency and the evolving landscape of the Department of Justice. The hosts offer insightful analysis, grounded in their extensive legal expertise, encouraging listeners to remain engaged and informed in shaping the future of governance and justice in the United States.

---

Note: All timestamps correspond to the provided transcript. Advertisements, intros, and outros have been omitted to focus solely on the content discussions.

Transcript

[Jill Wine Banks]

Welcome back to SistersinLaw with Joyce Vance, Kimberly Atkins Storr, Barbara McQuaid and me, Jill Wine Banks. The gift giving season is here, so don't forget to check out our merch store. We restocked everything in time for the holidays. Just go to politicon.com merch now let's get onto the show where we're going to have some really good discussions today. First, we're going to talk about some unique issues concerning the capture and status of Luigi Mangioni, the alleged killer of the United Healthcare CEO. We have some really interesting topics talking about clemency and pardons. And then we're going to talk about will justice be done at DOJ in the new civil rights division under the new chief, about FBI under Cache Patel and Ray resigning and what does the DOJ IG report mean? Before we get to our topics, I want to ask you all, have you put up any holiday decorations or made any special preparations for the coming holidays? Christmas and Hanukkah fall on the same day this year?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Well, as I sit here in front of my tree, which I have put up in my podcast room, I always put up an artificial tree. And in our living room, we have a live tree that we're waiting for my stepson who's on his way home to trim. So, yeah, we've begun Greg's hung lights. Yeah, we are in progress with our decorations. They're not done, but we have begun. I have to say, I have been feeling not jolly. Like, not jolly at all. And one of the things that I thought would help is I sort of forced myself. I really wasn't in the Christmasy mood. And you gotta be in the mood to decorate and do all that stuff. So I kind of did it anyway and it kind of worked like, in itself. Putting on some Christmas music, putting up some lights and things around the house. Hanging mistletoe actually did lift my mood. So it's important stuff.

[Joyce Vance]

You know, I'm all decorated, too. It's like really early for me. Just usually because of the nature of the beast, I don't get it done in time. But we have a tree up. It's a tinsel tree. And let me tell y'all the best thing about it. Instead of a tree skirt, I couldn't find my tree skirt. So I got on Amazon this pink fuzzy cat tunnel. And I think it's made to go around a tree or to go around something because you actually take it around and then there's a hole in front and the cats go in it. And we were afraid the cats wouldn't find it, so I went outside and picked our last batch of catnip, threw it all through this tunnel and. Wait, let me.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

So you want the cats at your tree? Like, I would think it would be the other way around. You want to keep the cats away from the tree. Here's.

[Joyce Vance]

Here's what I don't want. I don't want the cats up the tree because, you know, like the stereotype cartoon about the cats going up the tree and knocking it over.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

That's what I mean.

[Joyce Vance]

That's been.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Oh, so it's a diversion.

[Joyce Vance]

This is like a. Yeah, it's like a little tunnel around. I'll take a picture.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

It's like a tree moat.

[Joyce Vance]

In fact, I have a picture.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Does it have a drawbridge?

[Joyce Vance]

You know, they go inside and I mean, theoretically, it could be bad if there's more than one of them in there at a time. But, y'all, I am very taken with it. You know, I like green trees. Bob likes tinsel trees. We're doing it his way this year. So I figured if we were going to be tacky, we were going to go all in for tacky. And pink fur for the cats it is.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I want that in our show notes, the link to that picture.

[Joyce Vance]

I'll send a picture.

[Jill Wine Banks]

And Barb, what about you?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Well, last weekend, my husband and I went to the Christmas tree farm where we always go to get our Christmas tree. And, you know, this year, no kids. They're all off kind of doing their own thing, so it was just the two of us. And as we're walking in really deep snow, I said, do you remember that time a couple years ago when our daughter lost her phone in the snow and we spent just hours looking for it? And we kind of laughed and we rolled our eyes, and then I said, oh, my gosh, where's my phone? I had done the same thing. Am I. I had taken a picture when we got there, so I knew I had it, and then I didn't anymore. And we looked around and there was knee deep snow everywhere. And so to my husband's credit, he did dig it up and retrieve it. We retraced our steps several times and found it buried. And of course, we'd walked between, like, six or seven different trees, examining them, looking for the perfect tree. So it took some amount of time. So now when we tell the story of the lost phone of our daughter, it is also the lost phone of mom.

[Joyce Vance]

So both of us fell into that catchphrase.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Gosh, how Hard.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Did she laugh when she found out?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Well, she hasn't yet. And let's hope she doesn't listen to this podcast because I'll never live it down. Don't tell. Luckily, it's just the four of us. Don't tell me, right? Oh, my God.

[Jill Wine Banks]

So I have a lost in the snow story, but it wasn't my phone. It was the stone from my engagement ring, which was my mother in law's. And so it wasn't. I mean, it was insured. I wasn't worried, but I was really upset because it was my mother in law's and my husband was very close to her and I had to retrace my steps through the snow, which had all these salts in it and every crystal salt looks like a diamond sparkling. And I was picking and picking and I couldn't find it anywhere. I was devastated. I reported it to the insurance company and a week later I went back to the store that we had been in and a ray of light came through the window.

[Joyce Vance]

No way.

[Jill Wine Banks]

And there it was. I picked it up and I couldn't even speak. I found it.

[Barbara McQuaid]

It's a Christmas miracle.

[Jill Wine Banks]

It was.

[Joyce Vance]

It was amazing.

[Jill Wine Banks]

So, I mean, wow. As to decorating, I don't really decorate. I mean, I put out a monoro. But this year I was having a party at my house for friends who do celebrate Christmas. So I bought a little metal teeny tree at my local jewel store. And that was, you know, everybody put their gifts under my little teeny tree, which meant on the floor because it's on the table. It's so small.

[Joyce Vance]

You know, it is worth noting this is the rare Christmaker holiday, right? I always have for Christmas Eve. I get to make latkes this year for Christmas. Christmas Eve. I'm so jazzed.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Oh, yum, yum, yum. Oh, that's so cool.

[Barbara McQuaid]

What did you call it? Chrisma Chrismaca Christmas. I like it. And in case our listeners don't know, that means Christmas and Hanukkah landing on the same day. Yes, Chrismaca, I love it.

