Loading summary
Transcript132 lines
- [00:00]
Barb McQuaid
The days are shorter, but our to do lists aren't power through busy days more easily and Deliciously thanks to Factor's 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 Foreign.
- [00:36]
Joyce Vance
Welcome back to Sisters in law with Barb McQuaid, Jill Wine Banks, Kimberly Atkins store and me, Joyce Vance. So y'all a little bit of news. If you have not been to our shop politicon.com merch lately, you may not know that our brand new T shirts have sold out. But don't worry, we have a new order underway. You can go in and order them and get your very own Resistance T shirt. That was the brainchild of Kim, who saw that the word sis, like the four of us was embedded in the word resistance and decided that we needed T shirts to celebrate that. I am like so excited about these shirts. You want to go and grab yours before they sell out again? Beyond the T shirts though, we have a lot to talk about. Obviously. It has been maybe the craziest week since we started the podcast. We've decided that we'll focus on three topics this week. I know that there's a lot going on, but we narrowed it down to the efforts to leash DOJ to the Oval Office. A really disturbing development. This just monsoon of executive orders that Trump unleashed on day one of his presidency. And then the pardons that were issued to virtually all of the Jan. 6 offense. A few of them received commutations and what that means for our communities as these people return home. Lots of serious stuff going on. But I did want to start by asking y'all, I don't know if you guys heard this, but Stephen Colbert earlier this week on his show, I think he sort of gave us a little bit of a shout out.
- [02:14]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Really?
- [02:15]
Joyce Vance
Oh, you never want to cross a sister in law. I mean, like, really, that's got to be Colbert talking to us, right? I got to ask y'all, I mean, it's good advice, right? Don't mess with, don't mess with Sisters in Law. Do y'all agree it's been a tough week? How are you holding up and how are you reacting to people who mess with you?
- [02:35]
Barb McQuaid
Jill?
- [02:36]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, I would say that I have taken Kim's ledge and fallen off it. I am in freefall.
- [02:44]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
The ledge collapsed.
- [02:47]
Jill Wine Banks
Okay, so maybe all of us are in free fall. It's been one of the worst weeks. I broke down and I listened to the inauguration speech, and that was bad. And the lies were horrible. Fact checking is more essential than ever. Facts really do matter. But it's gotten so much worse. And as we look at the executive orders, I need someone to calm me down and say that we are going to take action. We are going to resist. I'm emphasizing the cis. We are going to get through this together. We really will. I know we will. We have to. And we can't give up because if we do, then the autocracy will take over. We will have a dictator. We will have a complete unitary executive. And. And so we must really respond. So I'm not dealing with well as the bottom line.
- [03:47]
Joyce Vance
Well, you know what I always say, Jill, Right. We're in this together, and that's how we're gonna get through it. Kim, how are you doing? What are you doing these days to people who mess with you?
- [03:56]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, it's been a tough week. You know, I'm doing the best that I can. There are times that I say to myself, all right, you know, I just have to be clear eyed and look at what needs to be done and do my part. There are times that I feel despair. There are times that I've been irrit. You know, I may or may not, when Snickers was acting up a little bit, have told her that I would take her back to the shelter. I since apologize.
- [04:23]
Joyce Vance
We know you did not mean that. That sweet.
- [04:26]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I did mean it. I didn't mean it.
- [04:28]
Jill Wine Banks
Snickers meat knows you didn't mean it.
- [04:31]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
So it's tough, you know, But I think, among other things, even though it's hard to talk about the stuff we're going to talk about in this podcast episode, I also take such solace in the sisterhood and in this fellowship that we have. And knowing that I keep borrowing this, this word, this phrase from Joyce. I've been doing it all week. But we're in this together. We really are. And it's true.
- [04:54]
Joyce Vance
Thank goodness that I have the three of you in our team. Here at Politikon, we don't talk enough about how great our team is and how supportive they are, and it just reminds me, we need our friends right now. Okay, Barb. So, Colbert, does it apply to you? Should people avoid messing with you right now?
- [05:10]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, you know, I'm not much for vengeance, but I am one for action. And I think right now some of the best action we can take is talking to people and giving people a chance to just sort of Share their fear, their anger, their disgust, all of those things, and listen and share. I think when we talk, we realize that there are a lot of people who are feeling the same things right now. And I think that's very comforting. I was just talking with some friends earlier today. It was very comforting. Just event like, you know, I'm worried about this. I'm concerned about that. But we also shared, you know, ideas that there are things that give us hope. Like our state governments are being very vigorous in opposing these. We've seen lawsuits going against executive orders. And the thing that always gives me such hope, I had a friend visiting and sat in on a class this week, and she pointed out to me, wow, how great is it to spend time with students? They really give me hope. They are bright, idealistic, hardworking, and determined to make America a better place. So that gives me hope.
- [06:14]
Joyce Vance
So I'm going to just give a shout out to former Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkin, who Barb just did a fabulous impression of. For anybody who knows Jenny, like, it was like she was talking. And I know that she was at the law school with you because she actually said to me afterwards, how lucky are Barb McQuaid's students that they get to take classes with her? And it made me super jealous. I wanted to come and take your class, too. Maybe what we all need is to spend a little bit of time in Ann Arbor with Professor McQuaid.
- [06:45]
Barb McQuaid
Well, you're all welcome, but I'm the lucky one.
- [06:49]
Joyce Vance
So, listen, y'all, I had this sort of aberrant response to how horrible this week was. And this is unlike me, but I found myself becoming really kind in every stressful situation. Like, if there was a delay, waiting in line to do something, and people were frazzled, I just found myself being so, like, understanding and patient, which is really not my nature, if you know me. And it happened at the drugstore where they had just, like, screwed up a bunch of different orders. There were a bunch of people in line getting really angry. And the funny thing, and the reason I tell this story, is by commiserating with the woman behind the counter and saying, boy, this must really screw you guys up when this happens. And she immediately, like, started telling me how her week was going and that this was, like, horrible and it was one thing too many. And to Barb's point about commiserating about what we're afraid about, this is affecting a lot of people, not just us and maybe people that we don't expect that it's affecting. So it's a Great moment, I think, for us to all be kind. You know, I'm. This is my Dumbledore's army week. I'm sort of thinking that we're all like Dumbledore's Army. We're starting to assemble and we're realizing that although we may think that we're weak and powerless in the face of a major force, actually we have some really good spells that we can use against these folks. I mean, we really are in this together. And I'm increasingly trying to be optimistic.
- [08:16]
Jill Wine Banks
Joyce, can I just add one thing? Because something that was said reminded me of advice that former President Obama gave right after he left office when we were all pretty depressed. And he said, you have to be informed and you have to be involved. I think that's really true. We can't stop reading the news because it's depressing. We have to stay informed. And the other thing I would sort of add to that is that pick one subject that you really are passionate about and start learning everything you can about it so that you can take the chance of trying to persuade someone who's either not supporting the democratic point of view, and by that I mean the small d democratic, our democracy, or someone who's actively supporting Donald Trump and be able to argue with them on the basis of facts. So be really informed and take action.
- [09:27]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Why do we pamper ourselves with designer perfumes and luxury candles and indulgent lotions? And by we I mean me. But we still settle for bad laundry detergent that either smells like chemicals or fake flowers. Well, now you don't have to enter laundry sauce. They make laundry pods that completely change the game. They are sophisticated and they have perfume quality scents like Australian sandalwood and Egyptian rose. Laundry sauce uses natural, responsibly sourced ingredients, which means that it isn't just the world's best smelling laundry detergent. It's a whole new vibe.
