Loading summary
Transcript115 lines
- [00:01]
Jill Wine Banks
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. Choose from 35 nutritious options every week. Get 50% off your first box plus free shipping with code SIL50OFF@FactorMeals.com SIL50OFF the link is in our show Notes welcome back to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Kimberly Atkins Storr and me, Jill Wine Banks. Barb will be back next week and we miss her this week, especially with some of the topics we're talking about. I wish she was here. We have a great show today. We're going to be discussing Trump's getting sentenced and also talking about whether Alito should have voted in that decision. The Smith Report may be coming out on Monday. Maybe not. We'll see. And we'll also talk about whether fact checking and content moderation are a thing of yesterday and there will be no more truth on any meta site. But before we get to those serious topics, I want to talk about the fact that we have a great new design thanks to Kim's idea for a T shirt that we can't all wait to wear and that you should all be ordering right away. Kim, tell us what your idea was and how it came that we now have a T shirt on our merch site.
- [01:40]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yes. You know, I was walking Snickers. This is a true story. And I was thinking, you know, sort of in my walking meditation what it means to to be a part of the resistance and thinking about all the ways that I can resist. And then I thought, oh wait a minute, there's an SIS in Resistance. We are the Resistance. The Resistance. So that's what our T shirt says. And we want all of you to join the resistance and not only listen to Sisters in Law every week, but get a T shirt to show all your friends and everybody in your community that you too are a part of the resistance.
- [02:21]
Joyce Vance
And look, for this purpose, you don't have to be a woman to be a cis. No all be part of the resistance. I'm so excited about it, Tim. It was a great idea. Our team did a great job of putting the design together. You know, none of us are big on obeying in advance. Maybe wearing these shirts. This is a form of disobeying in advance and I am pretty excited about it.
- [02:44]
Jill Wine Banks
Remember, we're the Sisters in Law, but we are also the resisters in law. So join us. And the T shirt looks great. I know you can't see it until you go on politicon.com merch that's where you'll see the actual navy blue shirt with SIS in big bold letters and our lady justice behind it. So get the T shirt so that you can show you're part of the resistance. Before we get started on the serious topics, we also wanted to say how much we are thinking about everyone at risk and everybody who has already lost everything in California. We are grateful that so many lives have been saved, but we are really sorry that this has happened. We all wanted to express our sympathies and hope that this will end quickly. Our own team here, two of them live in California and have been with Go Bags Packed. So it's definitely impacting us personally and we reach out to everyone.
- [03:53]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, and I want to give a special shout out to all the first responders, all the folks who are out there fighting their best to save what they can, including the lives of Californians. We are eternally grateful for them and our prayers go out to everyone affected.
- [04:10]
Joyce Vance
Look, we love y'all. I know it's impossible for people who aren't there to really understand what you're going through if if you're in the LA area. As a native Angeleno, I gotta say, it's just breaking my heart. And something we want you to know is that you remain in our thoughts, constantly making us concerned for you, hoping that you will be able to rejoin this community when you're able to, and definitely wanting to hear from you and let you know if there's anything that we can be doing to use our platform to help make things better. For January is all about fresh starts, which means now is a great time to swap out the skincare products, weighing your skin down in favor of a regimen scientifically proven to transform your skin at the cellular level. Enter today's sponsor, Oneskin. Their products are powered by OS01, a proprietary peptide that OneSkin's four founders developed after testing other formulas. Incredibly, they used their backgrounds as skin longevity scientists to prove that it switches off the aging dysfunctional cells that cause lines, wrinkles and thinning skin.
- [05:25]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Oneskin's products are also free of unnecessary irritants like sulfates and fragrance. Plus, they're packed with nourishing ingredients like Androba oil, bra blanco and Moringa seed extract to naturally boost collagen, reduce inflammation and protect skin from environmental stress. If you're ready to detox your routine, improve your skin health and look your best, head over to Oneskin Co and use Code Sisters at checkout for an exclusive 15% off your first purchase. Make 2025 the year you invest in habits like one skin that will keep you and your skin healthier at the cellular level.
- [06:09]
Jill Wine Banks
You know I love that Kim. And I also love when people notice my skin. Ever since I've started using Oneskin, been saying your skin looks really good and it's a real confidence booster. I think I know why I keep getting those compliments. It's because whether I'm in the wind, which is violent in Chicago, but not as bad as California these days, or warming up next to the heater, I use OneSkin's OS01 face topical supplement to fight back against dryness. Now my skin is ready for anything, anything the elements can throw my way. I especially love that Oneskin's regimen works fast and the formulas feel amazing when you apply them. They're so refreshing and I'm certain that you'll be a big fan too.
- [06:57]
Joyce Vance
Founded and led by an all woman team of skin longevity scientists, Oneskin is redefining the aging process with their proprietary OSO1 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 where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them that we sent you. Invest in health and longevity of your skin with one Skin. Your future self will thank you. The link is in our show notes. I really do love that stuff so much.
- [07:48]
Jill Wine Banks
Donald J. Trump is now officially a convicted felon. His scramble to prevent being sentenced was rejected by SCOTUS and he was sentenced to unconditional discharge. No fine, no jail, no probation, not even a don't do it again. So Joyce, what was his argument and what were the two grounds on which the Supreme Court said no, not going to do it?
- [08:15]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. So Trump's argument was pretty much because I'm me and I'm special and you can't sentence me like anybody else who's been convicted in the criminal justice system. And it was really interesting to me to see this order from the Supreme Court, this very unusual decision with an unusual split on the court where the court said, you know, evidentiary questions, which is what Trump wants to raise. He wants to say that the trial court impermissibly used evidence of official acts towards his conviction. And the court acknowledged what we all know to be the reality. Those sorts of issues are appealed after conviction and sentencing routinely in all cases. No reason Trump should get special treatment and by God, five justices on the United States Supreme Court agree. So that was sort of a hopeful sign. Then the court used this second sort of rationale, and it's that the way this sentencing was being teed up indicated to them that it wouldn't impermissibly burden the presidency. I think Judge Merchan was utterly brilliant in the way he teed this up. I wrote a piece for MSNBC earlier this week on Tuesday, and this is because by saying up front that he would not sentence Trump to any time in custody, which I know made a lot of you really angry, but let's be realistic. This wasn't going to be a custodial sentence ever. This isn't the kind of crime that gets custody in New York State. By doing that, Judge Merchand really cut the legs out from underneath Trump's lawyers, and the Supreme Court said, look, he's not going to jail. It's not an imprisonment permissible burden on the presidency. Had Judge Merchan not done that, there would not have been a sentencing Friday morning.
