Loading summary
Transcript102 lines
- [00:00]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Foreign welcome back to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Barbara McQuaid and me, Kimberly Atkinstore. Jill Wine Banks will be back soon and we miss her but we'll, we can't wait for her to come back. And don't forget the new recession assistance mini tote is ready to order is on the website politicon.com merch to get yours now. I use mine this morning to, to grab some fruit while I was out and I passed the, the local market. It's great, it's stylish, everybody wants one. Get yours now before they sell out. Now let's get on with the show where there is plenty to discuss this week including Trump's deployment of troops in LA and the threat to send them to other US Cities. Also, lawmakers being treated like law breakers in the most anti democratic way. And the latest on Kilmar Abrego Garcia's fate. But before we get to all of that very heavy news and a very heavy news week, I just wanted to ask a little advice. You know, I know you all have experienced having a kid fly the coop, you know, go off and leave the nest. And my younger step kid is getting ready to go off and start his first grown up job and move on. So it's, I'm happy and sad but like I feel like as a stepmom I should give some like wise advice to, to starting off your professional life. But I'm, I'm, I, I, I don't know what to say. What, what did you guys tell your kids when they started leaving the nest?
- [01:54]
Barbara McQuaid
Well, I remember when my first went off I thought there's so much I failed to tell you. And so I created this document, things, things I should have taught you, you know, like how to cook an egg. And you know, all this stuff was really long and like I, I worked on it for months. Every time I had a thought like, oh, that needs to go in the document and I sent it to him and he's like, how am I ever going to read this? He thought it was ridiculous. So I've learned now that I'm on child four that what I say is remember you can always come home and they don't. But I think it's good to know that they can. I mean they come home to visit and texting is a great thing that we have nowadays. My son will frequently text for help like with ironing and you know, how to cook something and it's great, I love it whenever he does. So I think just reminding them that they're you're always there for them is empowering but also comforting.
- [02:54]
Kimberly Atkins Store
What about you, Joyce?
- [02:55]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, we are not warm and fuzzy like, I mean, like Barb. I've got four kids. One of the reasons people confuse us all the time. And we gave all of our kids the same message when they left. It was like, don't come back. No, see, we actually, we didn't say that. I probably shouldn't say that because I know our daughter does listen sometimes, I mean, it's hard when, when your kids leave home, you want to send them off with a valuable message. And I think what you just have to do is for each kid, figure out what they need. I'm not sure that there's a one size fits all on this because, you know, our kids came in such different capabilities for like being independent adults. And what astonishes me is our youngest one who we were like so tired and old by the time Ollie came along. Right. He was sort of our surprise late in life, you know, Baby four years after his sister. And he's so capable and smart and he's been home from college the last couple of months and. And so while I was finishing up my book, he was actually cooking dinner every night. Turns out he's like a great cook. He can fix stuff and put stuff together. He can take care of puppies. And the message I really wanted to give was don't go, don't go, please stay. But I think part of our job as parents, you know, is to help them spread their little wings and leave the nest. And so we always do try to give that message. You know, it's. It's your time, this is your time. Go do your thing.
- [04:32]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Yeah, that's kind of where I am now. I just, I want to lean into my excitement about the, this chapter and thinking about, you know, when I was in my 20s and striking out on my own and how much I learned about myself in life. And I too knew that I had supportive parents that would always be there for me, that if I. So if I stumbled, I wasn't on my own. And so I think letting them know that too is important. So I will definitely join the chorus of his four parental units giving him that advice.
- [05:15]
Joyce Vance
When it comes to our families, pets and health, we don't want to take any chances. That's why we switched to Blue Land. They only use safe, clean and effective ingredients. If you hadn't heard, Blueland is on a mission to eliminate single use plastics by reinventing cleaning essentials to be better for you, your family and the planet. All with the same powerful clean you're used to. The idea is simple. They offer refillable cleaning products with beautiful cohesive designs that look great on your counter.