- [10:11]
Joyce Vance
You know, I am so excited about laundry sauce. I had used it a grand total of three times. I had these three really cute boxes. It comes in on top of the dryer and I just thought, man, I am going all in. So I bought these fun little glass canisters. They came, I tossed all the little laundry sauce packets into it. It's really, really pretty. And now I want to transform my whole laundry room just because of laundry sauce. It turns folding clothes into a self care moment with a fresh out of the dryer smell that's really, really wonderful. And now laundry day is something I can actually look forward to for a limited time, get 20% off your entire order when you use code sistersandrysauce.com that' off your order@laundry sauce.com with promo code Sisters. It's time to make an upgrade. Maybe you'll be like me and Laundry Sauce will jumpstart an entire change. You heard it first from your hashtag sisters in law. It's all in the sauce.
- [11:11]
Barb McQuaid
You know, I'm usually kind of skeptical of these things. I can have my scentless pods and throw them in the laundry and be fine with it. But then I smelled the piney one like the great outdoors. And I'm such a sucker for those outdoorsy smells. It smells so fresh. Laundry Sauce has truly transformed the boring task of doing laundry into an enjoyable sensory experience. I can confidently say that laundry day will never smell the same again. One of the things I tried this week was the Egyptian rose, so I'm looking fresh and enjoying an enticing, relaxing scent while we're recording. Apparently on laundry day, our houses will now have what those kids call a vibe.
- [11:55]
Jill Wine Banks
You know, I was skeptical because I generally don't like fragrances, but this one is really different. And in addition to everything you all have said, there's more. Laundry Sauce even makes dryer sheets, fabric softeners and more. Plus, if you don't get better smelling cleaner laundry, you get a full refund, no questions asked. For a limited time only. Our listeners get 20% off your entire order when you use code sistersandrysauce.com that's 20% off your order@laundry sauce.com with promo code Sisters. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you Smell good, look good, and feel good with Laundry sauce. The link is in our show notes.
- [12:55]
Barb McQuaid
Well, we are already seeing major changes at the Department of Justice and that's even before Pam Bondi has been confirmed as Attorney General. First on Monday. Among those flurry of executive orders was one about the weaponization of the Department of Justice. You know, giving life to the lie that the last administration weaponized the Department of Justice in an effort to go after Donald Trump's allies and Donald Trump himself. And directing the attorney General to investigate the last administration, including people in the executive branch and in the intelligence community. Kim first, is there any evidence that the last administration in any way weaponized the Justice Department?
- [13:44]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
There is not, but a lack of evidence has not stopped the president before and so that shouldn't really be a surprise to all of us. One thing that we've said repeatedly in many instances on this show is the way that the President tends to project. He accuses other people of doing either what he is doing or desires to do. And so what we are seeing now is what actual weaponization looks like. It is a directive that the Attorney General report to the White House about their investigations. I can't underscore enough how antithetical that is to how the DOJ is supposed to operate. It's supposed to operate in non political way. And if anything, and we've talked about this too, the previous administration's DOJ maybe went like to like, went out of its way to avoid being so political that sometimes we were a little frustrated about how slowly it seemed to be moving. But that is better than using the exec. The White House should not be the source of the directive in seeking out and prosecuting and investigating people. That is what happens in places where democracy does not thrive. And so it's not surprising, but it's still so gutting to actually see it taking place. And knowing that that's going to be on Pam Bondi's at the top of Pam Bondi's to do list if she is confirmed and when she takes that seat.
- [15:20]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. Next week, Congress is going to be holding confirmation hearings for Kash Patel. And I certainly hope that this gets raised in that time because he has been one of these people who has talked about how the prior department weaponized the department against Trump and his allies. Joyce, this is so different from prior administrations. Right. When we served and under every Republican and Democratic administration in recent memory, there has been this memo that comes out of the White House Counsel's office almost immediately upon the new President taking office, talking about how communications may only be done between White House counsel and the Attorney General and only for kind of policy priorities or emergencies and not to direct that investigations occur or cease. Tell us about that practice and how different this is from what we've seen before and maybe why this is so alarming.
- [16:20]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. I mean, there's usually this memoranda of understanding adopted between the White House Counsel's office and the Justice Department designating the officials who can talk to each other. Right. What you don't want to have is, for instance, what once happened to me when a United States Senator picked up the phone and called and asked me to do a case on behalf of one of his friends. And imagine how much worse that is when you have the President of the United States calling his former lawyer and saying, hey, we need to prosecute this person. They've pissed me off. So you can see pragmatically how in this administration, it would be really important to limit those sorts of context to the highest levels of the department. There's no reason to believe that that will happen. Donald Trump will feel free to call whoever he wants and order them to do whatever he wants.
- [17:10]
Barb McQuaid
Jill, the reforms that Joyce is talking about go back to the post Watergate norms. And, you know, you were there. You were on the front line during Watergate. Why was this norm put in place in the first place? What was the harm it was trying to prevent?
- [17:28]
Jill Wine Banks
Because during the Nixon administration, there was a direct pipeline from the Criminal division. The head of the Criminal Division, Henry Peterson, who was, before he became the Assistant Attorney General for Criminal, was the head of the organized crime section where I worked, was calling and giving all the information. And so it was felt that they had to put some restrictions on this. And so conversation was limited to White House or deputy White House counsel. And, you know, what's going on now is so outrageous. I mean, going back to your first question, this idea that there is weaponization in the past. First of all, I testified before Congress on this and I did some research, and there is, as Kim said, absolutely no such evidence. But it's also an internally inconsistent statement. They're saying, let's look at, by investigating our opponents, let's look at past weaponization. They're weaponizing it to look at that. So it's just the hypocrisy is just astounding. And Nixon's abuses are being much more, much more worse. What's the. They're worse than anything I've ever seen. We are in serious, serious trouble.
- [18:52]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. I'm hoping that if Pam Bondi has any integrity, she says, I've looked and I haven't found any, but, you know, we'll see. I guess I won't hold my breath. The next thing I want to talk about at DOJ is the new charging memo that came out yesterday. Joyce, you've seen these come at the start of every administration, usually with very modest tweaks. You know, about are we going to charge the highest readily provable offense, or are we going to make an individualized assessment before we charge the highest readily provable offense, but really at the margins. This one, this new charging memo, it's the directive from the leadership of the Department of Justice to all of the prosecutors in the field across the United States about how they should prioritize charging decisions. And this one strikes me as dramatically different from the ones we've seen in the past. How does it strike you?