- [10:04]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
So that's so interesting that you say that, Joyce, because when I saw the Supreme Court order, one question that I had, yes, Judge Merchan said, and he said it in a filing, that he was inclined to sentence to unconditional release, but he had the option right up until he handed down that sentence to pick something else, including conditional release, which would still have had the same effect. But he could have said, you are released conditionally so that you don't commit more crimes, or X, Y and Z and other things. He didn't do that. And I get the why, he may not have, but I sort of felt like when the Supreme Court issued its order and put unconditional release in the order, that they were locking him in, like they were not giving him any other options. I thought that was a bit of an overstep. Am I reading too much into that?
- [10:50]
Joyce Vance
You know, I sort of think that it was very clear to everybody, and we heard the judge say it in the sentencing hearing, the prosecution had already said it, that it was the only legal sentence, that any other sentence there would have been endless wrangling over.
- [11:06]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, there would have been appeals, and that's. I get that.
- [11:09]
Joyce Vance
I think it would have failed. I mean, I think. Here's this. I'll tell you something from my days as an appellate chief. Something that you don't do is you don't go and poke the tiger when there's a chance that you're gonna screw up the entire body of law nationwide.
- [11:26]
Jill Wine Banks
Right.
- [11:26]
Joyce Vance
And this, with this particular Supreme Court, would have just been asking them, for them to expand the imperial presidency even further than John Roberts already has. I just say we try to cut our losses at this point.
- [11:40]
Jill Wine Banks
So, Kim, based on what you and Joyce are talking about, why did he fight so hard to prevent being sentenced? Why does it matter? I mean, he didn't get any fine, any jail time. He's not even on probation. So why did he fight so hard to prevent it?
- [11:56]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
So I think a lot of. A few. Listen, I never, I always give a caveat. I don't know what's going on inside of Donald Trump's head. I cannot accurately put myself in his shoes. I can't. So I am just going to say, based on what he has said and how he has acted, it seems pretty clear that A, he hated everything about this entire prosecution. Right. So he's going to fight it for the sake of fighting it. He's going to keep fighting it and he's going to keep fighting, fighting it in the court of public opinion for the rest of his life. That's one, two, hatred of Judge Mershon, which is absolutely clear. We've talked about it many, many times. Three, incur that any of the cases before him actually got to the point of completion. So he is now a convicted felon. Let's be clear. Under New York law, he was a convicted felon from the after the moment that the jury rendered his verdict. But what this does, the sentence completes all of the procedural steps that precede his ability to appeal and what he wanted to because it would make him feel better and it would give him enough fodder to lie about being exonerated or something. He wanted to push that process into the past inauguration to try to foul up the ability for any more of it to happen. And he didn't get it. So he was angry. He's petty. This really is a winning situation, as you point out. I mean, he basically is above the law. Judge Merchand basically had to say as much in order to secure the this sentence in a way that won't get appealed. But he's petty and he's a sore winner. So this is why he's appealing.
- [13:34]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah, I think the last is the most important reason in his mind is he is now officially a convicted felon. The time for appeal is starting to run. He's gonna have to act on that. And I think that was just like a step too far for him and his comments during the sentencing hearing. But, but his postings afterward reflect really horrible thoughts But Joyce, let's address the fact that this was a 5 to 4 decision. So there were four dissenters. That means that two of the six conservatives went with the three liberal justices, but the four others didn't. And of course they didn't have to state a reason. They didn't state a reason. But what were the arguments and should this have been a clear 9 0? Was there any possible reason why anyone would have gone differently?
- [14:30]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, I mean, you know, woulda, shoulda. Right. They didn't go. Four justices voted to delay Donald Trump's sentencing in a way that would have prevented that conviction from becoming final before.
- [14:45]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Can we name them? They are Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
- [14:53]
Joyce Vance
The four horsemen of the apocalypse. Yes. Look, I'm not a fan of their decision. We don't know if they had a rationale because they did not write. They simply did not vote to hear the case. I'll tell you, I'm going to do something that I usually don't do. I usually have more self restraint than to do this. But what I'm going to say is I think it's a concerning signal about what will happen when Trump's convict itself comes up to the Supreme Court, which it will do because of the issues involved. I think very likely it will go there unless perhaps the New York court reverses on its own. But you know, I'm sort of thinking that these are four votes to reverse Donald Trump's conviction and the question is whether or not John Roberts will join them next, go round and make it five and reverse the conviction. And that's what I'm really looking at is in this 54 split, whether it might not become 5 4, the other direction the next.
- [15:54]
Jill Wine Banks
And it could be John Roberts or Amy Coney Perry.
- [15:56]
Joyce Vance
I was going to say it could be less likely. Let me tell you why. Remember in the original presidential immunity case, she wrote a concurrence and she was the one who was not a fan of the part of the court's opinion that said, oh, and by the way, Justice Department, you also can't use any evidence that might be of official, you know, from which is the whole predicate for Trump appealing the New York case, this idea that he used testimony from Hope Hicks and one other woman about conversations that were had inside of the White House.
- [16:28]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
But that was an easy stance to take. Right. So I think when she's in the majority or she's not the decision making vote, she can have that little bit of, I don't Know, I feel like she doesn't. She only shows that kind of gumption when it doesn't really count.
- [16:46]
Joyce Vance
Now, to give credit in this case, having this. Yeah, this.
- [16:50]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Now, she did show gumption because she was the decided. If she'd gone the other way, this would be different. Trump wouldn't have been sentenced. So I will give her that much props, not based on what she's done before.
- [17:01]
Joyce Vance
She showed gumption there, too, in the immunity decision, because she didn't get anyone to join her view that what the majority said about the use of evidence was wrong. And so I find myself being forced to give her credit for saying, sticking to her view, which is not easy to do when nobody else, you know, you got eight friends and none of them are willing to stick by you. I think she's less. But, you know, Kim, you know what this could be? I mean, it could end up being a 6:3 to reverse the conviction. Right.
- [17:33]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
But I take your points. I mean, we should listen. It is for us to see clearly what each of the nine justices are doing. So I take your points. And obviously other people have made similar points, too. I am just after. You know, I have to admit I'm biased from her voiceless vote with the Dobbs majority with no concurrence, no nothing, no note, no tweet. She just said, yep, what they said. And that filled me with a great bit of wariness about her jurisprudence. So I'm coming out from a hole. But I can see if you're not.
- [18:13]
Joyce Vance
Wary of her jurisprudence, I would be disappointed. I am, too. I just. It's like, I'm not sure if I'm living in Pollyanna land, but I have come to think that on these democracy issues, it's a coin flip which side she'll be on. And sometimes she's on the good side. And so give credit where due. I'm looking forward to seeing more, by the way of each of the justices reasoning, which is, of course, yes, there's the decision. What matters is, what does this say to us about whether or not we're still a rule of law country?