[Jill Wine Banks]

But happy holidays to everyone. The holidays are here, and between icy winds and blasting heaters, it can be tough on your skin. Nobody wants to be shaking hands and giving hugs with dry, scaly hands. So give a gift to yourself by making your skin glow with luxurious, effective body care from Osea. Osea's Andaria Algae body butter can help your entire body have healthier, glowier skin for the entire winter.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

You know, Jill, you make a good point. Now that I think about it, it's the worst when you shake hands with somebody and I just want a hand. I'm going to keep some Osea in my purse and then politely like, you know, take them aside and tell them about, you know. OC is TikTok famous for a reason. The luxurious, thick, unbelievably rich texture absorbs instantly and feels fantastic. It's like nothing you've tried before and once you do, you will never go back. Andaria algae body butter uses ingredients normally reserved for your face like andaria, seaweed and ceramides which transform skin from dry and crepey to smooth and soft and supple. The citrusy scent will awaken your senses with hints of grapefruit, lime, cypress and mango mandarin. It's incredible. It really does smell like food. Like I'm not even kidding, if you've not used it, it's so. It smells so good. Every time I put it on I feel like I am in some, you know, French pastry shop or something. Because it smells like food. That's what it is. And it's the perfect way to complete your self care routine and reconnect with your body. The Andaria algae body butter feels amazing the second you apply it. Infusing your skin with the healing power of the nourishing effect is amazing. And when you use it, you won't stop hearing that glow lights up the room.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Well, I don't know about you but Jill, I'd be willing to shake your dry scaly hand, sit it my way any time.

[Jill Wine Banks]

But I use OSEA so you won't have to.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Very good.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

There you go.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Well, we think it's great that OSEA is women founded and led and we love that. OSEA has been making clinically proven seaweed infused products that are safe for your skin and the planet for more than 28 years. Everything is clean, vegan, cruelty free and climate neutral certified. You have to try it for yourself. Skincare is a habit worth keeping all year round. And osea's body butter can help your skin have a healthy glow every day. Skincare is self care so treat yourself to clean clinically tested skincare from osea. And right now we have a special discount just for our listeners. Get 10% off your first order. Site wide with code sistersoseamalibu.com the link.

[Joyce Vance]

Is in our show Notes.

[Barbara McQuaid]

This week police arrested 26 year old Luigi Mangione as a suspect in the assassination of an Insurance Co. CEO outside the Hilton hotel in midtown Manhattan. He was found eating at a McDonald's in Altoona Pennsylvania, at the time, he had a gun and a notebook with writing in it about the need to whack the CEO. He's been charged with murder in New York, and now he's facing extradition. And I thought it might be useful to just explain what extradition is. Jill, can you help us understand what extradition is? I mean, he isn't in another country. He's just in a neighboring state. Why can't the police, like, throw them in the back of a car and drive them to New York?

[Jill Wine Banks]

I'm so glad you asked that question, because it really is interesting how little is understood. Extradition is actually in the Constitution. It is one of the parts of Article 4 of our Constitution. And there's also some federal laws about the process for extradition. Let me just say, before I talk about extradition between states, there is also extradition into and out of foreign countries, but that's under treaties. That has nothing to do with our Constitution. So it's completely separate. And the reason for extradition is to make sure that fugitives from the law in state one can't flee to another state and just escape because you can cross state borders without any problems. And we don't want havens of criminality to be in a state because they didn't commit a crime in that state. Now, of course, in the case of Luigi, he did commit crimes in Pennsylvania, so he has been charged in Pennsylvania. But of course, the major crime, the murder, is alleged. He's alleged to have murdered someone in New York, and so New York wants him back. Under our laws, the Constitution and the federal laws, he has to be charged with a crime in a state. Now, it doesn't have to be a formal indictment. It could be an affidavit that lays out the evidence, which in this case, of course, is pretty clear. You mentioned that he had a gun. It's not just a gun. It's a gun like the gun that was used in the murder in New York. He had the writings that gave him motive. There's a lot of evidence, DNA and fingerprints that have now been found. So there's a lot of evidence that would support extraditing him.

[Barbara McQuaid]

So, Joyce, why do you suppose Mangione is fighting extradition? It seems, you know, the question at extradition, of course, as Jill just explained, is not whether you're guilty or not guilty of the charges, just whether you're the person who's being sought in this prosecution. I mean, it seems like he's the person who's charged in New York. Why not concede the extradition and save your arguments for the substance of the charges themselves.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, I mean, there are a lot of different reasons people do this. You know, in most cases, people will concede and will go to. To the district that they've been charged in to fight the case. But sometimes people want to stand on extradition. And I bet we all may have slightly different thoughts about why he's doing this. I'll tell you what mine is, and this is not necessarily an informed view, but sort of an instinctual one. My sense is that he is someone who has a platform and who has an agenda that he wants to push, and he will take advantage of every opportunity in court to share his views. And so in a hearing where he's fighting extradition, although that's not the issue, he will have the opportunity to speak and address, he is smart enough to understand that it will be a courtroom full of the press and that it will be yet one more opportunity for expanding his platform and getting his views out in public.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Especially given the folk hero status that this dude is getting, that it would be beneficial to sort of push this narrative. Maybe it would go. Could influence jury pool. I mean, there's a lot of reasons why a lawyer, a defense attorney, might take this tack.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I agree with everything. But also, having been a defense lawyer as well as a prosecutor, I would say delay is one of the reasons that this is happening. And polluting the fact pattern by saying there isn't sufficient evidence to do this, which is, of course, absurd. The evidence is overwhelming that this is the person who committed this crime in New York. And so I think it is partly all the reasons that you've said Kim, but also it's just for delay. And I agree, Joyce, completely. It's for attention and for getting his message out, and we shouldn't let that happen.

[Barbara McQuaid]

You all raise two really interesting concepts about this case. One is this folk hero thing, which I find deeply disturbing, that there are people kind of cheering him on and selling products using the. The words he wrote on bullets and things like that. That is such a gross disregard for the value of human life. I find that really disgusting. The other thing about him, I suppose, is, you know, there are people of color, There are people less prominent who get killed or disappear or charged with crimes every day. And they don't get the kind of attention that we've given to the death of the CEO and the hunt for Luigi Mangione. And now that he's like this wealthy guy, it seems like there is a, I don't know he's kind of one of those anti hero kind of guys. And I think to the extent you raised this idea that a high profile might get him a chance to exploit that, I think is really troubling. Well, Kim, let me ask you about that. Yeah, go ahead.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

I was just to that point. I bet you asked people the name of the executive and the name of the shooter. They would only know one.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

And that's.

[Barbara McQuaid]

And that's executive. Yeah.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

And that's one reason I'm really frustrated with my profession this week. But go ahead, Barb. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Well, I really just wanted to tee you. To tee you up to talk about that because, you know, his defense attorney seems to be all over the media. In addition to fighting at every stage, as Jill said, he said, oh, this evidence seems very weak to me, like, really. But he's all over the media. And I'm wondering, you know, I always wonder why defense attorneys go in the media to defend their clients and whether that helps or hurts their cases. But is there anything unique about this case, about this particular defendant, about the attention that it's been getting that makes this a particularly attractive case to try in the media?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Yeah, I mean, I think for all the reasons we were talking about as to why the defense attorney was taking the approach that he was, the use of the media is a part of that. Right. You use the media to try to influence the public, to try to use the fact that he is a hero to his advantage. People that, you know, for better or worse, can make a big difference. If there are people, you know, shouting, free Luigi, then that's going to create a different pall on this case than if is framed as the brutal, brutal murder of Brian Thompson. I'm not even sure we said it yet. Brian Thompson is the person who was murdered in the street. So, yeah, I mean, I think, you know, but this isn't new. I mean, we had, you know, O.J. trial and other trials that use public and the media as a key part of their strategy. And it often works.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, shame on us. Right? We love the shiny object. Well, I want to talk about two other issues that I think are really interesting in this case. One is surveillance cameras and the other is ghost guns. These are both kind of issues of some controversy and both play a prominent role in this case. Mangione was caught because a McDonald's customer and employee recognized him from the photos that were put out in the media. I mean, it was hard to miss. I saw all those photos. I'M sure you all did, too. They were out there for several days. And, Jill, I want to ask you what factors police consider when they're deciding whether to put suspect photos out into the public. Right. Because there are some pros and cons of doing that.