- [19:45]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, I mean, this is incredibly different. For one thing, they didn't wait for the new Attorney General to get on board before they issued this. Almost as though her view doesn't matter. When Barb and I were U.S. attorneys, Eric Holder played an instrumental role in developing this policy. And it was literally the Attorney General's policy. That's not what happened here. And it suggests that the new charging and sentencing memo was dictated by people outside of the building. It's a very stark warning that this Justice Department is not independent of the White House. It's also sort of weird substantively, Barb, and I really wonder how you reacted to this. It simultaneously pretends that violent crime in the cartels weren't a priority for the, the prior doj. They were. Right. But they're also making this shift where immigration is now the top priority for prosecution, and other cases only happen if there are leftover resources. Well, this is really weird both because that's just, you know, we can talk all day about immigration and how silly it is to do misdemeanor, low hanging fruit immigration cases instead of important civil rights cases or violent crime cases. But the charging and sentencing memo is about process. It's about the process that lawyers in DOJ use, not the substance. The Attorney General usually comes in and sets, you know, these are my four priorities or whatever for areas of prosecution. But this memo is about the substance of the Attorney General, who has not yet been confirmed, about what her priorities are going to be. And so that, that strikes me as really odd, too. And the priority, of course, is just to do massive numbers of immigration cases without regard to anything else, some of the specifics. This is a very granular memo. It requires prosecutors to do stuff that strikes me as being really odd. There's this process known as the urgent report process. It's used by US Attorneys to advise the Deputy Attorney General before their office, say, issues a search warrant for a sitting Attorney General's house or, you know, indicts public corruption defendants. The way I heard one attorney general express it is, I don't want to read about these things for the first time on the front page of the New York Times. So please send up an urgent report before you do them. Right. Settle a civil case with Google for $2 billion. The Attorney General wants to know before the New York Times reports it. That's the sort of stuff that goes in urgent reports, according to this new memo. Now, every time a U.S. attorney's office anywhere declines on an immigration case, no matter how minor they are, Supposed to use the urgent report process to let Washington know about it. The message that that sends, by the way, is don't decline on any of these cases. Do all of them. DOJ has finite resources. Right. And that means stuff won't get done. You see that in this memo, too, because it says that the task forces, for instance, that fight terrorism and violent crime, they're now supposed to prioritize immigration. You know, the basics of this, what a charging and sentencing memo is supposed to do, the standard that it sets for prosecutors. This is a return to the 2017 sessions memo. The standard is charge, the most serious, readily provable offense in every case. I don't quibble with that. Administrations are entitled to set those priorities. Under both Obama and Biden, there was supposed to be an individualized consideration of an offender's circumstances and the circumstances of the crime before you charge. But that's the sort of difference that new administrations are entitled to implement. This other stuff, it is really crazy. And I think the most important takeaway is this notion that DOJ is no longer an independent actor. If I was Pam Bondi, I would withdraw my nomination and say, I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to work under these circumstances. You know, if she accepts this, she's sending a message about who she is and what level of control from the White House she's willing to tolerate.
- [24:03]
Jill Wine Banks
Joyce, I'm so glad you said that, because when Barb said her view doesn't matter, this was drafted from outside, and that she would come to the conclusion that there is no weaponization, what I was thinking is she has to do much more than that and has to say, this is not who I am. I will not serve under these circumstances. Thank you for saying that.
- [24:25]
Joyce Vance
Totally agree.
- [24:26]
Barb McQuaid
Don't hold your breath.
- [24:27]
Jill Wine Banks
I'm not. I'm not. But I can dream. I can hope. It has to give me some hope that maybe other people will just say.
- [24:36]
Joyce Vance
There will come a point where she will have to do that, even if it's only at the very end. We're like the acting heads of DOJ at the end of the first Trump administration. They decided, you know, we've sucked it up for everything else, but on our watch, we're not going to sign off on stealing the election. I mean, if you don't draw your line in the sand early, then you end up drawing it there. And wouldn't you rather be the person who does the right thing? That is MAGA in a nutshell, Right? That is allegiance to Donald Trump in a nutshell. You do what he tells you to do. You vote for Pig Hegset, the alleged rapist and alcoholic, because Donald Trump tells you to do it, and you don't have a backbone.
- [25:13]
Barb McQuaid
I also think it's going to be interesting to see what happens with all the U.S. attorneys in every one of these judicial districts, 93 U.S. attorneys. Typically, they are directed to follow the department's priorities, but they're also allowed to set local priorities. Immigration is a big problem on the southwest border, not so much in the heartland, where other issues are significant. Opioid trafficking and overdose deaths, human trafficking cases, violent crime, public corruption. I will tell you that in my former office, we had the capacity to do about 1,000 cases a year. And now if you have to take every immigration that comes across your desk, every grandmother who's a visa overstay, that means there's some other case you're not doing. And so I think it's just a foolish allocation of resources, but that's the president's call. One of the things I do, it's smart.
- [26:05]
Joyce Vance
If you don't want to see any public corruption cases get done, though.
- [26:08]
Barb McQuaid
Well, there you go. Maybe there's a method to the madness, but one of the things in this memo I want to ask, Kim, I'll ask you about is it also includes in this very aggressive immigration enforcement protocol a directive to prosecute state and local law enforcement agencies that don't comply with assisting the federal government in its aggressive enforcement of immigration. Can they do that? I mean, there are these sanctuary cities out there. There's some police departments who've said, we wanna make sure we're protecting our citizens and they're not afraid to call us in cases of domestic violence and the like. And so. So we just stay hands off when it comes to immigration enforcement. Can the feds require state and locals with criminal penalties for failure if they don't help in the enforcement of immigration law?
- [27:00]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I think that's going to be one of the early legal challenges that we see play out, because we already have seen people, public officials, elected officials in these states saying, nuh, we're not going to use our. Use our funding to aid the federal government in doing something that we don't believe that they should be doing. So I think that's going to be a challenge that we see because I think there will be resistance and refusal to do that. But one thing that I think is really important that we shouldn't miss is we talked about this. Why? Because it's in Project 2025. Remember all of Trump's pronouncements that he didn't know what it was and he never heard it before.
- [27:46]
Barb McQuaid
What a coincidence.
- [27:47]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Didn't have anything. One of the first things I saw is like, wait a minute, they're gonna, they wanna prosecute local prosecutors and officials if they. Not just if they don't, you know, use their resources to try to enforce immigration orders. But if they're not prosecuting people to the extent that they want them to. And now that we're talking about this charging memo, they're gonna, they're gonna try to use. Take legal recourse against the prosecutors who say, hey, we have more of a problem here with violent crime or we have more of a problem here with drug cartels or rapists or murderers. And so we really need to charge them, not the grandma who overstayed her visa. But not only will they not be able to do that, but they may face legal repercussions. I can't fathom that judges will allow that to happen when these challenges move forward. But I'm out of the game of predicting.
- [28:48]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, I mean, there's Supreme Court precedent that has said, although, you know, states can't.
- [28:52]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Supreme precedent. You're so cute.
- [28:54]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, right.
- [28:54]
Joyce Vance
That's adorable. Scalia precedent, though. I mean, you know, let's see this court say Scalia was a liberal crazy.
- [29:02]
Barb McQuaid
I mean, states can't, you know, come up with their own immigration apparatus and say, we're going to take over immigration law because the supremacist, except for the Texas part, because the Supremacy clause says that's the domain of the feds. But that does not mean that the feds can coerce state and locals into enforcing federal law. It is a separate sovereign and there's case law that says that. So I think this is on very weak legal footing. But again, as you said, the Supreme Court may make that a new day.
- [29:35]
Jill Wine Banks
Right. But there's also the 10th Amendment guise, which says that things that aren't delegated belong to the state. And so if the federal government doesn't have it, they can't commandeer state resources or local resources.
- [29:49]
Joyce Vance
You know, as long as we're clear eyed about. You are correct, I think the courts will bust this one. They won't let Trump prosecute these people, but he can harass them, he can threaten them at the margin. There may be some people who will decide that it is easier to give in. And so I go back to our friend Tim Snyder and say, do not obey in advance if you're a mayor, if you're a state or a county or a local official. There are plenty of lawyers out there who want to help you and keep you out of trouble, but do not obey.
- [30:22]
Jill Wine Banks
DeSantis got away with firing two district attorneys separately elected. They had their own votes from their constituents. They were elected, and he managed to get rid of two of them because they weren't prosecuting the case of he wanted prosecuted.
