223: Gobsmackinly Corrupt

Summary

#SistersInLaw Episode 223: Gobsmackinly Corrupt
Released on February 15, 2025
Hosted by Politicon's Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuade, and Kimberly Atkins Stohr

---

Overview

In Episode 223 of #SistersInLaw, titled "Gobsmackinly Corrupt", the brilliant hosts Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuade, and Kimberly Atkins Stohr delve deep into the alarming corruption within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). They examine the recent turmoil surrounding the prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams, scrutinize the actions of the newly appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi, and explore the erosion of First Amendment protections in the face of presidential overreach. The episode skillfully weaves historical parallels with Watergate, highlights significant resignations within the DOJ, and addresses critical questions from their audience regarding judicial powers and legislative acts.

---

1. The DOJ's Corrupt Maneuvers and Eric Adams Case

The episode kicks off with a heated discussion about the recent indictment and subsequent attempted dismissal of charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Indicted in September for bribery, wire fraud, and campaign finance violations, Adams' case has become a focal point for alleged corruption within the DOJ.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr introduces the controversy:
"We have a lot to talk about on this show this week. The drama over the Thursday into Friday massacre over the prosecution or ending thereof of New York City Mayor Eric Adams..." [00:00]

Barb McQuaid elaborates on the situation:
"Emile Beauvais had sent a letter to the Acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, directing her to dismiss the indictment against New York City Mayor Eric Adams." [08:06]

The team discusses the series of correspondences between Danielle Sassoon, Emile Beauvais, and Pam Bondi, leading to what they term the "Valentine's Massacre" due to its timing around Valentine's Day.

---

2. Danielle Sassoon: A Beacon of Integrity

Barb McQuaid provides an in-depth profile of Danielle Sassoon, the interim U.S. Attorney who resisted pressure to dismiss Adams' indictment:
"She is a lifelong conservative, a lifelong Federalist Society member... She clerked for Justice Scalia... She has always been a principled person." [12:16]

The hosts draw parallels between Sassoon's stand and historical figures like Sally Yates, highlighting the recurring theme of principled individuals standing up against political pressure.

Joyce Vance reflects on Sassoon's actions:
"She's just doing this as payback for being free." [34:07]

---

3. Resignations Within the DOJ: Echoes of Watergate

The episode draws historical comparisons to the Watergate scandal, emphasizing the gravity of the current situation within the DOJ.

Jill Wine-Banks reads a resignation letter from Hagan Scotten, a line prosecutor who resigned in protest:
"Consider this my resignation." [18:00]

Barb McQuaid comments on the significance:
"This is like a really amazing human being, a man of great integrity." [21:09]

The hosts lament the loss of moral compasses within the DOJ, noting eight resignations as a direct response to attempts to close prosecutions improperly.

---

4. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) Under Siege

A critical part of the discussion focuses on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and recent attempts to undermine its enforcement.

Jill Wine-Banks explains the FCPA's importance:
"The FCPA prohibits bribing foreign officials to gain business advantages. DOJ has routinely prosecuted Americans for violating this act." [47:51]

Barb McQuaid discusses the implications of weakening the FCPA:
"This erodes the rule of law worldwide. It encourages bribery and corruption all over the globe." [50:35]

Kimberly Atkins Stohr emphasizes the necessity of the FCPA in maintaining America's ethical standards in international business:
"It's incredibly important to have this law in place. Without it, bribery becomes the new normal." [52:19]

---

5. Pam Bondi's Controversial Actions as Attorney General

The hosts scrutinize the actions of Attorney General Pam Bondi, highlighting her aggressive stance against states like New York and Illinois.

Barb McQuaid points out the civil nature of Bondi's charges:
"Pam Bondi was trying to indict New York State in a 16-page indictment, but it's actually a civil matter, not a criminal case." [40:25]

Joyce Vance analyzes the constitutional arguments:
"The 10th Amendment states that powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or the people. Bondi's interpretation misrepresents the Supremacy Clause." [40:45]

The discussion reveals Bondi's targeted approach against states not aligning with federal immigration efforts, suggesting a politicized agenda at play.

---

6. Assault on the Free Press: The Assault on the Associated Press

A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to the Trump administration's attempts to suppress the press, specifically targeting the Associated Press (AP).

Barb McQuaid explains the incident:
"Donald Trump changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and barred the AP from White House events for not complying." [62:37]

Joyce Vance underscores the First Amendment implications:
"The First Amendment prohibits the government from telling people what they can't say. This is a blatant violation." [66:18]

The hosts argue that these actions represent a slippery slope towards authoritarianism, warning of the long-term dangers to democratic institutions.

---

7. Audience Questions: Judicial Powers and Legislative Acts

The episode incorporates an engaging segment where the hosts address questions from their audience, providing expert insights into complex legal matters.

Question 1: Can judges block an executive order on their own?
Joyce Vance responds:
"Courts must wait for a case to be brought against an executive order. They can't initiate lawsuits themselves." [70:34]

Question 2: Are illegal and unconstitutional the same thing?
Barb McQuaid clarifies:
"Illegal means violating a statute, while unconstitutional means violating the Constitution. The Supreme Court's grant of presidential immunity applies to constitutional violations." [72:10]

Question 3: Is DOGE the same as the Office of Digital Services?
Jill Wine-Banks answers:
"Doge, established by an executive order, appears to be a rebranding of the U.S. Digital Service, but litigation will determine its scope and legitimacy." [75:21]

These responses provide clarity on judicial discretion, constitutional law, and the implications of presidential directives on governmental agencies.

---

Conclusion: A Dire Warning for the Future

The hosts conclude the episode with a somber reflection on the current state of American governance and institutions. They emphasize the critical need for vigilance, integrity, and resistance against corrupt practices to preserve the rule of law and democratic freedoms.

Joyce Vance remarks:
"We are in a very, very dangerous place." [25:12]

Kimberly Atkins Stohr adds:
"The cavalry isn't coming. It’s up to us, the voters, to push back." [32:05]

The episode serves as a clarion call for accountability and the preservation of foundational American principles in the face of institutional corruption and executive overreach.

---

Notable Quotes

• Barb McQuaid on DOJ corruption:
  "Which is gobsmackingly wrong, autocratic. It is all the bad things that lead to the kind of government that our founders never intended." [19:53]

• Joyce Vance on prosecutorial independence:
  "The Department of Justice is unique among all of the cabinet agencies in its independence from partisan politics." [20:05]

• Jill Wine-Banks on resignees' integrity:
  "His letter was so good that we should read it... It was never going to be me." [19:08]

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr on First Amendment protections:
  "You need a free press for a strong democracy to thrive." [66:31]

• Barb McQuaid on Pam Bondi's indictments:
  "It's disgusting. This is a takedown of all of our rules of government." [56:04]

---

Final Thoughts

Episode 223 of #SistersInLaw offers a compelling and thorough examination of pressing political and legal issues in 2025. Through informed discussions, historical context, and expert analysis, the hosts shed light on the corruption threatening the DOJ, the challenges to the First Amendment, and the broader implications for American democracy. This episode is a must-listen for anyone seeking to understand the intricate dynamics shaping the nation's governance and the ongoing battle to uphold justice and constitutional integrity.

---

Note: This summary intentionally omits advertisements, personal banter unrelated to content, and non-essential segments to focus on delivering a comprehensive overview of the episode's key discussions and insights.

