Loading summary
Transcript141 lines
- [00:01]
Barb McQuaid
The days are shorter, but our to do lists aren't power through busy days more easily and deliciously thanks to factors no prep, no mess meals. You can choose from 35 nutritious options every week. Get 50% off your first box plus free shipping with code 50 SIL@factormeals.com 50 SIL. The link is in the show notes. Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Joyce vance, Kimberly Atkins, store, Jill Wine Banks and me, Barb McQuaid. 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 now let's get on with the show where today we'll be discussing the disqualification of Fani Willis, state and federal charges against Luigi Mangione and TikTok in the Supreme Court. But first, I just with the holidays coming up, I wanted to ask you guys, let me put it this way. What is your relationship with holiday music and holiday movies? Me, I can't get enough of these Hallmark Christmas movies. I love to have them on in the background while I'm wrapping gifts. I'm especially a sucker for anything involving time travel or ghosts of Christmas past type of stuff. I love those listeners. If you have any recommendations for me, please send them to us on Blue sky or Threads. How about you, Jill? Do you have a relationship with holiday music or movies or anything like that?
- [01:46]
Jill Wine Banks
So I would say that anything sung by Ella Fitzgerald or Frank Sinatra would be on my list of favorites. Most Christmas music is so hackneyed it sounds like elevator music for the most part. I, of course, love all the Christmas movies that are with dancing. So, you know, Bing Crosby, Fred Astaire, all those kinds of things I love. And Hanukkah music is pretty limited, but oh, dreidel, dreidel, dreidel.
- [02:16]
Barb McQuaid
Is there an Adam Sandler one? Isn't there an Adam Sandler?
- [02:18]
Joyce Vance
My husband has a version of it.
- [02:22]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah, that's the good one.
- [02:24]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Kim's got it to celebrate Hanukkah.
- [02:29]
Jill Wine Banks
Thank you, Kimberly.
- [02:32]
Barb McQuaid
Well, how about you, Kim? You've got the gift of music. You like holiday music? Holiday music.
- [02:38]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Oh my goodness, I love holiday music so much. Actually, it was funny. I was in a lift the other day and the temptation Silent Night, which I had not heard yet this season, but it's such a classic, was playing and the driver turned it off and I'm like, okay, how many stars are getting docked because how do you turn off the Temptations singing Silent Night? Like how, how? But. But it's funny. You're talking about movies. I've never been a big Hallmark movie Christmas. You know, I like It's a Wonderful Life and A Christmas Story and all that, but when I was a guest host on NPR on pointe, there was an episode on Hallmark Christmas movies, an entire episode. And I'm thinking, leading up to this, it's like, really? We're gonna talk. Will audience members really be all that interested? Oh, my goodness. The calls, the, you know, the tweet. Like, everything that I got in response, People take it seriously. Like, there was a moment where I was a little snarky about it, and people did not like it. They were not here for it. Do not mess. I heard do not with Hallmark movies. And I got to talk to Hallmark movie royalty Lacey Chabert, who's in, like, most of them, and she was on, and it was very, very serious business. So I stand corrected. I have learned, and I now respect the Hallmark movie. Yeah.
- [04:03]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, they're great.
- [04:04]
Joyce Vance
You know, I have heard you say that before, Kim, because I think you have heard me say, I can't remember if on the podcast or off, but, Barb, we totally have this in common. I wish you were down here, because when I finish grading my last exam, my practice is to plunk my butt down on the couch with some delicious popcorn and watch as many Hallmark movies as possible until somebody in my family points out that it's almost Christmas Eve and I have to make Christmas Eve dinner for. For a bunch of people. But I. I love them. I love the predictability. I love the happy endings. It's so contrary to the rest of my personality and. And the kind of books that I like to read. And so I will embar Mary Trump, friend of the podcast, and say that I was sharing this with Mary probably three or four years ago, and she literally thought I was joking. She was like, there's no way you like Hallmark movies. And I was like, oh, no, I'm totally serious, and you need to watch them, too. And I actually forced her to watch a couple with me to the point where she sort of finally agreed that they were okay and came up with a plan where she thought, well, maybe I'll write one. Which is actually my secret dream. You guys, in the last act of my career, I think I want to write Hallmark movies. So if. If somebody from Hallmark is listening, sign me up, baby.
- [05:24]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, I love it. I've got just the plot for you, too, Joyce. It turns out you're secretly a princess, and you just didn't know it. Your family sent you away for your own protection. But it's from some like made up European country with a name like Roldovia.
- [05:37]
Joyce Vance
Or something like that. I've seen this movie. I've seen this one already. Yeah, I think in mine there would be like dogs and chickens too, so it'd be a little bit different than the standard Hallmark. Fair, huh? Great sleep is critical to success, and there's nothing better for sleep than a Helix mattress. I first heard about them when they asked to sponsor our show, but we're very selective on Sisters in Law and I wanted to try one out. I took their quiz to tailor my mattress to my sleep style and I got matched with the Helix Midnight mattress. I must have aced that quiz because I've been getting the best sleep of my life ever since it arrived. After trying it and sort of hanging out with Bob and me in our bedroom, the kids all ended up asking for them. So we are a Helix family. Everyone in our house loves their mattresses.
- [06:33]
Barb McQuaid
Helix has so many options. They combine memory foam and individually wrapped steel coils for the perfect blend of softness and support. There are even enhanced cooling features to keep you from getting too warm when the furnace is blasting or a heat wave hits. Both are frequent occurrences with climate change, so I'm definitely glad Helix has this feature.
- [06:55]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Making the switch is such an upgrade, as we have been saying for two years now. You know, since we've started telling people about Helix, there have been so many stories of people seeing transformational improvements in the quality of their sleep. And add that to Helix's quick and simple setup and no fuss trial policy and it's an easy choice.
- [07:17]
Jill Wine Banks
And right now, Helix has an incredible deal for our listeners. You'll get 20% off site wide and two free pillows with any mattress order. Don't wait. Go to helixsleep.comsisters for 20% off and two free pillows. Again, that's helixsleep.comsisters. the link, of course, is in our show notes. Before we start this next topic, I want to say that anyone who may be sensitive about rape and sexual abuse should be warned that we are fairly explicit in our discussion of this next topic. Some things happened this week that make me think President Elect Trump is the luckiest man alive and of course, the most undeserving and the most likely to destroy the rule of law. He has succeeded in cowing wealthy, successful businessmen, the media, and almost 100% of Republican members of the House and Senate. He has won court cases no one should have won, including scotus, giving him broad immunity that killed Jack Smith's cases, at least for now. And now he has got DA Fani Willis disqualified from prosecuting the Georgia case against him and his remaining co defendants. Let's talk about that. And then let's talk about Trump getting ABC to settle a defamation case and his feeling empowered to bring another case against the media, this time against the Des Moines Register and their pollster. I am hoping that Georgia is just a temporary victory. It was a two to one decision where the dissent made way more sense to me than the majority, which admitted they were making an exception to the Georgia law's requirement of actual conflict. What do you all think about this? Let's start with you, Joyce.
