Loading summary
Transcript128 lines
- [00:11]
Joyce Vance
Welcome back to Sisters in law with Barb McQuaid, Kimberly Atkins Storr, Jill Wine Banks, and me, Joyce Vance. If Santa didn't leave you everything you wanted under the tree, you can still get your favorite Sisters in Law merch. We've restocked everything in the store just in time for the new year. You can find it all@politicon.com merch and head into 2025 with your new favorite T shirt, sweatshirt or mug in hand. But now let's get on to the show, where we'll discuss the release of the Matt Gaetz Report, the Senate report on ethics in the judiciary, which included surprise, surprise, new disclosures about trips Justice Clarence Thomas took but didn't disclose, and President Biden's veto of a bill that would have created new judicial appointments just in time for Donald Trump to fill some of them. It's a full show. We racked our brains trying to come up with upbeat topics for this week, but the news gods refused to help out. So it is what it is. But I thought before we headed into the serious stuff, I might ask my sisters how their holidays are going. That has to be good news, right? And Barb, I know yours is because I've seen some of the pictures. You've been out on the ski. What's going on, girlfriend?
- [01:26]
Barb McQuaid
Having a great holiday. All four kids were home for some portion of it. Just wonderful to be with family. All good stuff. And of course, Joyce. The countdown begins for the ReliaQuest bowl between Michigan and Alabama on New Year's Eve. Game on, sister. I've put up a crazy Michigan hat for Joyce to wear when the Wolverines vanquish her. Crimson Tide.
- [01:54]
Joyce Vance
Roll Tide, baby. You've got a darling little knit Alabama hat winging its way to you. Courtesy, I hope, of the US Postal Service right now. You know, Jill, I know you are not probably looking forward to the bowl games, although I'm sure you'll enjoy Barb and me going at it like we always do in these games. How's your holiday been? Have you made latkes, by the way?
- [02:16]
Jill Wine Banks
I have not made latkes because I've never made them very well. I do have a friend in Brookly who he makes the best. They're really, really good, but I'm not getting them this year. I did have a wonderful holiday season with almost as many parties, maybe as many parties as before. COVID this is the first year where I've really felt like the parties are back on. I got to spend a lot of time with friends to make some new friends at these parties. I had breakfast yesterday with my brother and a cousin. And so it's. It was really a good holiday season for me. And I just hung up some, I don't know if you can see them, dalmatian stuff on my mantelpiece. And I'm wearing a Dalmatian pin today, so I'm feeling really, really holiday spirit.
- [03:05]
Joyce Vance
You know, one of my knitting girlfriends gave me a chicken pin, and it's so cute. I was afraid my daughter was gonna try to steal it from me. But it's. I will again channel my inner Jill Winebanks and wear it next time I'm on tv. So I know our listeners can't see your Dalmat. They also can't see the gorgeous sage green sweater that Kim is wearing. And it looks fabulous on you. Is that holiday swag? And how has your holiday been?
- [03:30]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
This is not holiday swag, but it's been a really wonderful holiday season. My step kids are home and we had a wonderful time, a big dinner and exchanged presents, and it was pretty, pretty nice. Pretty low key, but all very, very good. But you know, Jill, next year I'm gonna have to figure out how to get to Chicago so that I can make you my sweet potato latkes, which are outstanding.
- [04:01]
Jill Wine Banks
Oh, my.
- [04:02]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I want those nice and crispy.
- [04:06]
Jill Wine Banks
Maybe you can give me a zoom lesson how to make them deal. That would be great. We'll do it together. Oh, that would be so much fun, Kim. I wanna do that. Yes, yes, yes, yes.
- [04:16]
Joyce Vance
I too, will be happy to come to Chicago for that. I will say, you know, I made latkes this year. I do every year. And two innovations that were game changers. One is the secret to making good latkes is you have to get all the moisture out after you shred the potatoes. Yes, I did it in a salad spinner.
- [04:34]
Barb McQuaid
I saw somebody doing that on Instagram.
- [04:36]
Jill Wine Banks
Brilliant.
- [04:37]
Joyce Vance
Life changing, you know, no, more like two hours of squeezing potatoes.
- [04:42]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yes, squeezing them out.
- [04:43]
Joyce Vance
Yeah.
- [04:43]
Jill Wine Banks
That's why mine have always failed.
- [04:45]
Joyce Vance
Well, I'm telling you, salad spinner, that's the ticket. And then I made them one night for a whole bunch of people. And after a, like 2am in the morning consultation with Dalia Lithwick, who, you know, I figure knows about these things, I decided that it was perfectly kosher for me to do them on sheet pans in the oven. So I heated up canola oil and then I splatted my latkes in and I, in essence, baked them. No yucky oil smell in the lattes?
- [05:14]
Jill Wine Banks
Really?
- [05:14]
Joyce Vance
They were delicious. I mean, is it a cooking podcast or is it a politics podcast?
- [05:19]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
We really need to do a cooking one.
- [05:20]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, let's do a cooking one.
- [05:22]
Barb McQuaid
It's an eating podcast.
- [05:23]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
It's an eater.
- [05:25]
Joyce Vance
That's what I already did. You know, that might be the I'll.
- [05:27]
Jill Wine Banks
Share my mother's kugel recipe with apples. Oh so good.
- [05:31]
Joyce Vance
Wow. I'm sensing a theme here. Okay, well, at least now we know the bad news isn't as bad cause it comes with good cooking tips.
- [05:41]
Barb McQuaid
As I said, three weeks already. This'll be the fourth time I've mentioned it. I really learned something from Valerie Biden Owens when she said no one ever asks me for my recipes or who does my hair. I think that's becoming my new motto.
- [06:04]
Joyce Vance
Whether you look as fresh faced, radiant or winter glam, join us in spicing up 2025 with Thrive Cosmetics. You've probably seen their viral tubing mascara all over your social media. It's the one in the turquoise tube and a personal favorite of all of ours. Thrive has so many other amazing products and each high performance and trademarked formula is certified 100% vegan and cruelty free with zero parabens, sulfates or phthalates. It's no wonder that their bestsellers have thousands of five star reviews.