Transcript

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Foreign. Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Jill Wine Banks, Joyce Fance, Barb McQuaid and me, Kimberly Atkins Store. You may also hear snickers in the background because I just, I have some French fries here and she would like one, so please forgive her. Don't forget to check out our brand new T shirts that celebrate the Resist Dance. Get it? They're really cute. People really like them and they help support us and make this podcast happen. So go to politicon.com merch and you can find them there. We have so much to talk about on this show this week. The drama over the Thursday into Friday massacre over the prosecution or ending thereof of New York City Mayor Eric Adams. We're also also talking about the new Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and a lot of her actions that are noteworthy. And we're asking if the First Amendment matters anymore now that the White House is attacking the Associated Press. A lot to get through, but we are recording this on Valentine's Day. And I just want to ask you. I've never liked Valentine's Day, whether I was single or not. It's just never been my thing. We, you know, I, we don't buy cards or anything, but sometimes we go to dinner or something. But it's not a big deal to me. Do you guys really get into Valentine's Day? Do you have plans or how do you feel about it? How about you, Joe?

[Barb McQuaid]

My husband and I love Valentine's Day. This year we gave each other cards and they were the same exact card.

[Joyce Vance]

We both love it. That's so great.

[Barb McQuaid]

It is so fun. And of course, if you wanna take a guess what was on the COVID of the card?

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

A dalmatia.

[Barb McQuaid]

Two of Em cuddling up. Of course, it was two Dalmatians. We both picked the same card.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Oh, that's so funny.

[Barb McQuaid]

We're planning to.

[Joyce Vance]

So mushy.

[Barb McQuaid]

I love it. We're gonna go dancing. But that's only on Friday and Saturday night. So we're gonna go on Saturday night unless the predicted snowstorm prevents our getting there.

[Joyce Vance]

What kind of dancing, Jill?

[Barb McQuaid]

We like just plain slow dancing to a live band or to jazz singers. And it used to be that there were great places in Chicago for that. It's getting harder and harder. One of my dearest friends is in a wonderful new relationship and she and her new boyfriend, I don't call a person of our age, but her beau, have found a wonderful place. But that's not till March that we're going. And then I found a new place that replaces maybe the old Pump Room and at the Ambassador Hotel. I hope it'll be wonderful. It's at the Drake Hotel.

[Joyce Vance]

You are so cool, Jill Winebanks.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

What about you, Barb?

[Joyce Vance]

I like Valentine's Day. In fact, it's funny you should ask because I was just walking home and thinking to myself, I'm usually quite unsentimental and not terribly sappy, but darn it, I like Valentine's Day. My sister and I always exchange greetings. I always send my mom a box of candy. It was something my dad did every year, was get her a box of candy. And he's no longer around, so we send her a box of candy to tell her how much we love her. And my husband and I will go out to dinner and we'll exchange gifts. I don't wanna blow the surprise, but it is a modest token of affection and care. But we'll go out to dinner and. And celebrate our Valentine's.

[Barb McQuaid]

Oh.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

How about you, Joyce?

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, you know, I let Bob weigh in on what he wanted to do this year. And this is. Maybe we're getting old. Maybe it's just been a long January. But he said what he wanted to do was stay home, watch movies and eat cake for dinner. So I made a really good cake. That sounds pretty great.

[Joyce Vance]

I like it.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I mean, I'm excited. I made the chocolate. It's called Devil's Food Cake Cacania. It's in the orange of the Joy of Cooking cookbook. And it's sort of a pain in the neck to make, if the truth must be told. But it's delicious. I haven't made it for a long time, so I guess we're just gonna hang out and have fun tonight.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Oh, well, great. So I have to be honest. I don't know what, if anything, we might be doing. I have to say, my husband tends to be a little more romantic than me. Like, he has been known to come home with a card or something. Of course, I feel terrible when I don't have one or something. So I. I'll. I'll let y'all know it's not too late.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Go out and get this cart for Kim.

[Barb McQuaid]

Make one. Make one. You're very creative. You can cut out a little Valentine heart. You can do it.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

All right, I will. I will. I will get right on that.

[Barb McQuaid]

Did you know we're eating and drinking roughly a credit card's worth of plastic every single week?

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, it's crazy.

[Barb McQuaid]

Products we use every day go on to contaminate our water supply. Which means we end up regularly ingesting a multitude of microplastics. Luckily, Blueland decided to step up by eliminating the need for single use plastic in the products we use the most. So don't wait. Start your journey to a cleaner, greener home with Blueland.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I'm going to be thinking about that credit card's worth of plastic that's in my body for the whole rest of the day. But fortunately, Blueland is on a mission to eliminate single use plastic by reinventing cleaning essentials to be better for you and the planet while still delivering the same powerful clean you're used to. The idea is simple. Blueland offers refillable cleaning products with beautiful cohesive designs that look great on your counter. It's really easy. Just fill your reusable Blueland bottles with water, drop in the tablets and wait for them to dissolve.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

And I like watching them dissolve. That's kind of fun to me. If you ever liked watching the Alka Seltzer when you were a kid, it's kind of like that.

[Joyce Vance]

Strangely satisfying.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

You'll never have to grab bulky supplies on your grocery run, and refills start at just $2.25. You can even set up a subscription or buy in bulk for additional savings. And better yet, blueland products are independently tested to perform alongside major brands and are free from dyes, bleach and harsh chemicals, from cleaning sprays to hand soap, toilet bowl cleaner and laundry tablets. All Blueland products are made with clean ingredients you can feel good about.

[Joyce Vance]

There's a reason Blueland is trusted in more than 1 million homes, including ours. The fragrances add such a pleasant vibe to your home. And I can't begin to tell you how many times the subscription has saved me from running out of cleaning products. When you need them, you need them right away. It feels great knowing that I'm incorporating sustainable practices into essential everyday activities. And we know you'll love it too. That's why we're excited to share that Blueland has a special offer for listeners right now. Get 15% off your first order by going to blueland.com sisters. You won't want to miss this. Blueland.com sisters for 15% off again, that's blueland.com sisters to get 15% off. The link is in the show Notes. Well, it's been quite a week at the Department of Justice. First, we learned on Monday that the Acting Deputy Attorney General email Beauvais. I'm told it's pronounced Beauvais.

[Barb McQuaid]

Did you guys know that I'm saying beautiful? Yeah, no bove Creighton has always said.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Beauvais, and he hives, so I figure he knows.

[Joyce Vance]

Emile Beauvais had sent a letter to the Acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, directing her to dismiss the indictment against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Adams, as you may recall, was indicted in September on charges of bribery, wire fraud, and campaign finance violations. And then this week, it got really interesting. Kim, can you tell us about the series of letters that went back and forth this week between the interim U.S. attorney, Danielle Sassoon and Emile Beauvais and Pam Bondi that led to what some are calling the Thursday Afternoon Massacre, or maybe the Valentine's Day.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Valentine's Massacre.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yes.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

It continued into Valentine's Day.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

So essentially, and I sort of got tipped off when I saw a couple of legal watchers that I follow on social media. Note, after it was initially announced that the charges against Eric Adams would be dismissed, noted that, well, they said that, but I'm looking at the docket, and it hasn't been movement in that direction. And then suddenly the news drops that Danielle Sassoon was like, yep, nope, not the one. There had been a superseding indictment in the works, actually, to add obstruction charge to the corruption charges that Adams is already facing. There was another grand jury that was convened and approved it, ready to go. And Ms. Sassoon said, no way. This is not what our job is to drop it. And she wrote a letter that said, in part, I have always considered it my obligation to pursue justice impartially without favor to the wealthy or those who occupy important public office or harsher treatment for the less powerful. And she was objecting to what was obviously an attempt by the Trump administration to drop these charges with prejudice, which is important, in exchange for Mayor Adams capitulating to be to use the New York City government to help with immigration raids. And that was something that, rightly so, that Assistant U.S. attorney Sassoon wasn't down with. And it's really important just to underscore, the White House or any political actor is supposed to have zero, no, no role at all in deciding prosecutorial decisions that is so far out of bounds and against the rule of law, for reasons that we will discuss. Bovey shot back with a letter basically calling her insubordinate, which is not true, writing, in part, in no valid sense. Do you uphold the Constitution by disobeying direct orders, implementing the policy of a duly elected president? Are you kidding me? That's exactly what you're not supposed to do. Like that's literally what you're. I was actually shocked that he put that in writing. Like that's crazy. But that's what kicked off what ended up with. I think at the time we are recording up to eight resignations total within two different offices of the DoJ in protest of this decision by the DOJ to try to force this prosecution closed.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah.