- [30:39]
Barb McQuaid
Wow. Well, Jill, let me ask you just about one last of the parade of horribles that happened at the Justice Department this week, and that is first, they reassigned some career professionals, people who I know well who have for a long time had leadership positions in the National Security Division, the Office of International affairs, and have been moved to the department's new Sanctuary City Enforcement Unit, I suppose, in an effort to drive them out. But most appallingly, I think, is that they have rescinded all of the offers for recent law school graduates to start in the Honors program. You know, this is the recruitment of the best and the brightest to work in the Department of Justice as lawyers in the future. And they've rescinded all those offers for students who are relying on those offers in taking their jobs and foregoing others. What's your reaction, Jill, to that move?
- [31:34]
Jill Wine Banks
I'm appalled, as I am by so many of these things. Let's take it at a broader level. First of all, they're taking people from national security, which they say is a priority, but they are putting them into a wholly new, focused thing. They are taking away the rights of the senior executive Service and basically of all federal civil servants. And, and this is so sad with the offers being withdrawn. It, by the way, happened right after I started. I luckily squeaked in and I was already on staff when Nixon was inaugurated, and his new head of the Criminal division basically said, oh, I'm only hiring Republicans from now on, and went about getting away with that. And that's what it looks like they're doing, is they're going to make all appointments political. If you don't meet the loyalty standard, you're not going to get hired. The people in the Honors program are generally superstars. They're really outstanding. And now they've been deprived of the opportunity to apply in a timely way for other opportunities they would have surely been offered because they accepted this effort at public service and they are being deprived of a job. They are being deprived of the service to the federal government and to the people of the United States. And it is, to me, it's a big message that they, the Department of Justice, are going to be Doing everything on a totally political basis. And it is really sad. It is really wrong. And it's just one more thing in the list of the parade of horribles that we're going to have to keep watching and see what happens. And they have not only gotten a memo that said they were being withdrawn, their job was being withdrawn, but then they got phone calls saying, and it's permanent. It's not just a temporary freeze. So it's about as bad as it could possibly be, and it's hurting real people.
- [33:56]
Barb McQuaid
Sorry. I'm online ordering more cashmere sweaters from Quince.
- [34:01]
Jill Wine Banks
Smart move.
- [34:04]
Barb McQuaid
I'm not joking. I really. I really am.
- [34:06]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I believe you.
- [34:07]
Barb McQuaid
I need it in navy. I need it in black. I need it in something called mop.
- [34:10]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Listen, I.
- [34:11]
Joyce Vance
It's a love. It's not an influence. I'm, like, trying so hard not to order more.
- [34:16]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I have two full drawers worth of believing.
- [34:19]
Joyce Vance
They're so great.
- [34:20]
Barb McQuaid
I really love them. I've been wearing them under my suits. I love them.
- [34:22]
Joyce Vance
They're great.
- [34:24]
Barb McQuaid
These are so great.
- [34:25]
Joyce Vance
So this is a true story. I did not know about Quince until they signed up to advertise with us. And then I learned from all my friends in the neighborhood just how great of a company it is after checking them out. Everyone needs Quince's cozy Mongolian cashmere sweaters, and they start at $50. If you're prioritizing fitness this year, there is no better workout motivation than some new activewear. Just ask me. It's what I'm wearing to the gym four days a week now. Their moisture wicking bras and leggings are designed to move with you during your workout, even if it's just the walk from the couch to the thermostat. But better yet, if you're dragging yourself.
- [35:03]
Jill Wine Banks
To the gym, however you choose to refresh yourself this year, all Quince pieces are priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. And it is so true, because I've done the price checking and I'm using Quince for a lot of gifts. Not just to myself either, but to my friends.
- [35:22]
Joyce Vance
Wait, does it count as a gift if it's just to yourself?
- [35:26]
Jill Wine Banks
Yes. These days, we all need to gift ourselves good things to cheer up. Really, truly. So anyway, Quince is doing this by partnering directly with top factories, cutting out the cost of middlemen and passing the savings on to you. And it's not just that it costs less. They are better quality. They feel fantastic. Their cashmere wrap is the best I have ever, ever had cashmere Wrap.
- [35:53]
Barb McQuaid
I might have to check that out. I too, Joyce, had never heard of Quince. But I got a couple of sweaters and I've been loving them. It's been super cold here in Michigan and I've been wearing them under my SWE suit jackets. They're fantastic. I love them and I want to get more. We also love that Quince works only with factories that use safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices to bring us the premium fabrics and finishes that make every piece feel luxurious. They're super soft. Our favorites are the Mongolian cashmere cardigan sweater and the stretch wool dress pant. The materials feel amazing and they're the perfect combo for looking good and keeping warm. The style is perfect for getting things done in the office, teaching a class, or making an impression at a dinner party.
- [36:40]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
You know, I first came across quints during the pandemic because, I don't know, I had this feeling in my head that if I had nice cashmere on that, that somehow helped to protect me from the virus or something. I bought a lot of cozy clothes during that time, let's just say that. And I really did want to put sustainability first. And I was being very careful with what products I was buying. And I found out about Quint and I now have cashmere sweaters and joggers in just about every color. And the great thing is even the ones that I bought back in 2020, you know, we're talking five years ago now, still look beautiful. And all I do is just wash them in cold water. They keep and the price is really amazing. So as comfortable as those fabrics are, we'll guarantee you'll be even more comfortable with the prices. Update your closet this year we'll without the upgraded price tag, go to quince.com sisters for 365 day returns. That's right. You get a whole year to return it. If you don't like it, plus free shipping on your order, go to quint.com sisters that's Q-U I N C E.com sisters to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Again, that's quite quince.com sisters and you know where to find the link in the show notes. Well, you'd be forgiven if you couldn't keep up with the torrent of executive orders Trump issued in his first week. It was a real fire hose of chaos. That's the word I'll use, chaos. We'll be digging deeper into all of these actions in the weeks and months ahead because we can't get them too Them all in this show, especially as they are challenged in federal court, as we expect them to be. But sisters, I wanna get your reaction, your overall reaction to just what Trump is trying to do from the Oval Office in just a moment. But I wanna home in on one in particular first, Jill, because it's already been temporarily blocked by a court in Seattle, and that is the Birthright Citizenship order. Tell us what the judge in Seattle did.
- [39:05]
Jill Wine Banks
A federal judge in Seattle, Judge Kunauer, said that it was clearly unconstitutional, this particular executive order, that it boggled his mind that the DOJ lawyers, and remember, these are brand new, like on their second day in the Department of Justice under the Trump administration. It boggled his mind that they were making these defense arguments. He imposed a 14 day TRO, temporary restraining order pending what I am sure will end up being a permanent injunction, and then an appeal to the Supreme Court by the Trump administration. But it is completely the arguments they made I want to talk about, because they're so ridiculous. And the judge was attacked immediately for this by Donald Trump, of course, personal attack. And I want to point out that he was a Reagan appointee. But Trump was arguing that these people that he was subjecting to not being citizens who have, for the entire duration of the 14th amendment have been considered American citizens when born in America. He said, well, there's a phrase in the 14th Amendment that says, and subject to the jurisdiction of the US and he says, well, they're not subject because they're illegally here. Well, that isn't how it works. And that clause was meant for people like diplomats who do have special exemptions from US Law. So it isn't at all appropriate. He made a standing argument that was very weak. And he said that the 14th Amendment actually was only meant to protect people of what they said was people of African descent from Dred Scott laws. And that is not how for hundreds of years we've had the 14th Amendment interpreted. So the arguments were completely astounding and clearly a violation of the language of the 14th Amendment that clearly makes people born here citizens. And I know there are some better arguments than they made, but this was absurd and he did the right thing.