- [09:23]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. So you know, Fani Willis was disqualified for having a romantic relationship with an attorney that she had hired to run the investigation. And the trial judge actually ruled in her favor, said it was just an appearance of impropriety, not an actual impropriety, so she could stick around on the case. And the court of Appeals came in 2 to 1 with, as you've said, a really perplexing ruling. Right. It says, well, yeah, it's just an appearance of impropriety, but the case was so rare and unusual that disqualification was mandated. This makes no sense. And I completely expect it to be affirmed on appeal because what you have to understand is that we live in a world here in the Deep south of elected appellate courts, our intermediate courts, our supreme courts are elected. People run, if not on partisan tickets, people tend to know. And Georgia's courts are very conservative, very much in a toe the line sort of way. I would be delighted if they reversed this really bad decision. I do not expect them to.
- [10:31]
Jill Wine Banks
Okay, so, Barb, when we talk about what's next before we get to that, the whole office was disqualified if she had an appearance. They didn't. So what's that about?
- [10:42]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. So let me just say a couple of things. You know, first is Georgia law is really clear. The only reason you must recuse a prosecutor is for an actual conflict of interest, not a wait, are you accusing.
- [10:57]
Joyce Vance
Georgia judges of reading the law before they rule? Because, girl, no, we don't do it that way. Daniel.
- [11:01]
Barb McQuaid
Well, that explains it, because there was a dissenting judge here who kind of was apoplectic about the law is clear. It says it's only for actual conflicts of interest, not apparent conflicts of interest. And just to our listeners who may not know what I mean by that and the difference, you know, there are two sides in any case, and we refer to those as being on the Other side of the V. Right. This case is the people of Georgia versus Donald Trump and his co defendants. And so if you have a conflict with the people on the other side of the V, like I have a financial stake in the outcome, I'll make more money if I win, or something like that, or my close relative stands to cash in if we win or lose this case, then you might accuse the person of having an actual conflict of interest. In this case, it was about a personal relationship with one of her subordinates on the same side of the V. We had a married couple handling the other side of the case. Nobody had any problem with that. Of course not, because they're on the same side of the case. Now, when you're a prosecutor and the head of the office, it is a mistake to have a romantic relationship with your subordinate. There are ethical reasons as a manager that that's a bad idea because you don't want that person to get favorable treatment, promotions, raises, bonuses and other kinds of things that their colleagues are not getting. So maybe she's got a problem with the State Bar of Georgia. Maybe she's got a problem with her constituents who can vote her out of office. Who doesn't have a problem is the people on the other side of the V. And that's why it's not an actual conflict of interest. And so here the court said, but because of the extraordinary nature of this case, we find it to be the rare case where the appearance of propriety is so important to public confidence in the outcome of the proceedings that we're going to go ahead and disqualify her anyway, which is really going against the will of the voters of Fulton county who elected her to that job. So what happens next?
- [12:54]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
And reelected her, since it's also going against the legislate resoundingly.
- [12:59]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. So this decision really is completely in violation of the law, contrary to the law, common sense. And it's going to be very disruptive to this case. Because you said, what happens next? Well, an appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. Of course, this is just an intermediate appellate court, but as Joyce said, I don't know that we should have a lot of confidence. Joyce seems to have even less confidence than I did that they would look at the law here. I seem to think that because the law is clear, if they have any integrity, that I think there's a decent chance this gets reversed. And one thing that's important is even though they disqualified Fannie Willis, they did not think it was appropriate to dismiss the indictment. So that stands now of course, the next thing that happens after that, if this decision is affirmed, as Joyce predicts by the Georgia Supreme Court, the way the case gets reassigned is there is this coordinating counsel in Georgia and it is the executive director of that group that decides to reassign the case to a different prosecutor in Georgia. And that's where it gets really tricky because is there anyone other than Fani Willis who might be willing to take on this case?
- [14:08]
Jill Wine Banks
Okay, so Kim, let me ask you that question. Is there any chance that another DA will take it on?
- [14:16]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Well, I don't think so. I mean, why would they want to take this on after all of this? Not only to take on the time the man work the expense, but you cannot replicate this case done by a different district attorney's office. This is a Fulton county case that was brought by Fani Willis, put a ton of resources in it. And Fulton county is not interchangeable with DeKalb or Cobb or any other in the state of Georgia. You're going to have very different prosecutors with very different priorities and very different views about this case. Quite likely. So no, this is the end of the. I know there's a lot of. Well, the case isn't thrown out. Well, there's a. This is the end of line. This case is basically done. The fork is halfway in it. And I'm furious about it because on top of everything you all have said identifying what has happened and the lack of law and the completely made up rationale on top of this is this was a strategic effort. Right. We've seen how those who represent Donald Trump in these legal actions take particular glee in attacking black women prosecutors. We've seen it with Fani Willis. We've seen it with Tish James. We've seen even Alvin Bragg. You don't even have to be a woman. There is a particular venom with which they go after this. And the reason that they take we are here is that their strategy was to attack Fani Willis and make her a villain. Because not only would they be get takers in that in the courts, but they also would and this certainly has followed cause people who claim to advocate for democracy and want to see Donald Trump held accountable to spend more energy criticizing Fanny Willis for her choices than actually looking at what the actual fraudsters who tried to upend an election, the elected judges who choo to ignore the law like, like admit to saying, well, the law does not support this outcome, but we really think that it needs to be this way anyway. So we're just going to ignore the law. They knew that they would permit all of these people to destroy the rule of law and that the finger would be wagged at the woman in Fulton county who has been trying to uphold the law and protect democracy, which I have absolutely no time for. If that is your villain in this world, in this case, then you really need to rethink your life, isn't it?
- [16:47]
Joyce Vance
Like when they say it's the exceptional circumstance, what they're really saying is we need to make yet another legal exception for Donald Trump. I mean, this was not.
- [16:55]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
And we have to put Fani Willis in her place.
- [16:58]
Joyce Vance
In her place, absolutely.
- [16:59]
Jill Wine Banks
And this is exactly what I started this questioning with, which is that he is the luckiest man alive and the most undeserving. He has gotten away with everything.
- [17:10]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
It's not luck, though.
- [17:12]
Barb McQuaid
It's not luck.
- [17:13]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
It's by design.
- [17:14]
Barb McQuaid
It's bare knuckled brawling, intimidation, knowing that.
- [17:18]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
The system is rigged in a way that will allow him to. He's figured out where the cracks are in the system and he's exploited every single one. There's no luck about it.
- [17:27]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah, well, we're gonna have to put our finger in the dike and get this fixed before we lose all of our democracy. And to. To confirm what you said about will another DA take it on? One of the co defendants, Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones, was severed because Fani Willis had made a fundraising effort for his opponent. So he was taken out from her being able to prosecute him, and it ain't going nowhere. So that's the end of his case and probably the end of this case. It's really a shame. What about the four of the co defendants who've already pled guilty? What happens to them?
- [18:07]
Joyce Vance
Yes. So, you know, there's a strong preference that the system has for the finality of guilty pleas. Interestingly enough, this is a matter of law, not politics. We don't get to talk about stuff like this often enough. But it's just one of those principles in the criminal justice system that to avoid endless relitigation of guilty pleas, barring exceptional circumstances and merit, once you've entered a guilty plea and a judge has accepted it, that guilty plea is going to stick around. And in this case, Judge McAfee has already rejected at least one request to withdraw a guilty plea for this reason. I think that these guilty pleas that are already in place will stick. There's nothing about this situation that suggests that those guilty pleas are invalid or that the charges against them are invalid. They get no protection from Donald Trump's Presidential immunity. So I think we'll see those hold up.