- [06:37]
Jill Wine Banks
I am in love with Thrive's Liquid Lash Extensions mascara. It's perfect for a salon look without damaging glue or excessive prices. Your lashes will last all day without clumping, smudging or flaking and they glide off with just warm water and a washcloth. No soap required. Plus the nourishing ingredients support longer, stronger and healthier lashes over time. They have 30,000 five star reviews and one gets sold every 11 seconds. You have to try it. As soon as I found out about it I started using it and I found out about it a long time before they started as an advertiser for us, so I'm a long time user now. Every time I do I get so many compliments. It's the perfect way to subtly stand out from the crowd and make a big impression. But I also love their skin care products and eye pencils that brighten and can be used as a primer or a shadow.
- [07:36]
Barb McQuaid
I actually got my daughter a batch of Thrive mascara for Christmas so that she'll stop stealing mine. One of the things that 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, but they give back too. Every purchase supports organizations helping communities Thrive 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.
- [08:11]
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 sisters that's Thrive Cosmetics C A U S E M E t I c s.com sisters for 20% off your first order and you can find the link in our show Notes.
- [08:49]
Jill Wine Banks
The bipartisan House Ethics Committee report was released on what seems like weeks ago, but was only this Monday. They found substantial evidence that Matt Gaetz, Donald Trump's first pick for attorney general, violated Florida's statutory rape and engaged in a broader pattern of paying women for sex and found evidence of illegal drug use, acceptance of improper gifts, granting special favors to persons who were not constituents, and obstruction of the committee's investigation. They found clear violations of House rules and standards of conduct as well. Gates denies everything and there is a dissent, but it's only objecting to the release of the report, not to its conclusions. So, Barb, let's get to what its conclusions were. What were the key findings?
- [09:36]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, it's got a nice summary right at the start of the report, and it's pretty scathing. We'll start with the good news for Matt Gaetz. They did not find that the law, the specific federal statute prohibiting sex trafficking, was violated. That's the good news. The bad news is that they did find that Gaetz regularly paid women for engaging in sexual activity with him, that he probably violated Florida's statutory rape law by having sex with a victim who is just called Victim a, but was 17 years old at the time. And you know, Gates, who says this was all about youthful indiscretions, was 35 at the time, old enough to be president of the United States. He used or possessed illegal drugs, including cocaine, marijuana and ecstasy. He violated the House gift rule by receiving impermissible gifts. He dispensed special privileges and favors to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship. And this was not constituent services. This was getting an expedited passport for a woman with whom he had a sexual relationship, who was not a constituent. And he knowingly and willfully sought to impede and obstruct the committee's investigation. They subpoenaed his testimony. He failed to comply. They asked him for documents. They asked him for records. He said he had evidence that would exonerate him, but he continuously refused to produce it they said he deflected, deterred, and misled the committee to prevent his actions from being exposed. And finally, he acted in a manner that discredits the House. So those were the findings. And it's, you know, based on witness testimony. And I think it's really important to say, just because this does not amount to a criminal violation, or at least as criminal prosecution was declined by federal prosecutors, does not mean he did not engage in serious misconduct. And they found the standard they used was substantial evidence to support these findings.
- [11:38]
Jill Wine Banks
And we're going to talk about both those facts, Barb. We're going to talk about the federal and state laws. But before I get to that, Kim, let's talk about the House rules that were violated. And what are the consequences of violating House rules?
- [11:54]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Well, according to this report, at least two House rules were violated. The clearest violation was for that passport application expedition that Barb mentioned for a woman he had a relationship with for money. That violated the House rules. For using your position for special favors. You're not supposed to do that. He violated that rule. He also violated a disclosure rule for gifts by taking a lavish trip to the Bahamas, which included a private jet. I wonder if a Supreme Court justice was with him. I didn't double check on that. But the trip was so high in value that that also violated how rules. But what are the consequences? Nothing. Because he's no longer in the House, the House Ethics Committee has no jurisdiction over him anymore. So violating those rules is absolutely meaningless. It means nothing. One thing that I would love to hear from the prosecutors, though, is. And we're going to talk about Florida law. I am, and I get it. The report says it didn't rise to the level of federal trafficking laws. Where is the District of Columbia? Like, why is not the Metropolitan Police Department arresting him if he did crimes, drug and sex crimes, allegedly, in the House in the District of Columbia? I would love to know why D.C. prosecutors aren't looking at him.
- [13:25]
Jill Wine Banks
But to say nothing of showing on the floor of the House, let's call it pornography. But, yeah, Joyce, that was my question for you.
- [13:33]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I mean, I'm not sure that showing pornography is a crime, but certainly drug dealing is. Why did that? If I did that anywhere in this District of Columbia, I don't think that I would just be chilling without a. Without an arrest warrant for Attorney General. Anyway, I got you.
- [13:55]
Jill Wine Banks
So, Joyce, seriously, that was the question for you, is what about Federal, Florida and D.C. laws? What are implicated here? And why were no criminal charges filed? And does that mean, as Gates has claimed that he was exonerated.