- [41:24]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, it really was absurd, Jill. I mean, in trying to enforce this action, which would be really focused on people who are in the country without authorization, who give birth, trying to strip their children of citizenship when it's blatantly, in my opinion, against the Constitution. But the DOJ also argued, like, well, you know, what about Native Americans? They're not citizens. Like what? I'm sorry, Excuse me, What? No, yes, they are. And where are you going to deport them to? Like, what are you even talking about? It's just really the. I will say the filings were sloppy at best. But, Joyce, we know from the first administration, when challenges like this happen, it doesn't mean that the administration won't keep trying until they get a cleaner version of it that a court will stomach. That happened with the Muslim ban. That probably would have happened with the citizenship question on the census if time hadn't run out. So is this as close? Is this a close? I mean, the judge didn't think this was close at all. But could the argument be made, given the executive's broad immigration and national security powers, that Trump can do this?
- [42:39]
Joyce Vance
You make a fine argument that they are very good at coming back again and again and refining their argument, but I don't think this one is close. I think Judge Kunauer was dead on the money when he assessed the weakness of the government's case. It really is a simple thing. 100 years of jurisprudence says so. And the exemption that they try to shoehorn the absence of citizenship into is this phrase in the 14th Amendment that says under the jurisdiction of. So the claim is, if one or more of your parents doesn't have legal immigration status, you're not under the jurisdiction of the United States when you're born, hence you're not a citizen. And that's really just so ridiculous. Right. These are people who can be sued, they can be arrested. If they commit crimes, they can be deported. That means that by definition, you're under the jurisdiction of the United States. I think this case is a loser at the Supreme Court, even. I mean, I hope I won't be eating those words because this is a squirrely Supreme Court, but this is the 14th amendment. This is case law over time, well established case law. And here's my kicker argument. Just think what the implications are if the Trump administration is right. It means that these people, what they're characterizing as a horde of criminal illegal aliens, these people actually aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Yes.
- [44:07]
Barb McQuaid
Right.
- [44:08]
Joyce Vance
They can't be arrested, they can't be deported. Yes. They can't be detained. So this is just a barb. Is being.
- [44:15]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
It would be immigrant immunity.
- [44:18]
Barb McQuaid
I agree with this so much.
- [44:19]
Joyce Vance
It's a bull argument. Right. I mean, this just. It does not fly. It's dumb. Here's the thing, though. I mean, this is so patent, and I'm afraid that the Trump folks understand that this is a loser and that the real end game here is that when they do lose, when Trump loses in the Supreme Court, because that's where this case is headed, that he will use it to talk about O. This is so horrible. And I wanted to protect you, and the Supreme Court won't let me. So I have to do X. And X is gonna be something horrible like put people in detention camps or whatever it's gonna be. Trump will use this for political purposes. He's very good at parlaying losses in the legal system in the political gain. And we're gonna be building a new ledge sisters, because I need to go back outed on this one.
- [45:06]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
It just occurred to me that one of those things that he'll do, one of the exes might be trying to pack the cord you even further to the right than it already is. I wouldn't put it past him, Barb. So the government actually, with these weak arguments, one reason that the merits arguments maybe were so weak is that they were mostly focused on standing as opposed to the merits. Could the court that reviews this end up deciding this on procedural grounds? Then what?
- [45:34]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, well, you know, right now, and just to explain to our listeners what is a temporary restraining order, the court looks at four factors when they decide decide to issue a temporary restraining order. And it's not really based on the substance. So they do look at it a little bit, because one of the questions they look at is whether the parties have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. And so that's a question that the court. This is where the judge used the language blatantly unconstitutional and did any lawyer even look at this? Where were the lawyers and all that. But they also have to look at other factors, such as, is there likely to be irreparable harm if this order is not entered? Yes.
- [46:12]
Joyce Vance
Right.
- [46:13]
Barb McQuaid
People who. Who were born here and believed themselves to be citizens suddenly find themselves subject to deportation. What is in the public interest. And then a balancing of all of the other equities. So those are the procedural things that they look at. But if, you know, this will get appealed, and if it stands, then the case goes forward on its usual track. The injunction stays in place to preserve the status quo while it gets litigated. And then the court makes a decision either yes or no, this is permissible, or it's not. And as we said, we think the decision ultimately will be not. But that doesn't mean the president is done right, that they can issue any kinds of executive orders besides this one. And I'm sure this will be not the last effort to try to crack down on immigration. I also think it's important to keep in mind, I think Joyce raised this point. So much of this, all of these executive orders strike me so much as ultimately destined to fail under the law unless the Supreme Court gets wild again. But it allows Trump to bang his chest and say, look, I did what you elected me to do with this flurry of activity on day one, and I'm doing what you want me to do. And in the meantime, all it does is create uncertainty in the law and chaos.
- [47:30]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, that's definitely true. Okay, so there was a flooding of the zone with poop, to paraphrase Steve Bannon, this week with these eos. So which ones concern, anger, shock you most? Again, we can't go through them all today. We will keep going through them systematically as time goes on. But for me, it was the one. I don't know if it's most. You can't pick most because they're all so bad. But one of the awful ones that I focused a lot on this week was those affecting LGBTQ + Americans, making it more difficult for them to get federal documentation. If their gender is different from what was marked at birth, things like passports and Social Security cards, it makes it more difficult for them to work in an order that I think that was really illegal. It's a blatant violation of Title vii. And this Supreme Court, in a decision authored by Neil Gorsuch, said, Nope, Title VII's prohibition against gender discrimination includes sexual orientation and gender identity, so. Nope. So I think that one's illegal. I think some of the other ones are unconstitutional, but they basically seek to dehumanize LGBTQ folks, especially trans folks, because it's sad that trans Americans are among those against whom bigotry is still more accepted than it should be. It shouldn't be accepted at all. But you even have Democrats giving cover for some debunked nonsense about how cisgender kids are, you know, threatened by them in schools or in sports or some other nonsense. And the campaigning against trans and other LGBTQ folks was seen as effective by Republicans, so that's why we're seeing that. But I want to hear from you guys what's really sticking in your gut based on what you've seen, and do you think that those will stand up to scrutiny? How about you, Barb?
- [49:27]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, one that has not gotten a lot of scrutiny that I wanted to raise is the executive order directing the Attorney General to aggressively enforce the death penalty. And it talks about how, you know, Joe Biden granted commutations for those who are facing the death penalty to give them life in prison and had a moratorium on the death penalty while he was in office. And I understand that, you know, President Trump has a different view of the death penalty, and he's certainly entitled to seek aggressive enforcement of it. But there were a couple of provisions in there that really gave me pause. One is it said. Said that the Attorney General should seek the death penalty in any case where the defendant is. And it uses the word illegal alien. I prefer undocumented immigrant. I think that might be a violation of equal protection. Now, certainly, if someone is otherwise death eligible, you can pursue that, but I don't think you can treat people differently solely based on their status as to whether you seek death or not. It's not like, you know, know, we're not gonna charge them with a crime, but in terms of seeking the death penalty, that one. But here's the part that really concerns me, and it says, I direct the Attorney General to try to overturn precedents in the US Supreme Court relating to obstacles to obtain the death penalty.
- [50:48]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
That's crazy.
