238: Pardons For The Rich & The Famous

Summary

#SistersInLaw - Episode 238: Pardons For The Rich & The Famous Released May 31, 2025

Hosts: Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuaid, and Kimberly Atkins Stohr

---

Introduction

In Episode 238 of #SistersInLaw, the Politicon team delves deep into the recent surge of presidential pardons issued by former President Donald Trump, scrutinizes a contentious provision in the current funding bill affecting court contempt orders, and examines critical lawsuits between Harvard University and the Trump administration. Throughout the episode, the hosts provide expert analysis, share personal insights, and highlight the broader implications of these developments on politics, law, and academia.

---

1. Trump's Pardons: Favoritism or Political Strategy?

Timestamp: 07:07 - 19:54

The episode opens with a critical discussion on the flurry of pardons and commutations granted by Donald Trump, focusing on high-profile individuals such as a bribe-taking sheriff, an embezzling nursing home executive, and reality TV personalities. The hosts question the motivations behind these pardons, suggesting they may be tools for political favoritism rather than acts of justice.

Notable Quotes:

• Jill Wine-Banks (07:07): "There isn't a difference between the power attorney and the devil."
• Barb McQuaid (11:23): "When everything's a transaction, there's always a deal to be made."
• Kimberly Atkins Stohr (17:58): "It's just white collar crime. Everybody does it."

Key Points:

• Ed Martin's Role: The new pardon attorney, Ed Martin, is criticized for his lack of experience and perceived loyalty to Trump. The hosts argue that his appointment marks a shift from the pardoning process as a tool for justice to a political lever for the administration.

• Case Studies:

  • Paul Walczyk: A nursing home executive pardoned after significant donations to Trump's fundraising efforts.
  • Larry Hoover: A former Chicago gang member pardoned following a publicized meeting in the Oval Office where Kanye West advocated for his release.

• Implications: The hosts express concern that these pardons undermine the integrity of the clemency power, erode public trust in the justice system, and perpetuate a culture of favoritism towards the wealthy and connected.

---

2. Controversial Provision in the Funding Bill: Undermining Judicial Authority

Timestamp: 27:05 - 36:54

The discussion shifts to a pivotal provision in the current funding bill that impacts Rule 65C of civil procedure. This rule typically requires plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders to post a bond, ensuring that the defendant will be compensated if the court's order is later found unjustified.

Notable Quotes:

• Joyce Vance (29:16): "It's a way to encourage plaintiffs to only come forward if they are ready to put some skin in the game."
• Jill Wine-Banks (31:53): "This is a way of killing the cases, period."

Key Points:

• Retroactive Application: The bill seeks to retroactively apply Rule 65C, making it financially burdensome for individuals and organizations to challenge government actions without substantial financial backing.

• Impact on Civil Rights Litigation: By imposing these financial barriers, the provision could stifle lawsuits aimed at curbing governmental overreach, particularly in areas like civil rights enforcement.

• Strategic Timing: The hosts suggest that the provision is a deliberate move by the Trump administration to impede legal challenges against its policies, thereby weakening the judiciary's ability to check executive power.

• Potential Consequences: This measure could lead to a chilling effect on legal actions against the government, limiting accountability and undermining the balance of powers established by the Constitution.

---

3. Harvard Under Siege: Academic Freedom vs. Presidential Power

Timestamp: 41:40 - 58:18

The final segment of the episode examines the Trump administration's legal confrontations with Harvard University. Two significant lawsuits are highlighted:

1. Revocation of SEVP Certification:

   • Action: DHS revoked Harvard's certification, hindering its ability to accept international students.
   • Legal Challenge: Harvard secured a preliminary injunction, questioning the legality and motives behind the revocation.
   • Discussion: The hosts debate whether this action is a retaliation against Harvard's stance on issues like DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) programs and academic freedom.

2. Frozen Funding for Research:

   • Action: The administration froze funding for Harvard's medical and scientific research.
   • Legal Challenge: Harvard alleges violations of First Amendment rights and arbitrary governmental interference.
   • Implications: Successful litigation could cripple vital research programs, delaying breakthroughs in areas like cancer and Alzheimer's research.

Notable Quotes:

• Barb McQuaid (46:09): "If the President and the administration get to control who they hire, who they admit, what they teach, then we have violated that fixed north star in our constitutional constellation."
• Kimberly Atkins Stohr (49:11): "Trump wants to make Harvard pay for something. And that costs us as a country long run."

Key Points:

• Academic Freedom: The legal battles underscore a clash between governmental authority and the autonomy of educational institutions to govern their own academic and administrative decisions.

• Strategic Targeting: By targeting Harvard, a prestigious and influential university, the administration aims to send a broader message against what it perceives as liberal or progressive ideologies within academia.

• Long-Term Impact: The potential success of these lawsuits could lead to diminished federal support for higher education, loss of academic autonomy, and a homogenization of viewpoints within universities across the nation.

• Broader Consequences: Beyond Harvard, similar actions could threaten other institutions, stifle academic innovation, and erode the foundational values of free inquiry and diverse thought in American education.

---

Conclusion

Episode 238 of #SistersInLaw offers a comprehensive analysis of recent political maneuvers by the Trump administration, highlighting concerns about the misuse of pardon powers, legislative attempts to weaken judicial checks, and assaults on academic freedom. The hosts underscore the potential erosion of institutional integrity, the rule of law, and the foundational principles that sustain democratic governance and educational excellence in the United States.

---

Notable Segment Highlights:

• Pardons Analysis (07:07): Examination of the nature and possible motivations behind Trump's pardons.

• Rule 65C Provision (29:16): Breakdown of the legislative changes and their legal ramifications.

• Harvard Lawsuits (41:40): Detailed discussion on the legal conflicts between Harvard and the administration, emphasizing the stakes involved for academia and research.

---

**Listeners are encouraged to engage with the hosts through sistersinlawpoliticon.com and stay informed on these critical issues shaping the political and legal landscape.

Transcript

[Barb McQuaid]

Foreign.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Kimberly Akinstor, Barb McQuaid and me, Jill Wine Banks. There is big news, guys. The new resistance mini tote is ready for pre order. And if you want to be a fashionista, you have to have a mini tote. I didn't know that until I got my mini tote and everybody said this is what everyone is using. And it also expresses your political views because it's resist for the Sisters Resistance and you will love it. Go to politicon.com merch to get yours now. Now let's get onto the show where we are going to be discussing a recent slew of pardons by Donald Trump, a recent attempt to stop courts from being able to issue contempt orders for violating any of their orders, and what's going on at Harvard and the lawsuits that are involving the Trump administration. But before we get to all that really important stuff, I want to talk about something equally important, which I am very excited about, and that is that Barb McQuaid's book is coming out in paperback on June 3rd and it's so exciting. And you can pre order it.

[Joyce Vance]

Now.