- [14:11]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. So look, I mean, there are a lot of laws, both federal and state, that could have at least potentially been implicated by the conduct that the report lays out. And the report, you know, they sort of take it on and suggest what they think the laws are. I think it's probably important to point out that prosecutors, the people who actually have experience charging and prosecuting under these laws, might have some differing ideas. It looks really easy when you're not the person who has to stand up in a courtroom and get a jury to convict based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But I actually think the committee did a pretty good job of assessing what the statutory ambit is like in this case. In the federal system, there are at least two statutes that could have come into play that apply to sexual trafficking. There's a provision that makes it illegal to traffic, which is defined as including recruiting or enticing or transporting a minor for paid for sex. And to convict, prosecutors have to be able to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew, or at least that they stuck their head in the sand to avoid learning that the victim was a minor. And then there's a second statute called the Man Act. It used to be widely used to prosecute prostitution. Classic case was a man who took a woman across state lines in order to have sex with her. That provision isn't used as frequently these days. It's often reserved for focusing on particularly serious types of sex trafficking, especially involving minors. But suffice it to say, federal prosecutors had statutes that they undoubtedly took a look at. And we know that they did because there are reports that the middle District of Florida U.S. attorney's Office evaluated this evidence and decided not to prosecute. So what about state prosecution? Florida has statutes that prohibit sex with minors, possession of drugs. All findings in the report. And the statutory rape law in Florida specifically provides that a defendant's failure to know that his victim is under the age of majority is not a defense. So it's a little bit more pro prosecution friendly than federal law is. You know, cocaine and Ecstasy are both controlled substances in Florida and in the District of Columbia, as far as I know. And people are routinely prosecuted for possessing them. And then the report has one interesting final suggestion about a law that Gates might have violated, and that's a witness tampering statute. They suggest that potentially he tampered with witnesses in the congressional investigation. So how come with all of this outlay of crime there was never an indictment? You know, the simple answer for the Federal case is that federal prosecutors did not believe they had sufficient evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction. We don't know why. There are some possibilities. Perhaps they believed that the conduct that was chargeable was outside of the five year statute of limitations. Most of this conduct happens in 2017. The timing is tight on the investigation. Or maybe they think that Gates could have established that he could not have reasonably known that his victim was under 18. There was some indication that an effort was made to keep that information from him so he wouldn't be the guy who stuck his head in the sand to avoid knowing. And prosecutors could have also made an assessment that their witnesses would not have held up in front of a jury and that a jury might not have convicted. You know, that burden of proof prosecutors have is proof beyond reasonable doubt of a defendant's guilt. That's a much higher standard than what Barb was articulating applies to an ethics investigation in the House. So we don't know why state authorities would have passed on the other charges. That's sort of a big question mark. And it's also interesting, you know, this new allegation of witness tampering during the House investigation is something that federal prosecutors in the middle district of Florida would not have taken into account when they were investigating their case because it came later on in time. I'm old enough to remember when people were prosecuted for ignoring congressional subpoenas. Steve Bannon went to federal prison, as did Peter Navarro. But I'm not optimistic that a Trump Justice Department will give this much of a hard look.
- [18:48]
Jill Wine Banks
So, Joyce, I'm old enough to remember when the Mann act was used by the federal government, oftentimes as part of organized crime.
- [18:57]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Me, too.
- [18:57]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, me too.
- [18:58]
Jill Wine Banks
Oh, I'm so glad to hear that. Okay, so there was a dissent which, as I noted before, agreed with a fact finding conclusion. It just objected to public disclosure of the report. Why? It has been done in the past when someone is no longer in Congress that it's disclosed. What are the rules and arguments? Do you think this is a time for publication right now in these circumstances? Let me start with you, Barbara.
- [19:24]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, I see the point. You know, there is this view of the chairman on behalf of the dissenting committee members who say we don't challenge any of the findings, but we do take exception that the majority has deviated from the committee's well established standards to release the report. And then they say this action has not been done by a committee since 2006. Well, it has been done. Then I think they have a Point. I do think that there is value in following norms and practices, regardless of which side benefits from it. I think back to James Comey saying terrible things about Hillary Clinton, even though no charges were brought, which was a real violation of norms. But here I think the one reason I might disagree with that is that the only reason that they were stripped of jurisdiction is because Gates himself kind of orchestrated it. He gets nominated for Attorney Attorney General two days before this report is to come out, and then he immediately resigns his seat in Congress, I think, in a deliberate effort to thwart this report from being disclosed to the public. And then, you know, ultimately he withdraws. I still am not sure that that whole nomination of Gates wasn't just an effort to help him get out from under this investigation. And then he could go forward and do whatever it is he wants to do, including, I still think there's a risk that he goes back into Congress. And so I don't have a problem with this. I think that the public is entitled to this. I'm a big fan of transparency in general. And the only reason we have that rule is because it's a House rule which can be changed at any time. And they created that rule to protect themselves. And so I think if there's misconduct by members of Congress, even if they are recently former members of Congress, transparency is a value that we should assert here.
- [21:22]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah, I think that is really. Oh, go ahead, Kim, go ahead.
- [21:25]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Because I agree with Barb, not only on the unclean hands point, which is very important. Like, you know, this was Gates trying to be cute, but also just the severity of this. This isn't just violation of House rules. And now this is a former member, and that matter is put to close. This is the allegation of the commission of very, very serious crimes, crimes that are not nonviolent. I think someone's just like, oh, you know, he wouldn't go to jail for nonviolent. This feels pretty violent to me when you're talking about what took place here. And I think the seriousness of it would. You would think that it would be a bipartisan value to disclose something when somebody who was given a position of public trust by his constituents behaved in this way, People certainly have the right to know about it.
- [22:16]
Jill Wine Banks
I agree with you on the transparency, but I also. I mean, Barb, you mentioned this, is that when he resigned, he was resigning from the current Congress. He had already been elected to the next Congress. And although he said, I will not take the oath in the second Congress, and although since then, an election has been set up to elect a replacement for him for the next Congress. He could go back into public service. And so when you combine the requirement of transparency. This was a publicly funded investigation. It was a bipartisan investigation. I think there's just no question that this was the appropriate time for revealing the information so that anyone voting in the future would know what was going on. What about you, Joyce? You in on this?
- [23:07]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. You know, I mean, I think the public has a right to know. There was the looming Attorney General nomination. There was the fact that both Barb and Kim have focused on that he was unrecalcitrant. And I think the fact that Gates ultimately touted this as an exoneration of him meant that this report had to be released. And it's not unprecedented. There's nothing inappropriate or wrong about doing it. It's used in limited cases. Well, baby, this is the poster child.
- [23:37]
Jill Wine Banks
For that, that's for sure. And there were four prior examples of release after someone left Congress. So, Kim, you and I have done defense work. What do you think about his defense? He said, I was charged with nothing. I was fully exonerated. And I was, you know, I was wild in my youth. Even though he was 35 at the.