- [18:45]
Jill Wine Banks
Important questions that we will be discussing for many years to come, I am sure. But there's another issue. When we're talking about this split and it being 5 4, I'm wondering, I said, should it have been a 9 0? Should it have been 8 0? Because Justice Alito should have recused himself and not voted. So, Kim, he violated some ethics. He had a phone call with Donald Trump the day before taking this case and ruling on It. What do you think?
- [19:21]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Oh, my goodness. So apparently I thought it was bad enough when I thought the possibility, when I first heard the news of this phone call, allegedly for a reference check for a potential employee who previously worked in the Trump administration, but who now wants another job in the Trump administration. And I thought, I don't know. He was a former clerk of Alito, and maybe Alito, like, placed a call to Mar a Lago to put in a good word, which would have been bad. It's even worse that the phone call reportedly was initiated by Donald Trump. So Donald Trump, who knew, because we knew, because we've been talking about it for weeks, that he had multiple cases waiting at the door of the Supreme Court, if not already there. Like, we talked about the brief he filed in the TikTok case, too, had a phone call ex parte, which means outside of the course of, you know, the proceedings, not in the courtroom, not with opposing counsel present with Donald Trump. Alito and Donald Trump had a phone call. So the only people who knew what happened in this phone call is them. But Alito claims that all they talked about was this potential applicant, this former clerk. First of all, we don't know that. But the standard. The ethical standard is either a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest. And let me tell you something. We mentioned before that at the end of the year, I was rereading the Brethren, which is Bob Woodward's Seminole Supreme Court book, and there was a situation where someone who was friendly with the justice just chatted with them, and then the justice found out they had business before the court, and the justice immediately recused. Like, didn't even. Probably hadn't even read the pleadings yet and was like, shoot, I talked it. That was so inappropriate. I'm gonna recuse. So Samuel Alito, if he talked to Trump, he knew Trump would be appealing everything to them. He shouldn't have taken the call. And once he did, he should have recused from every case involving Donald Trump and the TikTok case in which Donald Trump filed a brief. There. There is no. This is ethics one. I'm rambling, but I just cannot impress enough how you're not rambling and shut case of.
- [21:49]
Joyce Vance
You are violation of ethics. You are praying in court. Amen. Amen. Amen. You are so right.
- [21:55]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
It's crazy. I mean, this is insane, people. This is not normal.
- [22:00]
Jill Wine Banks
You are 100% right. It was outrageous, but not just because of the timing. It's also outrageous because does anyone believe that the president elect is doing the vetting by making reference calls. Please. There's no way for low level positions.
- [22:21]
Joyce Vance
This is how, Mike, for a cabinet secretary, I mean, it's like, come on.
- [22:25]
Jill Wine Banks
No, I mean, this wasn't a low level. I mean, it's a sub cabinet. It's, it's a general counsel of a department, but it is not a cabinet level position. And even for the cabinet, that's what you have a transition team for. They make those phone calls. That's why you have background checks by the FBI. They do those phone calls.
- [22:43]
Joyce Vance
Please.
- [22:44]
Jill Wine Banks
This is so ridiculous.
- [22:45]
Joyce Vance
Jill, that is such a good point. Can we just underscore how dysfunctional this is? Trump won't, you know, has said he doesn't want the FBI doing backgrounds, but he wants us to believe he's talking to a Supreme Court justice about it. Give me an effin break.
- [23:01]
Jill Wine Banks
Okay, so Joyce, let's follow up on that because now Donald Trump is sentenced, the judgment is final. He's a convicted felon. It can't be undone, the sentence. But the whole thing could be set aside after a regular appeal. We've talked about that. So what's the appellate process now in terms of timing and what's going to happen? Because it's going to end up back at scotus, Right. You know, and then I want to throw in another little tweak, which is normally the trial lawyers would handle the appeal, but those are going to be Justice Department officials if they are confirmed by the Senate. So what's it going to mean for the lawyers who won't be able to represent them if they are confirmed? And what's the timing? What can we expect? You're our appellate expert. Tell us.
- [23:50]
Joyce Vance
So, look, I think something that we should explain about the appellate process is that this was always going to happen no matter when Donald Trump was sentenced, what the sentence was. There was always going to be an appeal. There is always some risk that the government will lose in an appeal. Donald Trump will make some interesting legal arguments. They will be unique. They will be what lawyers call issues of first impression. So the Supreme Court will have to decide them for the first time. That's what we've just been talking about. The risk of the conviction being reversed on appeal is no greater now than it would have been if Donald Trump had been sentenced back in April. This is something that was always baked in and that we knew about. But it's still, I mean, it's going to be a moment, right? We'll, we'll, I think, all hold our breath until we see if this Conviction is going to be affirmed. I feel like the prosecutors and the judges and the judge handled this very cautiously. They were very deferential, protecting the rights of Donald Trump as a defendant, which many people didn't like. In my appellate lawyer's heart, I was always very happy because when judges are careful about protecting a defendant's rights, I know I'm going to have an easier time on appeal. You raised this super interesting point about who his lawyers are going to be. Right. This will go up through the New York State courts and then possibly flip back to the Supreme Court. I think we're all expecting that. I suspect that even if Donald Trump's lawyers weren't about to become Justice Department high ranking officials, he would have had a different team on the appeal. For one thing, appellate lawyers tend to be specialists. And I'll tell you one of the dirty little tricks of the trade. I was always super happy, especially when I had a tough appeal, when my trial prosecutor didn't play any role in the appeal, because that meant that I could be a little bit more carefree about how I characterized the conduct during the trial. It just gave me a little bit more of an ability to be nimble about making arguments. And appellate lawyers like to have that freedom. It's always good to be on appeal and to have the judge look at you and say, now, you weren't the trial lawyer, were you? Oh, no, judge, I wasn't that guy. And that can be helpful strategically. And it just gives you, you know, being an appellate lawyer is all about having.
- [26:10]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I didn't make the ability to make.
- [26:12]
Joyce Vance
The best arguments you can make for your client. I don't know who will see Donald Trump hire, but I suspect that there will be some outstanding appellate lawyers who will be willing to jump in to represent the President of the United States, who might not have been willing to hop over and become a part of his government. So I think we'll see first rate lawyers.
- [26:34]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
So now I don't wanna. I know we've been talking about this a lot, but one question I've gotten a lot that I wanted to ask of both of you, which is like, we understand that Marshawn wanted to make sure that his, that the verdict held, but would just a fine. Like, I have people just like, why does he just get to walk away? Like, would a fine misapple? Can't he just write a check?