[Jill Wine Banks]

We've all posted on social media a link to buy her book in paperback and you will love it. It is so important. I was at a big event yesterday for the Smithsonian's new National Women's Museum and I was telling everybody there about it and people were I'm sending them the link and they are ordering your book, Barb. So I'm pre selling your book for you.

[Barb McQuaid]

No, thanks so much, Jill. Yeah. In fact, I'm excited. We'll put a link in the show notes to order the book if anybody doesn't have it yet. But I'll be in New York on Tuesday. In fact, I'm doing an event with Loretta lynch, the former attorney general of the United States and Joyce and my former colleague. She was the US Attorney in Brooklyn before she was the AG we're going to be in conversation at NYU on Tuesday evening. So if you're in the New York area, I hope you'll come out and join us. Admission is free, but you do have to register in advance. So I'll put a link to that in the show notes as well.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Okay. But wait, you're going to be with Loretta, but then you have an even more exciting date to talk about the book, don't you?

[Barb McQuaid]

I do. In fact, on June 23rd, I'm going to be a minute, only a minute, Joyce. I'm going to be in Birmingham, Alabama with Joyce to see if people can tell us apart. And we're going to have a great book back there at the Little Professor Bookshop in Birmingham. And I'm doing a swing all through the great state of Alabama. Birmingham on the 23rd, Montgomery on the 24th, and Mobile on the 25th. So I'm going to be Alabama through and through that week.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

You're going to be in three different countries for those trips.

[Barb McQuaid]

I can't wait. Thanks for doing it.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Did you know Fast Growing Trees is the biggest online nursery in the USA with thousands of different plants and over 2 million happy customers. They have all the plants your yard needs, whether it's a fruit tree, a privacy tree, flowering trees, shrubs, and so much more. For me, that's hosta and green velvet boxwood. But whatever plants you're interested in, Fast Growing Trees has you covered. Fast Growing Trees makes it easy to get your dream yard. Find the perfect fit for your own climate and space. Order online and get your plants delivered directly to your door in just a few days without ever leaving home.

[Joyce Vance]

Their alive and thrive guarantee ensures your plants arrive happy and healthy. Plus get support from trained plant experts on call to help you plan your landscape, choose the right plants, and learn how to care for them.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Fast growing trees offer 6,000 plants to provide the perfect choice for you. They've got everything from indoor plants to fruit trees, full size privacy trees, lots more. Just follow their 14 point quality checklist and Fast Growing Trees will help you care for each plant individually. Everything from watering routines to maintaining the correct sunlight exposure becomes easy. That means you'll be giving your plants the care they deserve the moment they ship to your home. And with so many different plants, the choice is yours. You know, the first tree that I got from Fast Growing Trees, long before they advertised on the podcast, was a Meyer lemon tree. And I have maintained that tree and added to it. I have a couple of them now over the years, but there is so many, so much more that I'm seeing right now that I want to buy y' all. It might be a gardening summer for me.

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, it's been three, four weeks since I planted my lilac shrubs that I got faster, yet I haven't killed them yet. I looked at them today and they seem to be thriving despite my best efforts. They look pretty good. I, you know, I'm, I'm an occasional waterer. I thought, oh man, I haven't watered those things in a while, I better get out there. But they look good. So I haven't managed to kill them just yet. But with fast growing trees. You can talk to a plant expert about your soil type, landscape design, how to take care of your plants and everything else you need. No green thumb required. I can attest to that. So don't wait. As spring goes into summer, they have the best deals for your yard with up to half off select plants and other deals. Listeners to our show get 15% off their first purchase when using the code Sisters at checkout that's an additional 15% [e-mail] using the code sisters at checkout again, that's fastgrowingtrees.com code sisters now is the perfect time to plant Use Sisters to save today. The offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. The link is in our show Notes. Well, pardon me sisters, but this week you see what I did there. This week we saw a new flurry of pardons and commutations by President Donald Trump. The list includes a bribe taking sheriff, an embezzling nursing home executive, and a couple who are reality TV personalities. And what is to explain this surge in pardons in May of the President's first term? Could it be the President's new pardon attorney? Perhaps it is. Remember Dana Carver used to do that thing as the church lady? Could it be maybe the devil? Is there a difference?

[Jill Wine Banks]

There isn't a difference between the power attorney and the devil.

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, let's get to the conversation. Joyce, tell us who is the President's brand new pardon attorney and what is his role in all of this?

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

The President's brand new pardon attorney is Eagle Ed Martin, the guy even Senate Republicans were unwilling to confirm to be the U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia and somebody who not for nothing has absolutely no experience with the pardon process. He is terminally unfit for this job. He's also the head of the weaponization task force. But it seems like he is more interested in weaponizing the Department of Justice than looking at problems. So the office of the Pardon Attorney is something that Barb and I actually both have some experience with because while we were federal prosecutors, there was a change in the sentencing rules for people convicted of possessing and trafficking in crack cocaine. And that led to a very healthy consideration of pardons for people who had previously been sentenced but weren't getting the benefit of these new laws passed by Congress. And that means that the pardon attorney in that office, which is pretty small, has interaction with all of the 94 U.S. attorney's offices across the country. They interact with the different divisions in main justice. It's a big job. It's not just like there's a pardon handed out here and there. And the Office of the Pardon Attorney assists the President in the exercise of the clemency power that's granted in the Constitution. It's an unrestricted pardon power. The President has the ability to do pardons, to offer sentence commutations and other forms of relief, and the pardon attorney and staff are responsible for helping the President administer that process consistent with federal regulations. The devil actually is in the details on this sort of thing. So here's. Here's the problem, right? We've got a president who's issuing pardons via whimsical at best. Right? Whim at best. Maybe there's something else motivating him. In some of these cases, there's no longer anyone with institutional knowledge. They've fired the most recent pardon attorney, Liz Oyer, because she had the temerity to give advice about a case. And so now we've just got somebody who's a sycophant, not somebody who's an advisor or counselor to the President of the United States, who will encourage him to use the pardon power the way it's meant to be used for justice and mercy to. Now it's just another political tool in Donald Trump's wallet.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, I recall, Joyce, when I was U.S. attorney, we would get requests. There's been an application for a pardon from, you know, defendant. So. And so can you please provide us with the following information? And they would ask a lot of very specific questions. We would share information about that. Sometimes we supported it, sometimes we opposed it. It was ultimately the President's decision. But we would provide information that was requested. They would also reach out to the judge that handled the case and imposed the sentence to get their view about the person. So I can't imagine that Ed Martin's.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

I mean, can I just go back and say it is a very. It's an intensive process. It's the original prosecutor, the judge, the victim, U.S. probation. Sometimes they talk to community leaders, like mayors. This is. It's not a lightweight process. They're really trying to decide, you know, this is someone who's fair and square, convicted in almost all cases. The question is, did they deserve a second chance?