- [23:59]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Time, he's acting like this happened 30 years ago. Like, no, first of all, this is a very Trumpian response. Fully exonerated in all caps. I mean, it's basically was Trump standing next to him and took his phone and wrote this himself. It's really what it sounded like. But one thing that I do think, in all seriousness, because this didn't happen very long ago. Florida. What are y'all doing with the statute of limitations on statutory rape? Church. I mean, that's ridiculous. That's really, really short. This is not a situation where it was 30 years ago. Memories have faded. He said, she said, a lack of actual evidence. This happened while he was a member of Congress and he hadn't been there for very long. So that's really outrageous how the District of Columbia laws don't read. This, I think, is really outrageous, and it's really sad that someone can be alleged to have done this kind of behavior and seems to be walking away. So in a sense, he's not lying because he's fully exonerate in that there probably won't be any consequences. But this is really serious stuff, and it should really give people pause about whatever kind of public life he has from here on in.
- [25:13]
Jill Wine Banks
So I hate to disagree, but you are not exonerated because you weren't charged. That doesn't mean innocent.
- [25:20]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
No, no, I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying in effect, what he's saying is if he means I'm exonerated, I got off scot free. He's not wrong like this. It's, it looks like an exonerate. It's just as good as an exoneration because there's no accountability. I'm not saying that he's correct. I'm saying that this is the outcome.
- [25:38]
Jill Wine Banks
It's just a matter of semantics. Whether exoneration is even not guilty doesn't mean you're innocent. It means that the prosecution didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Doesn't mean you didn't do it.
- [25:59]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Can you guys see the way I am shaking my hair and how bouncy it is? Don't I look like Jennifer Aniston?
- [26:08]
Barb McQuaid
You know, for a second there I thought I was in a Friends episode that you can.
- [26:13]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Well, I am not Jennifer Aniston, but this episode is proudly brought to you by Jennifer Aniston's iconic and award winning hair care line, Lola Van. With Lola Vie, you can keep the holiday season going by gifting the secret to gorgeous hair or unwrapping it for yourself. And I really do love Lola Vie products. I really like their leave in treatment, especially if I'm using any sort of heat styling blow drying on my hair this time of year. When it's really dry, it really keeps it looking fresh and healthy.
- [26:45]
Jill Wine Banks
And your hair does look fabulous, Kim.
- [26:48]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Thank you.
- [26:49]
Jill Wine Banks
We've all had bad hair days, but we've also had great hair days where you feel unsettling, unstoppable, charismatic and happy. That feeling is why Jen designed Lola V using clean plant powered products that work on every hair type and texture. You can thank their award winning B Pro 3 bond technology for that. It's a peptide bond builder naturally derived from chia seeds that is clinically proven to prevent, protect and repair signs of aging and damaged hair. It combats and God, I need aging hair help. That's for sure. It combats the damage right where it starts guarding against dryness and breakage while delivering high performance results. It's Jen's secret for silky, shiny hair without sacrificing its health. Right now, you can Enjoy an exclusive 15% off your entire order@lolav.com with code SIL15 at checkout.
- [27:47]
Joyce Vance
You have to try LOLAvie's Ultimate Care Kit. This luxurious collection features the restorative shampoo and conditioner and the allure best of beauty glossing detangler These aren't just Jen's favorites, they're her essentials for visibly healthy, shiny hair. To break it down, the restorative shampoo and conditioner strengthens hair with every wash to give you a remarkable 77% reduction in breakage after just one use. And who couldn't use that? Then the glossing detangler works its magic. It's the ultimate multitasker, acting as a detangler, heat protectant, frizz fighter, shine enhancer and hydrator all in one. Enjoy over 25% off on the combo and solve all of your hair problems. And I do mean all of them. This is great stuff with just a few spritzes.
- [28:38]
Barb McQuaid
So unlock Kimberly Atkins store aka Jennifer Aniston approved hair@lolav.com and celebrate the holidays with stronger, healthier hair. As our loyal listeners, you'll get an exclusive 15% off your entire order when you use code SIL15 at checkout. That's 15% off your order at L O L A V I E.com with promo code SIL15. Please note you can use only one promo code per order and discounts cannot be combined. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you your hair.
- [29:17]
Jill Wine Banks
Will.
- [29:18]
Barb McQuaid
Thank you. The link is in our show notes. I have a question for each of you. I hope your family showered you with gifts this holiday season. You all deserve that. But have you ever had a friend who was so generous that you. They took you on a cruise on their super yacht to New Zealand? Anybody? Anybody have friends like that?
- [29:49]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
No, I've never even laid eyeballs on a super yacht. Like I don't think I've actually. What makes a super yacht super?
- [29:56]
Barb McQuaid
It's called the Michaela Rose and it is Harlan Crow's super yacht. Well, the Senate Judiciary Committee majority staff issued a report this week with its findings about ethics and the Supreme Court. That's. What do you call that, an oxymoron when you've got two things that don't jibe. Ethics in the Supreme Court and guess which justice it turned out had even more undisclosed gifts. Anybody? Anybody have a guess for me?
- [30:30]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Give me a hint. Let me see.
- [30:32]
Barb McQuaid
It rhymes with parents promise.
- [30:35]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Ah, I see, I see, I see. Suspected as such.
- [30:39]
Joyce Vance
Yeah.
- [30:40]
Barb McQuaid
So they've got, they did this two year investigation and issued a report this week. So Joyce, can you tell us about the committee's investigation and report? There's some interesting little tidbits in there.