- [19:03]
Jill Wine Banks
So let's move to some of the media stuff that has benefited Donald Trump. ABC just agreed to pay $15 million to Trump's library in the future to settle his claims against ABC and George Stephanopoulos. Joyce, what's the suit about? Seems to me that ABC did err when they said that Donald Trump was found liable for rape. And if they had issued a retraction when first notified about the complaint, would that have ended the case?
- [19:38]
Joyce Vance
So you know, it's pretty interesting that even in this settlement they didn't issue a retraction. Usually as a precedent to filing a defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff to be will send the defendant to be a letter that says, hey, you libeled me. You need to retract this in the same form that you made the comments in. And if you don't do that, I'll sue you. And obviously that sort of exchange happened here and ABC didn't play along. And what fascinates me the most about this settlement, which has been much maligned and rightfully so, is that it does not involve a retraction. ABC has said that they regretted the comments, but the comments stay up just with that regret notice at the bottom. It sort of feels to me like they don't technically agree that it's liable. And so this is to the point that you made about George's comments, Jill. You know, the case is about an interview that Stephanopoulos did with Florida Representative Nancy Mace. She's a Republican and she's talked about being raped as a teenager. So Stephanopoulos asked repeatedly and pretty forcefully why she was supporting Trump. He was careful to say he had been found liable for rape in a civil lawsuit. So the civil lawsuit part is fine. There was no suggestion Trump had been criminally convicted. What Trump objected to was characterizing this as rape. And as you say, Stephanopoulos was off base in this sort of hyper technical legal sense. But it may really not have amounted to defamation under the law. And here's why. New York law, it uses this old fashioned definition of rape that's limited to contact between a penis and a vagina. The term sex abuse is used for other conduct that we would normally include in the more modern definition of rape. That's adopted in forward leaning states like Alabama, for instance, where the definition of rape is much more expansive. That would include what E. Jean Carroll alleged, that Trump put his fingers into her vagina. That would be the modern definition of rape in most states. It's technically not in New York, where it's sex abuse. So the judge even confirmed that in this case. When Trump raised a related issue about this conduct, the judge acknowledged that colloquially, what the jury found against him for in the civil suit was understood to be rape. And that's what Stephanopoulos called it over and over repeatedly during the interview. I think if this one had gone to trial, ABC would have won. And so that's the big part of the uproar and the mystery here. Why do you settle a case even before the depositions take place when you're in a really strong legal position?
- [22:17]
Jill Wine Banks
So, Kim, as part of the media, tell us what you think. Why did ABC settle? They've been severely criticized for doing it, and it seems to have empowered Trump to bring another suit, which we'll talk about after this. But what do you think? Why did they do it?
- [22:36]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Yeah. So essentially, what happened, based on reporting from the New York Times, is that the head of Disney, Bob Iger, and their general counsel got cold feet and decided that it was better just to kill the lawsuit, which is ridiculous if that reporting is true. That not only is such a backstab to the news division at abc, because this was a dud of a case. Can I say, to prove defamation, you have to prove, one, that a statement was false, Two, that it was made with reckless. With knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard to the truth, and three, that Donald Trump's reputation was harmed. Three is impossible to prove. I don't know how you prove that in any defamation case. Honestly, I think he is as close to libel proof as one can possibly get right to this whole. And even if you can say, okay, he could be defamed, the standard would be the average ABC viewer. Do they know the vague differences in New York statute that Joyce just laid? No, they don't. And suddenly what they say, oh, you know, he's. I'm okay with him being an adjudicated sexual abuser, but you call him the R word. Well, that just totally changes my thought. No, this was a dud of a case. I can't emphasize that enough. But this settlement, what it does is that it puts the target on the backs of all of the reporters within the news division at abc, as well as other reporters like me, like other people who go out every day. And we have to be prepared to be hit with more frivolous lawsuits because of the spineless decision. In my opinion of the execs at Disney, Mickey Mouse should not be making editorial decisions, y'all. I'm sorry, it just.
- [24:39]
Jill Wine Banks
No, Minnie Mouse would be okay, so.
- [24:43]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Do a better job.
- [24:45]
Jill Wine Banks
All right, so, Barb, one last question on this topic. It's money being paid to his library. And I just, that struck me as so odd. First of all, there's all these jokes about he doesn't read books. Will there ever be a library, but what's the significance of it being to his library?
- [25:06]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, so interesting, isn't it? And I'm sure you asked me this question because, you know, of my affinity for presidential libraries. I have visited many and I enjoy visiting them. There's actually a really interesting article about this from the Freedom of the Press foundation that talks about how fundraising for presidential libraries have become this kind of, I don't wanna say scam, but a very unregulated lack of accountability or oversight place. And that's because the National Archives provide some funding for libraries, but most of them are privately funded. And so you can kind of do whatever you want with it. And as you know, Jill, you'll recall this, the Nixon Presidential Library originally had no section on Watergate. So in some ways they can be propaganda organizations. Now, ultimately they did add a very good Watergate wing to the Nixon Presidential Library, but there's nothing to check to make sure the information there is accurate. It's a little bit of, you know, a theme park to the presidency. George W. Bush, for example, has been criticized for making his library a shrine, trying to his presidency and being very one sided on the presentation of the war on terror. You know, not talking about torture, but talking about the attack and the United States heroic response to it. And so in a lot of ways I worry about how Donald Trump will portray his presidency, especially with these private funds. Will it be a source of accurate information for researchers and historians, or will it instead be some sort of, you know, shrine to his greatness now funded by ABC News?
- [26:50]
Joyce Vance
Have you ever seen the movie Back to the Future?
- [26:53]
Barb McQuaid
Well, I have. You know, I love time travel.
- [26:55]
Joyce Vance
Well, and I mean, I, I know that from our conversation. So, you know you've got Biff's Pleasure palace, right, which was built on Donald Trump in the Back to the Future movies. I think that's the presidential library we're going to see.
- [27:11]
Jill Wine Banks
So, you know, you're right about the Nixon Library, which was originally privately funded and had no mention of Watergate whatsoever. And then Tim Naphtali took over and he insisted that there be a Watergate section. It's small compared to what it could be, but it's very effective and does a good job. It's a great museum so, okay, let's move to the Des Moines Register lawsuit that Trump just filed against the paper and Ann Seltzer, her polling firm, Gannett, which is the newspaper's parent company. And Joyce, let me turn to you because your experience with defamation law, but this is a consumer fraud case based on the pollsters prediction, not a free speech case, not defamation. What does the lawsuit allege and has there ever been a case like this?