- [05:45]
Kimberly Atkins Store
From cleaning sprays and toilet bowl cleaner to to dishwasher and laundry detergent tablets. Blueland's formulas are 100% plastic free, made with certified clean ingredients, free from chlorine, bleach and harsh chemicals that are safe to use around my loved ones. Don't choose between a safe option and what actually gets your house clean. You can have both. Just fill your reusable bottles with water. Drop in the Blueland tablets. If you're like me, then you watch them because you know they do the whole little plop, plop, fizz, fizz thing and let them dissolve. You'll never have to grab bulky cleaning supplies on your grocery run. Everything is effective and affordable with refill tablets starting at just $2.25. You can get even more savings by buying refills in bulk or setting up a subscription.
- [06:39]
Barbara McQuaid
Lulan products are independently tested to perform alongside major brands and and are 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. Because you know me, I'm cleaning all the time. It feels great knowing that I'm incorporating sustainable practices into essential everyday activities. And we know you'll love it too. Luckily, Blueland has a special offer for our 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, as always, is in our show notes. Well, it's been a wild week in Los Angeles with ICE conducting workplace immigration raids, followed by protests in the streets, followed by the federal activation of the National Guard, followed by a lawsuit filed by the state of California. So Joyce, let's pick it up there. On Thursday night, a federal judge ruled in favor of the state of California and against the Trump administration. That's a pretty remarkable opinion. Can you tell us about what the judge decided and then maybe also what, what you think might happen next?
- [08:17]
Joyce Vance
Yes. So this opinion is written by Judge Breyer, Judge Charles Breyer, not his brother, the Supreme Court justice, which I think is sort of just an interesting little historical asterisk on this opinion.
- [08:31]
Barbara McQuaid
And is Charles Breyer older or younger?
- [08:33]
Joyce Vance
You know, I don't need to answer, Barb, I'm not sure who's older, but clear that Mama Breyer didn't raise any stupid babies. Right? I.
- [08:41]
Barbara McQuaid
This is good advice. When they left the house.
- [08:44]
Joyce Vance
No kidding. I mean, wouldn't you love to know what it was? That might be a future hashtag Sisters in Law interview. But. But look, y' all, this is an opinion we don't normally suggest that you go and read legal opinions, right? They're long, they're dense. The legal writing is hard to parse. This one is just sort of a masterclass in a judge getting it right, and it's amazing that he did it. I think in. In 48 hours, maybe a little bit more than that. Judge Breyer goes further than the State of California asked him to. California said, please tell the federal government that if they're going to federalize the National Guard and send them onto the streets of Los Angeles, all that they can do is protect federal personnel and federal property. And Judge Breyer said, you know, California, that's sort of a modest request. And the decision by the president to federalize the National Guard was unlawful. The main reason that he landed on was because there was no rebellion going on in California at the time. And Title 10 requires a rebellion before a president can federalize the troops. So he has this nice little poke at the Supreme Court at their newfound love of history and tradition. You know how every time they're going to smack, you know, our civil rights out of existence, they retreat back into history and tradition. Well, he does that. He says to figure out what a rebellion is, I'm going to go look up all of these contemporaneous definitions from dictionaries that were being used at the time the law was passed, like this one. A rebellion is the taking up of arms traitorously against the government, the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully installed. And he concludes there was no such thing happening on the streets of Los Angeles. The reasoning in a nutshell is this. He says there are four conditions you gotta meet before something that's happening, some sort of altercation out on the streets, can be labeled a rebellion. It has to be violent, organized, open and avowed, and a rebellion against the entirety of government. And this, he says, just ain't it. So sorry, Federal government. I'm returning the control of the National Guard to the Governor of California. A very satisfying decision. But wait, there's more. It didn't take but a couple of minutes for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to get this case. Trump takes an immediate Appeal and the court did something that normally I wouldn't even, you know, flick at. They issued a brief three day administrative stay so that three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit could get their arms around the case. And I'll tell you the problem that I have here is that within that three day period is the no Kings rally on Saturday. And that means that Donald Trump will be able to direct and control the National Guard on Saturday. I don't think that the ninth Circuit got this one right, but that's how they got it.
- [11:54]
Barbara McQuaid
Yeah. In three days, a lot can happen, including, I heard someone say this smart thing earlier today. Withdraw the troops on his own and declare victory. Well, we cured the problem in la. We cleaned up all of that violence and rebellion. So we're sending him back now.