- [30:54]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. So this is a 20 month investigation into ethics in the federal judiciary. Speaking of oxymorons. And it came on the heels of the disclosure by ProPublica and others of these really serious conflict of interest issues that we discussed extensively and that really rocked public confidence, including mine in the judiciary. I mean, I remember week after week where Kim and I were out on the ledge together, right? And then came the Supreme Court's decision in, you know, Trump versus usa, the presidential immunity case. I mean, these are not contextless quibbles with ethics. These are serious problems. And the Senate Judiciary Committee was correct to press forward. Unfortunately, the report that was issued was issued by Democratic staff members of the Judiciary Committee, and they released this really lengthy report, 800 pages of documents that were attached. Some of the tidbits that stuck out for me were the fact that Harlan Crow, you may remember, super friend of Clarence Thomas, was able to duck left the subpoena process by engaging in what he characterized as voluntary compliance. But he denounced the inquiry in these words. He called it political, partisan, and unconstitutional from the start. You know, you would think Republicans in Congress would have been defending their process, but they did not. But Leonard Leo, one of the conservative legal activists behind the work of the Federalist Society, completely refused to comply with the subpoena. One of the guys who had funded one of the Alito trips. And again, this is another case where I'm forced to toss my hands up in the air and say, I'm old enough to remember when people were prosecuted for ignoring congressional subpoenas. That's what Leonard Leo seems to have done here. He does not seem to be concerned that he will get in any trouble, which is perhaps a comment on the era that we live in.
- [32:51]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
And he's not just a funder of some of these lavish trips or organizer of it. Leonard Leo is the architect of the rightward shift of entire federal judiciary. So it is rich. It is rich that the very committee that is tasked with giving advice and consent on judicial nominees, he's just going to flout and say, I don't answer to you. When he has used that committee to the advantage of conservatives for the last two decades. I mean, the goal.
- [33:22]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, and maybe they just ran out of time. But I have to say I'm kind of offended that they didn't follow up and try to enforce this subpoena. Steve Bannon got prosecuted and convicted for blowing off a subpoena. I mean, why not Leonard Leo? I think sometimes when you've got, say, a separation of powers issue, right, there's a subpoena for someone in the executive branch or prosecutor, and they try to work through that whole accommodation and negotiation process because of a separation of powers. Leonard Leo is just a private actor.
- [33:58]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Private actor?
- [33:59]
Barb McQuaid
What do you mean it's political? You're the one who's made it political. That one's frustrating. Well, Kim, let's get to the juicy stuff, because as we said, guess whose name came up again as someone with even more undisclosed gifts with this guy, Harlan Crowe, who did not know Clarence Thomas until after he was a Supreme Court justice. So this idea of my dear friend, which is always code for my corrupt associate giving him all these lavish gifts, what about that? What's new here?
- [34:30]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah. So on top of the many, many more than two dozen trips that have been taken overall, there were two that had not previously been disclosed. Clarence Thomas was apparently treated to a private jet flight to New York's Adirondacks in July, as well as a jet and yacht trip to New York City. I go to New York, I get on the train. Like, I don't know about y'all, but it's not that far from D where the justice hangs out to New York City. But there was a jet and a yacht involved in this trip, both care of Harlan Crow, and that happened in October. It's just. You can't. It's actually funny. Right before this report dropped, there was an Onion article, which is satire, y'all, for y'all who don't know. But it said something like, clarence Thomas has a tough time deciding between which lavish trip to take in this case on, you know, on which side. And then this report literally dropped, and it's like, it's impossible to tell satire from real life anymore. It's just. It's too much. It's too much.
- [35:38]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. There's one description in there that he was on a flight, on a plane that had the Miami Dolphins logo etched on the tail. And it was unclear whether the gift had come from Wayne Huzinga, the owner of the Miami Dolphins at the time, or the team itself. But, you know, like, who's flying around and jets with the, you know, the Miami Dolphins logo on it? My gosh. Humble public servants. Humble public servants.
- [36:08]
Joyce Vance
Yeah.
- [36:08]
Barb McQuaid
You know, and, Kim, you've pointed this out many times. It's not even problematic for them to take these trips, though I would submit, like, just don't take free stuff. You've got this incredibly important job. They include in the report the salaries of these justices, which is, what, now? Close to $200,000 a year. Far more than, you know, the Median income of people living in Washington, D.C. or even people working in government. And yet they take all this free stuff. Like you've got the privilege of a lifetime to be a Supreme Court justice. Just don't take the free stuff. But even that is not the problem. It's just the failure to disclose the free stuff. So the committee has some proposals for solutions. Jill, let me ask you about those. Do you like any of these solutions? The Court is always saying, oh, it would be a violation of the separation of powers for Congress to propose any solutions for us.
- [37:00]
Jill Wine Banks
I am appalled by the whole situation. It is why the Supreme Court is held in such low esteem, why no one trusts them anymore, why you see constant references to the corruption there. I mean, it's really sad. And yes, the report does include some references to possible solutions. None of them is adequate. So let's start with that. There are several bills that have been proposed. One is the Supreme Court Ethics Recusal and Transparency act. And it has gone nowhere and is probably going to go even less anywhere once the new Congress takes over. And there were several bills before that. Senator Murphy, Senators King and Murkowski had proposed some. And. And those would have required that the Supreme Court itself pass a code of conduct. And as we can all remember, the pressure from the public disclosures from the ProPublica report and everything did lead to them sort of doing that. And we talked about it on one of our shows before where it isn't enforceable. It didn't include that someone would investigate from the outside. It was still up to them. And they could recuse or not recuse if they felt like it or if they didn't feel like it. And they didn't have to say why they did or didn't recuse. And there was no way for anyone to file a complaint and an outside party to investigate. And although the act sort of. I mean, if you invert the combined letters, it's sort of like the Secret act or the Curt Act. I don't know how you pronounce those weird letters. It doesn't really do all that much. It does require some level of disclosure, which I don't think is enough because I think, like you, Barb, they shouldn't be taking this. Why should they take anything? Any other federal employee, even at low levels and any other judge in the federal system, cannot take gifts over a certain level, which definitely doesn't include the level at which these gifts were. And let's not forget Justice Thomas had his nephew's private school tuition paid. His mother's house mortgage paid off. I mean, there's a lot going on besides these trips.
- [39:30]
Barb McQuaid
I just wanted to interject and his $267,000 RV for which he received a loan from Harlan Crow that was forgiven.