[Barb McQuaid]

And just to put a finer point on the point you're making about how now the pardon attorney is just one more political arm of the White House. Did you see what Ed Martin tweeted this week upon taking on the role of pardon attorney? No MAGA left behind. So what does that say if you're part of the team. You get a pardon and you get a pardon, and everybody gets a pardon as long as they are part of the team. Maga. Well, Kim, I mentioned, I want to talk about a couple of these cases. I mentioned that one of the recipients of the pardon was a nursing home executive. Can you tell us a little bit about his case and the circumstances surrounding his pardon?

[Joyce Vance]

Well, yeah, so this was a nursing home executive of some sort. His name is Paul Walczyk. And he was convicted, in fact, he entered a guilty plea, I think in the end for evading tens of millions of dollars in taxes. I mean, just being a total tax cheat. He had to serve some time in prison and he had to pay back, I think, a substantial amount. Not for some reason, it was not $10 million, but he had to pay back 44 million or something like that in restitution. But then all of a sudden began frequenting Mar a Lago and being very generous with fundraising donations there for Donald Trump's pack, you know, the one that can raise unlimited dough for him.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

So, like, we know where the rest of the $10 million went, right?

[Joyce Vance]

And so, and I think, in fact, Paul Walczyk had submitted right after the election, pardon requests. But they, you know, they, there was no action on them until after this fundraiser which took place a few weeks back. And all of a sudden now he's free. So, you know, again, church lady, how convenient.

[Jill Wine Banks]

How profitable for that family. They take 10, they pay a million to attend a dinner, they save themselves having to make restitution. Seems like it's a very good deal for them.

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, when everything's a transaction, there's always a deal to be made, right? Jill, you pointed out another one that was noteworthy out of Chicago, a former Chicago gang member. What do we know about him?

[Jill Wine Banks]

So why with everyone that Donald Trump could have pardoned, he pardoned drug kingpin and disciple gangster Larry Hoover is not really known, except that there was a meeting in the Oval Office at which Kanye west try to influence him to do that. He said, you should pardon this man. And that was said in front of Larry's lawyer. And it happened in the White House. So we don't know what happened, but we know it. The result is that he got pardoned.

[Barb McQuaid]

Pardons for the friends of the rich and famous. Joyce, let me ask you, do you see any through lines in these pardons? And anybody else who has a thought about this, what do we take away? And we've had Ed Martin on the job now for only a week or two. There's been 24 pardons since he took office. Are you seeing any through lines on who is receiving pardons?

[Joyce Vance]

You know, I thought of it like a bad, like an extra evil Monopoly game where, you know, one player gets elected, another one gets get out of jail free, but everybody else pays taxes. But then like it's like some kind of.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

It.

[Joyce Vance]

Of course, it's just a coincidence. How convenient that after President Trump was elected, his donors are getting pardons for, you know, because there's such important cases in crying out for clemency. Like what. What did we do when the Chrisleys were off the air for a year while they were in prison? Like we really needed the.

[Barb McQuaid]

You know, I never heard of the Chrisleys before. I missed the whole show. Keeping up with the Chrisleys or Chrisley Knows Best.

[Joyce Vance]

Yes, Chrisley knows. Yes, but it's basically the same thing. It might as well be called Keeping up with the Chrisley because it. Yes, but we need that back. We need that back for the culture, I guess. I don't know. I don't know. Of course it's because they're donors, in my opinion.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Such a coinky dink, right? Such a coinky dick. I mean, Barb, you asked about through lines, I think there are a lot of them. You know, Kim hits on the big one. But also, Donald Trump never saw a defendant in a public corruption case who he didn't want to give a pardon to, Rod Blagojevich in his first term. And just this week he has pardoned. I'm not sure if it's a pardon or a commutation, but Connecticut's former governor John Rowland, who was convicted on corruption charges. I think though, that there really is something darker to it. You know, Trump is unhinged from any accountability. Right. The Supreme Court says, saw to that. He's got this unrestricted pardon power. And for years the understanding was that one of the very few restrictions on the pardon power was a president couldn't take a bribe in exchange for a pardon. The pardon itself would still be good, but the people involved could be prosecuted. That's how we all thought the world worked until last term. The Supreme Court told us that that was not the case. And that means that we don't know and probably will never find out what's behind these transactions. You know, starting with the Chrisleys, their daughter becomes a big red hat MAGA type. She's all over doing the loyalty dance for Donald Trump and they get this pardon. And their crimes were serious. It wasn't garden variety, you know, White collar fraud, it was millions of dollars in tax fraud. They were serving serious sentences in excess of 10 years. You know, I think in some ways it's about loyalty. The January 6th defendants, Donald Trump is cementing people's loyalty to him using pardons that should be offensive to everyone who believes in law and order. And one of the most offensive ones is this sheriff in southwest Virginia. All of his co defendants, they're being sentenced or have been sentenced, going to prison for their crimes. He gets a break because political connections and someone whispered in the President's ear. So. So the question I think we have to ask right is what comes next? The New York Times is already reporting that there's a White House team in place that's focusing on what they characterized as clemency grants that underscore the President's own grievances. And that's. It's just nuts. I mean, I can't believe we're actually talking about this like normal people and that every Republican in the Senate has not just stood up and said, no, no, no, no, no, you can't do this or we will impeach you. But of course, that's not the world that we live in.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, I think, you know, I see a couple through lines, including the ones that you've mentioned. So as Kim said, you know, the naked. If you give me a big donation.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

You'Ll get a reward.

[Barb McQuaid]

There's certainly that appearance. And then Joyce, this comment about normalizing corruption, I think that's a big part of it too, that bribery and fraud and tax cheating and those kinds of things. Those people get pardons because those aren't real crimes. And so.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Well, it's just white collar crime.

[Barb McQuaid]

Everybody does it.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah.

[Barb McQuaid]

You know, it's also projection violence.

[Joyce Vance]

You know, he. What was he convicted for?

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Right, right. When he does it, it seems less serious because all these people have gotten pardons. I mean, violent crime.

[Joyce Vance]

But I think his projection, he now sees any prosecution of some corporate type for tax fraud or corruption or all the things that he's been charged with as inherently a political wrong. So they must be free. I think in his head.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Well, DOJ does not do that anymore. That's Pam Bondi's day one memos. Right. I mean, we're not doing.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, no more corruption.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

We're only making a really crime.

[Joyce Vance]

He actually, I mean, as wild to us the idea that the clemency power should be used to give folks like this a break on their sentences, you know, really, that they should be the last people getting it. I think in his mind, he does see them as oppressed, as, as politically targeted, and that he is doing some sort of, you know, righteous thing in his own mind based on who he is.

[Barb McQuaid]

I think you're giving him too much credit. Well, I think one of the things. I think one of the things we've seen is in many of these pardons, he says things like they were, you know, persecuted by the corrupt Biden doj. And then some of the people, in their gratitude to Donald Trump have said that, like I was a victim of Biden's corrupt DOJ and grateful to President Trump.

[Joyce Vance]

I think he believes it.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah. Who knows what that man believes? It's really hard to get in his head, but it's certainly part of the, part of the pattern. Well, Kim, what do you think about the consequences of these kinds of pardons? What could it have for the criminal justice system?