[Barb McQuaid]

Can I just add, Kim, I so agree with you about his letter. It was so ham handed and so blatant in its political nature. He put in writing things that you wouldn't even want to say in a face to face meeting that you were sure wasn't being recorded. His language was so awful about. This is so that we can implement the president's agenda. That's the most political reason for doing anything. And so against DOJ policy and the righteousness of what DOJ does.

[Joyce Vance]

Well, Jill, let me ask you about Danielle Sassoon, who stood up to email Beauvais here. What do we know about her?

[Barb McQuaid]

You know, it's so interesting, of course, I never heard of her until now. You know, interims are just temporary placeholders. So, you know, I didn't think I needed to learn a lot about her until her permanent U.S. attorney was put in place. But we know a lot about her. She is a lifelong conservative, a lifelong Federalist Society member. She has argued against affirmative action. So I know that Clarence Thomas will love her. She went to college at Harvard. She then went to Yale Law School. She took a very principled position and according to friends who've talked about her, she has always been a principled person. She did this because the law and the facts didn't coincide here and it was just political. She went to school and studied the Talmud at a modern Orthodox school and some people said that was great preparation for studying law. She had a quick rise at the Department of Justice where she was hired by Joyce's co partner in a podcast, Preet Bharara under Obama. So even though she was a registered Republican and there was no question about that, the Democrats hired her. And she had some great trials, including, you'll all remember, Samuel Bankman Fried, the big fraudster and con artist and the Sarah Lawrence student sex assaulter and sex trafficker, Lawrence Ray. She clerked for A very conservative 4th Circuit judge, Wilkinson, and then for Justice Scalia. And my favorite quote from her, and I'm going to just read this, was that he was her kind of feminist. He spared me no argumentative punches and demanded rigor for my work. He taught me how to fire a pistol and a rifle and made me feel like I had grit. He thickened my skin, which was the best preparation for a career in a male dominated field. So I sort of just love that. She had a quick rise, as I said, in the Southern District. By 2016 she had been elevated and by 2023 she was named the co chief of the Southern District's Criminal Appeals unit. And she held that until her promotion to be the interim until her resignation this week.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah. You know, when I hear about what she's done so often in these instances, it's a woman, isn't it? Well, yeah, just like Sally Yates, Hutchinson and others. And. Yeah. And Sally Yates is the one that comes to my mind. Does it remind you of that situation, Jill?

[Barb McQuaid]

It absolutely does. Because if we can just refresh our memories, Sally Yates was acting Attorney General and refused to carry out in Trump one the Muslim ban because she said, I can't go to court and say that it's anything other than a religiously oriented ban on people of the Muslim faith. And of course, that was the end of her career there. So it's very much a principled stand that Sally Yates took, like the principled stand that Danielle Sassoon took in saying, I cannot go into court and say these things because that's not what I'm supposed to do when I go into court and say for the people, that's what I'm doing and it's not for Donald Trump.

[Joyce Vance]

Well, we've had some breaking news today. Joyce, can you bring us up to speed about what's happened on Friday as part of this massacre?

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, so, you know, fast moving target. Right. We're taping Friday afternoon. It's about 3:40 Eastern Time. Just to date stamp it a little bit. The early news this morning was that a line prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, Hagan Scotten, had tendered his resignation as well. And you know, Jill made a point of talking about Danielle's background, that she's conservative, not exactly Donald Trump's vision of the deep state liberals. Right. Hagen is the same sort of a deal. This is a guy who served in the military for eight years, top of his class at Harvard Law School, clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts, and he wrote a resignation letter that I think is just an example of how it's done. I mean, he really exemplifies the best in us. And it's a letter that makes you proud to have ever served in the Justice Department and sort of proud to be an American. So let me just read a little bit from it. I think the letter's that good that we should read it. He's writing to Emil Beauvais, the deputy Attorney General, and he says, I have received correspondence indicating that I refused your order to move to dismiss the indictment against Derrick Adams without prejudice, subject to certain conditions, including the expression express possibility of reinstatement of the indictment. That is not exactly correct. The U.S. attorney, Danielle Sassoon, never asked me to file such a motion, and I therefore never had an opportunity to refuse. But I am entirely in agreement with her decision not to do so. He goes on to talk about it a little bit more, talking about how solid the indictment is, that it's not tainted by the fact that Damian Williams, the Biden U.S. attorney in the Southern District, worked on it since four different United States attorneys across both parties had worked on the case. And then he says these words. There is a tradition in public service of resigning in a last ditch effort to head off a serious mistake. Some will view the mistake you are committing here in the light of their generally negative views of the new administration. I do not share those views. I can even understand how a chief executive whose background is in business and politics might see the contemplated dismissal with leverage as a good, if distasteful deal. But any assistant United States attorney would know that our laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the president is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward to file your motion. But it was never going to be me. He then says, consider this my resignation. Yeah, right. Yeah, that's pretty powerful. I mean, this is good stuff. And I think it was important that somebody stood up and said it. You know, it made me a little bit sad that it had to be a line prosecutor sacrificing his career to do it. Seems to me that some senator should have said it back in 2016, but nobody had Hagen Scotten's courage in the Republican Party.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

And I think it's important not to under. I don't think this can be underscored enough. Ordering members of career prosecutors to either drop a case or be fired is probably up to now the most authoritarian act that the Trump administration has done so far. That is gobsmackingly corrupt, autocratic. It is all the bad things that lead to the kind of government that our founders never intended. This is not a drill for anybody still saying that this is not a Crisis in our nation. We are there. We are past there. So I, too, am grateful to the people who are standing up for this.

[Jill Wine Banks]

You know, it's just a hop, skip and a jump away from dismissing a case that should be maintained to bringing a case that shouldn't be brought. Right. And I think you're right, Kim, to say this is the bad place.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Mm.

[Joyce Vance]

I also wanna point out to people who maybe are not familiar with the Department of Justice, like, what's the big deal? They're just following orders by the president. And isn't it their job to follow the orders of the president? And the answer is no. The Department of Justice is unique among all of the cabinet agencies in its independence from partisan politics. The principles of federal prosecution say that prosecutors are to follow the facts in the law and may not ever consider politics in making a charging decision. In fact, it is even prohibited for there to be communications between the White House and prosecutors, lest there even be the appearance of political direction in any particular case.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, wait, I think you meant to say it used to be prohibited. Right. Because in this Justice Department, it's. Okay.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah.

[Joyce Vance]

Well, let's bring back all those processes were imposed post Watergate, those norms and principles. And we've got the Watergate girl right here to tell us what it was like when we had the original Saturday night message. How does this measure up, Jill?