- [39:39]
Jill Wine Banks
Yes, I mean, the level of corruption for Justice Thomas. And don't forget about his wife's income for things that should have led to his recusal. I mean, he is the poster boy for why we need Supreme Court ethics imposed on the Court. And I believe that there is grounds for Congress to intervene. But I also think it's really a downright crime that the Supreme Court itself hasn't seen fit to do this. Shame on them. There's a lot of turmoil in the world these days, and it can feel especially stressful or hopeless when things are outside of our control. That's why we are such big believers in the power of Meditation with Calm. Calm can help you restore your sense of balance and peace when you're surrounded by chaos, a long to do list, and bad news everywhere. Since I've started using it, finding my center has been much easier. Now challenges and stresses feel manageable instead of seeming like massive obstacles.
- [40:55]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Calm is the number one app for sleep and meditation. It empowers you to calm your mind and change your life. CALM knows everyone faces unique challenges in their daily lives and mental health isn't just about a one size fits all solution. That's why CALM offers a wide range of content to help you navigate life's ups and downs with programs like Meditations that are designed to help you work through anxiety and stress, boost your focus, build healthier habits, and take better care of your physical well being.
- [41:28]
Barb McQuaid
You know, whenever I do meditation that involves breathing, I get distracted by the breathing part. I think, what if I stop breathing? It's very distracting. It causes me more stress. But the beauty of calm is there are many ways to navigate your meditation. There are sleep stories, sleep meditations, and calming music that will help you drift off to restful sleep quickly and naturally. It's so relaxing. It's the perfect end to a stressful day. But when you're feeling overwhelmed, we recommend you try their grounding exercises too. These short guided sessions use sensation, movement and breathwork to help you relax and reset. Calm even has powerful expert LED talks designed to help you handle grief, improve self esteem, care for relationships and more.
- [42:14]
Joyce Vance
CALM puts the tools you need right in your pocket and can help you dedicate a few minutes each day to live a happier, healthier life. Stress less, sleep more, and live better with Calm. For listeners of our show Calm is offering an exclusive offer of 40% off a Calm premium subscription. At calm.com go to c a l m.com sisters for 40% off unlimited access to Calm's entire library. Again, that's calm.com sisters and you can also find the link in our show. Notes.
- [42:57]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
President Biden had a very busy holiday season. He signed dozens of bills into law before heading off to holiday vacation with his family. But one bill he did not sign made some waves and attracted some heat. It's called the Judges act and it would have added more trial level judges to the federal judiciary. So before we get to this veto that he did, Barb, what would this law have done? And just sort of explain this. It was a rare bipartisan bill that made it to Joe Biden's desk.
- [43:34]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, you know, this was something that Democrats and Republicans worked on, both liked it. It would add, I think, something like 63 judgeships to districts around the country that based on a study by the Judicial Conference itself, this is part of the judiciary said, where there were backlogs, you know, California, Texas, places where, you know, we've seen population shifts in recent years. And so the dockets are really crowded. But importantly, in an effort to sure that no one party got a majority of these seats or filled them all immediately, they would be staggered over the next 10 years. So each, every two years, the president would get to a point like 10 of them and in that way it would prevent either Republicans or Democrats from filling all the slots. So it seemed like a really good way to go about filling, creating new judgeships in a bipartisan way that would offset this backlog.
- [44:36]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
So Jill, as we said, President Biden vetoed this legislation. What was his reason for vetoing it and what do you think about his reason?
- [44:48]
Jill Wine Banks
So I'll tell you what his reason as stated was. And that is what he said in his message to the Senate about why he was vetoing. He said that, that it was hastily done and that it would give an opportunity that he wasn't sure was really needed, that it didn't take into consideration how the existence of senior judges in different districts or magistrates in different districts would affect the caseload of those districts. Although the, the answer to that from all of its supporters, all of the act supporters, is that none of that is true, that it was not hastily done. And he also said that the allocation wasn't clear, even though it clearly said that it would be done in three tranches, one for the next president, one for the president after that, and one for the president after that. So at least two different presidents would be involved. And that's assuming that, that the president after Trump's second term is reelected, and then it would only be two, but it would still be three presidencies that would be involved in doing this. I think everyone widely agrees that there is a backload of cases that needs to be fixed. I think what's important to say is that he didn't talk about the fact that this was a bipartisan bill that had factual support and that people really think we need extra judges. And so it's unclear to me why he really did the veto. It just doesn't always make sense to me.
- [46:36]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
So, Joyce, what do you think? I mean, this isn't. And just to be clear to our listeners, this isn't a packing the court kind of plan. These are all trial level judges that handle cases. And as we pointed out earlier, there are some places where just the population has boomed since the number of judges were set. And so it leads to backlogs in processing cases in those places. And that could lead to a delay of justice. So this was bipartisan. They tried to do it. Any sort of judicial reform is better when done over time so that everybody gets a shot at making some of these appointments. Joyce, what do you think about it?
- [47:18]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. So, you know, my sweet summer children, there is nothing going on here that's bipartisan or innocent or not political in nature. And maybe this one hits a little bit close to home for me because at the end of the Obama administration, Barb and I had a number of friends, really qualified people who had been nominated for federal judgeships who were left hanging, who didn't get confirmed at the end of that administration. Administration, there were 105 open seats, including one on the Supreme Court, and they were blocked by Republicans. Those were 105 existing seats, right? Not new ones. Those were 105 empty seats. And you'd think Republicans would have been demanding that they be filled, given the need that they now see for additional judgeships. But no, they were fine with blocking them at the time. I talked with a court of appeals judge who was appointed by a Republican president, and he told me that there was no need to fill them because the district judges in the courthouse he worked in weren't really that busy that they came in after he came in and that they left earlier. And look, that's years ago. But the judicial caseload numbers don't suggest that leaving 100 seats open, open back then would be so completely meritless that we would need these new judgeships going forward. So fast forward to today. Here's what happens. Suddenly, after Trump wins, Republicans develop enthusiasm for passing this bill. It had been in the works, it would not have passed had Trump not won. It's about politics. Could we use more judges? Arguably we can in some districts, but that's not what this is about. This is about creating slots that Trump can fill and we don't need that. And I think Joe Biden did the right thing here. In his statement that he wrote when he returned the bill, by the way, back to Congress, he said S4199 would create new judgeships in states where senators have sought to hold open existing judicial vacancies. Those efforts to hold open vacancies suggest the concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of this bill now. And so to come full circle. Republicans were happy to hold those seats open when Obama was in office. They were happy to hold them open while Biden was in office. That means that their claim that these seats are so essential really should fall on deaf ears. I'm a fan of what the president did here.