[Joyce Vance]

You know, I hope it's not too devastating. And I only say that because I think the clemency power has a long way to go to reach. It's already had a long way to go to reach its full potential, which is supposed to be giving people a second chance after they've paid their dues, which is supposed to be to reward repentance and also certainly in the worst of cases, to correct an injustice. And I don't think that that is at all at play here. But the problem was it really wasn't working to that end anyway. And so I'm not sure in a perfect world I'd be saying, well, it just diminishes this really important power. But just given the mess of re entry programs or lack thereof, and the racial inequities, and it's just. It wasn't working anyways. Well, actually, I don't think that it will do any damage to it. It's already pretty bad.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

You know, can I piggyback on that? Because I think Kim is pointing to something really important. I expected to spend, you know, the first five, ten years after I left the Justice Department working on criminal justice reform because we have a long way to go in our criminal justice system. It is in many ways badly broken. Unfair doesn't serve the purpose of rehabilitating people and making our communities safer like it could. And I mean, we know what the tools look like that would make it better. It's a matter of developing political will to put them in place. The pardon power is part of that pardon. Office was backed up. It was under resourced. There were really, I think, tens of thousands of petitions when Obama left office. We didn't get to all of them. We should have. And so something I really resent about Donald Trump, and I may have said this before, so I apologize for using you guys for therapy. I resent the fact that democracy is fighting for its life instead of us having a chance to fix these other things that would have made it even better. And, you know, I hope people will think about that. And when we vote in a year and a half now, and when we hopefully vote again in the next presidential election, we got some work to do in this country. We don't need to be playing Donald Trump's games anymore.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I want to add something to what Kim said that if I understood correctly, I'm not sure I agree because I think it has serious consequences that he is doing these pardons. And particularly in conjunction with Pam Bonding, having eliminated prosecutions for the same types of crimes, he's basically saying foreign corruption and fraud and tax evasion. Oh, those are all okay. And we aren't going to prosecute them. And if you got convicted of it, we're going to let you go. And I think that that is something that undoes the laws that Congress has passed, undoes the protections that we had from those laws, and that it is a serious consequence that he's doing this and sending a message, hey, it's okay. If you do it, I'll pardon you. It's okay.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, I mean, I don't disagree with anything you said, Jill. I just, what I'm saying is I think that was by and large the system anyway, like, people who, why is nobody from the financial crises in jail? Because there has always been protection for those kind of people in the criminal justice system that you know on that level and then you have on other levels what the criminal justice system's pardon and clemency power is supposed to do. It's not doing. So I don't disagree with a word you said. I just, I wish I could say, oh, it's going to be devastating to the system. System's already so broke, it's, it's barely going to be a ripple.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Well, I look forward to the future where we can do a whole episode talking about criminal justice reform and getting Congress, you know, getting damn Congress to amend its statute so federal prosecutors can prosecute these folks because oftentimes it's so difficult to prove intent that even when you have a strong belief that a white collar crime has been committed, you don't have that proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you would need to get a conviction. There's A lot of work that we could be doing to make all of this work better if we weren't fooling with this crazy guy.

[Barb McQuaid]

Got too much time playing defense.

[Joyce Vance]

You know, I didn't realize that the cat food most people rely on has questionable ingredients. What is up with that? That's why we are so glad. This podcast is sponsored by Smalls Smalls Cat food. Protein packed recipes are are made with preservative free ingredients you'd find in your fridge and it's delivered right to your door. That's why cats.com named Smalls their best overall cat food. And right now you can get 35% off plus an additional 50% off your first order. So just head to smalls.com and use our promo code Sisters for a limited time only.

[Barb McQuaid]

Have we become a stereotype by advertising for cat food? Just wondering.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Absolutely. Us and Taylor Swift.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah. Cat ladies. Well, Smalls was started back in 2017 by a couple of guys home cooking cat food in small batches for their friends. A few short years later, they've served millions of meals to cats across the usa. Plus, Smalls works with the Humane World for Animals, donating more than a million dollars worth of food through them to help cats. They even give you a chance to donate at checkout, whether you donate $5 for flea and tick medications or $7 for vaccines. But don't just listen to us. Small's customer Jennifer M. Said after every feeding he gets this burst of energy and starts running around the house and his fur is softer and more vibrant with higher contrast. Honestly, I wouldn't recommend anything else.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

So look, I have another review for you. Bob and I have four cats. Our cats love this stuff. They gobble it right up. And I'm going to overshare a little bit and connect to the fact I've got a freezer in our basement that doesn't store food, it stores my yarn because yarn is vulnerable to moths and so putting it in the freezer makes it safe. I don't let anybody put anything in my yarn freezer, but I have cleared out an entire shelf that I've got stuff for our dogs and our cats on. And I sort of laid in a stock of Smalls because we go through it at a pretty good clip. And I have a very demanding 18 year old Maine coon cat who got super pissed off at me about four weeks ago when we ran out and it was clear to me he did not want the kibble, he wanted the good stuff.

[Joyce Vance]

So what is this?

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

I mean, it's really Good Harry, bless his heart. You know, so that's way too much. But I say that because I want y' all to understand just how great this stuff is. And you can even add other cat favorites like amazing treats and snacks to your Smalls order for a total feline feast.

[Jill Wine Banks]

What are you waiting for? Give your cats the food they deserve for a limited time only. Because you are a sisters in law, a Sisters in law listener, you can get 35% off smalls plus an additional 50% off. That's really incredible. Your first order by using our code sisters, that's an additional 50% off. When you head to smalls.com and use promo code Sisters again, that's promo code Sisters for an additional 50% off your first order plus free [e-mail] and of course, the link is in our show notes.

[Joyce Vance]

You know, we rarely talk about things like budget bills in Congress on this podcast, but the funding bill currently being vetted by lawmakers, you know, the one Trump calls a big beautiful bill, has a very interesting provision. Quote, no court of the United States may enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued. The provision said. To put it more bluntly, it means that federal judges would not be able to enforce contempt orders against parties that fail flout their orders unless the other party has posted some money that they could lose. If they lose ultimate go on to lose the petition for the injunction. And here's the kicker. It gets better. It applies retroactively. So, Barb, I'm going to ask you to put your professor hat on. Let's begin with a little primer in civil procedure. That was one of my best grades in law school. Barb. I like. I like civil procedure. Thank you, Professor Bone. Professor Robert Bone. Like you. Anyway, what is rule 65C and how is it meant to operate?

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, I like civil procedure too. And criminal procedure and evidence. I liked all the rules based classes.