[Barb McQuaid]

I think we're worse off now than we were then, and it was pretty bad then. There seems to be just to take this particular case forward a little. There is reporting now that they have found. Well, what did the other lawyer say? A coward or a dupe or a fool. A fool, a dupe. They seem to have found someone who is willing to dismiss this case and that that action is underway, but it hasn't happened yet. So maybe that person will come to his senses and not do it. And I believe it is a man, so using his is the correct term. In Watergate, we had a direct order from the president to fire the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox. The attorney general said, I will not do that because I was confirmed on the promise that I would only do it if there was cause, and there is no cause. He has a perfectly legitimate right to ask for these tapes, and I will not do it. So he was fired, and then the deputy became the acting. And Ruckels. The first one was Elliot Richardson, who, by the way, had also been Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Commerce before he became Attorney General. This is like a really amazing human being, a man of great integrity, obviously. And then William Ruckelshaus, who had been the head of the EPA before becoming Deputy Attorney General, said, I too, cannot do it because there is no cause, and so I won't do it. So he was let go. And then Bork, who was the Solicitor General and therefore third in command at the Department of Justice at the time, said, well, I'll do it. And he said, and Richardson and Ruckelshaus have since said, well, he didn't promise Congress at his confirmation hearing that he wouldn't do this. And so, okay, he can get away with doing this. I think that's wrong because obviously it is wrong to fire someone without cause. Bork was then nominated for the Supreme Court in a subsequent administration and was almost summarily dismissed as a possible candidate because of his having done this terrible deed. And so whoever does this will live in infamy forever for having dismissed this case based on political requests, not based on anything in the law or the facts that should lead to a dismissal.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I just wanted to push back a little bit on that, Jill, not from a position of knowledge, because I don't know the facts here. I don't think any of us know the facts here about. There's some rumor about who the individual at DOJ is who's going to sign this. I have heard, and I wonder what your sense is that Bork was asked by others to be the one who would go ahead and give the order essentially to stop the bleeding at the Justice Department. And I think that that's what's going to go on today. I suspect that someone who is far enough along in their career that they can do it will go ahead and sign this motion to dismiss in order to protect all of the other much younger, earlier career stage people who would have been fired and that that person in some ways might be someone that I would consider very brave because they understand that they will be universally condemned and people may not see the nuances here and they're going to go ahead and take the hit for the Justice Department.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

And it could be multiple, it could be multiple reasons to A, you don't, you know, people have mortgages and they've been starting their career here. You don't want them harmed. B, you don't want the Public Integrity Unit to suddenly be emptied and then or replace with goodness knows who. So to the extent that you want to keep those people in there, you will take one for the team in order to protect those people, too. So it's complicated.

[Barb McQuaid]

I mean, and that was, that was the case in Watergate. That was at least widely discussed that he did it to protect the rest of the Department of Justice from being eviscerated. And that is a good and just thing. He did suffer the consequences. And no doubt this other person will. My advice to him would be if you're near retirement or if you're eligible for retirement, you better retire immediately after doing this, because if you get fired, you lose your. Now, of course, Trump won't fire you because he thinks you're doing the right thing so you're probably safe and can get to retirement. But it's a horrible thing that someone is asked to do this or that someone needs to stop the bleeding in order for this to happen. And that we've now had multiple people in the Southern District of New York, U.S. attorney's office, and in the Public Integrity Section being forced out by their own convictions of morality and justice. So it's a bad, bad day for justice in America.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah. Kim, I want to follow up on something you raised, which is Rule 48 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which require, you know, prosecutors can't just file this on their own. They have to file a motion and get leave of court to be able to dismiss an indictment. So how does that work? And who's the judge in this case? And do we expect the judge to grant the motion?

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Yeah. So this is a question that I was posing, and I would love to hear what the prosecutors have to say. So the judge in the case is Judge Dale Ho. He is a Biden appointee and someone who I think could see very clearly what is going on here. And given that all of this is pretextual. Right. Whatever reason that is going to be put forward in this agreement that's being negotiated in justice, we all know the reason why this dismissal is being sought, why it's being sought without prejudice, which means that the DOJ can dangle it over Eric Adams head to make sure that he complies. So it's both a carrot and a stick. Can't the judge just say no? No, I mean, that, that, yes. That raises other issues. Like you can't force prosecutors to prosecute a case. But why can't he just say, no, I'm not going to be a part of this? Prosecutors, you tell me.

[Barb McQuaid]

Okay. Yeah, I was just going to say that if everybody can remember back to Michael Flynn's case, there was a similar order, and Judge Sullivan in the D.C. circuit, D.C. district Court said, I have a role in this. You can't just dismiss. Just because you ask doesn't mean I rubber Stamp it. And I'm going to appoint a lawyer to represent the argument against the Department of Justice dismissal of this case. Now, it got short circuited because Trump stepped in and pardoned Flynn, and so it never went to a full judgment. But the special counsel who was arguing was absolutely unrepentant in his criticism of this action. The language of his report is really amazingly strong as to how wrong this was and why it should not be dismissed. And one of my Watergate colleagues just wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times just reminding us of this action and saying, you know, the judge has a role. The rule says you have to go to court and get court permission. And that doesn't mean they just grant it. They have to have a reason to grant it. So at least theoretically, it could be refused. Now, the question is, who then would prosecute it? I mean, under our system, we have prosecutors who are assigned to prosecute cases, and this Department of Justice will not prosecute it. So I'm not sure what happens if he refuses to. To get rid of it. I guess it stays in place and no one prosecutes it. And then if the statute of limitations hasn't run, it could be prosecuted at a subsequent time. As it is, they're asking for, and I think you've mentioned this, a dismissal without prejudice, which means that it is a sword of Damocles hanging over his head, meaning they can control him if he doesn't do exactly what they want. If they think he's not helpful enough in carrying out the President's agenda, they can bring this case back. And certainly so could a Democrat elected four years from now.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah. Here's my take on Rule 48. And, you know, Joyce and I, when we were U.S. attorneys, I don't know if the local rule is the same for you in Alabama, Joyce, but in the Eastern District of Michigan, the U.S. attorney, him or herself, had to sign a motion to dismiss an indictment because an indictment has been returned by a grand jury.

[Barb McQuaid]

Right.

[Joyce Vance]

So it's a big deal. It's nothing to dismiss an indictment. It's been on the docket is a very formal charge. And so in an effort both to prevent the prosecutor from jerking around the defendant, you know, you're charged. No, you're not. Now you're charged. No, you're not. Or to prevent the prosecutor from rewarding somebody, you know, they're just dismissing a case. Improvidently, the court had to look at it, and we had to state the reasons for the dismissal of the indictment. It could be, I Can remember defendant has died. That was one defendant is being prosecuted by a different jurisdiction. Like the state came in and said, we'd really like to take this case. Do you mind standing down? That might be one. A witness has died. That might be a reason. A motion to suppress all of the evidence in this case has been granted and we no longer have evidence sufficient to prove the case. That might be a reason. But the judge got to decide. Now, we never had anything controversial like this where the judge disagreed. But I think Judge. It's Dale Ho. Is the judge here? I think the judge would be fully within his rights to have a hearing before deciding this motion. Like, let's bring in email Beauvais and ask him what this is all about, why on earth they're dismissing this case, and why he thinks it's okay to do this for political reasons outside the merits of the case. Let's get him under oath to answer some of those questions. Because I agree with you, Jill. At the end of the day, I don't think as a matter of separation of powers, the court can insist that the prosecutor prosecute this case. They have prosecutorial discretion. They have the ability to decide whether to go forward. But the judge can make sure there's no improper purpose here. So I'd like to see Judge Dale Ho. If you're hearing, if you're listening, I'd really like to see a hearing take place in this case.

[Barb McQuaid]

You know, you said something really important, which is the grand jury has an official role, and you can't just ignore their decision. They heard the evidence. They made a decision, and you can't just ignore it.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

There were two in this case. There was gonna be a superseding. There were two separate grand juries.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So can I just add one thing, though? Cause I think you guys are so dead on the money and so smart about what you say, and something I think we are gonna have to get used to is that the cavalry isn't coming. Right. I mean, Judge Ho is a super smart lawyer and an institutionalist and someone who I think will get whatever mileage is appropriate out of the rules, but he's not going to break the law to enforce the law. You know, that's just not going to happen. And the real pushback against this administration's overreach is going to have to come from Congress. If that sleeping giant can be awakened to their responsibility, and in the event they can't be, it's going to be up to us, the voters, like. Like it always is.

[Joyce Vance]

Right?