- [50:04]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, I'm going to disagree only because, and I take your point, everything that you said is correct about the obstruction that Republicans have openly done in an effort to shift the judiciary rightward with Leonard Leo and all the other deep pocketed folks in conservative circles that have done that. It's absolutely shameful. We saw that example with Merrick Garland, his appointment to the Supreme Court and totally agree with all of that. But I believe that this is an important piece of legislation on its own. It is something that should get bipartisan support. We should have a government that works for us. And the fact that this is otherwise a piece of legislation that Joe Biden backed that he pushed for when he was on the Senate Judiciary Committee, but for the timing now, that if politics are the only reason he's vetoing it, he's not just sticking it to Republicans. He's really making our judicial system, in my opinion, less sufficient. And it's a price that the Republicans really won't bear. It's the people who are in the civil and criminal justice systems who will. So I think, especially since it is a bit Trump proof, yes, Trump would give some of the appointments, but presidents after him, assuming he ever leaves, will also get them. This is what it should be like. I'm not so sure, Jill, that it just means that it's going to get passed and President Trump will sign it. I don't think that there is a filibuster proof majority and I think the Democrats will probably try to block it. And so then where are we going to get the politics? Unless you have one party with 60% of the Senate and both houses, you're not going to get any judicial reform done. So I just think that that's just the government working.
- [51:50]
Joyce Vance
Let me put one last gloss on my argument, Kim, since you don't love my argument and I think.
- [51:56]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
No, no, I like your argument. I just disagree.
- [51:59]
Joyce Vance
I think your points are well taken. But, but what I want to say is this. The Senate is different than it was when Joe Biden supported this sort of legislation when he was on judiciary. And what changed was the Republicans discovery during the Obama administration that they could engage in obstruction and refuse to confirm nominees. It was very unprecedented the way they did it. They weren't lodging objections to these nominees, they were just refusing to confirm them because they were going to be appointed by a Democrat. That was new. Democrats did some of that during the Trump administration. But you may recall we all talked about a lot of judges who were blocked for good reasons. Like that guy in Montgomery, Alabama who was into Paranormal Romance or I mean there were like some crazy ass, you know, potential nominees, right. Who were blocked and by and large Republicans were permitted to fill seats including a vacancy on the Supreme Court, you know, after Donald Trump lost the election. Right. Or, or Aileen Cannon who was confirmed after Donald Trump lost the election. So I, I think that this fear that Democrats and that the President has is legitimate. Donald Trump gets his tranche of 25 under this bill. I think the concern is Democratic Democrats would never get theirs. And while Jill may be right that the, the bill ultimately does pass in some way, shape or form, I think the important thing is to say despite legitimate concerns about the judiciary, this is not normal politics. This is more of Leonard Leo at all at work trying to reform the judiciary into a Republican owned enterprise top to bottom. And it is deeply troubling.
- [53:44]
Jill Wine Banks
It is definitely troubling. And we have to look at how many vacancies there are right now because that does support Biden's statement in rejecting this bill and vetoing it, that it isn't being done because there is an overload of cases. Because if that was the reason, then all the judges that are pending now would have been approved and a lot have been. I believe that President Biden has managed to, to have confirmed more judges than most presidents in the past, including Donald Trump in his first term. And so they are getting approved. But because there is a caseload problem. There should be more approved and there should be none pending right now. All of the judges that are vacant now should have been done. And I can see why President Biden would take that as a point of pride to say, I'm not letting you get 25 more than you already have because of the ones that are pending. Fill those first and then we'll see if we have a need. If those aren't vacant, then maybe we won't have the same need. You have to evaluate it after all of those are filled. And you already have a plethora of judges to fill. So I do get that point, and I think that's the most significant thing that he said in his veto message.
- [55:08]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. I mean, to be fair and to give Yalls argument the credibility it deserves there, you know, you never know. These numbers fluctuate because Biden has had success confirming judges. But There are roughly 36 vacancies right now. There are about 890 federal judges. Not all of them are Article 3 judges subject to confirmation, but that gives you some idea of the landscape. So Biden is not sitting where Barack Obama was at this point. And some of those open judgeships are, quite frankly, Joe Biden's own fault because he honors the blue seat. And there are some vacancies where he has not made nominations because Republican senators have not signed off on those nominees. But I think that sort of proves the point of Republican obstruction. I mean, it's really interesting. How do you make sure that the courts can function and people can get justice when one party doesn't want to play by the rest rules? So now it's time for our favorite part of the podcast where we get to answer your questions. It may be the holidays, but you guys did not go easy on us this week at all. And we have lots of really great questions to choose from. If you do have a question for us as we head into the New year year, please email us at sisters in law politicon.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. We're on threads, Blue sky, and maybe a little bit still on Twitter. We'll answer as many of your questions as we can. Jill, let me start with you this week because we had a lot of similar questions. I'm going to read one that came from Laurie, but a lot of people are interested and I think you have the right experience to answer. So if Elon Musk becomes Speaker of the House. Perish the thought. Would he still be third in line for the Presidency? This is that weird, obscure provision that let someone who's not a member of the House be the Speaker. Please give us some insight. And if you can keep Kim and me off the ledge on this one, we'd appreciate it.
- [57:23]
Jill Wine Banks
I think I can, because it's a really interesting question. Because it is weird that someone who's not even a member of Congress, not even a former member of Congress, could be the speaker of the House, which is a very, very powerful position. But that is the way the rules work. But the Constitution does require that to be President, you have to be a natural born citizen. And don't get me started on birthright citizenship. But Elon Musk. Musk is not a natural born citizen, so he cannot become President of the United States. Even if he is the speaker and would be in the line of succession, it would have to skip him. So, no, we don't have to worry about him becoming President. Elon Musk could be the speaker of the House. And it's not looking like there's anyone who's fighting Mike Johnson to be speaker, so. So he may win anyway. But that remains to be seen on January 3. But it will not ever make Elon Musk in line to be President of the United States.