[Jill Wine Banks]

There certainly are. And sometimes you don't want to do it because you don't want the suspect to know that you know exactly what he looks like and who he is and to have him take evasive action. So you might not want to post it, and he might flee if he knew that, of course, he had already fled, as it turns out. But fleeing is a result of making it known. On the other hand, you get the advantage of what happened here. People see him, and the pictures were quite clear. I mean, he was very recognizable. And now that we've seen him full face in his photos, he does look exactly like the person who was photographed on all the surveillance cameras. And it's certainly a reminder to all of us someone on TV said, boy, this shows that I better dress better and act better in public. Because you're on camera a lot.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yes, yes. Right. And when people go back, they can find, you know, people all over the place at protests and other places. Right. Joyce, this reminds me a little bit of the situation our friend Carmen Ortiz, the former US Attorney in Boston, dealt with when the Boston Marathon bombing occurred. And I know she's spoken publicly about that decision about whether to publish these. And I think initially they published some photos of the wrong person, which can cause a lot of grief for that person. Ultimately, they did put up the two bombers, the Tsarnaev brothers. And they got lots of calls. People said, oh, my gosh, I know that guy. He lives in my dorm. He lives down the hall from me. And it made me wonder when we had this really clear picture of Mangione right away, that photo where he had pulled down the mask at the hostel. People said he was flirting with some woman who worked there, and he was caught on a surveillance camera. Why did we have to wait several days later for someone in McDonald's to recognize him? Why didn't friends and family members and schoolmates say, oh, my gosh, I know this guy. Is it surprising that they didn't turn him in, or is it possible that they did, and we just don't know that yet?

[Joyce Vance]

You know, it's a pretty interesting question. For one thing, there was reporting that said that his name had not surfaced in tips, but we don't know for certain that that's true. And I would just caution and Say, I've been involved in manhunt situations before. You get a lot of tips on the tip line. Sometimes you do find that people have called in. So we don't know that. We don't know whether or not his appearance had altered. He'd been off the grid for about six months, according to the reporting. That may also have caused some drag on it. But, you know, his family may well have recognized him and had been taking some time to process. And I think the short answ is that we do not know what the thinking was. So you had sort of raised this question with Carmen's situation where they did post pictures. And there's always this question of what is our obligation as citizens? Are we required to call the police? We're not. I don't think the law requires that. I think, you know, many good citizens would and will do that, particularly in a situation like this where you have seen what is clearly a premeditated, deliberate murder. The suspect is still at large. You don't know if he has a longer list of people that he intends to attack, but it's not a crime. There is, interestingly enough, a crime called Ms. Prison, which could fit the bill here. And this is how I think about it. Forgive me. I'm going to try to do, you know, like the first two weeks of law school in 10 seconds. Right now there is accomplice liability. If I robbed the bank and somebody helped, helps me, they're my aider. And a better if after I've robbed the bank, the police are chasing me and I need somebody to hide me. And I go to a friend's house and I say, I've robbed the bank. Hide me. You know, she's an accessory after the fact. And then there's this concept of misprision. Somebody who knows that a crime has been committed but takes an affirmative step to conceal it. I don't think that just failing to make a phone call qualifies as trying to conceal it. There's an old 11th Circuit case called Brantley where a woman is in the car with her boyfriend during a routine traffic stop. He shoots a police officer. It's just a weird surprise thing. No advance planning. And she is successfully prosecuted for misprision, not for the murder, but over his illegal possession of a firearm because he was a felon. And the whole reasoning is she backs her car in to conceal the license plate to make it harder for the police to find it. And the 11. There's a concurrence written by one of the judges, and she says, okay, government. This is absolutely as far as you can go with this crime no further. And that, for me, has always been sort of the defining thing. Just failing to make a phone call, I don't think is an affirmative act of concealment.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

And listen, I think there's also a point that can be made here. I mean, I think if there were a situation where there was a big manhunt, we knew this crime took place, and all of a sudden a picture, a grainy picture from surveillance is really released by police. I'm thinking to myself, what if it were my family member? I would have a lot of freaking questions. I don't think the first thing I would do, in fact, I know for a fact the first thing that I did would not be picking up the phone and calling the police. I would contact that person. If I could get in touch with them, I would contact legal counsel just to figure out what's. What could this picture be wrong? Could this be. I mean, I'm not going to send my family right to the cops. Like, if I don't know.

[Joyce Vance]

You really don't know. The picture is, as you say, some of them are okay, some are grainy, but is it 100% identification? You're not positive. At a minimum, you don't have an obligation under the law to make phone call.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

And you have to. I mean, and even when the police are using this, I mean, I don't know. I mean, maybe the prosecutors can speak more to this, but I'm assuming that there is some balance of. Some balance of factors, right? Because if you are releasing a picture to someone, to the public, not only could that spur leads, but it could also spur a different kind of vigilantism. It could also put them more in danger. It could be. It's. And police are not allowed to use just in most jurisdictions, to use just the picture of someone as probable cause. So they have to have other investigations, other facts, even before an arrest can take place. So it's. I do get that sometimes it's important. I agree. That the Tsarnaev brothers should have been released. I agree with this one, you know, with the information that I know. But just. It's so much goes into this, and it can be a dangerous thing to do, too.

[Jill Wine Banks]

You raise an interesting set of issues, Kim. And it is definitely a balance because you want the public to be aware. This is, you know, someone who looked on camera like it was a planned premeditated murder. And. And we didn't know if there were other people, as you said, on the list and so you may want to warn people that this could happen, and so you want them to be aware of the picture. That's one reason you don't want that person fleeing or destroying evidence by knowing that you've identified him, the family. You know, even if they reported that this is Luigi, that doesn't give the police any more information unless they know where he is. And as Joyce said, it's clearly not a legal obligation to report it. But it does come down to balancing a, whether you print the picture, B, whether someone reports it. And I think that it certainly in this case, was a way to capture someone who was wanted. He looked like it when he was arrested. He had a gun that looked like the gun that was used. He had a notebook that set out certain things. He had a computer that had evidence on it. So in this case, I think the balance was used in the right way.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Me too.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Well, I know you all said there's no legal obligation to report and you would hesitate to report a friend or family member, but bad news for you 3. If I see your picture on a surveillance photo that you committed to crime, like, I'm. I'm calling immediately. I say, I know where. I know who they are, and I know where they are.