[Jill Wine Banks]

The cavalry is not coming, folks.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, I think, you know, tell your friends what an outrage this is. I mean, if public sentiment is what matters. Although, again, if the Senate Judiciary or House Judiciary Committee are listening, you should be conducting hearings as well about this, because this is highly irregular. Let me ask you guys just one last question. Kim, I'll start with you. And Eric Adams, obedient servant that he is, has wasted no time. Yesterday, he allowed ICE into the Rikers island jail. So you know what used to be off limits. Now he's opened the doors. What is that all about? Is this just what he was going to do anyway? Is this a business transaction? Is he obeying his commanders now? Is he just a pawn of President Trump?

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

He is proving himself to be a liar when he says there is no quid pro quo. He is dancing with the one who brung him. This is what he went down to Mar a Lago to talk to Trump about. And now, now we're seeing this.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah.

[Barb McQuaid]

Let me just point out it is a violation of New York City law. He's doing this in complete disregard for the law of Sanctuary city. So it seems to me that your phrase, is he just the puppet of Donald Trump? The answer is yes. He's just doing this as payback for being free.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I mean, he has an argument, right? There's an argument that there's an extension, exception to the city council sanctuary city enactment that he can use an executive order to get around. It's not a great argument, but it's an argument he can stand on. And I think what's really so troubling here, it's like the Trump administration has put a choke collar on the mayor of New York City, and he's now like a little yappy dog, right? Who only has a free range of motion for as long as they're willing to let him have it. I mean, Donald Trump is effectively the mayor of New York City.

[Barb McQuaid]

Gotta wonder what's gonna happen if Adams isn't re elected. They won't care about him. Cause he can't do anything good for them.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I used to get so frustrated with my skincare routine. I bet a lot of you know that feeling, right? Products that kept promising to fix lines, wrinkles and crepey skin, but rarely delivered any and certainly not lasting results. Luckily, today's sponsor, Oneskin, has changed everything. Oneskin's founding team of female scientists developed a whole new approach to skincare by starting at the cellular level. Their proprietary OSO1 peptide is the first peptide scientifically proven to reverse skin aging by Switching off the dysfunctional senescent cells that cause lines, wrinkles, and crepey. Skin. Skin. It's the perfect way to celebrate National Women Inventors Month this February.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

National Women Inventors Month. I didn't even know that was. That's good to know. That's good to know.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Is the government still letting us celebrate that one or is that one banned?

[Barb McQuaid]

It would be discriminatory, you know, so I don't think so.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, I'm glad you said, yeah, that's right.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Dei y'all are so woke. Anyway, you can try OS1 in all of One Skin's topical supplements. From their flagship facial moisturizers and their award winning eye cream to sunscreens that protect skin from UV damage and cellular aging. I really love that sunscreen. I know I say that every time, but it's really, it's really delightful. I use it every single day. Your skin is your body's biggest organ and it has the strongest link to visible signs of aging. With One Skin, you'll help your skin look, feel, and act like its younger self every time you use it. See for yourself. With 15% off using code SISTERSNESKINCO.

[Barb McQuaid]

You know, Kim, I never thought of my skin as an organ until there was an exhibit at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry. And it is the body's largest organ. So it deserves a lot of care. And I'm embarrassed to say this, but I love that I get compliments. Ever since I've started using One Skin. It is such a confidence booster. And One Skin is why I keep getting those compliments whether I'm in the wind or warming up next to the heater, which is ongoing full blast right now as we expect another winter storm. I use OneSkin's OS01 face topical supplement to fight back against dryness. Now my skin is ready for anything the elements throw at me. I especially love that Oneskin's regimen works fast and the formulas feel amazing when you apply them. They're so refreshing. I know that everyone listening is going to be a big fan too.

[Joyce Vance]

Founded and led by an all woman team of skin longevity scientists, Oneskin is redefining the aging process with their proprietary OS01 peptide, the first ingredient proven to help skin look, feel, and behave like its younger self. Get 15% off with the code sisters at OneSkin co. That's 15% off OneSkin co with Code Sisters. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Invest in the health and longevity of Your skin with Oneskin. Your future self will. Thank you. The link is in our show Notes.

[Barb McQuaid]

Remember our segment last week on Bondi's first 15 minutes as attorney general when she issued 14 memos? If you don't go back and listen to hear some of the ones we thought were the most damaging to justice. But pay attention right now because there's more bad news from what used to be the Department of Justice. I don't know about you all, but between Trump's executive orders and Bondi's moves, I am frightened about whether the rule of law in America will continue for very long. This makes Danielle Sassoon even more of a hero for standing up for the rules that should govern prosecutions. So, Barb, let's talk about this week. Attorney General Bondi did several noteworthy things. Let's start with the DOJ's filing charges against New York State Governor Kahokul Letitia James and the Department of Motor Vehicles head Mark Schroeder for prioritizing illegal aliens over US Citizens. She noted that they sued my state, Illinois, last week, which, by the way, just didn't get much coverage because there was such a fire hose of other bad things that nobody paid attention to Illinois getting sued. And she said, you know, Illinois was sued last week and you didn't listen. New York State and warning all you other states, if you don't listen, you're gonna get sued, too. So the laws are slightly different that they're challenging, but New York is charged in a 16 page indictment. And what are the charges?

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, charges is a funny term, isn't it, Jill? Because charges, I think connotes a criminal case. And this is a civil matter, as Pam Bondi well knows or should know. She was an Attorney General of the State of Florida. She should know better. But by calling it charges, I suppose it gets people's attention. It makes people think it's a crime when it's not.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

She wants Trump to imagine Letitia James in handcuffs. Not happening.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah.

[Joyce Vance]

So I found that misleading and therefore unprofessional. But if you look at this complaint, the only allegation is that it violates the Supremacy Clause, which is, you know, Supremacy Clause certainly says that the Constitution is the law of the land. But she's forgetting about the 10th Amendment. I thought Republicans were supposed to be states rights advocates. The 10th Amendment, of course, says powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. And so the idea that the Supremacy Clause means I win Everything is such an inane, wrong, foolish concept. You know, it's the kind of thing that probably sounds good to people who aren't lawyers. Well, we win, because Supremacy Clause. I win. No, that's not how it works. Now, immigration is a matter that is within the province of federal law. And so states cannot create their own immigration laws. For example, as Joyce well knows from the great work she did in Alabama, when the state of Alabama tried to supersede federal law. You can't create your own law in this space. There's certain spaces that the federal law occupies, like currency, and immigration is one of those. But similarly, the federal government cannot commandeer state law enforcement to do its work. And so when people talk about sanctuary cities, it isn't like we're hiding all of the undocumented immigrants in the basement. It is. We're not going to be your deputies. We're not going to go out and round up undocumented people because we got our own stuff to do here. We're busy enforcing the laws, and we don't have to be your servants in this. Now, they can't obstruct those efforts. That's absolutely right. So once this case gets into court, I don't know if there are facts to suggest that the state of New York is somehow actively obstructing federal immigration efforts. But these allegations are just about the Supremacy Clause. Say we get to be the boss of you, and that's just not how the Constitution works.

[Barb McQuaid]

So as important as what was in the complaint or charges, as Pam Bondi calls them, noticeably absents, are anything against Mayor Adams and New York City, it's all New York State. So any chance, Joyce, that it's related to the deal that we just discussed about Mayor Adams indictment being dismissed in exchange for letting the feds into Rikers? And also, how does this fit into the conflict with the feds pulling $80 million out of new York's account without prior warning, money that was appropriated by Congress to house migrants. So is that part legal? And is this all part of this corruption at the Department of Justice?

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah. You know, I was listening to the first part of the question, Jill, where you were, you know, saying, do you think this has anything to do with Adam's Dion? Gee, what do you think? It really.