- [50:48]
Barb McQuaid
Whoa. So, first, let me say why, substantively, I think that's concerning. The places where the Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not available is quite limited. It's basically for juveniles under 18. You can't impose death, Right? So what, we wanna kill kids now? People who are mentally disabled and the criminally insane? So what they're saying is, we wanna kill those people. Okay, but the other. And there's the one that's the most concerning. We wanna persuade the Supreme Court to overturn precedent. And so think about that. The Supreme Court, from time to time, does overturn precedent, and the case law says they should do so when we have a new understanding of the. The law, where the precedent has proved unworkable in practice, where the rest of the law has developed in such a way that the precedent is inconsistent, or people have relied on different rules such that this one is now obsolete. None of those are true here. It's really just saying, like, let's get the court to just sort of reverse itself, because we have this court right now that's conservative, Maybe we can take advantage of this opportunity to get different votes because we have different people occupying these seats. And so that, to me, telegraphs that that's the way the Trump administration is. Think about this moment in the Supreme Court.
- [52:06]
Joyce Vance
Hey, Barb, can I ask you a question? Do you worry that this is even more than what you said, rolling back protections for instance, for executing minors. You know, Trump has said in the past that he thinks that drug dealers should be executed. Do you think that he's looking at rolling back, you know, the Supreme Court says you can only be executed for murder. Maybe Trump wants to expand the uses of it. That really concerns.
- [52:31]
Jill Wine Banks
I was also concerned about two other parts of the stuff about death penalty, which was telling the attorney general to encourage states to use the death penalty. Illinois has none, but also to make sure that all the drugs that are needed for lethal injection are provided to the executing authorities. And it just struck me as so repulsive that it stuck out among all the horrible other executive orders.
- [53:02]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
What about you, Joyce? What. What is really just. You can't. You get. Can you not get out of your mind?
- [53:09]
Joyce Vance
Well, I'm going to resist the question a tiny bit. Not because it's not a good question, it's a great one, but because what bothers me is, is more on the macro level, it's like this combination of all of the Biden executive orders that were repealed, page after page after page of them, and then these new ones that were imposed. And it's all overwhelming. You can't really. I mean, at least I haven't been able to read all of them and understand the substance of all the repealed ones and all of the new ones. And I think that's the point, for it to be completely overwhelming. So I wanted to offer just like a moment of clarity and sort of a take a deep breath moment here because. Because here's something that's important to understand. Executive orders, they are not magic wands. They are the president giving orders to the executive branch of government about what it can and cannot do. He can only issue executive orders talking to those individuals and entities inside of the executive branch. He can't order a private business, for instance, to do anything. He can't tell individuals. He cannot tell the four of us that we cannot tape this podcast and say whatever we think. So it's important to understand that even Donald Trump is not a king. He's not all powerful. And when his executive orders violate the law, like the birthright citizenship one, people can go to court and they can challenge them, and the courts may tell them, you can't do that. It's unconstitutional. So I think a lot of this deluge of orders is made to. It's intended to make Trump look all powerful. It's, you know, made to look him like his. His administration is impregnable. There's absolutely nothing that we can do about it. And that's not true. Trump actually can be challenged and defeated piece by piece. So, look, I'm not really answering your question, Kim, and I apologize for that. But I think we should fight back, right? I mean, I mean, I think Trump is trying to trigger this path to use the military to invoke the Insurrection act, to use the military for domestic law enforcement. And that's a horrible thing in these executive orders. But don't ever give up your power as a citizen of the United States.
- [55:28]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I think that's a very, very good and important point, Joyce, that we have to fight like the fight now. And it's happening. We're already seeing attorneys general in states, legal organizations, and others who are challenging things like the birthright citizenship 1. You see other ones, like the many involving LGBTQ folks and DEI and other things. You see these groups being very careful and trying to make the best legal case that they can. So they may not be challenging them right out of the gate, but there's a reason behind that because they want to make sure they win. When they do. You see people, but that's all fighting. You see people who are in the trenches right now and they are fighting hard. And I want people to realize. And Jill, I'll give you the last word.
- [56:15]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, it's hard being last because a lot of good points are already made. And I sort of am in the Joyce camp here, which is it's hard to pick one, it's hard to pick 10 because in part, all of them combined are so threatening. And we've mentioned some of the ones that are terrible. But if you get into the details, for example, you mentioned you were concerned about lgbtq. He announced that there is federal recognition of only two sexes, male and female. And that, by the way, and you mentioned this, I think a friend called me and said I have a non binary child and their passport says X, not M or F. And they are now really worried. Can you give me a lawyer's name who can help us? The national emergencies he declared mean, as Joyce said, possibly calling out the military for civilian law enforcement in violation of posse comitatus and common sense, using the Army Corps of Engineers to stop any kind of wildlife protection, eliminating all dei, not just the staff who work on dei, but DEI in the government and. And in private practice. And Joyce is right. He can't tell them what to do without a law. But we're seeing a lot of what Snyder would call obeyance in advance. We didn't mention when we were talking about justice, the elimination of the Civil Rights Division basically no more civil rights cases are to be filed. That's really frightening. His executive order about withdrawing from who, the World Health Organization, from the Paris Climate Accord, from the global tax deal, from the electric vehicle mandate. These are all major, major things that are really frightening to me. And it's the combination that causes the confusion and that is going to make everybody feel overwhelmed so they don't respond. And you know, just a last little thing that shows how petty he is, his revocation of security clearances for, for specific people and for the withdrawal of protection for Mike Pompeo, who was his own person, and for Fauci, both of whom have been threatened seriously and need the protection. This is just the act of a petty tyrant.
- [58:58]
Joyce Vance
Whether your look is fresh faced, full glam or somewhere in between, you've probably seen Thrive Cosmetics Viral Tubing Mascara all over your socials. It's the one in the turquoise tube and a personal favorite. Thrive has so many other amazing products that are made with high performance and trademarked formulas, clean skin loving ingredients and uncompromising standards. Each one is certified as 100% vegan and cruelty free. It is no wonder that their best sellers have thousands of five star reviews, including mine.
- [59:34]
Jill Wine Banks
And mine for sure. I was using Thrive Cosmetics a long time before we even started this show. I was in love with it the minute I tried it. I stopped changing mascara brands every single time I bought a new mascara and have been totally loyal to them. But I'm now also in love besides the mascara with Thrive's Brilliant Eye Brightener. It's a luxurious eyeshadow highlighter stick that brightens and opens your eyes to give you an instant eye lift. There's nothing better for a fresh, vibrant look. Thrive's foolproof formula makes it extremely easy to apply and blend any of the 27 shades. That's right, 27 different shades and you can use as little or as much as you'd like. Just apply a light shade to the inner corners of your eyes to look well rested or use the eyeshadow for a perfect daytime glow. I apply one of my favorite colors on the lid and a slightly darker one in the crease for a subtle blend. I recommend the Stella, but you can also use a metallic shade all over your eyelid and blend it with your finger for an easy smoky look. Between us, that's my secret for making my eyes pop on camera.
- [60:48]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, you know, if you see me from my zoom room on tv, chances are you are seeing the Muna eye color which is what I use on my lids in part because when I'm doing TV from home, I'm usually rushing. And you can put it on really quick. Like you can put it on in like 30 seconds. So that's often what I do, too. Another thing that we love about Thrive Cosmetics is that cause is in the name for a reason. Thrive not only defines luxury beauty with their clean skin, loving ingredients and uncompromising standards, they give back 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 so much more. And these days, those organizations are working so hard. And so we really appreciate that, and I'm glad we're a part of it.
- [61:43]
Barb McQuaid
Thrive Cosmetics is luxury beauty that gives back. Right now you can get an exclusive 20% off your first order@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. The link is in our show. Notes.