[Joyce Vance]

But, you know, Barb, what's gonna happen is people are gonna see a picture of me robbing the bank, and they're gonna, oh, my God.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Wade robbed the bank. Yeah, that's true. That's true. It'll turn right back around on me.

[Joyce Vance]

And, I mean, isn't that the whole problem with identity?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Got me again, Vance. All right, well, I agree with. I agree with everything that Joyce just said, except her pronunciation. And here in the north, we say Ms. Prisian, not Ms. Prison, but everything else is good. Ms. Prisian.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I say Ms. Prison, and I'm in the Midwest.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Look it up. ZH Ms. Prisian. All right, well, you can be known as Ms. Prison forevermore. Joyce, if you want to.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

We'll get you a little sad.

[Joyce Vance]

It's like, you know, we did that to my daughter one year for Halloween. She was misinformation.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Oh, my kids call me that, too.

[Joyce Vance]

Oh, it's a good costume for you, Barb.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Never is. I know. I would go as myself. All right, well, Kim, let me get back to maybe a bigger point about surveillance cameras. Like, what does this say about the surveillance state? On the one hand, the growing number of cameras that abound in public places cause concerns about civil liberties, especially when photos can be shared online. Like, if you go to a protest, chances Are. Are people are going to know that you were there, so there's no anonymity anymore. On the other hand, the photos taken with security cameras in this case is what allowed those McDonald's customer and employee to recognize him. Does this make a strong case in favor of or against surveillance cameras in public, do you think?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

I'm not sure if it's for or against. I do believe we are overly surveilled, but I understand the reasons why people may have surveillance on their homes or outside of their businesses. But what I really believe is that police, law enforcement, the legal community, has to be very. Have to work really, really hard to enforce all of the constitutional protections that exist, whether these cameras are picking up your image or not. And also take into account the fact. I mean, when I was a fellow at Boston College Law this spring, my focus was on problems with AI and problems with facial recognition technology and how it tends to misidentify people more often. If you're a woman, you're more misidentified than if you're a man. If you are a person of color, you are more misidentified than if you are white. And if you are trans, you are more identified. I think that's probably the worst case. Matching. And so. So if people are making are using this as a police tool, I really, really want to make sure every fourth, fifth and sixth Amendment I is dotted and T is crossed. That other corroborating evidence is needed before probable cause is established, that you get warrant requirements before you do these kind of checks. If all of the safeguards are in place. Yeah, it can be a good tool. But I think the fact that we know that they're not can make this very dangerous. Even if it can be a tool to help find a mass killer on the loose.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah. Such an interesting issue as technology advances. Just because we can do things doesn't always mean we should. It's a really interesting issue. Well, let's quickly cover ghost guns, because I also think that's a super interesting issue. In this case, Mangione was caught with what is known as a ghost gun. Jill, can you just remind us what a ghost gun is?

[Jill Wine Banks]

It's really interesting because a ghost gun is simply one that is assembled at home, usually from parts that have been bought online without a background check. And those parts don't have serial numbers. So it means that you can't follow it, you can't find it, you can't identify it. It has become quite popular. It was first invented, I think, in the 90s, but the number of guns that are now ghost guns have risen dramatically.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah. So it's worth, you know, dwelling on this point that this was. It's believed that the gun was 3D printed, and that's very unusual. You almost never see that when you collect a gun from a crime scene. So the part of the frame that's extruded in the 3D printer is the frame. The frame is the part of the firearm that ATF regulates. And the other parts of the gun, the barrel, the trigger, those are just added on without aftermarket parts. In fact, you know the case I know you want to ask him about in a minute. The Solicitor General, when she was arguing, mentioned that she had purchased a gun kit and as someone with no particular dexterity, she had been able to assemble it in under three hours. So that gives you some sense of how quick and easy this stuff is. The reason people use them. Two different reasons. One is if you're a prohibited person, for instance, a convicted felon who's not permitted to own or purchase a firearm, this is one way of getting a gun. Second reason is if you intend to use it to commit a crime, because they are not traceable, because that frame that you've 3D printed has no tracing marks. ATF can't figure out the history of the gun, where you acquired it from, if there were other people involved. It is really a huge problem for enforcement to have these guns available. To find this one in this situation, I think is deeply disturbed.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah. And Kim, just this fall in October, I think it was, the Supreme Court heard that case about ghost guns. We talked about it back then and the way ATF regulates them. Can you remind us what that case is about? And do you think this case could have any influence on the court in deciding that case?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Yeah. So this case was a challenge to a regulation, a Biden Administration regulation which counts ghost guns as any other kind of firearm, basically declares by regulation that a ghost gun is a gun for federal regulatory purposes. And the challengers were saying, well, no, you can't go regulating, you know, disassembled parts of a gun. Like, that's what, you know. What about the enthusiasts who enjoy putting guns together? Suddenly they have to go through all the, you know, rigmarole and it will deter them. And all this other stuff, even this very, very second Amendment loving Supreme Court did not seem to be buying that. Like, I believe, I think it was. Amy, Toni Barrett, correct me if I'm wrong, who is just like, if you love guns to the point that you want to tinker with it and put together or something. You don't want to get one where it's literally two screws and a click and done like that's not like what enjoyment are you getting out of that in really reinforcing Joyce's point that really the only reason someone buys one of these is a bad one. So yeah, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to buy that. I think these will be regulated even if the Biden executive order is rescinded or the regulation is rescinded. It was a regulation, not an exec order. There are a lot of states that already banned ghost guns. I think I just saw a headline today. Michigan. Michigan just banned ghost guns. So states are banning them and I think those regulations will and should stand. I would be up for also adding an enhancement for any crime committed with a ghost gun. I think that that would be strong policy.

[Joyce Vance]

That is such a great idea. I have not heard that suggested before. Maybe it has been, but y'all heard it here. It's the Kimberly Atkins store amendment providing for enhanced penalties for use of a ghost gun. I think that's long overdue. Congress, pay attention.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I know all of us are really concerned about the environment and I am really worried because the holidays can create even more waste than usual. Each year, Americans throw away 25% more trash from Thanksgiving to New Year's. But it doesn't have to be that way. What if we told you there was a way to stock up for the holidays without feeling guilty about the waste that typically comes with? There is. So start your journey to a cleaner, greener home with Blueland. It's also a great gift for other people.

[Joyce Vance]

It really is. Especially because Blueland is on a mission to eliminate single use plastic by reinventing clean essentials so that they're better for you and for the planet. This holiday season, shop sustainably for your friends, your family and even yourself. The idea is pretty simple. Grab one of their beautiful forever bottles, fill it with warm water, drop in the tablet and get cleaning. Refills start at about $2.25 and you don't have to buy a new plastic bottle every time you run out of cleansing liquid. You can even set up a subscription or buy in bulk so you never run out of the products you use the most.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

From cleaning sprays to hand soap, toilet cleaners and laundry tablets, all Blueland products are made with ingredients you can feel good limited time. Blueland's hand soap is getting a festive upgrade with a beautiful chocolate box inspired gift set with cozy scents like toasted vanilla, wintry pine and sweet chestnuts. We're talking a lot about food today. I'm going to get hungry by the.