[Barb McQuaid]

It seems a leading question.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I would say it's disgustingly transparent. And what that says to me is that they know that no one can miss what's happening here. This is a classic carrot and a stick, right? If you are a good boy, if you line up and go on Fox News and act all smiley faced. When Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, tries to make it clear that you are dancing to his tune, then you don't get named in the civil suit alongside your governor. But if you're bad, if you don't do what you're supposed to do, we're going to take your money away and make the city suffer. I mean, this is just so autocratic. You know, this is, I think, one of the signs that's really dangerous here. This is a week where I think we have to be frank and candid. I mean, we used to joke about being out on the ledge. I'm not on the ledge here. I'm on firm ground. And the firm ground says that we are in a very, very dangerous place. And this is a great example of it.

[Barb McQuaid]

You know, you had one of your substacks said, let's call it what it is, it's a coup. And I agree with you. We have to start using words that really reflect what's going on. This is a takedown of all of our rules of government. And it's disgusting. Okay, so, Kim, in announcing this case against New York State, Bondi said, this is a new Department of Justice. And she said it in a way, do you think she meant it as a dig at Garland? And we've all been critical of Garland. But do you think DOJ under Bondi is dangerously political and responsive to the president?

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Yeah, I don't know if she was trolling Garland specifically, but I do know that she was messaging to the president. All this was a message to the president saying that she filed charges. And, you know, it is an indictment. I think she means it in like the, you know, the textbook definition is that she's indicting. Yeah, it's a lawsuit, girl. Like, calm down. But I think all of it is a message to Donald Trump, who believes that the doj, in the charges that were brought against him and January six rioters and everybody else who supports him was politicized, that it was deep state, that it was political then. And also everything he does is a projection. Everything he does is intent to what he's going to do in the future. And now he's politicizing the doj. And that is Pam Bondi standing up and saying, yes, sir, right away. So I think that was what she was messaging. I don't even think you needed Garland to be trolled in this sense. She too is dancing with the one who brung her.

[Barb McQuaid]

So, you know, it also struck me that that press conference was, I would say, unusually political. And she had someone else testifying, basically an angel mom, which honestly was not a phrase I had ever heard before, but apparently means the mother of a child killed by a. I guess in this case by a person who was undocumented and here. So. But do you think this was unusually political? It's not what we expect from the Attorney General.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Yeah, absolutely. And look, I'm not going to say anything about this poor mother and the grief that she has been put through at all. But what I will say about Pam Bondi is using people as props, especially in this political way, is just gobsmackingly wrong. It's just wrong.

[Barb McQuaid]

So, Joyce, I want to move to another prosecution change, one that is pretty dramatic because it basically takes away the enforcement of a law passed by Congress, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. So I want to ask you a series of questions, but first, can you tell us what the FCPA is?

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah, sure. So the Foreign Corrupt Practices act is of long standing vintage. It's a 1977 act. It prohibits bribing foreign officials to gain business advantages. And that can be everything from businesses going overseas, academics going overseas, people trying to live overseas. You don't get to bribe foreign officials in order to gain a business advantage. And DOJ has routinely prosecuted American citizens and American businesses for violating the act.

[Barb McQuaid]

And so, okay, on day one, one of the 14 memos that Bondi issued was about the FCPA. But this week, Trump issued an executive order amplifying Bondi's memo. What did her memo say and what does the executive order say so that we understand what's at risk here?

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah. So what they add up to, taken together, is that we should, shouldn't expect any prosecutions in this area. This is a low priority. I mean, Jill, you know, this administration has low hanging fruit, misdemeanor immigration violations to prosecute, and why should they waste time on stuff like foreign corruption and bribery? But I think very much when you read what's going on here, what it adds up to is just sort of this green light to go ahead and engage in bribery, which I think we're in the process of watching bribery sort of transform from being a crime to being a legitimate business practice. We see what's going on with Eric Adams, who was accused of accepting bribes from Turkish officials. Rod Blagojevich, the Illinois governor. Right. Who tried to sell Barack Obama Serbia. You know, it's like bribery is the new normal. That's Donald Trump's message to America and also in foreign countries for Americans doing business there.

[Barb McQuaid]

So, Kim, I want to ask you, because this is one of those laws that's really important, that people don't really understand what the arguments for having it are or what the arguments being made against it are. And I just want to say that I am very proud to have worked for Motorola, one of the most ethical companies you could ever imagine. They really followed the letter of the law. And I was doing business in Russia and in Ukraine where bribery was expected and Motorola was absolutely clear that we won the business based on our skills and our product. We would not in any way compromise. So what are the arguments for why we have an FCPA and what are the arguments against?

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Well, that is exactly why we don't want to encourage any country to believe, okay, you want us to do business with you American company. What's in it for us? What can we expect and what can we give you in order to grease those wheels? That is disallowed. And that for all the reasons that we've been saying, not having bribery as a part of American foreign contracting is super important. Remember, there was a time that we had a federal government that understood the danger of emoluments. And that also applies in the private sector too. You don't want that. And it's not just holding American companies accountable and making sure that they act fairly, especially as American companies and protecting our reputation. If we have strong anti corruption and anti bribery rules governing foreign transactions, that also encourages other democratic countries to do the same because they are not at a disadvantage of doing that, knowing that America has set that standard. Once America erodes that standard, it makes it harder for these other companies to keep competing with Americans when they know that they can have bribery greasing the wheels for their contracts and might edge them out. And so that erodes the rule of law worldwide. Right. That encourages bribery and corruption all over the globe. It's a domino effect. So it's incredibly important to have this law in place. Yes. Businesses are like, oh, it's unfair. We can't compete with the corrupt countries that you know, for which bribery is fine. I say, too bad, so sad. America has been doing just fine with these protections in place.

[Barb McQuaid]

And doesn't it also mean that it discourages other companies, other countries trying to bribe us to get our contracts where you might end up with some corrupt country paying us to produce planes that crash terrible and nuclear energy that that.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Is gonna get cutting corners contaminated, doing all things with safety and quality peril. It's really an important law.

[Barb McQuaid]

It really does protect us but okay, so, Barb, there are still two other bonding actions this week that we have to cover and they fall into your area of expertise, which is, of course, national security mis and disinformation. But this one's national security. One prohibits foreign contributions to elections, and the other one is known as fara, which requires registration of foreign agents or agents of foreign governments. And we've had some prosecutions of Trump people, Manafort and Thomas Barack and Elliot Broidy. And so what is going on here? Why does he want prosecution limited for these kinds of cases? And what should we do about it?

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, well, I can only speculate as to the motives, but the Foreign Agent Registrations act is a statute that just says if you're acting at the direction and control of some foreign government or some foreign person, you have to disclose that with the Attorney General. So you may recall that before the Michael Flynn case fell apart, we were talking about that earlier. He was actually prepared to plead guilty to false statements, but in his factual basis, he was going to admit that he had written an op ed on behalf of the government of Turkey and got paid to do it, but didn't disclose that. And so he made it look like, yeah, I'm a former US General and here's what I think. And in fact, he was writing because he got paid by the government of Turkey to do that. So it doesn't even say you can't act as an agent of a foreign government. It just says if you do, you have to disclose it by registering with the Department of Justice so that people realize what you're all about. You know, Paul Manafort made a lot of money working for Russian backed politicians before he came to work for the Trump campaign. And he made a lot of money doing that. And so, so if you wanna do those things, it's fine, but we just wanna know who's paying your bills so that we know where your loyalties lie and we understand what might be motivating you. And then the other thing is this disbanding of the Foreign Influence Task Force. This was an effort to understand whether there is foreign influence, foreign money coming into our elections. Because again, Rod Rosenstein, who was certainly no deep state liberal, he was an appointee of George W. Bush and he was the Deputy Attorney General during the first Trump administration. And it was he who appointed the special counsel to investigate connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. And what he often said is, remember, Russia's goal is not to help Donald Trump or a political opponent. Russia's goal is to help Russia and so if there is money coming into our political campaigns or into the political process, that is suspect and is likely to be against the national security interests of the United States. And so both of these things, I think are very troubling changes.