- [28:00]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. So this is sort of crazy, right? And I mean, I think it's a recognition that Trump could not have successfully sued her for defamation. Defamation or other related claims. So they have this, I'll be nice for starters and call it a novel theory of law. But Seltzer, you know, is a pollster for the Des Moines Register. She's a very well regarded one. And what I think our listeners will remember is that she came out with a pre election poll that really shocked people by saying that Kamala Harris was up in Iowa and of course she ended up losing that state. Right. So Trump has sued and he's alleging that that was election interference, that when she came out with this poll, even though polls are meant to be predictions. And no one has ever sued Nate Silver for getting things dramatically, dramatically wrong in 2016, but he's sued under that theory. And so you know what the difference is between this and, and the ABC case. The Register's parent company, Gannett, called the lawsuit meritless and they said that they would vigorously defend their First Amendment rights. That's what we're used to seeing from media companies. Right. They don't back down when they're wrongfully sued. And so I think it's sort of like reassuring and nice to see a major company staying on track here.
- [29:19]
Jill Wine Banks
Kim, as part of the media, I'm sure you have pretty strong opinions about whether this is an abuse of the legal system. If it's a first step to his completing his threat to punish anyone who he thinks says anything he doesn't like. What do you got to say about that?
- [29:37]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Yeah, I'm not as much of a Southern lady as Joyce is. I would not use novel to describe.
- [29:45]
Joyce Vance
I thought it was very nice of me to call it that.
- [29:48]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
I would use a very different word. But I want to keep this a. You know, I don't want to get a warning label on the podcast, a family podcast. I will keep it. But yeah, it's nonsense. This is pure. He is known in the business world to abuse the legal system with frivolous lawsuits and demand letters and all of that, just threatening to sue Everyone to get his way. So he's trying this tactic now in a very unconstitutional way. But this is what, you know, this is what the effect of the election is. So.
- [30:22]
Jill Wine Banks
Oh, man. And so, Barbara, there's one other problem with this case. Doesn't there have to be some damage and here he won the election. It had no impact. He won big in Iowa. So what's going on here?
- [30:38]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, I think you raise a really good point. So, you know, one of the essential elements of a defamation suit is not just that you said something about someone that you knew was false or acted with reckless disregard to falsity, but that you caused harm to their reputation. So, you know, if somebody loses a job and they can quantify that, then, you know, that's damages. Or you can show that. You know, I think about, like Shay Moss and Ruby Freeman, who suffered all kinds of threats and harassment, were driven from their homes, you know, the infliction of emotional distress, that's something that you can quantify. But here I don't think he was harmed at all.
- [31:15]
Jill Wine Banks
Right.
- [31:15]
Barb McQuaid
He won the election and he won Iowa. So I think it'd be ridiculous. Ridiculous. I don't think he can win on this element. I don't think he can show any damages whatsoever. Which is why I think this lawsuit, like so many others, are not really about winning the lawsuit. I think it is about sending a message to people who dare to criticize him. You know, in his book the Art of the Deal, which I have not read, but I have read summaries of, like, what lessons can we learn?
- [31:42]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
He hasn't either.
- [31:49]
Barb McQuaid
Well, one of the things he says in it, or at least his ghost author says in it, it is when people wrong you, you have to hit them back 10 times harder. Because what you want to do is send a message to everybody else. Look out. If you come after me, you are going to get it times 10, because that way it has a deterrent effect and people are afraid to take you on. I think that's exactly what's happening here. Ann Seltzer had this poll. She shared the results. He didn't like it. He's going to hit her back times 10 with this lawsuit. And so he's going to make her hire a lawyer and go through, maybe have her deposition taken and go through all kinds of things to make her life difficult, even if knowing at the end of the day he is not going to be able to win this lawsuit. Because this is not about Ann Seltzer. This is about everybody else.
- [32:46]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
With big wireless providers. What you see is never really what you get. Somewhere between the store and your first month's bill, the price you thought you were paying magically skyrockets. But with Mint Mobile, you'll never have to worry about gotchas ever again. When mint mobile says $15 a month when you purchase a three month plan, they mean it.
- [33:10]
Barb McQuaid
Between fees, upcharges and complicated bill breakdowns, the pricing on other wireless plans can be confusing. Fortunately, Mint Mobile keeps it simple and affordable. It's super easy to make the switch. When you do, you'll love knowing that you and your family can put the savings to better use.
- [33:31]
Joyce Vance
If you're ready to say goodbye to overpriced wireless plans, jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you with premium wireless plans starting at $15 a month plus, all plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. You can even use your own phone number with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number with all your existing contacts. So if you're ready to ditch overpriced wireless with Mint Mobile's deal, you can get three months of premium wireless service for $15 a month.
- [34:06]
Jill Wine Banks
To get this new customer offer and your new three month premium wireless plan for just $15 a month, go to mintmobile.com that's mintmobile.com Sisters cut your wireless bill to $15 a month at mintmobile.com Sisters $45 upfront payment is required. It's equivalent to $15 per month new customers on first three month plan only speeds slower above 40gb on unlimited plan. Additional taxes, fees and restrictions apply. See Mint Mobile for details. The link is in our show. Notes.
- [35:00]
Joyce Vance
UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was killed in what appears to be a premeditated shooting just over two weeks ago. Our hearts continue to go out to his family for their tragic loss as they deal with it it during the holiday season. His alleged killer, Luigi Manioni, is in custody. He was transported to New York Thursday morning to be arraigned on state charges. And that's when things got weird. Legally weird. He was charged by the Manhattan da. It's a murder charge, but there's a potential issue because of a quirk in New York law. Jill, can you explain what that's about?
- [35:37]
Jill Wine Banks
Sure, the penalty gets more serious if it's first degree murder. But first degree murder is one that requires special aggravating circumstances. And in this case, the one that they are relying on is murder as a part of a terrorism act. And that means that it has to be something that is intended to frighten the civilian population. And so here the question is, were people I mean, yes, the person who ran away, who was standing on the street when he shot the CEO was probably scared, but were New Yorkers frightened by this happening? It was a targeted shooting that was aimed at one person and one person only. And so then the question is, can the civilian population identify be CEOs who are now frightened? So that is a added element that they're going to have to prove. There are other charges, federal and state, that don't require that. But that is a particular problem with how it's charged here. And some people have said that it's overcharged because of that.
- [36:57]
Joyce Vance
So I'm going to just apologize to our listeners. Depending on how much of this we can get out, we are going to have all four kids of our our in our house for Christmas. And we are frantically trying to finish work on a bathroom that's out of commission because it's being redone. So if you hear drilling in the background, I apologize, but my kids will appreciate your patience just so they can have a bathroom to use when they're here. And I guess, you know, Jill, what you're talking about, this notion of different laws in New York, I mean, that's a theme that we also touched on in the preceding topic. Obviously, you've got 50 states, 50 different state codes. Most states have some variation. And states define murder and the punishment that they prescribe for it very differently. So here's this little wrinkle in New York law. But typically, murder cases are handled by state prosecutors. It's exceptional circumstances where the feds step in to take these cases. But here on Thursday, we learned federal prosecutors in New York had filed a complaint as well. So, Kim, remind us what the complaint is, how it's different from an indictment. And talk about the charges here.