[Barbara McQuaid]

End of all these scents.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

It's the perfect gift for your loved ones or yourself to reduce waste.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Well, I'm glad we discovered Blueland. The fragrances add a pleasant vibe to our home. But mostly, I can't begin to tell you how how many times that subscription saves me from having to run out of cleaning products and run out to the store. When you need them, you need them right away. It feels great knowing that I'm incorporating sustainable practices into essential everyday activities. And we know you'll love it, too. That's why we're excited to share that Blueland has a special offer for listeners right now. Get 15% off your first order by going to blueland.com. you won't want to miss this. Blueland.com sisters for 15% off. Again, that's blueland.com sisters to get 15% off. The link is in the show notes.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Well, President Biden never promised you a rose garden, but he did promise more clarity clemency. And now coming after he issues the broadest grant of pardons and commutations in one day in history. I want to ask you guys about it. Barb, who did Biden grant clemency to and what do you think of the list? It was a long list.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, he granted clemency to nonviolent offenders who were released during the COVID pandemic and have behaved themselves since then and is not making them return. You know, at first blush, that probably sounds okay, but I've actually recognized several names on the list. And I don't like this use of clemency because they're not violent offenders, but they are serious offenders. There are people who committed health care fraud, public corruption, investor fraud, I mean, and really high numbers. And they got lengthy sentences not because they presented a danger to the public, but as a deterrent to other people from committing these kinds of crimes. You know, these are rich people crimes. I mean, by that, I mean crimes committed by rich people or people in positions of power as opposed to, you know, people who got caught up in a system who didn't have a lot of good alternatives in life, a lot of good choices. You know, when we were in the U.S. attorney's offices, Joyce and I, President Obama had a clemency program where he granted clemency to nonviolent lower level drug offenders who kind of got caught up in the quantity of drugs being trafficked in an organization and they themselves were not violent, but they had faced these very stiff mandatory minimum sentences, who, if sentenced under current standards, would have received very much lower sentences. And so that struck me as a fairness issue, where those were fine and we were very proactive in finding people who met that definition. But here, these are people whose crimes are based not on need, but on greed. And just because they're not violent, to me, doesn't mean they're not people who are deserving of lengthy prison sentences. So there's so many other people I find far more worthy of clemency that these, you know, the rich people who committed rich people crimes are like the least deserving people, in my view. Yeah.

[Joyce Vance]

Can I just add something onto it? I don't disagree with anything that you've said, Barb. This disparity in sentencing used to always drive me crazy. You know, where you'd see a kid who got caught up in selling a small quantity of drugs get whacked with a long sentence, and these guys who just committed egregious white collar crimes would really get a slap on the wrist in many cases. I do think, though, that in our criminal justice system, we incarcerate far too many people for far too long. And although this might not be the place where I would personally want to start with fixing that problem, I do think we have to fix that problem. And one of the things that I really resent about Donald Trump and that I hold against him in my heart is that we were on the path to doing significant criminal justice reform. And that all got knocked off the table because we've been fighting for democracy for the last eight years of our lives while people have been suffering in prison. So I have that off my chest.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Sorry, Joyce, while you're talking, though, we. You. What. What do you think. What message do you think that Biden's trying to send here with this? I mean, you ha. You do have people who are not necessarily the poster boys for criminal justice reform. What do you think he's doing here?

[Joyce Vance]

I think I have actually some very good insight into this because I used to sit on an interagency working group where we talked about early release and principles like this. So during COVID people who, for various reasons were good candidates for release, elderly in poor health, nonviolent stuff like that, those people got paroled for home release. In other words, they weren't completely free. They had to act like they were under house arrest. And these commutations came for people who succeeded. Very few people reoffended after they got this release. And that was the experience with what Barb was talking about with the crack re sentencing too. People who you give a second chance to, they're like, oh my gosh, they're so grateful. They reconnect with their families, their communities, they get jobs, they take advantage of resources, they succeed. There's good data that says that this community based release really works well. These people had already succeeded and so they were, in my mind, a good place for Biden to start. I hear the criticism, I don't disagree with it. I think as long as this is the first step and not the last step, it'll be a good thing.

[Jill Wine Banks]

So I agree with Joyce completely. Except there are, as Barr points out, at least specific people when you do such a broad category, who I mean, Biden has been criticized. Two people from Illinois fall into the category Barb specifically mentioned. One was the comptroller of a small city who embezzled a lot of money from the city. And another was a fraudster who cheated investors out of a half billion dollars. And so do they deserve different consideration just because they were released because of the coincidence of COVID They were out of jail, but they were in home confinement and they were doing well. So if we're going to do that, then shouldn't we look at people who are now in jail, but who would do well in home confinement or in being communicated?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

We should have done that.

[Joyce Vance]

I think that's the point. Do a lot more of it. Right. But we are better off as a community when we don't lock people up in prison because the reality.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Let me ask you this, Jill, let me ask you this. Sorry, I didn't mean to talk over. But what do you think about folks who say, well, next Biden should target everybody who Trump is talking about prosecuting? Do you think that's a good idea?

[Jill Wine Banks]

So. Well, there's a lot to be said on this and I agree with everybody that criminal justice reform is what's needed in general so that we don't over sentence and over incarcerated. And I also want to point out that although this is being hailed as the largest single release, I don't know why Everybody's missing that. 40 to 70,000 draft dodgers were pardoned by President Carter. Certainly a bigger release, but in terms of the preemptive, there are pros and there are cons and there's a lot of argument both ways. When I first thought about it was 100% in favor of preemptive. It shouldn't be necessary. But President Elect Trump, his designees for the FBI and for the attorney general have all made it clear they have enemies lists and they want to pursue certain people which would include people who did nothing but do a good and competent job in their roles, either as January 6th committee, as Jack Smith and his team, as members of Congress. There are a lot of people on the list, including Nancy Pelosi, who I'm hoping recovers from whatever happened in Belgium, wishing her well. And so it shouldn't be necessary, but it is. People should not be persecuted. On the other hand, if you offer someone a pardon, there may be some imputation or suggestion that they did something wrong, which these people did not do wrong, but which you can be guaranteed, the Republicans will argue shows that they did. And they will use it as a way to say, as Biden did, the system of justice has been corrupted. They certainly are going to say that about releasing all the January 6, including the violent offenders who killed people, who injured people. So there are reasons to issue it to protect people from having to spend the next years of their lives defending themselves against spurious charges or just investigations. That alone is expensive. And as we've talked about before, we expect the private bar to step up and offer pro bono services so that they aren't going to have to pay huge legal fees. But it's still going to be their time and it will be very disruptive of their lives. So in a way, I do think that I guess I come out, yeah, you should offer it. People will have to make their decision as to whether to accept the pardon or not.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Okay, we could talk about clemency all day, but I just want to ask you all your quick thoughts on two aspects of this. A future of requests that Biden allies are still making of him after this one. Some say, just grant every pending clemency application just right now, just grant them all. And others say, well, how about you clear the federal death row, which means commuting all the current people sentenced to death on federal death row to life in prison without parole. What Joyce was about to talk go.