- [26:55]
Joyce Vance
There would have been a sentencing hearing if there had been a fine. The Supreme Court was explicit that it was because it was an unconditional discharge. Otherwise we would not be. And I get it. Everybody who wants to hate on Judge Merchan and the prosecution for that, I totally get it. This is not the justice that any of us wanted to see. I think that the judge was dealt a really bad hand and I think he played it to perfection. And Donald Trump is now convicted felon, Donald Trump accountable. Even if it gets reversed on appeal, he will take office as a convicted felon.
- [27:31]
Jill Wine Banks
And, you know, I. But I was really worried about how I would feel because, of course, Judge Merchand had basically announced in advance that he was going to give unconditional discharge. And I thought, that's going to be so unsatisfying. And then I listened as particularly the prosecution made its remarks about why they were recommending that. And it suddenly felt right and just. And I'm just wondering if, if both of you agree that this was at least the best that could be done in the circumstances and whether you had any particular reaction to the prosecution remarks or to what the judge said about why he was doing this, or to Trump's lawyer's remarks or Trump's own remarks.
- [28:20]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, I don't have anything to say about any remarks. All I can say is while I totally understand and completely agree with both of you about why this is the sentence and that, that this was the best case scenario given these circumstances, I hate the circumstances. I hate the fact that we essentially have created, unwittingly by this court, unwillingly by this court, a president elect immunity doctrine. Because the only reason that he's getting this treatment is because he's the President elect. And that essentially says he is above the law, no matter how we explain it and how technically that's not what the ruling means for most of Americans. It is what it means. When you look at this, you know with your own eyes, it is what it means. And that's profoundly unsatisfying.
- [29:19]
Jill Wine Banks
If your New Year's resolutions include eating healthier, as mine does, saving money, or creating meals you're proud to serve, Hexclad is here to make it happen. It's time to upgrade from scratched up pans and mismatched tools to stylish and practical cookware. With Hexclad, cooking becomes easier, cleanup is definitely quicker, and every meal feels a little bit more special. And they look great just sitting on your stovetop unused.
- [29:49]
Joyce Vance
You know, they really do. My oldest child is in his first place that he's ever purchased, and he has a great set of Hexclad, not a lot else. No rugs, no furniture, but he's Got some hex Hexclad. And really, when you think about it, Hexclad can completely transform the way you cook. There are hybrid pans that combine the durability of stainless steel, the convenience of non stick, and the versatility of cast iron in one beautiful design. The sleek pepper mill gives you precision seasoning with a touch of elegance, helping you easily take your meals to the next level. And to make every dish shine, you'll seriously want to show this off with every meal. So I think Hexclad is something that we can all agree on. You know, we've talked a lot about cooking on this show, mostly in the ads. Everything new that we do ups our game a little bit. Hexclad has been fabulous.
- [30:40]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, I have to agree with that. And it also, because it's so easy to use and easy to clean, it has allowed me to, like, bring out dishes that I haven't made in the past because the cleanup is such a mess. Like, I made Indian food, some nice shagalu with butter chicken and that. You know, you have a lot of spices in that and you're cooking. And usually at the end, if you have a subpar pan, that cleanup is tough. But I was using the hexclad pans and cleanup was a breeze. So I really love that. And my family enjoyed the Indian food. So Gordon Ramsay, you want to listen to him. He's one of the toughest critics in the world, and he relies on Hexclad in his own home and in his Michelin star kitchen. They even have a lifetime warranty, so you can trust you'll never need to replace your Hexclad. And now, for a limited time, our listeners can get 10% off their entire order with code sisters@hexclad.com support our show and check them out at h e x C-L-A-.com and use the Code Sisters. Start using Hexclad's patented laser etched hexagonal steel ridges to boost your searing power. You know, you gotta sear that chicken before you know you start to roast it. These are the best pans you'll ever own. And for a limited time only, our listeners get 10% off your order. With our exclusive link, just head to hexclad.com sisters support our show and check them out. H E X C L-A-Com sisters, be sure to let them know we sent you. Bon appetit. And let's eat with Hexclad's revolutionary cookware. As you know, you can find the link in our show notes, it has been a roller coaster of a week when it comes to news about the report of special prosecutor Jack Smith. Like, it started out, I thought, okay, are we gonna get it? And then I saw one filing from Jack Smith, and it made me think, oh, no, maybe we won't get it. And then there was another thing. I'm like, oh, we're definitely not getting it. And then I'm like, well, maybe we'll get it. And it's like, well, maybe we'll get half of it. Listen, I'm so confused, Joyce. So it began this week. I think one of the first news items I saw was a filing that Jack Smith made in which he was saying, giving the status about this report, and he indicated that it's up to the Attorney General whether to release it at all. And I'm like, wait a minute, what? And then things got worse from there. Kick us off and make it make sense how this week got started.
- [33:29]
Joyce Vance
So, you know, full disclosure. We were talking about this before the podcast. It's sort of tough to make sense of this if you, our dear listeners, are feeling confused.
- [33:38]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
It was so confusing.
- [33:40]
Joyce Vance
But here's as best as I can piece together what happened. This is, you know, if, if I was going to title this answer, I would say it's called no Good Deed Goes Unpunished, because apparently the Justice Department shared a copy of the report that the special counsel was going to file a draft version with Donald Trump's lawyers in advance so that they could take a look. And what happened as a result of that was that Donald Trump's two former co defendants in the classified documents case in the Southern District of Florida ran to Judge Aileen Cannon and asked her to keep it from happening. Do not let the government file the report. So the pleading that you're referring to, Kim, is this pleading that the government filed. It was a notice in response to the defendant's emergency motion. Just a quick reminder, Donald Trump is no longer a defendant in this case. The Justice Department has dismissed him because he's going to be the future president. But also a good reminder, Judge Aileen Cannon had also dismissed this case, finding that the special counsel was unconstitutional. So it's sort of weird that these, these two defendants go running back to the judge who's dismissed their case and no longer has jurisdiction. But here we are anyhow. And so the government files a notice in response to their emergency motion, and it just says, look, we got this draft report. We're not entirely sure what we're going to do with it yet. And then, in essence, what this pleading does is it promises good faith on behalf of the government. You know, we will not be turning this stuff over until these set of days. So, Judge, if you're gonna rule, here's sort of what our timeline looks like. It was this very mild mannered opener, all triggered by the government sharing with Trump and perhaps with the defendants, too. And then, as you say, Kim, it got crazy.
- [35:34]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, Jill. So then the 11th Circuit entered the chat. What happened there?