- [38:11]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Yeah. So this is a criminal complaint. So some people can be charged criminally through the use of a grand jury process, which, which we've talked about a lot. But prosecutors can also bring something which is called a complaint. And that is what is happening here. And what I find interesting about this is now keep in mind, there really is not a federal murder statute. Generally speaking, if someone's charged with murder, they're charged on the state level. But what federal law does provide are things that are, I guess they're enhancements in a way. But that brings it up to basically a federal substitute for a murder charge. So in this case, for example, he is charged with one count of using a firearm to commit murder. It's not really murder, but it's essentially the federal version of murder. Right. But what I find interesting is that he's charged with two counts related to stalking. And I think that that is an interesting approach, because when you think of stalking, why that is its own federal crime is that there is sort of a mental aspect to it. Right. It's someone who knows that somebody knows where they're going and, you know, is following them or watching them somehow, or surveilling them in a mean, In a menacing way. And you want to discourage that. But generally speaking, they have to know that this is happening. And in this case, it is not clear whether the victim knew, except for a moment before the shot was fired, if this person, who this person was, or their very existence, let alone felt afraid for them. I think one reason they're doing it is that it's sort of like a version of terrorism, but it's just like terrorizing one person or terrorizing a specific group of people, and they're trying to make that stick anyway. I will be interested in how that is prosecuted. And he's also charged with using a silencer, which is a federal crime, in carrying out this attack. Overall, he can face as much as the death penalty if he is convicted on the most serious count of using a firearm to commit murder.
- [40:21]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, I mean, it's really fascinating. It almost feels to me like there's tension between the state and the federal charges. Right. The state is sort of like he threw the whole city into terror and fear, and the federal charges say, no, no, no, he's just stalking this one person.
- [40:36]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Yeah.
- [40:36]
Joyce Vance
So I. I will be interested to see that play out. You know, I did hear this morning that the state will proceed first. There was all of this drama on Thursday where he was being flown into New York to face state charges, and whoosh, the FBI whisked him off to. To federal court. And that is very unusual. Let me say again, I mean, we have seen federal prosecutions for murder after state cases. Typically, though, those have happened in civil rights cases. Y'all will remember the murder of George Floyd or the murder of ahmaud arbery, where DOJ's civil rights division stepped in and said, look, you know, we're pleased by the state prosecution, but there are civil rights interests here that haven't been vindicated, so we'll do a separate federal prosecution. Usually the feds just don't get involved, not for nothing in these cases. And so, Barb, I have this question for you of how unusual this is going on, what you think is going on here.
- [41:34]
Barb McQuaid
It is unusual. And, Joyce, you will probably remember that in the federal system, we had something we called the Petite policy Petit, not for my dress size, but for a case named Petite that said, ordinarily, you should, if you're a federal prosecutor, respect the wishes of the state prosecutor and let them go first. And if the defendant was convicted and got a satisfactory sentence, then you would just leave it alone. And only if there was some unresolved federal interest that still remained would federal prosecutors then step in. So the classic example is Rodney King. Remember, he was beaten, and the officers beat the rap in the state system. And so because there was criminal conduct that had gone unaddressed and there was a federal interest there, federal prosecutors then brought a federal civil rights case and got a conviction. So that's the kind of way I've always thought about it. But as Joyce has said, in recent years in this administration, we have seen the federal government kind of go simultaneously and file charges against Derek Chauvin and against the perpetrators of the death of Ahmaud Arbery. And now we're seeing it again in this case. And what it says to me is they are making a statement about conduct that they deem reprehensible. Because, remember, one of the reasons of criminal prosecution, it's not just to punish wrongdoing. It's not just to protect the public from dangerous individuals. It is also to send a deterrent message about the kind of conduct that is reprehensible to an ordered society. And it reminds me a little bit of hate crimes. You know, I would often hear this criticism when we charged a hate crime that people would say, why do you need special rules for special people? I mean, if it's an assault, just call it an assault. If it's a murder, or just call it a murder. But I always thought it was important to charge a hate crime when there was this additional motive of a victim targeted because of their race or their sexual orientation or their religion or national origin, because it terrorized a community. And it went after a person saying that they didn't belong in America. And so I thought it was really important to send a deterrent message to anybody who had that additional motive so we could share the social condemnation for that crime. And in the same way, I think terrorism charges are appropriate here in the state system. And, you know, the federal charges are not terrorism charges, but they're very serious charges to send a message that when you target somebody to make some sort of political Statement. This is political violence, whether you call it terrorism or anything else. And I'm worried about copycats. I'm worried about the way he has been heroized by some people on social media. This is not the way we resolve disputes in America. Certainly people have. Have complaints about the way the insurance industry gouges consumers. I agree with it, and I would like to see us do things to better regulate the insurance industry to protect consumers. But what we can't have is people taking the law into their own hands and saying, I don't like the way the insurance company does business, so I'm going to whack, in his words, a CEO to draw attention to it. So I think for that reason, we are seeing federal prosecutors say that there is a substantial federal interest here that would otherwise go unvindicated because, as Kim mentioned, the stalking charge, this case began many months ago in Atlanta when he began researching him and traveling to New York and spending many days surveilling the scene and then killing him. So I think the federal rule here is designed to send a strong deterrent message against political violence.
- [45:10]
Joyce Vance
I think that's a fair read on it, especially because of the way he has been sort of idolized or treated like a martyr in some parts of the community. I mean, it is a fascinating situation in the sense that it's clear that the insurance industry has a lot to answer for. The question is, how do you make them answer? And certainly not at the end of a firearm. But, Kim, as you pointed out, now, one of these federal charges is death eligible, which means that the feds could, if they went through the appropriate process for seeking the Attorney General's permission to charge a death penalty case, we could see that when this case is indicted. And Kim, I think he made a really great observation that's worth sort of dwelling on a little bit. You know, in state codes, there's just a homicide law, murder and manslaughter, and it's charged straight up in the federal system. It's much more sort of spread out across the code. For instance, killing someone on federal property is murder, or killing certain classes of people. For instance, trying to kill a president or a vice president is attempted murder. And you can have murder charges. But there is this entire range of cases. There's bank robbery statute, there are the firearms statutes, there's the civil rights statutes, there's bomb and gun statutes, where conduct can be eligible for capital punishment if the victim dies while you're committing the crime. And so that's what we're seeing here. I'm curious. I mean, what do you guys think? It's too early for any decision to have been made by the Fed yet. But what are your thoughts about that in the context of this case? Do you think that DOJ will end up charging a capital case? Kim?
- [46:57]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
I think they probably will. I mean, I think they will see this more as similar to, say, the Boston bombing case than something that's just a simple murder. Since it was meant to send based on his own admission, if the writings, the alleged writings of this suspect is to be believed, this was meant to send a message. This was meant this was not just about one person. And that is what the government sought in similar cases. So I expect it to.
- [47:30]
Jill Wine Banks
Can I just add to that, because President Biden in campaigning said that he was going to eliminate the federal death penalty, and he has not. And the Department of Justice, the solicitor general, has argued in court to uphold convictions that had the death penalty. And because he's now under he President Biden is under a lot of pressure to commute the sentences of everyone on federal death row. I'm not sure how they would come out, but it also doesn't matter because Donald Trump had a killing spree at the end of his first term. And so whatever happens now in a few weeks can and probably will be undone and that this will end up being charged as a federal death penalty case.