[Joyce Vance]

Well, I was just going to say you've got to look at these one at a time to make sure that you're not pardoning people who present a risk of danger to the community. I have looked at a lot of pardon petitions in my life. That's the important step. You know the category you're talking about, Kim? People on death row. There's no talk of pardons or wiping out their conviction. What would happen is their sentences would be commuted. They would no longer be death eligible. They would remain in prison for the rest of their lives. I am 100% in favor of that. And you know, I will tell you that I say that I understand how difficult that would be for victims and communities because almost exactly 35 years ago today, my father in law was murdered. A mail bomber, right before Christmas. The man who killed him was prosecuted and was executed. And having lived through that whole process, process, I am not a fan of the death penalty. And although Joe Biden can't end the death penalty with a stroke of the pen, he could make a really strong statement here. I think it would be a righteous thing for him to do.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I agree, Joyce. And he did promise in his campaign to do something about the death penalty. And this is something he can do is by commuting the sentences. But I also agree, and I think by Barbara said this too, is that we should not pardon people without looking at whether there's a chance of them reoffending and other individual factors. It's the same problem that we had with what we were talking about with the pardon of the people who were on home confinement because of COVID Some of them deserve it and some of them don't. And so you do need a system where these requests have been pending a long time. They should be dealt with. There's a lot that needs to be done in the remaining less than six weeks now of the Biden presidency. And some of these are things that should be done.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

What do you think, Clarb?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Joyce, our hearts break for you with the death of your father in law. That was a really tragic case and we're so sorry for that. On this issue. I agree with you with regard to the clemency petitions, I think you gotta look at them case by case, not blanketly. And I think I'm gonna push back a little bit. The three of you I know share the view that President Biden should grant clemency to the people on death row, again, changing their sentence from death to life in prison. And although I agree with that, as a matter of policy, I think the death penalty barbaric. I think the government should not be in the business of killing people. I think that we once in a while we get it wrong and there's no way to reverse that. I think it has a discriminatory impact on people. You see that it has disparate impact on people of color. Despite all of those things, I think the way to end the death penalty is through legislation, not through one president. I think that it is the role of Congress to change the law. And for the President to simply pardon everybody or grant clemency because he disagrees with the law on this issue I think is something that we should require Congress to change.

[Joyce Vance]

Whether your look is fresh faced, radiant or autumn glam, join us in spicing up your holiday routine with Thrive Cause Cosmetics. You've probably seen their viral tubing mascara all over your socials and on the four of us. It's the one in the turquoise tube and it's a personal favorite. Thrive has so many other amazing products and each high performance and trademark formula is certified 100% vegan and cruelty free with zero parabens, sulfates or talates. It's no wonder that their bestsellers have thousands of five star reviews. Some of them are from me and.

[Jill Wine Banks]

They are all well deserved. I'm in love with all of Thrive's products and my most recent favorite is the Brilliant Eye Brightener. It's a luxurious highlighter eyeshadow combo that makes your eyes look effortless. You don't need any base coat underneath them, they stay on. There's nothing better for a fresh, vibrant look. And it comes in 25 buildable shades to play with and I love playing with them. So use as little or as much as you like. Just apply a light shade to the inner corner of your eyes to open them up and give them a glow. I use a slightly different color on the lid and a darker one on the crease for a subtle blend. I recommend the Stella and the Kasha. You can also use a metallic shade all over your eye and blend it with your finger for an easy smokey eye between between us. That's my secret for making my eyes pop on camera. They even have matte and limited edition glitter shades just in time for the holidays. You have to try them.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Gee Jill, and here I thought your eyes were popping because you were surprised. Another thing we love is that cause is in the name for a reason. Thrive not only defines luxury beauty with their clean skin, loving ingredients and uncompromising standards, they give back too. Every purchase supports organizations helping communities.

[Joyce Vance]

Thrive.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Thrive donates to eight major causes, including the fight against cancer and domestic abuse, veteran and education organizations, and more. I'm so glad we're a part of it.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Spice up your holiday season with Thrive Cosmetics, Luxury Beauty that Gives Back. Right now you can get an exclusive 20% off your first order at thrivecosmetics.com that's thrivecosmetics C A U S E M E t I c s.com sisters for 20% off your first order. And as always, the link is in our show notes.

[Joyce Vance]