- [58:32]
Joyce Vance
Okay, well, that's one thing to cross off the list of potential bad stuff.
- [58:37]
Jill Wine Banks
So thank you, Jill.
- [58:38]
Barb McQuaid
You don't have to worry about that anymore.
- [58:39]
Joyce Vance
I mean, that's like. That's the right spot in the day. Hey, Barb, Kim in Minnetonka, Minnesota, has a question. This is a great question, too, given that the incoming President has promised to pardon the January 6th insurrectionists. I saw one statement where Trump said it might happen in the first minutes of his presidency. Can the officers, the Capitol Police who were injured, sue them for the pain and suffering they've endured? Civil suit, maybe?
- [59:10]
Barb McQuaid
Yes, and I am very pleased to hear from someone, Kim in Minnetonka, Minnesota, which I believe is the hometown of the Tonka truck. So Minnetonka, a very cool place.
- [59:24]
Joyce Vance
I thought it was where moccasins came from. Those Minnetonka moccasins. They're great.
- [59:29]
Barb McQuaid
Maybe that, too. You know what we all.
- [59:31]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Well, isn't that the place where Prince told Apollonia to purify herself in the waters of Lake Minnetonka?
- [59:38]
Joyce Vance
All right, we are going. We are doing a live show in Minnetone, Tonka. We just have to do this.
- [59:44]
Barb McQuaid
There is something for everyone.
- [59:46]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Purple Rain fans Purple rain.
- [59:48]
Joyce Vance
Absolutely.
- [59:49]
Barb McQuaid
I like the trucks. Well, Kim, thank you for your question. Yes, absolutely, yes. You know, they already are pending a number of civil lawsuits against Donald Trump for their injuries and property damage that was incurred on January 6th. You know, millions of dollars in damage at the Capitol, personal injuries. So police officers and members of Congress have filed civil lawsuits against Trump in the short amount of time I was stalling about Tonka trucks, I was googling to see if there are other civil cases filed against other individuals. And all I can find on the Google machine is cases filed against Donald Trump. But there'd be nothing to prevent somebody from filing, you know, if say somebody who engaged in hand to hand combat and harmed a police officer, killed a police officer, there was the officer who died the next day from his injuries with bear spray, could absolutely file a civil lawsuit. My guess is there already are some pending. I just wasn't able to find them. But even if there is a criminal case, there can still be a parallel civil case because civil cases, of course, are for money damages as opposed to a criminal case, which is for punishment through prison fines relative otherwise.
- [61:09]
Joyce Vance
So interesting. And there's a great question for follow up for you, Kim, since you're our experienced civil litigator. This one comes from Toby in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. And Toby wants to know if a lawsuit is dismissed or withdrawn, who pays the legal fees for the person who was accused? I'm assuming that that question is in the civil context.
- [61:33]
Jill Wine Banks
Right.
- [61:34]
Joyce Vance
And that they're saying accused in the sense of the defendant who the plaintiff brought civil charges against.
- [61:39]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yes, yes, I'm taking that. And lawsuits mean that in the civil context. This is a great question. Generally speaking, under what is known as the American rule, each side is expected to pay their own legal fees. So that's sort of the default position when there is any litigation throughout, each party pays their own fees. But there are times that either a court or the law itself provides for a shifting of legal fees. So for example, if someone files a frivolous lawsuit, one without any merit at all, a court can find that in dismissing that, that the person who filed that suit be responsible for all the legal fees. And keep in mind, that's not just to pay for attorneys, it's also the expenses, court filings, things like that. If there were expert witnesses that needed to be called in the discovery, it can be really expensive. And there are also sometimes in a statute under which you bring a lawsuit, it provides that the winner will get awarded attorney's fees. So I did a lot of consumer protection litigation when I was a civil attorney and the consumer protection statutes often provided explicitly if there was a finding of a violation of that law that the fees would be picked up by the defendant in that case. But that's a great question.
- [63:03]
Joyce Vance
Well, good questions. I hope you guys will send us more for this coming couple of shows because we know that we are headed into sort of uncharted waters. Can I say that instead of unprecedented, right. We all got sick of the word unprecedented.
- [63:17]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Well done.
- [63:18]
Joyce Vance
We'll go with uncharted for now, but thank you for listening to Sisters in law with Barb McQuaid, Kimberly Atkins store, Jill Wine Banks and me, Joyce Vance. 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. Please show some love to this week's sponsors, Thrive Cosmetics, Lola V and Calm. Their links are in the show notes. Your support for them really helps us because they help make the podcast possible. See you next next week with another episode. Sisters In Law.
- [63:58]
Jill Wine Banks
I want you all to know I just looked up Minnetonka. It's near Minnesota, so it's a place we could go. Moccasins are from there. Hargill, the largest privately held company, is there. Prince is from there.
- [64:12]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yes.
- [64:13]
Jill Wine Banks
And the truck, Tonka Trunk is from Mound, Minnesota, not Minnetone.
- [64:19]
Barb McQuaid
Oh no.
- [64:22]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Are you gonna purify yourselves in the waters of Lake?
- [64:25]
Joyce Vance
Absolutely. I'm a huge Purple Rain fan. In fact, Bob Bob and me on our first date, we it was a law school formal dance and we then went back to a friend's apartment and we all watched Purple Rain.
- [64:39]
Jill Wine Banks
Oh my gosh.
- [64:40]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. It's one of the greatest movies of all time.
- [64:45]
E
Good sleep should come naturally and with the new Natural Hybrid mattress, it can. A collaboration between Leesa and West Elm, the Natural Hybrid is expertly crafted from natural latex, natural wool and certified safe foams to elevate your sleep sanctuary and support a greener tomorrow. Breathable organic cotton and moisture wicking jomo wool consistently provide cool and comfortable slumber. Every purchase helps fuel Lisa's work with shelter and those in need. Visit Lisa.com to learn more. That's Leesa.
- [65:14]
Jill Wine Banks
Com.