- [62:13]
Jill Wine Banks
The pardon power is pretty much unlimited, as I know from Ford's pardon of Nixon. But except for something like that, we do have norms that require having the Department of Justice pardon attorney review and recommend whether pardons are legitimate, as Pam Bondi said she would do. I hope she's humiliated enough that she might withdraw her name from being confirmed here. Trump allegedly said it's too complicated to distinguish between pardons and different crimes and commutations, so just pardon them all. And that's pretty much what he did. So, Joyce, what is the role of the pardon attorney? Who is it? What happened here? How were norms violated? And what should Pam Bondi do Do?
- [63:07]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. So the easy part first, Jill. I mean, there's an office of the pardon attorney at doj. It's a small office, and they handle, I would say, about 99% of the pardon requests that are made. They look at every case individually. They evaluate the crime. They take a look at the defendant's prior criminal history. They look at his or her record while in custody. They assess whether there's danger to the community if they're released. They talk to prosecutors, victims, judges, defense lawyers. It's a pretty intensive process. Look, I don't want to pretend that every pardon case goes through that because occasionally there are defendants who do have some juice and who do jump that process. But that's extremely rare. And I think literally in this case, 1500 people. And Donald Trump's standard wasn't looking at them, looking at the risk they pose to the community or their rehabilitation. It was just effort. Let's pardon all of them. That's not a legal standard. That's not a responsible standard. If Pam Bondi had any guts, I've already said it once, I'll say it again, she would resign. She would resign over this. She said in her confirmation hearing that she couldn't weigh in until she looked at these cases individually. Donald Trump has released these folks back into communities, many of them with a propensity for violence. Anything that happens, that's on him, but it's also on her for as long as she's his attorney general.
- [64:40]
Jill Wine Banks
So, Kim, I want to follow up on that with you about what Joyce just said. These have been, these convicted felons have been released and some may be misdemeanors.
- [64:54]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
Yeah, the majority of misdemeanors, but a lot of hundreds of felons. Yes.
- [64:58]
Jill Wine Banks
And somewhere between 3 and 600 who committed violence against police officers that Trump used to say he protected. But so what's the result of this mass release? What's happening? We know one's already been rearrested for having a gun. What's happening to the others and what is going to go on in the future?
- [65:19]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I think it's still too soon to grasp the full implication of this, but I will flag one thing that I'm terribly worried about is that there has already been since the election and even leading up to the election, an uptick in recruitment to right wing militia and white national groups. And we know that the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers were key people. And the two biggest, the two longest sentences delivered were to the former leaders of these organizations. And you know, those organizations were disbanded technically in their national chapters. But what happened was they just went local and they're more scattered and decentralized. But there has been an uptick in recruitment efforts and joining efforts in that sense. So I think one big problem that's a problem for everybody, not just the people directly related to this is that recall before he quit that Chris Wray stated year after year after year that the number one domestic terror threat was from right wing extremist groups. And I think we are going to see the return of that. And I think that this is a key flashpoint in that. But we are no longer going to have an FBI that is prioritizing that.
- [66:39]
Jill Wine Banks
Right. And I mean, there are, you know, aside from a rearrest, Tarrio, who was one of the leaders, said he wanted retribution. Imagine how Barbara's governor, Gretchen Whitmer feels, how Nancy Pelosi feels. Rhodes may get an invitation to the White House witnesses are in danger. The son of one of the convicted men said that he was now terrified because he testified against his father and his father has threatened him. So I think there's a serious danger that's a result of this, and it's very, very scary. There's also, of course, been some judicial rebel rebuke to this. So let's talk about that, Barb. And also about how did Trump defend his action? Did he say when he saw how unpopular this was, oh, I made a mistake, or did he dig in? What did he do? What did he say?
- [67:42]
Barb McQuaid
You know, it's unlike Donald Trump to admit a mistake. Right. So, no. Has he ever done that? And so interesting to listen to some of the things, things that he have seen. Of course, there has been this false equivalency to Joe Biden. You know, look what Biden did. I don't agree with every one of Joe Biden's pardons. He pardoned Hunter Biden, and I think we've discussed that in the past. There are some reasons for that. He pardoned some of his family members sort of prospectively for fear that Donald Trump would make good on some of his threats for retribution. He pardoned members of the January 6 committee prospectively in case Donald Trump went after that. You know, people on death row got some commutations of sentences. There was a big group of drug traffickers, including some people who engaged in other serious crimes. I don't agree with all of those, but let's not compare apples and oranges. This is political violence. These are people who beat, assaulted, attacked police officers, damaged our Capitol, stopped the certification of the presidency from going forward. This really not just ignores political violence, but encourages it. One of the other things, Jill, that Donald Trump did is to suggest that their lives were ruined. They served in jail. They.
- [69:06]
Jill Wine Banks
And it was a horrible jail.
- [69:07]
Barb McQuaid
He said, yeah, that they got railroaded. You know, suggesting that in some way the process that they got was unfair, which is just absolutely not the case. These cases were brought in public federal courts. They had lawyers, there were judges, there were juries. They were convicted, or they admitted their guilt and entered guilty pleas. So that is ridiculous. He said that these were very minor incidents. Not true. Watch the video. There is horrible incidents. We had nine people die that day, including four people who committed suicide. One of the other things I heard him say is, well, there are people who get off for murder. So I don't know what the big deal is. Well, that's an injustice if people get off for murder. And there may be reasons because of failure of evidence or because somebody has a valid self defense claim or something. That doesn't mean, you know, take that argument to its logic extreme. So therefore no one should ever get prosecuted for any other crime. So all of this is, you know, just spin after the fact. And it really is something that should not be overlooked. We can't, cannot overstate, in my view, the importance of these pardons in terms of really damaging the rule of law.
- [70:29]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah, I mean, one of the worst things he said was if you look at the American public, the American public is tired of it, referring to these people that he calls patriots and hostages being in jail. And I just want to ask our listeners news, is there anyone who's tired of them having been in jail? I'm sure the answer is absolutely not. So Joyce Trump was asked why one of the January 6th defendants who used a stun gun on a police officer during the riot deserved to be pardoned. And this goes to Barbara's point about people died. And Trump responded, I don't know. Was it a pardon? Of course he should know. We know that. But because we're looking at commutations, we're also looking at pardons. That's what he was saying. Does it matter if it's a pardon or a commutation? And for our listeners, what's the difference?
- [71:22]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, I mean, there is an important difference. But you know, the starting point is this. Presidents personally sign off on any kind of clemency, whether it's pardon or commutation. And so Trump should know because he signed, signed every one of these. He's the one who made the decision. The buck stops there. But here's the difference. A pardon is saying it's as though you never committed the crime. It's as though you weren't indicted or convicted. Everything is erased. Commutation is different. It permits the conviction to stay in place, but it commutes the sentence. In other words, you are released from prison without needing to serve the rest of your sentence. And that distinction does carry some very important differences in treatment. For instance, if your sentence is commuted, you can still be subject to supervision of the court. Supervised release following service of your sentence might kick in. There's still collateral consequences stemming from the conviction. You're still a convicted felon. And so all of those consequences are in place. If you get a part pardon, all is forgiven. So very different sorts of entities.
- [72:33]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah. And do you really think he signed 1500 documents?
- [72:38]
Joyce Vance
He had to. Right? Nobody else has the authority. I mean, maybe it was the effort. They're all done sort of approach and somebody else signed. But I don't know if you've seen these. They are actually individual commissions and they do require.
- [72:50]
Jill Wine Banks
I have. I just think there has to have been something.
- [72:52]
Barb McQuaid
He's got a rubber stamp.
- [72:54]
Jill Wine Banks
Absolutely. I totally do not believe that he did.