So there is a lot going on at DOJ this week. We could have spent the whole episode talking about it. I just want to pull three little threads here and share a little bit of information with our listeners. You know, this is beyond the Bondi and the Patel nominations. Really interesting stuff. First up, FBI Director Chris Wray announced he would resign by the end of the year rather than forcing Trump to fire him so he could advance Cash Patel's nomination. So, Barb, what do you make of this?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, I don't like it in some ways. It's kind of academic, right. He could either resign or he will be fired on day one. Trump has made it clear he wants to replace Christopher Wray. But I kind of feel like Wray is giving Trump an easy out to bust through a norm. The FBI Director's term was set in the 1970s by Congress at 10 years. And the reason for that was twofold. One was to prevent somebody from becoming another J. Edgar Hoover and serving for 50 years or whatever it was he served. But the other was to outlast any president, even a two term president, by giving them 10 years in office. And that was to insulate them from politics. And so if Trump already fired Comey, James Comey, when he didn't like him and he replaced him with Ray. And now Ray presided over the investigations over Donald Trump and the search of his home. So now he doesn't like Ray either and he's running Ray out. And so, you know, in some ways, I'm sure I don't fault Christopher Wray personally. I mean, he even gave a nice statement that he said he's doing it to kind of spare the FBI from being dragged, you know, through more political name calling and other kinds of things. But I kind of feel like if somebody's going to bust a norm here, make Trump do it, don't make it easy for him. Because I think we, we want the Senate to realize this is a big deal before they confirm Cash Patel or whoever else ends up being the nominee. So I kind of don't like it.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Can I just say, Barb, I take a much more, much harder stance on this because it's not a norm, it's a law. It's a law that passed after Watergate because the FBI was in cooperation with the government and they wanted to keep it to be a law enforcement, not a political appointment. There used to be a joke that if you know one FBI director, you know them all. And that's because there was only one J. Edgar Hoover. Founded the FBI and he served forever. And this was to make sure that a 10 year term meant that you served under at least two presidents, that no president would have total control. They wanted to keep it from being political. So it's a law that's being violated and he fired his first one and now he's going to fire his second one and that means there is no more law that says you get a 10 year non political appointment. So I am very, very against this and I do not think Ray should have resigned. He should have for forced to be fired. He could have even fought the firing and there should have been some political support for saying we have a law that says 10 years and you don't even have cause. And so I'm very much against his having resigned.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, you know, I don't think he could have successfully fought the firing because the law does permit a president to fire. Bill Clinton did it with FBI Director Sessions who had been when there was a public trust. But you can come up with cause. One thing that I will say though is I've seen people have been referencing a David French article in the Times that suggests that there's a benefit to doing it this way. We don't really have time to parse the Vacancy Reform Act. Maybe we'll do that in another episode. I don't think that that pans out. I think that this is just something that Chris Wray has done for his own personal reasons. Like you say, Barb, he's entitled to do that. I think unfortunately it avoids having a larger public debate on busting the norms and the laws here. But more to do, right? There's also the new nominee for DOJ's Civil Rights Division. Her name is Harmeet Dhillon. The Civil Rights Division is often referred to as the crown jewel of our system of justice and for good reason. Here we have a Trump loyalist being appointed to take that division over Kim. What do you make of her qualifications to do the job?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Well, I'll let the listeners decide for themselves. Her qualifications. Up to now her legal career has centered largely around making false claims about election fraud and really fighting efforts to expand the availability of voting. For example, throughout the pandemic she's done, you know, I don't want to limit her. She's done other things too. Like she was heavily involved in challenging pandemic era restrictions in churches and elsewhere that that could have, could be a spreading risk. But at that time she did not like those or mask requirements and things like that. So she's a lawyer. What's really upsetting to me about this particular appointment is one of the most important jobs of the head of the Civil Rights Division at DOJ is protecting voting rights. So you're putting in place someone whose whole claim to fame is doing the exact opposite right now. The person holding that spot is named Kristen Clark. And I got to know her because on leading up to elections, right down to election night, she was the one who was keeping her ear closest to the ground to make sure there. There were not, you know, technical problems at the polls that were causing long waits, that there were not inadequate numbers of ballots. That's there certainly that there was not any intimidation or anything else keeping people from voting on. On voting rights. She built her career on protecting voting rights. And this division is also responsible for doing things like enforcing our civil rights laws. And, you know, I really highly doubt someone who also is on record for throwing casting false aspersions on DEI programs and such is going to have that in mind. So I'm not sure we have. We will. If what I fear comes to pass, I'm not sure we will have ever seen the Civil Rights Division taking the kind of actions that are set to happen in the years ahead.

[Joyce Vance]

Okay, so that sounds like you're a no on her, Kim.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

I'll let people make up their own minds.

[Joyce Vance]

Okay, last thread, Jill, this one's for you. Thursday, the DOJ inspector general published a long overdue report on January, January 6, that has attracted a lot of attention. One of the central questions it considered is, and I'll quote from the report itself, how the breach had occurred and what was known by federal law enforcement in advance of January 6th about the possibility of a violent protest that day. Some people, J.D. vance, for one, are using the report to push debunked conspiracy theories. What do you make of the report, its timing and the conclusions it reaches.

[Jill Wine Banks]

So before I answer this really important and good question, I just want to add to what Kim said because I think the Civil Rights Division is to protect the rights of minorities and this person who is nominated protects the rights of majorities. She's made that clear in everything that she has done in court. So I would join Kim in being a no. As to the Inspector general's report, which, which took four years. I mean, it's now four years after January 6th, and we are just getting to this report. There are two different things. One is how the breach occurred, which is clear that there was some miscommunications. And this is something that has happened in many, many circumstances. When I was general COUNSEL OF THE ARMY we had a problem with interoperability of communication systems. So, so that our boats, ships, tankers could not pull up in European places because we don't use the metric system. We have all seen what happens when you can't communicate on walkie talkies because you're on different channels. So that's one of the things about how the breach occurred. And they make some recommendations on how to improve it. But they point out that out of the hundreds of thousands, thousands, maybe not hundreds of thousands, but out of the many confidential sources that the FBI uses, there were 26 in D.C. on that day, only three of whom actually entered the Capitol, and none of whom were authorized to do so by their handlers at the FBI. There is absolutely clear, I would say, conclusion that the FBI is not the cause of January 6, that there was no encouragement or participation in the bad acts that happened. And so it's surprising to me that J.D. vance or anyone else, and he's not alone, there are many others who are using this to push debunk conspiracy theories. And it's a shame. People should read this report, or at least the summaries of the report to see that it absolutely says there was no FBI involvement in this event on January 6th. So please take away the facts of this, which is that it does not. It debunks the conspiracy theories. It doesn't help them.

[Joyce Vance]

You know, we are all lawyers by nature. We are DOJ watchers. But I suspect we will be doing even a tight, more tightly focused DOJ watch for the next four years than we have up until now. So this is something that we'll commit to you that will help you stay informed on.

[Jill Wine Banks]

This brings us to our favorite part of the show, which is to answer your questions. And if you have a question for us, please email [e-mail] or tag us on social media using SistersInLaw. If we don't get to your question today during the show, keep an eye on our feeds throughout the week because we sometimes answer the other questions that we didn't get to. And we love hearing from you. Our first question today comes from Stephanie in Cleveland, Ohio. And I think this is a great question for you, Kim. Is anyone legitimately investigating the elections results? It seems that neither side trusts them. How can we fix that?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Okay, so the first part of the question is, yes, the election results have been very, very well vetted. So here's what happens, because I get, I've seen a lot of questions like this since the election, sort of saying, well, how can we trust the results? And that there was no funny business. First, it remains the case that widespread voter fraud in an election, a presidential election, is very, very diffic to impossible. It's really hard. They're done locally and statewide before you even get to the federal level. Everybody has their own systems. Really, really hard not to crack in that way. Second of all, the DOJ is always watching. They have their own election unit to ensure that there isn't any shenanigans. And when they are reported, they are investigated. Not to mention the fact that there are several legal organizations like the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights under Law, which Kristin Clark used to lead, which is why she was the person I would call an election night to find out if there was any reported shenanigans, because she knew you have the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. And this year, on Kamala Harris's own team, was the Mark Elias. Who knows if anybody is thinking of even walking up to a voting place in the wrong way? Like some signal goes off in Mark's head and he is on it, investigating it and ensuring that people's votes are protected. So all those factors together make clear that there were no widespread shenanigans in 2024 like there weren't in 2020. Why don't people trust the election? That's because people spread disinformation about fraud, including the incoming president. That's why. And that's a much more difficult problem to solve. People don't always take the time to look at all the many ways. Oh, I didn't. Oh, I left out automatic recounts in districts and counties and states where there were the elections within, like, 2% automatically, there are recounts. And there were several automatic recounts in this election, and the results are the same. So, I mean, these are all the safeguards that are in place. People lie about them. And then when people don't have trust in election results, then Republicans usually are the ones that say, well, you know what? We need to build more trust in our elections. So we're going to go past all of these election restrictions. And those election restrictions make it even harder for people to get to the polls, result in even more delays and problems. And then again, people distrust it more. So it's a mess. It's very hard to fix. But long and short, this election was not fraudulent.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah, it is hard to fix, especially when the president elect still will not admit that he lost the 2020 election fair and square. He insisted on Kristen Welker to her on Meet the Press that he wouldn't admit that that was true. So that's really too bad. Our next question comes from Fred, and it's for Barb. Would the speech and debate clause protect members of the January 6 committee and their staff from threats made by Donald Trump and Cash Patel?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Ooh, Fred, very astute. I think you're onto something. I'm gonna give you a yes, but to that. So the speech or debate clause comes from Article 1 of the Constitution, which of course sets four the powers of Congress. And it says that members of Congress, Senators and Representatives shall be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session in their respective houses and for any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any place. And it has been largely interpreted to mean that anything a member of Congress does in their capacity as someone who is focusing on either legislation or investigation in their role as a member of Congress is insulated and it's been extended to their staffs. So as you say, I think they would have a very strong defense against a charge that might be filed against them. Now, that's the yes part. Here's the But I think that it would not stop. The FBI under Kash Patel or the attorney general under Pam Bondi or whoever it ends up being could still initiate an investigation and make their lives miserable. So say you're Liz Cheney. There's nothing that is sort of an affirmative defense she would have to assert after being charged. And so even though it would be a bad faith investigation and prosecution, I think that she could still find herself the target of an investigation, which, of course would bring with it legal costs, aggravation, harm to her reputation, emotional distress and a lot of other things. So I'll give you, Fred, a yes.