- [35:41]
Jill Wine Banks
So this is one of the most complicated, convoluted, procedural things I've ever seen. It got me totally dizzy. I actually wrote to the two of you and said, help. What is going on here? And Joyce, in her very professional, professorial mind, said, okay, here's what we can make of this. And it was absolutely clear after she said it. But it is so sweet. No, it was a really good answer. And you weren't dismissive of my going like, what is going on? I just. I'm like, what case is pending the judge? Judge Cannon threw it out. She said, it's an unconstitutional appointment of a special counsel. He can't prosecute it. So case over.
- [36:29]
Joyce Vance
I mean, like, once a district judge dismisses a case, that judge has no more jurisdiction to do anything in that case. Which is why it befuddled us so much.
- [36:38]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, right, but it's also why they also filed at the 11th Circuit because she clearly, first of all, Judge Cannon had no jurisdiction left because she had already dismissed the case. She also had no jurisdiction ever over the report about the January 6th case in D.C. so her outreach, her overextension of any possible power to cover either one of those was outrageous. But apparently the defendants kind of realized it maybe too late after they had filed with her, and she didn't wait. She jumped right in and. And she dismissed it, issued an injunction saying, you can't have it. But then they realized, well, maybe she really was the wrong place to be. So they filed at the 11th Circuit and were hoping that the 11th Circuit would also give an injunction. And then the 11th Circuit did this really strange thing, and I've read their paragraph multiple times, and I have to go. I go, okay, who's the appellant? Who's the appellee? Oh, yeah, okay, I get it. Who's the defendant? Who's the prosecution? And basically, the defendants were asking for an injunction. So they were the appellants. They said, you know, give us an injunction, 11th Circuit. And they didn't get it. They didn't get it. So the 11th Circuit left in place Judge Cannon's order, which said that it would expire three days after the 11th Circuit made a decision. That means that the 11th Circuit has now decided that there will be, they won't issue an injunction. And so on Sunday, which would be three days later, this can the part that the Department of Justice wants to release. Actually, it's not the. Yeah, I guess it is. The attorney general would release would be the part about the January 6th case because they have announced that because they are trying to reinstate the case against the two co defendants of Trump, they won't release that because that's a pending case.
- [38:48]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Now, I put two co defendants in the classified documents.
- [38:51]
Jill Wine Banks
In the classified documents case. Yes, exactly. The people who help to obstruct justice and hide the documents. And I personally think, obviously they will be dismissed as defendants as soon as Donald Trump is inaugurated. And so, so frankly, I think that Jack Smith should dismiss the case against them. So that part of the report about the January 6, sorry about the Mar A Lago documents case can also be released on Sunday.
- [39:23]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I got it.
- [39:23]
Jill Wine Banks
That's what I would like to have happen.
- [39:25]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
So, Joyce, it seems that after all of this, Trump is losing, Jack Smith is winning. But there was an appeal filed after this by Jack Smith. And I was like, wait a minute, we don't get the report on Sunday. Why are you appealing? Make that make sense.
- [39:38]
Joyce Vance
Okay, so this is sort of fun. And since we're all friends, I'm including our listeners in this. I'm going to do the appellate nerdy thing. If appellate nerdiness sort of bores you, just go get a cup of coffee or something for the next two minutes and I'll try to make it easy and painless. In the 11th Circuit's order, they declined to enter an injunction. And then they said something sort of puzzling. I don't have it in front of me. So I'm just going to characterize it. But they essentially said, hey, doj, you might want to go ahead and file an emergency appeal of Judge Aileen Cannon's order, which we would be happy to hear. And here's how that landed with me. I, I thought that it was the panel judges saying, yo, if you guys want us to reverse Aileen Cannon, who is restricting your release for an additional three days, you must appeal her. And you government did not appeal her order. We don't see anything that says that you filed an appeal from the Southern District of Florida. So, you know, get yourselves right and come back and see us again. Well, DOJ did That it was just after midnight last night, I think midnight my time, maybe 11, their time in the eastern time zone. They did file their notice of appeal with the district court and then they filed a notice that they had filed that notice with the 11th Circuit. And it was, it was sort of cute. These are, you know, appellate lawyers, lawyers in Washington, not lawyers from one of the U.S. attorney's offices in the 11th Circuit. And so they filed a notice where they said, well, you know, we think that you guys have jurisdiction, but even if you don't have jurisdiction, please construe this as a request for mandamus. And I'm thinking this is nice and it's some very pretty lawyering. But y'all, the circuit told you, come on, why didn't you do it the first time? They think that they have jurisdiction. Let's go.
- [41:32]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Oh man. Okay, so let's just break it down. Jill, are we ever going to see any part of this report? Because if it's not released before noon on January 20th, we're not going to see it. Right. So how sure, how confident are you that we will see any or all of this report?
- [41:51]
Jill Wine Banks
Confident is hard in this world today where the Supreme Court has given up on precedent and is totally unpredictable. Results oriented decisions based on their political views. But I have to say I do think that it's going to come out before it can get any further. I don't think that, I mean right now, as of Sunday it can be released and I don't think, I don't see anything happening that will prevent it.
- [42:27]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
At least half of it.
- [42:28]
Jill Wine Banks
At least half of it. And that's why I'm saying I would immediately dismiss the rest of the case against Nattua and what's the other defendant's name anyway against his two co defendants, Trump's two co defendants. Because it's going to happen anyway. So why not get the benefit of getting this out? Justices said, well, we'll give this report to Congress because they have a right to it even if it's not made public. And that's true and that's good. And it does mean that it can't be destroyed once Donald Trump takes over the Justice Department. That it would be in someone else's hands.
- [43:09]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Well, no, I think the way they do it would be custodially. Right. They'll let Congress see it, not have it.
- [43:14]
Jill Wine Banks
Right.
- [43:15]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
But then once they, it's taken back.
- [43:18]
Jill Wine Banks
To doj, but it would still be part of official records that would be subject to foia Freedom of Information act. That would have to go to the archives. And I think that that's an important thing. So those two co defendants are not going to get tried. The Department of Justice will dismiss the case. There's not even a question about that. So what's the dilly dally around that? And I do understand that, that Jack Smith may want an opinion from the Supreme Court that says, of course this appointment is constitutional, but why risk it?
- [43:52]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah. So let me ask this one last question that I've gotten a billion times in the last week or so. Why doesn't Joe Biden just release it and say, yolo, I got immunity.
- [44:04]
Jill Wine Banks
So I had to look up what YOLO meant, Kim. Sorry. But I did look it up. And, and here's the thing. Joe Biden is not allowed to have it. The order from the court said it only goes to the Justice Department. And that means that someone at justice is going to have to violate the order. And that person doesn't have any presidential immunity.