[Joyce Vance]

Yes, I'm a rules girl. Admin. I loved all that.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah. So it's a rule of civil procedure that says that when a court issues a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, it may do so only if the moving party, the plaintiff, gives security, you know, some amount of a promise, a bond in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongly enjoined or restrained. And then it creates an exception for the United States which is not required to give a security. So in other words, if A judge is going to issue a temporary restraining order to say, I'm going to block the construction company from using the wrecking ball to knock down your house, because you've shown me that you have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and that there would be irreparable harm. I'm going to make you. But it's going to cost them. You know, every day of delay, they had the machines there ready to go. It's going to cost some money. So I'm going to make you post a bond, a promise to pay, I don't know, $100,000, and maybe you got to put up 10% of that. That's to make sure that if, at the end of the day, you lose, the defendant will be made whole. And it also provides an incentive, I think, for a plaintiff to come before a court only if they're ready to put some skin in the game and gamble that they're going to be right on this in the end. So that's what the rule provides for. However, it is mostly honored in the breach. Most often, judges do not require such a bond, especially when the United States is the defendant, because the United States has, you know, deep pockets. It's the government. And I think that this rule is kind of exploiting that reality by making it retroactive. Right. I mean, a judge could start issuing these injunctions with a surety going forward, but there's nothing you can do about the ones that have already been entered that failed to comply with this rule, which is kind of norm.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, that would be crazy. I mean, and it's. It's worth noting that it's expressly exempted. The government is expressly exempted from Rule 65C. So people seeking. Because, I mean, that makes sense, right? If somebody wants to right a wrong that the government is doing, it seems against policy to be like, well, you got to pony up first before you do that. But that's what this provision seems to be doing. So, Jill, it seems to me that a certain president might have something to do with this provision in his big, beautiful bill. Am I right?

[Jill Wine Banks]

You are so right. He started this whole thing because he issued an executive order to require that that be the case. And it would make it prohibitively expensive to bring a case against the government. And the government doesn't have to put up any bond when it sues because it does not. Rule 65 exempts the federal government, so it would really change things. And he issued the order, and now this is what they're doing. They're going to make it law if they can. And think about all the civil rights cases to the extent that there is any civil rights enforcement anymore in this country. But you know, in the past civil rights cases and cases where real wrongs are being done, where people are being whisked away, kidnapped, disappeared, and how are they going to be able to afford to put up the money to bring that case to court? In effect, of course, they have been winning so that this would not ever come to pass, that they would have to pay, but they would have to pay in advance to be able to do this. And most of the people bringing the cases and most of the organizations bringing them are not for profits. They don't have the funding. They cannot do this. This is a way of killing the cases, period.

[Joyce Vance]

And that's such an important point, Jill, that this kills the cases before they start. I personally, I don't know by the language of the provision, but would it apply to like states, you know, like state attorneys general, would they have to pony up money for. Because they do a lot of litigation. Certainly a lot of the litigation is done through nonprofit organizations who they know cannot afford to do this. But don't forget where we're talking about these big cases where injunctions are sought. Injunctions are also sought in the government by individuals who have had their civil rights violated as well. And they certainly are not in a position to be able to pony up money. So this would, I think, this seems to me, in my opinion, based on this executive order which just so coincidentally seemed to come out at a time where Donald Trump and his administration are being hit left and right with injunctions and they want to stop that because they want their policies to go through that this is suddenly in, in his big beautiful bill. I, I just feel like that that is more than a coincidence. So, Joyce, talk more about the practical implications of this. You know, I mean, what should, do you think that this will be chilling the, the full throated effort that's been happening so far? And in trying to push back against these policies, is there enough money to fight with a, with a gamble that the money they pony up may or may not come back? Because there, yes, Trump by and large has been losing a lot of these fights, but some, some of the attempts, some of the temporary restraining orders have been overturned and some have been denied. So it still would be really costly.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Yeah, I mean, I think that there are serious reasons to be concerned about the impact of this measure if it passes. It's an anti Democratic measure designed to distort the balance of power right between the different branches of government. The way it's set up in the Constitution, if it goes into effect as written, it restricts the authority of federal courts to hold government officials in contempt when, when they violate court orders. And without that contempt power, it becomes a lot easier for the government just to violate court orders at will. And that would be one thing if this was happening in a vacuum. Given the context, it's hard to view this as anything other than a deliberate effort by the administration to get away with breaking the law. I think that's sort of period, end of story here. And it's probably why the Trump administration is playing for time in all these other cases. They walked into court this week in one case where they were supposed to be prepared to advise the judge about status, and they said, judge, we need another 30 days. They didn't give a reason, they just said that they needed it. Well, here's the reason. If the Senate doesn't reject this measure when it comes to them, expect lawsuits. Maybe the Supreme Court will decide to draw a line at expending presidential power so far that their own power as a branch of government becomes meaningless. You know, this group of conservative justices are sort of crazy. They believe in the unitary executive and the expansion of presidential power even, even when it constrains their own power. So I gotta say, it's tough to have confidence in them, but maybe when their own self interest is at stake, they'll finally draw a line in the sand for Donald.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Trump.

[Joyce Vance]

This episode of Sisters in Law is brought to you by fresh, delicious smelling and tasting croissants. That's right, this episode is brought to you by Wild Grain. And if you're not familiar with Wild grain, where have you been? It's the first baked from Frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, but pastries and pastas. Wild Grains boxes are fully customizable to your tastes and dietary restrictions. And there's some exciting news. In addition to their classic variety box, they recently launched a new gluten free box and a 100% vegan plant based box. Best of all, Wild grain takes the hassle out of baking since all the items bake from frozen in 25 minutes or less with no mess or cleanup. And I have to say, we are full wild grain participants in this household. The food is really, really good. And what's great about it being baked from frozen is if, you know, friends pop over or, you know, you want to do something easy for dinner, they're a great crowd pleaser, you know, so I Just can't say enough about it.

[Jill Wine Banks]

You know, Kim, when you said there's new stuff, have you tried the butter, which is my favorite of all?

[Joyce Vance]

And I want to eat that butter every day.

[Jill Wine Banks]

French butter. Fantastic.

[Barb McQuaid]

I'm eating it with a spoon right now.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Have you tried their pasta sauce, guys? They also now have a frozen pasta sauce that's really good. I tried their marinara. Very, very good because I love their pasta. The pasta is just. You can't go back to the boxed dried stuff after you've tried their pasta. No way. And it's amazing how fast wild grain goes from the box to our table. My husband and I enjoy many of the breads, pastas, and pastries, plus the butter and the pasta sauces. And so do my guests. They are impressed and surprised when I say it's baked from frozen, not homemade. And they often end up subscribing for wild grain themselves because they've loved it so much. It's perfect for delicious meals or snacks now or for outdoors if summer ever comes to Chicago. I'm not sure it's going to, but maybe, you know.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

So I'm the sister who likes to bake. I do a lot of our baking, but I am a convert to wild grain. It is absolutely fabulous. And I've been writing on Deadline the last couple of weeks. Our youngest son has taken over dinner making responsibilities. He's home from college. He turns out he's a great cook. He learned how to cook in college, but he's not a baker. And he's so grateful for wild grain. It means that we have really good fresh bread every night for dinner. I love watching the color and flavor come alive when the Bavarian pretzel buns are heating up. They are one of my favorites. The aroma of fresh bread and pastries coming out of the oven is incredible. I never have to call everyone when the food is ready because everyone, everyone smells it throughout the house and shows up for dinner on time. Wild grain items are delicious. Super high quality and a cinch to make. I guarantee those chocolate croissants will be a big hit.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, I've made those, Joyce and I like them. And tell me, what's the difference between a chocolate croissant and pain au chocolat? Which is fun to say. Are they the same thing?