- [48:22]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, I agree with that, Jill. I think that no determination will be made until after January 20th just because it takes a certain amount of time. I'll just share how prosecutors think about this. First, the defense has an opportunity to provide what's called mitigation. And so they get time to investigate whether this person is deserving. Because when prosecutors are deciding whether to seek the death penalty, prosecutors in the local office make a recommendation to the attorney general, and it's only the attorney general who actually can decide. But there's a federal statute that says, here are the aggravating factors we should consider, and here are the mitigating factors we should consider. And so the prosecutors look at all the information they have, but the defense has an opportunity to kind of investigate the person's background to see if there is anything like impaired mental capacity. You know, even if a person is functional, they may still have an inability to appreciate the difference between right and wrong or control their impulses, whether they're under duress, their, you know, abuse as a child, all kinds of things like that are considered as mitigating factors. And then there's also aggravating factors that they'll look at like, you know, substantial premeditation is one particularly cruel or depraved means of an offense, substantial planning. So all of those things would be taken into consideration and it just takes longer than a few weeks. And so I think it will be the Trump administration that ultimately decides whether to seek the death penalty in this case. And I don't know how they might come out on this, but the right answer is carefully, soberly assessing all of those facts and then making a decision in the case and not just the kind of knee jerk. Well, we want to send a message to people who want to whack CEOs or this guy is a hero on social media, so should we go easy on him? It really should be. Go through each factor methodically, look at the facts and do you have these aggravating factors or mitigating factors and how do they offset each other?
- [50:30]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
You know, my family is pretty scattered from coast to coast essentially. But you know, I always keep them close with my aura frames. You know, the holidays are all about connecting with loved ones ones and there's no better way to do it than with a digital picture frame from Aura Frames Wirecutter called it the best digital photo frame and it's easy to see why. You can upload your favorite pictures of your family to one frame and relive all those happy moments again and again.
- [51:00]
Joyce Vance
You know, aura it's also perfect if you have big news to share like Vance Children. If you're listening to Mommy Podcast, you know a little bit of a wedding announcement news would be welcome at at some point you could also share a new addition to the family or other sorts of cherished milestones. And look, if you want something even more personalized, you can upload a video message and it'll play on the frame as soon as it plugged in. This is just so brilliant. That way the first thing the recipient would hear is your voice and how much you love them.
- [51:33]
Barb McQuaid
Most gifts get a big fuss when they're opened and they're never looked at again. But that is not the case anymore with an aura frame. When you get somebody an aura frame, you are giving them an amazing way to feel connected to the people they care about and remind them of the great times that have meant the most. I got one from my father in law and he constantly tells me how much he enjoys it because every time he walks into the room he gets to see a different picture of himself with his grandchildren. With my children off to college, giving them an aura frame has been the perfect way to keep them connected to the incredible times we share while they were growing up. Plus, you can always add more photos because there will be many more memories to come.
- [52:13]
Jill Wine Banks
I know my husband would love to get an aura frame filled with our many vacations and adventures around the world. It will be a great reminder of the incredible experiences we've had together. I know your friends and loved ones would appreciate it if you got them one too. So don't wait. And Brisbie is really excited.
- [52:34]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Brisby's like, listen, I'm photogenic. Make sure that I'm on that.
- [52:38]
Jill Wine Banks
He is. We just had a photo shoot with Brisbi and that's going to be the first thing that I add as soon as we get the final prints of it. Anyway, don't wait. Save on the perfect gift by visiting auraframes.com to get $35 off Aura's best selling carver mat frame by using promo code Sisters at checkout out that's a U R A frames.com promo code sisters. This deal is exclusive to our listeners, so get yours now in time for the holidays. Terms and conditions apply. Check out the link in our show notes, you guys.
- [53:14]
Barb McQuaid
No joke. I'm ordering one right now. Anita, I need a gift and I am on my phone right now and I'm using the and I'm using the promo code. Excellent.
- [53:22]
Joyce Vance
Nice.
- [53:22]
Barb McQuaid
Oh yeah, excellent.
- [53:33]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Well, you know, I don't tick and I don't talk, so maybe I'm not the best person to be leading this discussion of the fact that the Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that will shut TikTok down in the United States unless it's Its parent company, ByteDance in China sells it to a to US investors. The justices will hear arguments in this case on January 10th. You heard me correctly. It turns out the court can move speedily when it comes to.
- [54:06]
Barb McQuaid
How about that, right?
- [54:07]
Joyce Vance
Where were they choice here though, right? There's a statutory requirement that they decide. So I'm going to cut them a tiny bit of slack on this one.
- [54:16]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
All right. So Jill, what is this law and why do we have it and why does TikTok think it's unconstitutional?
- [54:25]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, let me start with the rare circumstance that this was something that had bipartisan support. And it was passed because there was a belief that this Chinese ownership created a national security threat because people were giving a lot of personal information which meant that the Chinese government had control of it. Or at least it was perceived that the Chinese government was the one that ultimately benefited from this information. And so the law was passed as part of trying to protect our national security. And it has to be weighed, of course, against the First Amendment rights of this foreign company as well as the users. And a lot of people do make their living from using TikTok. And there's. I don't remember the exact number, but we're talking. One of the largest user groups is the people who use TikTok. And so that is why people are fighting to make sure this doesn't happen. And there's a very limited time for them to now the Chinese company to sell to an American company, or at least not a Chinese company, to some acceptable national ownership so that the information will not be going to China anymore.
- [55:54]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
And, Barb, what are you looking out for when this case is taken up and argued? You know, as Jill pointed out, it's not. Not like it's a clear ideological split that is clearly defined here. What do you think the justices will be trying to find out about all this ticking and talking?
- [56:13]
Barb McQuaid
Well, first, just because it's TikTok, and when I think of TikTok, I think of those little TikTok dances. I can imagine, like, you know, Justice Kavanaugh doing a little dance for TikTok, or, you know, maybe Justice Alito maybe flying a flag upside down to make a little meme or something. Right. That could be fun on TikTok. During the TikTok arguments. That could be fun.
- [56:41]
Jill Wine Banks
We do have a case of a justice being on Broadway dancing and singing. Justice Brown Jackson performed on Broadway, so that certainly was worthy of TikTok.
- [56:57]
Joyce Vance
But is her voice as good as our own?
- [56:59]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Kim's better. Certain of it.
- [57:03]
Joyce Vance
You had to say.
- [57:04]
Barb McQuaid
This is a total aside, but did you guys ever see the TikTok dance with Kate McKinnon and Elizabeth Warren?
- [57:13]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Elizabeth Warren, Yes.
- [57:14]
Barb McQuaid
We'll put that in the show notes.
- [57:15]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
One of the better ones.
- [57:16]
Barb McQuaid
Yes. That's a classic. I got to put that in the show notes. That's what I. When I think of TikTok, I don't. I'm not on TikTok, but when I think of TikTok, I think of that. So I'm picturing like, you know, Kavanaugh and Alito kind of doing a little dance.
- [57:25]
Jill Wine Banks
I think of the dogs watching television, dancing and jumping up and down or watching a horse race. Those are the things I watch on TikTok.