[Jill Wine Banks]

But good answer, Barb. And our last question for today comes from Thalia. And I'm going to ask you to answer this, Joyce. Would any of you ever considering running for office? I guess all of us have to answer that.

[Joyce Vance]

You know, I'm going to give a different answer than I would have given a year ago or really even three months ago. I mean, I am married to an elected official. My husband was a state court judge for 20 years. I watched him run. I even sometimes grudgingly accompanied him on campaign events. But he also ran twice for statewide office. Some of you may recall an Alabama politician named Roy Moore, our former chief justice, who lost to Doug Jones when Doug Jones became a US Senator, when during that race, allegations that he was interested in having sexual relationships with underage women surfaced. And my sweet husband Bob actually lost to him for that Supreme Court race before those allegations surfaced. So I just say that, say I've seen how annoying and difficult and horrible it is to run, especially when you're in the minority party in a one party rural state. But I think we live in times that call all of us to step outside of our comfort zones and to give more than we're willing to give.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Are you making an announcement choice?

[Joyce Vance]

I'm not making an announcement because look, I am. I am a Jewish girl from the left coast in deep red Alabama. But I mean, I wouldn't rule out maybe serving on an advisory board or maybe running in my county, which is maybe more blue. But what I do think we all need to do is ask ourselves where we can serve. And I would certainly want to help people with better outlooks than mine might be to run good candidates to run and be more engaged in that process than I might have expected myself to be at this point in my life.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Barb, you want to give a.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Well, that's a pretty good answer I'm going to give. Can I also be a left coast Jewish girl in the deep red South? Cause I like that answer.

[Joyce Vance]

We are the same person.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yes. Whatever.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Jason, you look like one, but I don't think you'll get away with it. And Kim, what about you?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Nope. Nope. No Nope. Nopety Nope. Nope. Nope. Never. We'll never run for office.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Nope.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

No Des. Don't want to do it. Would never do it. No thank you.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I actually did run for office. It was not exactly the office I think that this question is about, but it was as a Biden delegate in 2020, and I actually enjoyed the process a lot, meeting people and going out and getting petitions signed. And so, you know, if I was 20 years younger, 30 years younger, I might consider it because I now feel called to serve in a way that I never did. Because I think so much is at stake now. And I think it's important, as Joy said, for all of us to consider how we can best serve. Whether it's on your local library board to make sure that books aren't banned, your school board, or at a state or federal level. I think it's important. Maybe it's just contributing, holding a house party to meet the candidates. I think there are ways we can all contribute to make sure that. That we preserve our democracy. Thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Kimberly Atkins Storr, Barb McQuaid and me, Jill Wine Banks. Please follow SistersInLaw on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. And please Give us a five star review. It really helps others define the show. And please show some love to this week's sponsors, Osea Malibu Blueland and Thrive Cosmetics. Their links are in the show notes and they really help us to make this podcast possible. So please support them. See you next week with another episode. SistersinLaw Brisby and I and Michael had a photo shoot on Monday and we brought with our dog trainer who brought with sound effects, catcalls, dogs. He brought toys and balls and none of it worked. He was not cooperative. He wouldn't. I mean if he doesn't put his ears in a normal place, he flattens his ears and he looks like he's wearing a babushka. I mean it's.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Well, that's because you didn't run it by his agent first. Like Brisby knows what's like these pictures are not authorized.

[Joyce Vance]

I don't know if you can see, but Bella is sulking behind me because I would not let her play with the furniture delivery guys and she is pissed.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I don't blame her.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Vengeful pets. I love it.

[Joyce Vance]

She is really pissed.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Vengeful pet.

[Joyce Vance]

She won't even look at me.

[E]

It is Ryan Seacrest here. Everybody needs some variety in life. That's what I love about Chumba Casino. They know how to keep things fresh and exciting. All their games are free to play like spin slots, bingo and solitaire. You can claim free daily login bonus too. And they release new games every week. So spice things up with chumbacassino.com now for your chance to redeem some serious prizes. Sponsored by Cumba Casino. No purchase necessary VGW Group void where prohibited by law. 18/ Terms and Conditions apply.

[F]

All right, we're all set for the party. I've trimmed the tree, hung the mistletoe, and paired all those weird shaped knives and forks with the appropriate cheeses. And I plugged in the Bartesian.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Bartesian.

[F]

It's a home cocktail maker that makes over 60 premium cocktails. Plus a whole lot of seasonal favorites too. I just got it for 50 off, so how about a Cosmopolitan or a Mistletoe margarita?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

I'm thirsty.

[Joyce Vance]

Watch.

[F]

I just pop in a capsule, choose my strength and wow, it's beginning to.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Feel more seasonal in here already.

[F]

If your holiday party doesn't have a bartender, then you become the bartender. Unless you've got a Bartesian, because Bartesian crafts everything cocktail perfectly in as little as 30 seconds. And I just got it for $50 off.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Tis the season to be jollier.

[E]

Add some holiday flavor to every celebration with the sleek, sophisticated home cocktail maker Bartesian. Get $50 off any cocktail maker at bartesian.com cocktail that's B A R T E S I A N dot com cocktail water damage is no joke. Did you know that water damage makes up more than 25% of all home insurance claims? And the average claim costs over 13,000 DOL dollars. Don't let a small leak turn into a big expense. Learn [e-mail] no joke Pemco Mutual Insurance Co. Seattle, WA.