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

I have absolutely no idea what the difference is.

[Jill Wine Banks]

No, I don't. I don't think so. I think that a croissant is always that flaky, crusty stuff that's so good. It's like a regular crust.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

It's that dough that's pulled right? You have to pull it and fold it back in on itself. And that's what's so impressive about Wild Grain, is that they do the dough right.

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, I don't know what to call it, but it is delicious. And so if you're ready to bring all your favorite carbs right to your doorstep, be sure to check out Wild Grain so you can begin building your own box of artisanal breads, pastas and pastries. For a limited time, Wildgrain is offering our listeners $30 off the first box, plus free croissants in every box when you go to wildgrain.com sisters to start your subscription. You heard me. Free croissants in every box and $30 off your first box when you go to wildgrain.com sisters that's wildgrain.com sisters or you can use promo code Sisters at checkout. Look for the link in our show notes.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Veritas, y' all. Only Donald Trump could do something that would convince Yale and Princeton alums to donate to Harvard, of all places. But I'm hearing a little bit of gossip that that's what's going on. Donald Trump has declared war on academia and some schools. Here's looking at you. Columbia Democrats have caved in in hopes of saving their endowments, but Harvard hasn't. They were, in fact, the first university to sue the administration, and they now have at least two lawsuits pending against the Trump administration. The second of those cases, they were in court on it on Thursday, and it was this amazing split screen where their students were graduating and applauding their president, who's become extremely popular in the wake of how he's handled this at the same time that the school was in court. Kim, can you talk about that case? I think about that as the second case. It was the second lawsuit that the university filed. Can you talk about where it stands and how it's impacting Harvard's student body?

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah.

[Joyce Vance]

So this action by the department Homeland Security, announced by Secretary Kristi Nane, revoked the certification that Harvard needs in order to accept international students in his in the program. It's called the sevp, the Student Educational Visa Program, I believe is what it stands for. But a US District judge said, oh, not so fast, and blocked that from going into effect, granting a preliminary injunction that will continue to allow international students and faculty to. It also also impacts them to be able to come here. And the lawsuit there is basically based on two things. One question is, is the government just revoking this student loan program for the right reasons. Is it under the law, does the government have any basis to revoke Harvard's participation in the program and whether, if they give a reason, that reason is pretextual? So that is what the courts will be deciding. I personally think that this is a pretty strong challenge given the first lawsuit that we're talking about, which I think bears heavily on the issue of pretext.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Yeah. I mean, it's so interesting. Right. Something that fascinates me about the Trump administration, not in a good way, is the fact that when under the Administrative Procedure act, they could get away with doing things that they want to do if they did it the right way. Back to you and Barb talking earlier about how much you guys are processing. They could actually do some of this stuff, but you have to jump through a bunch of hoops under the Administrative Procedure Act. They didn't do that here, and that really killed them. They were forced to send a letter to the Harvard plaintiffs just, I think, a couple of hours before they went into court, sort of conceding that. And it became a foregone conclusion.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, like, and it was a stupid thing. Like, all they had to do was first give a 30 day. Not all. I don't know all the ways they may have violated the apa, because they don't seem to always be following the rule of every procedure, but in this case, they gave Harvard 30 extra days to respond because that's one of the things that the APA requires. Like, they didn't do it in the first place. So they were just trying to keep the case from being kicked out completely on a technicality.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

You know how that. You know how that played out? Right. It's like what we were talking about with the pardons, the importance of institutional knowledge. Somebody went in and had to tell the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, hey, you know, we screwed up. We are going to lose if we don't do this. This is the gang that couldn't shoot straight. And if it wasn't so serious, it would be funny. The horrible thing, though, is that it impacts students, it impacts the lives of real people in just an unconscionable way. I mean, the cruelty is. Is the point, as it so often is with these folks. Okay, that's lawsuit number two, Barb. Lawsuit number one. It's the earlier case that relates back to Trump's early anti DEI pronoun. Can you talk about the specifics of that one? And how would it change the face of academia if Trump were to win?

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, so this was the case where the Trump administration froze funding from Harvard that is used for its medical research, scientific research. And Harvard filed a lawsuit alleging that that was a violation of their First Amendment rights of free speech, because of academic freedom, of free association, of the right to petition the government, also of its due process right under the Fifth Amendment. That they just did this arbitrarily without giving them any opportunity to work it out. And that it was, this is my favorite, ultra vires. That's a Latin term that means beyond the power. Like the president just can't do this. You can't just take this away. And you know, the reasons that were given is they wanted to audit the viewpoints of people on campus at Harvard and suggested that its DEI programs were illegal, that they objected to its hiring, its admissions and its teaching methods. And all of these things, of course, are protected by academic freedom. It's what makes Harvard, Harvard. It's what makes universities great. The ability to attract some of the best and brightest in the world and let them explore ideas. And I think if this were to succeed, this effort by Donald Trump, I think one, we could see an end to the kind of funding that we have relied upon for medical research, scientific research, as Harvard says in its lawsuit, life saving research. And I think that. And we could see if the strings are attached, that people will have to obey and say what the Trump administration wants them to say, hire only who the Trump administration wants them to hire, admit only the people the Trump administration wants them to admit. And I think our higher education would be unrecognizable. So, you know, it's interesting that he picks the fight with Harvard, which, you know, certainly by many measures is the biggest, most respected university in the country. It has this multi billion dollar endowment. It's one of the oldest universities in the country. It is certainly extremely prestigious. But I think one of the things, Joyce, one of our friends pointed this out to us. You know, why pick a fight with the biggest and best? Because it is a fight you can have and claim you are fighting on behalf of the little guy. And it's these elites that are leftists and Marxists and look down upon you and so you can rile up your base that I am fighting for you. But of course, in the end it is, you know, biting off our noses to save, to spite our faces because we rely on all of these big universities and the research grants they get to do the kind of research we need for breakthroughs in science and medicine.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Yeah, I mean, this is the culture wars incarnate Right. This is all about Trump not wanting people who are capable of thinking for themselves, teaching our nation's children. This is about being upset that universities now welcome black people and women and all sorts of inclusivity that creates more sort of viewpoint diversity from inside of academic institutions. Something that I love about teaching is, you know, I certainly teach at a law school where there are a lot of different people with a lot of different views, teaching fascinating classes, and it's such a joy to get to exchange with folks and hear their views and hear their ideas and sort it out for yourself. And I guess that's how this strikes me, is something where they don't want to let people sort it out for themselves. They want to be able to dictate what they should think. And they sort of do it by claiming, well, the left has captured universities and it terrible. And now they must admit more students with different views or hire more faculty with different views. And as Barb says, that's a real. Just a real encroachment on academic freedom. But there's something else at work here, too. And, Jill, this, I think, is something really, really troubling. Antisemitism has become one of Donald Trump's chief foils here. Can you talk about his claims that he's doing this to protect people from anti Semitism and, and whether there's anything to that?