- [57:33]
Barb McQuaid
All right, well, all kidding aside, what will I be looking for during the oral argument? You know, there's a D.C. circuit Court of Appeals opinion on this case, which is what Teed it up, and they upheld this law. And to me, it seems pretty sound. You know, the argument is that this violates the First Amendment rights of TikTok and ByteDance, the parent company, by telling them they can't operate their social media platform. And some users who are influencers or they sell things on TikTok say that this will harm them. You know, I know that the First Amendment says Congress shall pass no law that abridges the right of free speech, but in fact, that's not right. It's not the way the Supreme Court has interpreted it. In fact, I could go off for hours on how no right in the Constitution is absolute. That's because you have to interpret every constitutional provision against the rest of the document. And so there's also the need to provide for the common defense. And so you have to balance the right to free speech with the right of the need and the responsibility of Congress to protect the common defense. And so what they look for is something they call strict scrutiny when there's a fundamental right that is compromised. And that is, is there a substantial governmental interest here in this statute? And if so, is the limitation narrowly tailored to achieve that interest? And the court went through a detailed analysis of that. They said, yeah, this is a real threat. I mean, China is one of four countries that we have identified as a hostile foreign adversary, the others being Russia, Iran, and North Korea. And so we are worried that they could use it to hack into our systems. We worry that they could use it to gather private information about people and use it as leverage to recruit them to be spies. And we're worried about influence operations, that they're going to try to influence public opinion to favor China and against our own interests. So these are very serious, compelling governmental interests. And then the question is, okay, so can you do something more narrow than banning TikTok? And what they said is, no, that if people have this code on their phones, it can be a very dangerous thing. So the court upheld it. So I'll be looking for questions about those things, about, you know, asking the government whether this is really a compelling governmental interest. I'll be looking for questions as to whether it could be less, it could be more narrowly tailored, like, is there some way to allow TikTok to operate short of this ban? It's hard to see any sort of compromise other than this all or nothing situation. So I'll be looking for whether TikTok's got any new arguments different from what the Court of Appeals has already rejected.
- [60:09]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
And, Joyce, this is being defended by the Biden administration, by the Department of Justice. One of the last cases that Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogger will have on her docket before the new administration comes in. Now, Donald Trump was for banning TikTok before he was against it, but he also has Elon, who owns a different social media company, on board. What, what stance do you think might the Trump administration take which could shake this up a bit just days after this case is argued?
- [60:47]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, I mean, what position won't the Trump administration take that's going to shake things up a little bit? Look, I think something that we should do is acknowledge that the current Solicitor General is someone who has really risen above the politics. I love listening to her argue. She is so thoughtful and so balanced and often surprising by not taking, you know, positions that toe a political line, but rather by. By being nuanced and thoughtful. We're going to miss that when Trump's nominee, John Sauer, if he's confirmed, takes over. Many of you will remember he argued for Trump in the immunity case and comes off a little bit more. He's just a little bit more rough around the edges than she is in oral argument and certainly not afraid of breaking some eggs to make the omelette. So it'll be a real style difference. Difference. But in terms of substance, you know, the Solicitor General's position isn't supposed to change with administrations. The Solicitor General is looking at the long arc of the law, and so we expect that to be consistent no matter who sits in the White House. And, of course, that's a lovely fairy tale myth that we tell ourselves, because in reality, particularly in some of the big cases that impact major policies, there is change, and both parties have been involved in that. For instance, the Defense of Marriage act, our policy changed during the Obama administration. We see it in other big societal issues like abortion. So if I had to guess here, my prediction is that Trump is going to be less worried about the Supreme Court case and more focused on maybe getting in an early lick for his reputation as something of a deal maker. And I could see him trying to influence something that would permit TikTok to remain on us. Do we call them airwaves? What do we call it on the Internet in the US and brokerage?
- [62:49]
Barb McQuaid
Interwebs.
- [62:50]
Joyce Vance
The interwebs. Thank you, Barb.
- [62:52]
Barb McQuaid
That's what I was struggling for. That's a technical term.
- [62:55]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Yes.
- [62:56]
Joyce Vance
You know, struggling for a deal that lets them do that. And then he'll be able to say, oh, I'm such a great man, I made this work out. Out. Trump has, as you said, he's really shifted on this. He has come to see the value in TikTok. He used it aggressively in the last election to influence particularly young men who voted for him, based on some of the stuff that influencers were putting out there. So I think Trump may not want to see it die any more than the whatever high percentage it is of Americans who are all sort of TikTok obsessed. I have to confess, I've never picked that up because of the concern articulated in the statute, because I've never wanted my data pushed over that direction.
- [63:38]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Yeah, you know, I mean, with Elon being Trump's right hand man and co president, as some are saying, what do you think the existence of President Trusk will mean for this case moving forward? You know, will that be a factor? What happens?
- [63:59]
Joyce Vance
You heard it.
- [64:00]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, I prefer President Mump puts Elon first.
- [64:09]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
But I mean, maybe Elon Musk would not be sorry to see TikTok banned if that pushes more people to Twitter. I don't know. Like, is that a wild card that we should be watching? Anybody?
- [64:21]
Joyce Vance
Like, can we just say we shouldn't be having this conversation? Because decisions like, shouldn't be made on this basis of what's good for the business of Donald Trump's buddy. So I just want to say we must never normalize this level kleptocracy. This is not what we should expect from our governments. It is a very, very bad, very dangerous thing. And you know, perhaps the most important thing that comes out of this conversation is that although some business interests might do it, what we won't be doing on this podcast is kowtowing to either Donald Trump, Trump or his co president. Democracy is democracy. The rule of law is the rule of law, and these guys are opposed to it. You know, y'all, many people have gift guides. We've never done a Sisters in Law gift guide, but I think our ads sort of serve that purpose in some ways. And I'm really excited that we have an ad for One Skin today day. I've done a lot of my Christmas shopping with One Skin. The holidays are all about surprises, and One Skin really took that to heart. They're the first company to target skin aging at the cellular level. And One Skin wants to give all of our listeners the gift of healthy aging for free. That means that throughout December, you'll get a free travel size product valued at up to $42 with every order. That's $125 or more. The best part is you'll Get a different gift each week. That means you can shop for your friends and shop for yourself at the same time. So the difference between Oneskin's products and others on the market is that Oneskin is formulated with their proprietary OSO1 peptide. It's a peptide that its founders, their skin longevity scientists, developed after testing 900 other ingredients. Plus, it's scientifically proven to switch off the aging dysfunctional cells that cause lines, wrinkles and thinning skin.
- [66:23]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Whether you're on the hunt for the perfect gift or treating yourself, now is the time to try One Skin. With every new purchase of $125 or more this month, you'll receive a free travel size product. It changes each week, so there's always a surprise gift waiting for you. Plus, for a limited time, you can save 15% with code sisters when you check out@1skin. This holiday season. Invest in your skin's long term health because healthy aging is a gift.
- [66:57]
Jill Wine Banks
And you know, when you talk about aging. At my age, getting any compliments about my skin is really a wonder. And I am getting definitely more compliments since I've been using One Skin. It's such a confidence booster and I think I know why I keep getting them. Whether I'm out in the wind or warming up next to the fireplace. I use OneSkin's OS01 face topical supplement to fight back against dryness. Now my skin is ready for anything the elements throw at me. I especially love that Oneskin's regimen works fast and the formula feels amazing when you apply it. They're so refreshing. And I'm certain that you'll be a big fan too.