- [72:57]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I mean, but it speaks volumes that he did it in this way, that if you asked him a single fact about any of this, he can't talk about it. This is not how the clemency power is supposed to be used. He's doing this as a reward, a reward to his supporters and that's all there is to it.
- [73:13]
Jill Wine Banks
And he's too lazy to do it individually. He just did this mass thing rather than make individual decisions or wait till Pam Bondi was there to do that for him. But he didn't. But so anyway, just maybe one last question for all of you is what do you all think about this? Is there anything left that you wanna say about how bad this is?
- [73:34]
Joyce Vance
Well, look, I mean, I think you and Kim just said it. This isn't a president using a power that the founding fathers bestowed upon the presidency to do justice and to do mercy. This is Donald Trump using the power of the presidency to benefit himself personally, rewarding people who were willing to come out and some of them to engage in violence to try to keep him in office, office after he lost. You know, these people have had their rights to possess firearms restored. I don't want to paint a dark future before it descends upon us, but I think that we would be wise to put a marker down here to see what happens with these folks in the future. How many of them reoffend? What role do they play in their communities? We've already seen the leaders of the Oath keepers and the proud boys saying that they want revenge on the people who put them in prison. This is a moment to put a marker down for the future of democracy.
- [74:39]
Jill Wine Banks
If you haven't already listened to my new YouTube show, Just the Facts, I hope that you will go on to our show Notes today and find, find a link to it or just search on YouTube to find just the facts. With me, Jill Wine Banks, the Watergate girl. Because facts are more important than ever. And each show looks at the facts that matter, facts that will help you make wise decisions. Please join me.
- [75:16]
Joyce Vance
So lots of important conversation, lots more we could have talked about. And I'm incredibly grateful this week for the Q and A session, the part of our show that we enjoy the most, because we have a few additional questions from Y'ALL and this gives us a chance to touch on a few of the other topics that we couldn't do in the main part of the show. I know there's a lot going on, so if you have questions for us, please email us@sistersinlawolitikon.com or tag us on social media with your questions. Questions. If we don't get to your questions during the show, we'll try to answer as many of them as we can on our feeds during the week, but keep them coming. Lots of important and interesting issues for us to all focus on this week. We've got our first question, Barb. This one I'm going to send to you from Louise in California. Louise asks, if Obergefell is reversed, would it make all the same sex marriages no longer legal or would it stop same sex marriage going forward? It's a really important question. What do you think?
- [76:18]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, the super interesting issue, I think if the Supreme Court were to overturn Obergefell and say that there is not a constitutional right under substantive due process to marriage equality, that would mean that each state could define marriage the way they want to. And so we would see some states that say marriages are recognized. We'd see other states that say they don't. And, and even if you were married years ago, I think a state could say we don't recognize that. So, you know, if you got married and now you're living in, I don't know, Alabama, Joyce. And the state of Alabama says, yeah, we don't recognize marriage equality. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I think they could retroactively say, yeah, you can call yourselves what you want, but we're not recognizing your marriage and all of the legal benefits that that confers.
- [77:09]
Joyce Vance
Jill, got a question for you from, from Haronson on Bluesky. Here's the question. Since Trump, had he not been reelected, would surely have been convicted in the January 6th federal case. Can it ever come to trial in future in a new form or did he just get off completely scot free?
- [77:31]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, there's the theoretical answer and the realistic answer. Theoretical he could be. The cases were not dismissed with prejudice, which means that they are subject to being brought back. And we can argue that during his term of office the statute of limitations is told. But there's a lot of coincidences that would have to happen. He'd have to have a prosecutor willing to bring bring charges again in the future and you'd have to have witnesses who are still around to testify. So I'm not sure what the answer ends up being in reality, it's unknown right now and we'll have to wait at least four years before we know the answer to that.
- [78:26]
Joyce Vance
So, look, I'll just say I have a different view. I think the cases are over. They're never coming back back. And I wish it was otherwise. But that's where I.
- [78:34]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, that's not a different view. That's the real. I said theoretically it could come back. Realistically, it probably won't.
- [78:43]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. It's unfortunate news. So, Kim, last question for you. This is one that we all talked about and we all want to know the answer to. So no pressure, sis, but here we go. It's from Ealchris Lewis on Blue Sky. And Chris asks, what powers do Democrats in Congress have that they can exercise in the next two years?
- [79:07]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
This is a great question. Democrats actually have a lot of power. They have power by virtue of the fact that the Republican majority margins in both the House and Senate are razor slim, particularly in the House, House. So they can act by uniting against unjust, awful legislation and not giving an inch, particularly when it comes to the stripping of rights of Americans. I know there have been some Democrats that are talking about bipartisanship and whatnot and cutting deals. I would strongly urge Democrats in this moment to unite in the same way that Republicans have united behind Donald Trump and unite behind the American people and protecting their rights. They can do that. They can block rules that try to give Republic that Republicans are definitely going to try to use to give them more power in the House. But I'm going to expand this a little bit because I think the power of Democrats in states and in communities is also crucially important here. You have seen attorneys general in states already challenging some of these executive orders against Donald Trump. You have states that can do things like pass laws that protect people. For example, there is legislation I know in Massachusetts that would block the sale of location services of cell phone data that has been used to track people going to, for example, Planned Parenthood. There is a fear that that can be used to track people to try to see if they travel near people who they believe are in the country illegally or that churches that go to certain churches that have offered sanctuary to them or to track people going to places that offer gender affirming care. Those are the kind of laws that can provide more protection. There is a lot that Democrats from coast to coast can do. And it's really important, if you want them to do that, to get on the horn and tell them to and make it clear that as a constituent. This is the protection that you want and need for your family, for your communities, for your businesses and because it's right, the right thing to do in America. And yes, we should talk about this more in future episodes with a little more granularity. But that's a great question and it's important to know that Democrats are not powerless in this moment.
- [81:43]
Joyce Vance
I love you for letting us end on such a hopeful, upbeat note. I think that's just where we all needed to end this week's show. Thanks for listening to Sisters in law with Barb McQuaid, Jill Wine Banks, Kimberly Atkins Storr and me, Joyce Vance. Follow our hashtag SistersInLaw wherever you listen and please give us a five star review. It really helps others find the show. Show some love to our sponsors this week, Factor Laundry Sauce, Quince and Thrive Cosmetics. Their link are in our show notes. Please support them because they really make the podcast possible. We live in difficult times. We love all of you. Thank you for being here with us this week. See you next week with another episode, Sisters in Law.
- [82:33]
Barb McQuaid
That's nice to end it that way.
- [82:36]
Joyce Vance
That just popped out.
- [82:37]
Barb McQuaid
No, it was nice. I think people need that. We need to feel high, hugged, loved, surrounded, embraced.
- [82:44]
Kimberly Atkins Storr
I do think that that's important.
- [82:49]
E
When you think about businesses that are selling through the roof, Allbirds or Skims. Sure you think about a great product, a cool brand and brilliant marketing. But an often overlooked secret is actually the businesses behind the business making, selling and for the shoppers, buying simple. For millions of businesses, that business is Shopify. Nobody does selling better than Shopify, home of the number one checkout on the planet. And the not so secret secret with shop pay that boosts conversions up to 50%, meaning way less carts going abandoned and way more sales going. So if you're into growing your business, your commerce platform better be ready to sell wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling on the web, in your store, in their feed and everywhere in between. Businesses that sell more sell on Shopify. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout skims uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com audioboom all lowercase go to shopify.com audioboom to upgrade your selling today. Shopify.com audioboom.