[Barb McQuaid]

It's, you know, this is a sad state of affairs where bribery is okay, Foreign contributions, okay? I mean, if they're not going to be prosecuted, this is a message saying, whatever country you're from, come on, pay me, pay me, I'll take it. And then we don't know what the actions of our government officials are based on. Is it based on bribery, Is it based on foreign contributions, or is it based on their real beliefs? We're in a bad way.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

You know, guys, I am notorious for taking tons of photos. Whether I'm on vacation, whether they're pictures of snickers and then just not organizing them or just, you know, leaving them on my phone, I forget about them. But you know what has helped me stop doing that and really enjoy the photos that I've taken? Aura frames. They are so great. I not only love mine, but but I've been buying them as gifts to other family members to preload. I think most recently my father in law, we gave one to him that he can enjoy and we filled him with all kinds of pictures of everyone for the family. It is such a great product. Aura makes unique and stylish digital picture frames that make displaying and sharing your favorite memories easy and fun. They've been named the number one digital frame by Wirecutter for a reason. Their frame options look fantastic and the setup is quick and simple.

[Joyce Vance]

So I have an aura frame and it's now my go to gift for people. But we have one in our living room and I change it every month with old photos of our kids from whatever month it is. So like right now we've got a lot of old photos from February over the years. And my husband, who is like the least sentimental person in the world, says, I can't tell you how it warms my heart every time I walk into the room and I see a new picture of our kids from many years ago. And I remember that moment and it makes me so happy. So everybody can find some joy in aura frames. Most gifts get a big fuss when they're opened and are never looked at again. But that's not the case with aura frames. When you gift someone an aura frame, you are giving the recipient an amazing way to feel connected to the people they care about and remind them of the great times that mean the most when my children off to college and out in the world, giving them an aura frame has been the perfect way to keep them connected to the incredible times we shared while they were growing up. Plus, you can always add more photos, even remotely, because there will be many more memories to come.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah, so I think your kids are more sentimental than mine are. Mine would start cracking up if I tried to send everybody an aura frame with family members. But my mom had one that she loved and I adore mine. I'm like your husband, Barb. I love seeing pictures of the kids from all across the times. And, you know, Bob and I, we love our dogs and our cats and our chickens a lot. So in some months, we have more pictures of our pets than our kids. I hope my kids aren't listening right now and hearing that, but everything about it just makes me super happy. I mean, the truth is, no matter what role someone or some animal has in your life, everyone loves an aura frame. Don't let your favorite shared moments get forgotten. Every time the photos in the frame catch your eye, it really is a warm and a wonderful moment to remember. You know, it's just that moment of happiness when you walk into the kitchen, you see the frame and you go, I remember when that happened.

[Barb McQuaid]

Boy, I really want to get organized and get my pictures in a frame like this. The best part is that it comes with unlimited storage. All you need is the free Aura app and a WI fi connection for you to upload as many photos and videos as you want all year round. Right now, you can save on the perfect gift that keeps on giving by visiting auraframes.com for a limited time. Listeners can get $20 off their best selling Carver Mat frame with code sisters. That's auraframes.com promo code sisters. Please support the show by mentioning us at checkout. Terms and conditions apply. And you can, of course, find the link in our show notes.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, I was prepared to do a topic with y'all today about what's going on with the Associated Press, but, you know, I'm not sure if we need to do it because as we started to tee it up, Jill says, oh, the topic is, do we still have a free press? The answer is no. And not to be glib or unserious about it, but things are happening so quickly, bad things on so many different fronts, that I think the temptation is to sort of be like that. But instead, y'all, we're going to be measured and we're going to talk about this like the lawyers that we are. I think The First Amendment. And free press is a really important topic to all of us. And so let's see if we can figure out what's going on. I'll start with a question for our listeners. And I know my neighbor Mary, if you're listening, I know you know the answer, so don't tell anybody. But here's the question. Have you ever been to the Pink Pony Pub or the Florida, two of the greatest beach bars in Alabama? Have any of y'all ever been?

[Joyce Vance]

No, I'm sorry to say, no.

[Jill Wine Banks]

They're great bars. Bob and I almost got engaged in the Pink Pony, but we, we waited a little bit longer. But here's the deal. If you go to either one of those places, you're going to put the name into your navigation system and drive down there. And in your nav system, there's going to be this big, huge body of water that's going to emerge because they're both on the beach. They are on the Gulf of Mexico. But as of this week, Donald Trump changed that. And platforms like Google have caved in to Donald Trump's toddler whims, and now they're labeling the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. And I'm sure y'all have heard that by now. That's been one of, you know, the last couple of weeks, bright, shiny objects. But what you may not have heard about is how the Trump administration is using his weird whim to erode the freedom of the press. So, Jill, why don't we start there? Why don't you tell us about the facts and what happened between the White House Press office and the Associated Press this week.

[Barb McQuaid]

So I'll make this as short an answer because it really doesn't deserve the attention it's getting. Donald Trump took his Magic Marker and changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico, which it has been called for over 400 years, and said it's now the Gulf of America. Sort of like he changed the path of a hurricane because he didn't want consequences that were going to happen.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Also on the Gulf of Mexico, also.

[Barb McQuaid]

On the Gulf of Mexico, we'll probably be barred because we're calling it the Gulf of Mexico. So here's the thing. The ap, which has, by the way, millions of listeners, it's quite amazing how they have 100 million page views per month and 47 million unique views. And it's existed, by the way, it was founded in 1846. So it is really a mainstream source of news. And almost every single local newspaper relies on AP stories, because they have reporters around the country and they said, you know, it doesn't seem to us that the President of the United States can just willy nilly change the names of countries. He can't rename Canada as the state of whatever he wants to call it and make it part of the United States and redraw our boundaries. That's not how our geography works. And so basically what's happened is Donald Trump is mad at them because they won't call it the Gulf of America. They keep referring to it in stories as the Gulf of Mexico. And so he has barred them from the White House Press Office, from the Oval Office events. And it started out with one event, and then it was two, and now it's continuing. And it's a warning to everybody else if you don't bend a knee to me and do what I say. And to me, this is a slippery slope.

[Jill Wine Banks]

So, I mean, you know, like you say, it really is pretty remarkable. I mean, we've seen the ap, they've been barred from covering the president, barred from participating in the pool, barred from Oval Office events, barred from the press conference with Prime Minister Modi. I mean, this is what media organizations have to do in order to do their jobs. And that I think is sort of disturbing and clearly intersects with the First Amendment. So, Barb, maybe you can talk about, you know, the First Amendment is complicated. There are four different guarantees. How does it intersect here? How should we understand what Trump is doing as violative of the First Amendment?

[Joyce Vance]

Although the First Amendment can be complicated, it is not here it is pretty plain, Right? Yeah. So the First Amendment prohibits the government from telling people what they can't say or forcing them to say other things. That is a violation of the First Amendment. Sometimes people get confused that private actors, you know, Twitter's violating my First Amendment rights by taking down my post. No, they're private actors. But when it's the government, and here it is, it is the White House, it is. The Oval Office is excluding, taking retaliatory negative action against the Associated Press for what they are saying, Gulf of Mexico and for what they're not saying, Gulf of America. So it is in my view, and also in the view of noted First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, who I read also shared this view. It's a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah. So, I mean, but maybe it is in theory, but we're just talking about the Gulf of Mexico. I mean, is it really all that significant? It's not the end of democracy. Or is it?