[Jill Wine Banks]

So this is a fraught question, as I'm sure you're aware, and I want to make sure that everyone understands. I'm trying to answer this carefully and just don't parse individual words and get my overall intent. A direct answer is, yes, he's using antisemitism, and it will end up hurting Jews in America. We are going to get blamed for everything that happens as a consequence of his bad conduct. But I think there's a lot more to the question than that. First of all, Harvard had a study done. It came out in April, and it basically says, yes, there's antisemitism at Harvard. There were hate crimes, there was violence. But that's true across the country. I mean, the ADL has huge reports about how much antisemitism is expanding. And, you know, if we don't define when we talk about antisemitism, whether we're talking about anti Jewish people, anti Israel, anti Israel's conduct after the October 7th attack, and, I don't know, anti Zionism, I think we need to understand what we're saying when we say that. And it is true for sure. No other group has ever been told that its History is a sham. But it's also true that it's not just Jews on the campus who have felt discomfort. Palestinians say that they feel at risk on campus. Why aren't we taking that into account? Why isn't Donald Trump taking that into account? And then there's the real question, which is whether what Donald Trump is doing with his executive orders and his attack on Harvard have anything to do with antisemitism. And I think we've already been suggesting that it doesn't, that it has to do with academic freedom and to putting in place the elite universities. And now he's given 30 extra days. And Harvard has, even before that 30 day grant, had responded to their requests. And so there's a question of whether Harvard's response is enough. But even if it isn't, is this an appropriate thing for the federal government to be doing? Should they be imposing rules about activism on campus? Curriculum, admissions, faculty, hiring, the language that's used in teaching? And the answer is clearly no, in my opinion, that whatever the cause of this is, the government does not have the right to intervene in our universities.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

You know, I appreciate how nuanced your answer is, because this is an issue that has become so divisive, the whole issue over Gaza after 10 7. And I appreciate the thoughtfulness that you put into that. And it seems to me that this is Donald Trump scapegoating Jews just in a new way, you know, sort of by trying to give us a benefit. Right. At the same time, Harvard, when it did its reporting, and I wrote about this last night in my newsletter, I'll drop a link in our show notes. But Harvard also looked on campus, as you pointed out. They looked at problems that Muslims were experiencing and that Palestinians were experiencing and also Arabs. You know, they sort of made these subtle distinctions between different groups of people and how discrimination and hate crimes impact them. And it seems to me that if Donald Trump was serious about pushing back on any of that, including antisemitism, he would not have gutted the part of the Civil Rights division at the Justice Department that prosecutes hate crimes. So I see it all as just being extraordinarily insincere and hypocritical. So, you know, look, I mean, the bottom line is Trump wants to make Harvard pay for something. I'm just wondering, what do y' all think about what this costs us as a country long run, beyond how it impacts Harvard students and Harvard alums, Will it impact all of us at the end of the day?

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, I think so. I mean, one Is, don't you think that there's just a little bit of divide and conquer going on here, right? Trying to get curry favor with the Jewish community by calling this all antisemitism. And, you know, it's like all disinformation, right? There's some truth there. There is anti Semitism. And so nobody's gonna deny it. He knows. And yet. So now you're pitting Jewish people, some of whom are Democrats and are opposed to this idea of, you know, the Trump administration taking over Harvard. And then you've got people like the adl, organizations like the adl, who their, their biggest cause is fighting antisemitism. So it is dividing even the Jewish community, and it's dividing the Jewish community and the Arab and Muslim population. So I think there's a divisiveness about all of this that is part of the whole divide and conquer. And then there's also the idea of controlling academia and controlling thought. I've been trying to find the great quote as we've been sitting here, and maybe one of you knows it, but one of my favorite Americans in American history is Justice Robert Jackson. He was the Nuremberg prosecutor. He was an Attorney General of the United States. He wrote a very famous speech called the Prosecutor that every assistant U.S. attorney knows very well because he talks about the values of a prosecutor, but he also was a Supreme Court justice. And I have found that quote Robert Jackson said, if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. You know, it's the idea that we all have the freedom to think what we want to think, to say what we want to say, and that includes our universities. And if the President and the administration get to control who they hire, who they admit, what they teach, then we have violated that fixed north star in our constitutional constellation.

[Jill Wine Banks]

So, Barb, do you think that applies to the federal government hiring? Because you've probably seen that Vought has issued new rules for hiring that require writing essays about your beliefs. And it applies to the SES as well as to just low level civil servants. It's really repulsive.

[Barb McQuaid]

I have. In fact, we should put a link to that list in our show notes.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yes.

[Barb McQuaid]

If you want a job with the federal government, you have to say, which is your favorite of Donald Trump's executive orders and how will you work to fulfill it? As well as some other essay questions.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

You will be asked, you know, this has been a week where we could have had 12 different topics for the podcast. There's so much that's been going on. But I think you're right about these larger constitutional implications. I worry about the practical implications of these grants being cut. These are researchers at Harvard who were doing cutting edge work on childhood cancers and Alzheimer's and other all sorts of diseases. And that work is out the window. And y' all know, like we do, you can't just jumpstart that stuff off. You can't cut it off and then turn it back on and continue to go on your your merry way. And we are going to lose, I think, a decade of scientists and a decade of science, and I don't think any of us will be better off as a result of it.

[Jill Wine Banks]

You are right, Joyce. But in addition, it's going to hurt the campus culture. The international students bring a value, not just their intellect and their work and the work that they would do if they stayed and graduated and contributed by using their academic learning, but just in enriching the lives of American students. It's really bad in so many ways beyond what we're talking about. I've been looking for a way to help students, young people, adults evaluate their news. Many no longer trust the media, except of course for us, because of the fragmented environment and conflicting info they see on the news. And news is meant to inform us. But how do we know what is real and what's fake? We have a solution that will help you see through differing media narratives and evaluate what's misleading and what's fact. It's ground news. That's a platform that makes it easy to compare news sources, read between the lines of media bias, and break free from algorithms. Unlike the narrative coming from the usual suspects, Ground News positions you to choose and compare the news you want to read while showing you what's being reported on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Now, Jill, the way you started out, I thought that this was an ad for the paperback edition of Barb's book on disinformation, Attack from Within. But really I'm excited that we have ground News to offer to our listeners because it's very much got that Barb McQuaid vibe going on with ground News. You get details about the source, political bent and how reliable the reporting is. Also who owns them, the same sort of stuff that Barb has been preaching all along. You'll be empowered to compare how different global news sources cover the same story and find out what's really going on. With over nine and a half thousand five star reviews of their app and website, Ground News is the number one platform to discover how any news story is being covered and get every perspective in one place. That sounds really great right now.