- [44:32]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Well, let me ask this. So if the Supreme Court said, like, not even the evidence comes in and Joe Biden is just like, hey, Merrick, Bruh, drop it. Like, how are they gonna investigate that if you can't use that as evidence? I'm just ask, I'm asking y'all. People are asking me, okay, so I'm.
- [44:52]
Jill Wine Banks
Saying that the President is home free, except whoever gave it to him, Whoever gives it to him.
- [44:58]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
But if he does it, if it's in conversation with Merrick Garland, I thought that that's presidential action that can, that are off limits in terms of evidence. I'm asking, Kim.
- [45:08]
Joyce Vance
I think you're, you're making the assumption that the rules that apply to Donald Trump apply to everyone else. And girl, I am here to tell you, I don't think that that's the case. No, I mean, I don't, I don't mean to be sarcastic about it. No, I, I do worry about that, though. But, but let me just say this in a, in a very principled way. And I think the Supreme Court counted on this, quite frankly, when they gave Donald Trump and only Donald Trump presidential immunity. They counted on the fact that Joe Biden was a good man who loved the country and honored the Constitution and would not see the rule of law further destroyed on his watch. Now, look, I get. People are like, the rule of law is dead. It's dead in the water. I don't have any confidence in it. So Biden should just do this. I want to offer a different view. I think we're looking at a single moment in time right now. And as time goes on, we are going to understand that we must remain a rule of law country. The alternatives are too dark and too dismal, and the question is, what can we do to best preserve the rule of law in this unbelievably difficult, challenging moment? Joe Biden being Joe Biden is a big part of that. That, just like Juan Mern proceeding to sentence Donald Trump is a big part of that. And although we are at our lowest point right now, we are seeing people begin to start us on the road to recovery. And I for one honor those people. I don't want to hear any criticism of them.
- [46:46]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
It's new Year, which means it's time to say goodbye to uncomfortable shapewear for for good. Let's be real. Life is short and you want to feel comfortable and today's episode is brought to you by Honeylove, the brand that's completely reimagined shapewear. Honeylove uses targeted compression to sculpt and smooth where you want it and ease off where you don't. That means it's super effective and comfortable to wear all day long. It's shapewear that works with your body, not against it.
- [47:16]
Jill Wine Banks
You'll feel and see the difference right away. Plus, flexible boning in the side seams prevents it from rolling up or down, so you'll never have to sneakily adjust your shapewear. After an active day, it gets better. For a limited time, you can get Honeylove on sale for 20% off your entire order with our exclusive link honeylove.com Sisters support the show and start your year off right by checking them out@honeylove.com.
- [47:45]
Joyce Vance
Sisters with winter in full swing, Honey Love is an amazing pairing with cozy sweaters and outdoor exercise. Personally, I'm really into how comfortable the leggings are. They're perfect for everything from yoga classes to relaxing in front of the fire. I like leaving my honeylove on all day, to tell the truth, especially when I'm working from home. And now that honeylove is my go to base layer on chilly days, I'm warmer all the time. Thanks to their targeted compression technology. You'll never feel like you're suffocating in your clothes, no matter how many layers you have to put on. And today that's a lot for us with a couple of inches of snow out there on the ground.
- [48:24]
Jill Wine Banks
I can't believe you have more snow than Chicago, but here it's cold enough that I like wearing them under my jeans. Those leggings really insulate and are comfortable and honeylove has so much to offer. Treat yourself to the most comfortable shapewear on earth and save 20% off site wide at www.honeylove.com Sisters use our exclusive link to get 20% off www.honeylove.com sisters. After your purchase they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Start the new year with confidence. Thanks to HoneyLove. The link is in our show Notes.
- [49:16]
Joyce Vance
So let's talk a little bit about Meta, y'all. It's a non Donald Trump topic, or at least it's not about Donald Trump's crim illegal woes, but it's pretty interesting. On Tuesday, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, announced plans to eliminate fact checkers across Facebook and Instagram, and in its place, he's going to impose a community note system. That system is inspired by Elon Musk's badly broken approach that has caused all of us to leave the former website known as Twitter. Zuckerberg's announcement this was this videotaped piece. I bet a lot of y'all saw it. He advertised fewer guidelines for content moderation and a higher threshold before content would be removed. All of this happens on the heels of Meta's $1 million donation to President elect Donald Trump's inaugural fund, which I guess goes to prove that when ABC ponies up $15 million and you've only sent 1 million, you need to find a way to up the ante. And here's the way, making it easier to lie about politics on Meta. I suppose we should try to sort it out and figure out whether this is as serious as it sounds. Maybe we can get a baseline. We'll see more when we see it actually go into play. But first up, Kim Zuckerberg has made some personnel changes at Meta. So read the tea leaves on this for us and tell us what you think the personnel changes mean and do they signal anything about what we can expect to see in terms of content moderation or not at Meta?
- [50:50]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Well, I think these personnel decisions are just the cherry on top of what we have seen over the last couple of years be a clear rightward shift by Zuck in terms of his feelings toward not just Donald Trump and the potential and now the reality of an incoming Trump administration, but also Joe Biden. So as for these appointments, he selected Dana White, who is a hardline Trump ally, as well as Joel Kaplan, a Republican operative, to join the team. Kaplan will be chief global affairs officer and White will be on the board. But even before they got to that point, recall that Zuckerberg really was one of the most vocal opponents of Joe Biden's response to misinformation leading up to the 2020 election. Misinformation about COVID in 2020, really fighting tooth and nail to do anything about it. And even actually being a part of a challenge to the administration alleging that, or it was a conservative challenge alleging that, that Joe Biden was somehow bullying them or violating the First Amendment rights of Facebook by trying to keep people safe and ensure they have the right information. That didn't go anywhere, but it definitely shows you how he feels. In addition to donating money to Trump's administration meeting with him. It's just, I even think the new way he dresses, which is weird, is part of it too. He's turning into a tech. Like, I don't want to say I don't know that he's full on maga, but he's a maga adjacent tech bro in, like, all the ways that seem alarming to me. So all of those tea leaves say to me that he's not just kissing the ring because he is afraid, he's kissing the ring because he's a believer.
- [53:02]
Joyce Vance
Well, that's really sort of chilling. That's, you know, I have to say I'm surprised by that. I don't know a lot about Zuckerberg. I don't follow it closely. I thought maybe it was just expediency. But I hear what you're saying. And my question for Jill is about the substance of the changes that we're going to see at Facebook and Instagram, which I think gives some more content to the notion that maybe he has become a true believer. Jill, talk with us about that. And what do you think about the state of remaining protections for people who use Zuckerberg's forums?