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Yeah. It is. The press is the only industry that gets express protection in the Bill of Rights for a reason. You need a free press for a strong democracy to thrive. And we have heard Donald Trump tell them the enemy of the people from Jump, because they are. We are exposing and showing and telling the truth about what he's doing. And that's the biggest. That's a threat to him. That's a threat to the authoritarian kind of government that he is trying to run. And so of course he's gonna suppress the press. So did Nazis. So did anybody who. Any leader that is not interested in democracy is doing. So we need to see what it is. This is so. Anybody who has read 1984, okay, could see everything that's happening. This purging of certain newspeak. Yes, it is newspeak. This purging of certain words from the government that you can't even say, which is making things not make any sense. The calling the press the enemy of the people as opposed to the Fourth Estate, which is meant to keep the government honest, among other things. All of this, it's so patently and clear, the fact that news organizations have to worry so much about protecting themselves in this moment that we are taking time to make sure that we are in a safe space as we do our job, clearly without fear or favor continuing to do that. But there is also this element of fear of who knows if we'll be sued, who knows if we'll be prosecuted. I don't think since, I mean, in my 20 plus years in journalism, not since the anthrax attacks, was there this sense of the need to protect oneself as a journalist in this way in America. And I think this is. Even in a way, this is worse because at least with those, you put on gloves before you opened a package or a envelope, you don't know where the attacks are coming from. So, yeah, it's a really dire time for journalism in terms of how the government is treating it. But that, that's the point with Donald Trump.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Is the free press gonna survive? Donald Trump? What do y'all think?

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

I will die trying.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Barb, what do you think?

[Joyce Vance]

Kim's gonna die trying.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Okay, Jill, are you gonna make it three?

[Barb McQuaid]

Absolutely.

[Jill Wine Banks]

No. @ least we still have our senses of humor. Thank God.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Hey there. I'm Kimberly Atkinstore. With the new administration, a lot will be changing and it's a lot for us to learn about. If you want to learn about the 14th Amendment and what that means for things like birthright citizenship, please listen to my podcast, justice by Design. The link is in the Show Notes. And this week and every week, we are breaking down solutions and answering questions that you may have about how the world works in 2025 and beyond. You can find it wherever you get your podcast and it's linked in the Show Notes. And now is our favorite part of the show. Audience questions. Our listeners always give us the best questions. Keep them coming. You can email them to sisters in law politicon.com or tag us on social media using hashtag Sisters in Law, or tagging us individually or collectively. Keep an eye on our feed. We answer as many as we can. I have to be honest, it's been such a busy week. I haven't answered as many on socials as I usually do, but I'll try to get better at that. So our first question is from Dorian, who asks, can judges decide on their own to block an executive order, or do they have to wait for someone to bring a suit against the executive order? Barb, what do you think?

[Joyce Vance]

Oh, you know, Dorian, I'm so glad you asked this question. It reminds me a lot of a question I was asked on my very first day of law school. You know, I came in knowing nothing about the law, and the professor, it was constitutional law, asked me, Ms. McQuaid, now how is it that a case gets before the Supreme Court? I don't know. That's what I'm here for, to learn from you. I don't know. But alas, I did learn, Dorian, and the answer to your question is no. Courts really have to wait for people to come to them. They don't get to initiate lawsuits. The Constitution says they can only decide cases and controversies. And so that means some other party has to challenge an executive order through a lawsuit to be able to tee it up for the court. Now, we have seen that by a lot of different interested parties. And of course, a party has to have standing, meaning skin, in the game that I could be harmed by this executive order. So in some of these instances, we've got like the association of FBI agents has brought a lawsuit. The attorneys general of states on behalf of their state governments or their citizens have brought some of these lawsuits. But there has to be an actual case or controversy. The courts have to wait for those lawsuits to be filed.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

That is a great question. Our next question comes from Tony in San Jose, California, who asks, are illegal and unconstitutional the same thing? Huh? And if not, might the Supreme Court's grant of presidential immunity apply to the former but not the latter? Jill?

[Barb McQuaid]

I love this question, Tony. And San Jose. It made me do the same thing you did. Which is. Huh, That's a good question. And of course, illegal means that it violates a statute, a law that's been passed by some legislative body, your state legislature, or by the US Congress. And unconstitutional means that it violates something in the Constitution. So if it does that, you could break a law, but it wouldn't be violating the Constitution. I mean, if you're speeding, you're violating the law, but has nothing to do with the Constitution. On the other hand, you could break a law that is unconstitutional. And if that happened, then your act would no longer be illegal. But, you know, let's look at what's unconstitutional. And I want to also relate it to impeachment, because something that's illegal is not always unconstitutional. But unconstitutional would be, for example, if you violate the Fourth Amendment, if government goes ahead and does a warrantless search, or if they pass a law, if Congress passes a law that's beyond the authority that they have, or violate any other right, the First Amendment. We've been talking about the First Amendment rights, and the government can't do that. So one of the interesting things is when you mention this about the immunity decision. The immunity decision applies to the duties of the president as enumerated in the Constitution. So it would have to be for immunity, something that violates his responsibilities, his core responsibilities under the Constitution. And it also seemed to me that it relates a little to impeachment, not just to immunity, because you impeach for a high crime or misdemeanor, which is very undefined. But certainly anything that violated the Constitution would be an impeachable offense. So we have illegal, unconstitutional and impeachable. And I thought it was a really good question. So thank you. Thank you.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

And our final question comes from Tasia. I hope I'm saying that correctly. Apologies if I'm not. Who asks? I'm seeing a narrative on Twitter that Doge is the same as the Office of Digital Services, which was put in place by the Obama administration and that Trump simply renamed it. Is there anything to this, Joyce, before you answer to that, I use a lot of read aloud apps to read news stories to me. Like, you know, if I'm multitasking or if I'm on a walk with Snickers. And one of them that I listen to always calls it doggy. And I imagine like, do you remember like back in the day when we had PCs on our desks and there was a screensaver that was like this dog, like eating up the eating up the screen. So every time it's like. And the doggy actions, I'm like, that dog is in. Is in the Treasury Department just eating stuff up. Anyway, every time I see it now, I see doggy. But please answer Tasia's very good question.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, look, Tasia, I think this is a great question. This was something that I had noticed on Inauguration Day because Trump issued an executive order that day, one of the many, and it was called Establishing and Implementing the President's Department of Government Efficiency, or doge. So, as you point out, it's a reorganization of an entity in the Executive office of the president, the U.S. digital Service. And I suppose Elon Musk. Musk thinks it's clever to use doge, the name that comes from cryptocurrency, and to use that here. The interesting part of your question that intrigues me is that it's not clear that all of doge's activity is contained within this legitimate government agency. They seem to be doing a lot of stuff that goes beyond the scope of that office. And that's what all of the litigation that we're seeing over, whether DOGE is exceeding the power that the executive, the president, can legitimately wield, whether they're exceeding that. I think that litigation will end up answering your question. You know, is this just an innocuous agency that's within the White House structure, or is it something else?

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Barb McQuaid, Jo Wyman Banks, and me, Kimberly Atkinstore. Don't forget to check out our [e-mail] merch and also do us a favor and show some love to our sponsors, Blueland, OneSkin and Aura Frames. It's because of them that we are able to bring this podcast to you. So that would mean a lot to us if you support them. Join us next week for another episode of Sisters in Law, y'all. Now I'm scared. Should I. I'm trying to see if there's a gift I can hurry up and make for Greg before he gets home. I have, like, an hour and 20 minutes.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, what do you think? What do you think he has?

[Joyce Vance]

Everything's terrible.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

He's terrible to shop for. That's part of the. He's gonna come home with flowers, too, and I'm gonna. You know what? It's gonna make me mad. I'm gonna be mad.

[Barb McQuaid]

Go and bake one of Joyce's recipes for.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Do you want me to send you the recipe?

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

You know, I'm gonna. I'M gonna run out to the store, y'all. I gotta go. All right. See y'all next week.

[Jill Wine Banks]

We'll see.