- [67:40]
Barb McQuaid
We are still talking about your dry, scaly hands. Are we John?
- [67:43]
Jill Wine Banks
No, no.
- [67:45]
Barb McQuaid
And just, I'm just saying I would, I would shake that hand any day. Founded and led by an all woman team of skin longevity scientists, One Skin is redefining the aging process with their proprietary OS01 peptide. The first ingredient proven to help skin look, feel and behave like its younger self. Get 15% off with Code Sisters at OneSkin Co. That's 15% off OneSkin Co with Code Sisters. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Invest in the health and longevity of your skin with Oneskin. Your future self will thank you. You can find the link in the show not. And now comes the part of the show that we love the most. The part where we answer your questions. We get so many good, informed questions. We just love it. If you Have a question for us? Please email us@sistersinlawoliticon.com or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. 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. Our first question comes to us from Mary in Wilmington, Massachusetts, who asks what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit and what is the penalty? So many lawsuits, so little time. Kim, do you have thoughts on that?
- [69:19]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
I do. Well, hello, Mary there from north of Boston. Lovely there this time of year. Bundle up. But yes, a frivolous lawsuit is a lawsuit. And rules in different states and stuff will about what technically constitutes one may vary, but generally speaking, it is a lawsuit filed that does, that is not supported by the facts and, or the law and that are brought for some and or are bought for some sort of nefarious purpose, such as to harass or pester someone or to be a bully. That is a frivolous lawsuit. What is the penalty? Well, again, it depends. It varies from state to state. But generally speaking, all states have rules in federal civil litigation, it's called Rule 11, that if you file frivolous lawsuits, that is considered an abuse of the legal system and it provides for sanctions against the attorneys who do that. And it can and the party. So it can either be just a verbal reprimand and it can go all the way up to being charged for fees for the opponent have to pay their legal fees and even attorney discipline. In some cases, you can be reported, if you do it repeatedly to the bar licensing authority. It is something that is taken very seriously. But the truth is, you see this kind of sanction very, very rarely. I mean, only once have I been in a situation where I sought it for opposing counsel. That just wasn't, wasn't just wasn't answering my calls, just was not litigating the case, which I think was just trying to drag it along because they were going to lose it. And I finally petitioned under Massachusetts state law for sanctions against him and the, you know, the judge just brought us in and like yelled at him a little bit. He's clearly an attorney, he's known for a long time and just was just like, hey, just, you know, respond to those interrogatories or whatever he told him to do and just tossed it out. It's very rare that it's brought. And I think that's why people like Donald Trump do use this kind of abuse of the system so freely because they generally think they can get away with it. And even if there is some sanction, the, the severity of it's going to be pretty low. So it's pretty sad.
- [71:39]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. All right, our next question comes to us from NCfrom NC from Deb in Tryon. Since senators are so afraid to cross Trump, why couldn't voting be anonymous? Has this ever been done? Jill, you want to take a stab at that one?
- [71:59]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, yes, and it's a very good question that has caused a lot of discussion among us. So anybody who wants to send in more information, who's more familiar with this, please do. I'd be very interested. But it has been done because the Matt Gaetz Report was released after a anonymous vote. The first vote wasn't anonymous and it didn't result in a decision to release the report. Then they held a secret vote and the winning answer was yes, people can get the Matt Gaetz Report. So at least at the committee level it can be done. I don't think that a vote on the floor of the Senate or the House could be secret, but maybe it could be. And think about if it had been, what would have happened on the impeachment vote? But I think people, constituents, want to know how their representatives are voting. And so there'd be a lot of objection from the public if all votes became anonymous. Then we wouldn't know who was responsible for the decisions that are affecting our lives.
- [73:15]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, I mean, let me just jump in and say we will not see secret votes on the floor. They would be impossible to pull off if not prohibited. And they really are a counter democratic move.
- [73:26]
Barb McQuaid
Right.
- [73:26]
Joyce Vance
The whole point in a democracy is that we know how our officials are voting. And if we tried to have secret votes on the floor or even broader secret votes in committee, what would happen is that the people who were involved, the vote counters, would know the outcome. Word of that would very likely get back to people like Donald Trump and we would be the ones left in the dark.
- [73:48]
Barb McQuaid
All right, and our final question comes to us from Judy, who asks, can a person who's offered a pardon refuse it?
- [73:55]
Joyce Vance
Joyce, you know, this is such a great question. It's something that we all had to look at several weeks ago because most of us are not experts in pardon law. And so like all the rest of the TV legal analysts, I went back and looked at Supreme Court cases and found out that this is very interesting. A pardon cannot be forced upon you. And so it is in fact possible to reject a pardon. You have to assert the pardon in court. For instance, if you want to bar an ongoing investigation or a lawsuit. That's a prosecution that's been brought against you. You, the person who received the pardon actually has to say, well, I have been pardoned, so you cannot go after me any further. So, yeah, it's not automatic.
- [74:40]
Barb McQuaid
All right, let me be the first to say, if offered a pardon, I will refuse to accept.
- [74:43]
Joyce Vance
You and me both, girl.
- [74:47]
Barb McQuaid
Well, thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Kimberly Atkins Store Jill Wine Banks and me, Barb McQuaid. Follow sisters in Law on Apple podcasts or wherever you listen. And please give us a five star review. It really helps others find the show. And. And please show some love to this week's sponsors, Factor Helix, Mint Mobile, Aura Frames and Oneskin. Their links are in the show notes. Please support them because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode. Sisters in Law. All right, you guys, I'm going to a holiday party tonight and usually when I go to a party I bring my favorite thing, which is nothing. But I feel the need to bring like a little hostess gift, you know what I mean? And I don't like to bring wine because I'm not a drinker and I don't want to promote drinking. What is a good hostess gift for a holiday party?
- [75:39]
Joyce Vance
I really like herb plants, especially at this time of the year. If you can like find a little rosemary tree or something like that, sure.
- [75:46]
Barb McQuaid
It's probably one growing in my yard. I'll check for that. What else you got?
- [75:49]
Joyce Vance
You have nurseries near you?
- [75:51]
Jill Wine Banks
I'm confident I have one that you definitely will not make. It's what I bring, which is because I do canning. I bring homemade, either jams or spices, spice peaches.
- [76:03]
Barb McQuaid
It's fantastic. But Kim, what do you got? I know I'm not doing rosemary. I'm not doing canned peaches.
- [76:08]
Joyce Vance
You're invited to my house though, Jill. Anytime.
- [76:11]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
A whoopee cushion. Oh, you'll never be forgotten.
- [76:20]
Barb McQuaid
It can get lonely climbing Mount McKinley. So to entertain myself, I go to chumbacasino.com at Chumba Casino. I can play hundreds of of online casino style games for free. Like online slots, bingo, slingo and more. Plus I get a daily login bonus. It's just too bad that up here I don't have anyone to share my excitement with.
- [76:38]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Woohoo. Live the tempo life anytime, anywhere. Play for free now@chumbacasino.com BTW crew, no.
- [76:48]
Barb McQuaid
Purchase necessary void but prohibited by law.
- [76:49]
Kimberly Atkins Stohr
See terms and conditions 18 +.