- [53:34]
Jill Wine Banks
I am so glad you asked this, and I have a lot to say and a lot of strong opinions on this. His new rules include reducing prohibitions on speech that hate speech, harassment, misinformation. It will let a lot more controversial and harmful, dangerous content be put on the platform. It raises the stakes for removing anything in a way that's going to allow really bad stuff to stay. And. And it also includes. And I'll address that a little more as well. But one of the things that hasn't gotten a lot of attention is he said he was gonna move people to Texas instead of California because they're seen as biased because they're in California. Well, if you Move them. They're the same people. And what are we saying about Texas? That Texas is this like special place where people just don't think they are biased for the other side.
- [54:38]
Joyce Vance
It's one way of getting all of your women of childbearing age employees to quit.
- [54:44]
Jill Wine Banks
Good point. No, I mean, I just think that deserves a little bit more attention than it's getting. Is that this idea that Texas will make everything better. But the other thing is he's moving everything to be community based comments. And I really had never paid attention to community based comments. But you know, my former Igen Politics partner Victor Shi put something up that was completely factual about what the fires are and what the budget of Mayor Bass has been in terms of firefighting and has been immediately community fact checked as being false, even though they're the ones who are false. What he posted is 100% accurate and true. So now you have this ability for hate speech and those who spew it and those who want to purvey misinformation or disinformation to post and say watch out for this particular post because it is not true even when it is true. So now we don't have, we have professional fact checkers. We have the ability for all of the trolls to start marking up comments. It really eliminates any hope that social media could become a place where one could obtain facts. And by the way, Victor got Community fact checked by Elon Musk himself, not just by all the other people. He actually had a retweet by Elon Musk saying, truth wins out here. And it's just, it's an astounding set of circumstances. And there's been a history of violence resulting from some of the lies that appear and from the lack of fact checking. So we're into a very dangerous time when I think I'm gonna certainly give serious thought to getting off X and Facebook because I think they are dangerous platforms. I'm just hoping people will start moving who follow me on those platforms to following me on Blue Sky. And I think probably all of you feel pretty much the same as that. And I hope they will engage on Blue sky with conversation as they currently do, because my followers really ask good questions and engage in real conversation, particularly on what used to be Twitter. And I would like to see that continue on Blue sky so that I don't feel like all this false information can be put up by community people.
- [57:29]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
So I just want to make two points. Anybody who looks at X and says, oh yeah, I want to. I want to model my business after that, I automatically question your motives. But also, I mean, the tough. And I agree with you, Jill, about moving, but it's not just I haven't been on Facebook for years. But you know what? I'm struggling right now because I, at least for a time less so now, was enjoying threads. And I certainly use Instagram. And so I'm just like, oh, dang, like, what do I do? Can I just post my videos on Blue Sky? Like, I hate that we are even in this position.
- [58:05]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah, well, the Instagram dog videos are the best, right?
- [58:08]
Joyce Vance
That's one reason to say Instagram. There are going to be half a million angry knitters coming for him.
- [58:15]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Especially if TikTok goes down. Like, what do we have but Instagram TikTok goes down. I need my shorts.
- [58:23]
Joyce Vance
I don't know what I would do without kitty cat videos. But that's the good side of this stuff, right? Kim and Jill mentioned the fact that there really can be a danger, and there's a great example of it. Facebook goes into Myanmar with very little cultural understanding. There's an absence of content moderation. Do you want to talk about how that situation evolved?
- [58:45]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yes. So Facebook was at the center of a big controversy for its entrance into Myanmar, as you said, during very unstable times. And according to Amnesty International. I'm not just making this up. Amnesty International says that Facebook promoted and used dangerous algorithms that basically allowed the Rohingya people to be targeted in 2017 in a way that promoted violence and atrocities against them. And Amnesty International is actually seeking reparations from Meta for the Rohingya people because of the disinformation and the violence that it fomented on that site. But we don't even have to go to a different country to talk about the damage that we know Facebook can do. We know the damage that Facebook did in 2016. We know the role that they made in disinformation campaigns in every. In the 2016 and subsequent elections, people went to jail. People were convicted by the justice departments for their interference using platforms like Facebook. In our discourse and if you look at in our elections and if you look at our discourse and the divisions, we know that Russians use Facebook to try to promote racial strife, racial disagreements and cultural disagreements to foment hate about immigrants. They're already doing it. And all you need, the powder keg has already been set and all it needs is a spark. And the same thing can happen here. So the risk is clear.
- [60:24]
Joyce Vance
Well, look, Jill, you know, I think Zuckerberg's response to Kim would be that content moderation is censorship. Right. And that we shouldn't have censorship. And so that by rejecting any moderation of content and letting the community comment, he is preventing and reducing censorship. Is it really that easy?
- [60:47]
Jill Wine Banks
No. And I think this is one of those cases where semantics matter. And if you listen to his video in which he was dressed really strangely, the locket around his neck especially troubling, although I liked his new hairstyle. But he didn't say content moderation. He started using the word word censorship. And content moderation is not censorship. Truth still matters. Facts matter. And this is a platform that's privately owned for profit. He didn't get to be. I'm not sure what his number the most richest man in the world, but he's like in the top group of the richest people in the world because of his ownership of Facebook. Facebook. And so the government can't do certain things that would be considered censorship, but private companies must do it. And if you put it in the context of what Kim was just telling us about, where genocide resulted from false information being put on Facebook, that we should be very careful about allowing no content moderation and stop calling it censorship.
- [62:08]
Joyce Vance
Well, I suspect we'll be talking about this a lot moving forward, but this is a great primer. Thanks, you guys, for engaging on this one. I know it's a little bit off the beaten path for us, but it's really fascinating.
- [62:27]
Jill Wine Banks
It's now time for our favorite part of the show, and we think it's part of your favorite part, part two. And I want to remind you that if you have a question for us, please email us@sistersinlawoliticon.com or tag us on social media using SistersInLaw. And if we don't get to a question you have sent us this week, watch our feeds during the week because we try to answer more questions there. And today we have some really, really great questions. I'm going to start with a question for Joyce that comes from Terry, and I love this question. When does the new. This is the part that I love, especially the federal attorney, parentheses attorney's question mark. And I'm sure that's because we've had this discussion about attorneys general. So the question is, when does the federal attorney general take office? Before or after inauguration?