[Barb McQuaid]

I appreciate you Joyce Vance when the Daily Caller claims in a headline Trump considers pardon for men caught in FBI backed Whitmer kidnapping Scheme and blames the FBI, you'll want to know that NBC News explains why in their headline Trump says he will take a look at possible pardons for men convicted of plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Ground News balances his extreme claims. The choice is clear when you're looking for the truth. Ground News makes it easy to cut.

[Joyce Vance]

Through the noise, expand your view of the news. Sign up for your Ground News account today and get access to the mobile app, website, browser extension and exclusive newsletter so you can have a well rounded view of the world. Think critically about what you read and find common ground. Go to groundnews.com, today to get 40% off the ground News Vantage plan and get access to all their news analysis features. That's groundnews.com sisters for 40% off the ground News Vantage plan for a limited time only. Again, groundnews.com sisters the link is in our show Notes.

[Jill Wine Banks]

As you all know, it's now time for our favorite part of the show and that's answering your questions. We love the thought you put into them and how you provoke us to think about things we didn't always think about. If you have a question for us, please email [e-mail] or tag any of us on social media using Sisters in Law. And that means that if we don't answer your questions on the show, we may answer them in our feeds throughout the week. So go there to check us out and see if we answer your questions. And we had some really, really good questions. Very hard to pick the ones that we would answer on the show. But first I'm going to go to Joyce A question from Professor Judy seemed appropriate to go to you. Since Tommy Tuberville is running for Alabama governor, is it possible to flip his current Senate seat blue? He was a bad football coach and a worse senator. That's not my comment. That's from Professor Judy.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Well, I mean, you know, it's a fascinating question. Apparently yesterday Tuberville announced he was running for governor and he had the biggest one day haul in history. I don't know if that was for Alabama or any place, but apparently he did really? Well, already announced for his Senate seat is our Republican Attorney General, Steve Marshall. There will be other Republicans who will run for that seat. And look, frankly, based on the numbers in Alabama, it's a heavy lift for a Democrat to win. Right now, Democrats don't hold any statewide office in Alabama. And I talk with a lot of people who say that they won't run or people shouldn't run. Doug Jones name comes up a lot because it's not winnable. I have a contrary view. My view is that Democrats have to run strong candidates in every race, every time, and now more than ever, because you never know what's going to happen come the November of the election in Alabama. We won a Senate seat when Doug Jones won because during that campaign, very unsavory facts about his opponent, Roy Moore came to light and Doug ended up winning a narrow victory. Now Donald Trump is in the White House doing crazy stuff all the time, and you don't really know how that's gonna land with the American people. I mean, so far the fever dream has not broken, but maybe it will before the midterm elections and a strong Democrat running might be able to win. I think we should always be ready, and people who love democracy should always be ready, be willing to sacrifice, be willing to get in these races and work in these races. That's what democracy is about, putting up candidates you believe in and working for those ideas. And so I am, you know, I'm a realist. I understand what the odds look like, Judy, but I think that we should always be willing to play the game.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Barb, I have an equally great question for you from Sarah. She asks, can a U.S. attorney General be disbarred while serving at as the Attorney General? If so, who is the final authority in the disbarment?

[Barb McQuaid]

Very interesting question about that. You know, I think that a U.S. attorney general can be disbarred while serving in that capacity, but I don't think that would mean that they would lose their job as the Attorney General. So let me explain. So Pam Bondi is the Attorney General of the United States right now. My guess is that she is licensed to practice in Florida, which is where she served as the Attorney General of that state. So she has a bar license there. Now, if she should do something that someone thinks is unethical or a violation of the rules of Florida, somebody could take up a grievance against her and she could even be disbarred. That doesn't mean she would lose her job as the Attorney General, though. That's because the Attorney General is appointed to that position by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that person must be a lawyer, let alone a lawyer who is licensed and in good standing. Now, the tradition has been that it be a person, quote, learned in the law. And when the Senate confirms that person, they do question them about their qualifications and they want to know that they've got experience as a lawyer. But I think that a U.S. attorney general could be disbarred by the state or District of Columbia wherever they hold their bar license, and it would not affect in any way their ability to continue to serve as the Attorney General of the United States.

[Joyce Vance]

Do you know what position? Another position that does not require you to be a lawyer.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Supreme Court Justice.

[Joyce Vance]

Correct.

[Barb McQuaid]

Oh, come on.

[Joyce Vance]

You do not need to be a lawyer to be a Supreme Court justice.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

Or to be a district judge for that matter.

[Barb McQuaid]

Really? So we could have Justice Donald Trump someday?

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

You bet.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yes. Oh, that would be so great.

[Barb McQuaid]

Wow.

[Jill Wine Banks]

So, Kim, I have a great question for you too from Vicki. Is the point of real ID to restrict voting?

[Joyce Vance]

Ooh, that's a really, really good question, Vicki. The answer is no. The law that requires real ID was one of the recommendations that came out of the 911 Commission after the terror attacks that was aimed at finding ways to boost security, particularly security in travel, air travel. And it was a way to encourage prod, require states to issue licenses that had a higher level of security checkpoints. And so now 20 years later, it's gone into effect based after a lot of stops and starts and delays. But that was the purpose behind it. It is important for everyone to know that there is not a requirement to have real ID to vote in a federal election. Not in any of the 50 states of these United States of America. So don't allow anyone to tell you that you need real ID to vote. You do not. You have to do whatever your state's regulations are, but none of them requires real id. So that's really important to know. Now, will it functionally be seen or potentially be a barrier to voting? Quite possibly, but it is not. That wasn't the design. One of the few things that I don't think actually had that in mind. But it could be some effect, but that's not why.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Barb McQuaid, Kimberly Atkins store, and me, Jill Wine Banks. Follow SistersInLaw wherever you listen and please give us a five star review because that's how other people will find the show. And please show some love to this week's sponsors, Fast Growing Trees, Smalls Wild Grain and Ground News. The links are in the show notes. Please support them because they make this podcast possible. See you time Next Next week with another episode, Sisters in Law. I'm wondering if pan au chocolat is a different shape because online it looks like it is. She's obstacle with this.

[Barb McQuaid]

She's never been wrapped before. She can't stand it.

[Kimberly Atkins Store]

That is true, Jill. Pain de chocolat is a rollover and that's actually what we get from Wild Grain. A croissant is more of a twisted rendezvous, right?

[Jill Wine Banks]

I think that is.

[Barb McQuaid]

I think the wild grain thing is more of a pain au chocolat.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah, I think it is. I'm going with you, Barb. Trip Planner by Expedia. You were made to have strong opinions about sand. We were made to help you and your friends find a place on the beach with a pool and a marina and a waterfall and a soaking tub. Expedia made to travel.