- [63:22]
Joyce Vance
This is such a great question. I'm sort of a procedure geek, and so I like this stuff. Y'all will remember that we already have a new Senate and a new house that the new folks have been sworn in, and that means that they can start working on confirmation proceedings even before Donald Trump is inaugurated. We're seeing some signs of an effort to do that. There may be an early hearing for Pam Bondi, who would become the next attorney general, if she has the votes for confirmation. Apparently, there's pushback on other of Trump Trump's nominees because background clearances have not been completed. But I think the short answer to this question is that we will see the Senate move as quickly as it can to confirm Donald Trump's nominees. Typically, that's a good practice to make sure that there is a seamless transition between the two administrations. And we'll probably see that here, too. What makes this so interesting is that DOJ isn't just about the attorney general. There are a whole host of other officials who have to be be confirmed, including 93 United States Attorneys across the country. You know, every place from the north to Guam and the Mariana islands. There's a U.S. attorney in Puerto Rico, there's one in Alaska. All of the federal jurisdictions will get their own U.S. attorney, and they will be confirmed in a rolling sequence. We saw as part of Project 2025, this effort by Heritage to go ahead and in essence start vetting people early for those kinds of jobs. And it remains to be seen how quick they'll be at getting them through. But also in Washington, D.C. inside of Main justice, the building that we all think of as the home of the Justice Department, there are a lot of people who will need to be confirmed. The deputy attorney general, the number two person, the associate attorney general, the number three person, heads of divisions like criminal, civil, civil rights rights, antitrust, tax, all of those litigating groups, but also some of the parts of the Justice Department where policy is formed, like the Office of Legal Counsel, folks that we have often talked about who write policy memos, or the Office of Justice programs, which is the grant makers. All of that to say there are going to be a lot of confirmation proceedings going on. And we will have the opportunity to take a look at a lot of Donald Trump's picks to run these big major offices.
- [65:49]
Jill Wine Banks
And Kim, I have a great question for you from Gavin France on Blue Sky. Can you please explain the difference between when Trump received backlash for his quick filling of a vacancy on the supreme court during the 2020 election versus now, when many are pushing for Biden to fill in his judicial vacancies before the president elect has a chance to fill them instead?
- [66:16]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
So, Gavin, there is really no confusion here. As I see it, a president has the right to nominate members of the judiciary to fill vacancies until he or she hopefully one day is no longer president. But so in this case, did Donald Trump have the right to make an appointment to the Supreme Court when the vacancy was created by the death of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Yes, he did. But the backlash came not from the filling of it, but the fact that it was filled. And so quickly after Donald Trump's party, the head Senate member of the Senate and Donald Trump's party, Mitch McConnell, during the Obama administration, blocked a vacancy for a year that Barack Obama had the constitutional right to fill and then turned around and hypocritically gave a completely different justification for doing the exact opposite and ensuring that Donald Trump could fill a vacancy that occurred even later in Donald Trump's term than it occurred in, in Barack Obama's term. That's where the inconsistency was, not in the fact that Donald Trump could appoint a Supreme Court or could fill a Supreme Court or other vacancy in 2020, not that Joe Biden can fill a Supreme Court or other vacancy in 2024 or 2025 up till January 20th. It was the hypocrisy of Mitch McConnell. So I hope that's clear for you.
- [68:00]
Jill Wine Banks
Thanks, Kim. Now, I'm going to take the last question, although I think one, it's an extremely depressing answer. And so I'm hoping that not only will I answer this one, but that maybe Joyce and Kim will have something to add to it. And the question comes from Don in Michigan, who asks, suppose the president, through official acts, could prevent the House from voting on impeachment, having a coup d'etat, are there any constitutional remedies left to control the executive branch? And of course, it's just depressing that this is a question that anyone is thinking about, is that the president might actually try to prevent the Constitution from functioning and having a coup d'etat and not having any penalties for it. And I'm afraid that under the horrendous ruling of the Supreme Court, which we've talked about today a lot already, for giving immunity to the president, if there is a way to say I'm issuing an executive order to eliminate elections this year because I think we're in danger and we can't have an election or to finding, apparently he's now looking for a disease that will justify closing the border, which is racist, it's way more than racist. And then we could talk about the fact that Democrats are supporting a bill that would allow the removal and deportation of anyone who is accused of a crime before there's a trial and even if they are pending legal status. But if it's okay. So you're getting me off on a different topic, but I really think that right now we are in a serious risk of having a completely authoritarian government where we are losing the checks and balances that are built into our constitution. Do either you think that there is some guardrails left? I know you will think so, right?
- [70:07]
Joyce Vance
I'm sorry, guys.
- [70:07]
Jill Wine Banks
Silence is Stephanie. Oh, God.
- [70:11]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I would not stake my life on a guardrail at this moment.
- [70:15]
Jill Wine Banks
Okay, we can't end on this note.
- [70:17]
Joyce Vance
No. But look, can we, can we be serious about that for a second? Because, I mean, it's a bleak moment, right? It's not a great moment in American history, but there's an election in two years and you know, historically, the party that has a president in office doesn't do great in the midterms. I think Donald Trump, you know, American, our mentality, our memories, man, they are short people voted for Donald Trump again. I will never for the life of me understand that. But once all of this stuff starts and people realize that the price of eggs isn't coming down, I am optimistic, actually, that in the midterms we will restore Democratic majorities in the House and in the Senate and that will become the new guardrails. But until then, you know what, it's us. We are the guardrails. The cavalry is not coming. It is up to us.
- [71:08]
Jill Wine Banks
So everybody go out and decide how you are going to participate in our democracy. What are you going to do to make sure that in two years there is a Democratic House and Senate and we'll still have a Republican president, but he won't be able to do the things that are laid out in Project 2025 if the Congress stands up to him.
- [71:32]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Join the resistance. And I've heard there's a T shirt for that.
- [71:36]
Jill Wine Banks
Yes. That's how we can end on a happy note is we're going to put a picture of the new T shirt in our show notes so that you can see this gorgeous thing and you can join the resistance with your sister. So Please go to Politicon.com merch and order your T shirt and we'll all wear them in a few weeks when they come in. Thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Kimberly Atkinstore and me, Jill Wine Banks. Barbara Quaid will be back with us next week. Follow SistersinLaw on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. And please give us a five star review. You can help others find the show by doing that. And please show some love to this week's Sponsors, Factor OneSkin, Hexclad and HoneyLove. The links are in our show notes. Please support them because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode. SistersinLaw. The Smith Report may be coming out on Monday. Maybe not. Not. We'll see. And whether there's going to be any hope for facts. And disinmissive. And.
- [72:54]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Disemissive. I'm gonna start calling that. That's what I'm gonna start calling.
- [73:00]
Jill Wine Banks
I'm gonna have to do that.
- [73:01]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Non factual. Sorry. That's some dismissal.
- [73:07]
Jill Wine Banks
Okay.