- [12:10]
Joyce Vance
I think that would be okay, right? Yes. I would allow him to score political points, but I mean, look, Trump on social media posted after the 9th Circuit's ruling claiming victory. Right. Claiming this wide open. We won. We, we saved the streets. And that's not what happened. They issued an administrative state. Doesn't say any such thing. He's going to score political points absolutely no matter what. And I think, frankly, if he were to back down and withdraw the troops, that would be the best solution for everybody involved. Let California, which has great law enforcement, deal with the problems. You know, he, he can do it all he wants.
- [12:50]
Barbara McQuaid
Yeah.
- [12:50]
Kimberly Atkins Store
I mean, if it. Yeah, I agree with you. If it leads to the better outcome. This reminds me of during the pandemic. I was just like, why don't you just sell MAGA masks? Like I would love. Like, I would sell MAGA masks. Like, you know, like, just do the thing that makes it look like you're winning. If it actually helps people de escalation.
- [13:09]
Joyce Vance
Right. The first principle in a situation like this is de escalation.
- [13:13]
Kimberly Atkins Store
De escalation. And if that's what it takes to de escalate. Ma' am. Yes.
- [13:17]
Barbara McQuaid
It doesn't seem to be their instincts. Right. Call in the National Guard. That's the opposite of de escalation. Well, you know, one of the things Joyce mentioned, California was really focusing on this procedural error. The statute that the Trump administration relied upon is one that says if the President finds a rebellion, then he needs to go through the governor of the state to federalize the National Guard. And he didn't do that. And everybody kind of concedes he didn't do that. As Governor Gavin Newsman Newsom said, you know, no call, no voicemail, no nothing. They just, you know, activated him and during the oral argument, this made me cringe a little. The DOJ lawyer called that failure to go through the governor a foot fault, really minimizing. This is a big deal. And Judge Breyer obviously disagreed. And he. He started waving around the Constitution. So he seemed to be concerned not only about the procedural violation here, but some more like fundamental concerns about federal power. Kim, what do you think about those concerns about the idea of federalizing the National Guard to respond to protests?
- [14:30]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Yeah. So Justice Stephen Breyer's baby brother.
- [14:36]
Joyce Vance
Aha. So you know the answer. It's the younger brother.
- [14:40]
Kimberly Atkins Store
He's his younger brother. Judge Charles Breyer is A spry Young 83 to Justice Stephen Breyer's 86. But he. Yes, the first thing I thought about when I was looking at the dispatches from this hearing was I thought to myself, if Charles Breyer is anything like Stephen Breyer, he is the constitutional lawyer of all constitutional lawyers. Right. Like Stephen Breyer walks. I think he probably has a pocket in his pajamas and sleeps with his Constitution. Like, he is all about the Constitution. And sure enough, just Judge Charles Breyer gave us a little constitutional law lesson that said the very foundation of the Constitution was to ensure that we do not have a king. That is why we have these limitations in what an executive, even the chief executive, can do. And one of them is, is in calling out the National Guard. When you put that in the power of the states, that is. That is there for a reason, so that you don't have tyranny. That and give the President the tools of tyranny, meaning the nation's army to be used against its people. That is fundamentally wrong. Also, there's this little thing called the First Amendment, which protects the right of people to speak, to assemble, to petition the government with their grievances, to do everything that a protest is. And so when you are rubbing up against that, this is not. This is not Coco Goff stepping on the line, baby. No, this is. This is running roughshod over the Constitution. And that is just not okay in the judge's eyes.
- [16:23]
Barbara McQuaid
Yeah, I thought it was a very strong point at the oral argument and a very strong point in the written opinion, too, about, hey, the 10th Amendment says that states have the right to police power. And as you said, you know, the President's power is limited. Whatever happened to the States Rights Party, the Republican Party, now that they've got federal power, you know, states Schmitz, who needs state power?
- [16:47]
Joyce Vance
You know, I keep asking my Federalist Society friends that. It's like, well, back when we were in law school, you guys were all about states rights and federal government overreach and too many federal crimes. What happened to that Republican Party states rights?
- [16:59]
Barbara McQuaid
It was never about states rights. Well, I want to talk about the various powers the President does have and how the military can and cannot be used against domestic interests. Right. The military is there to protect us from foreign invaders, to fight foreign wars when they're being used here within the United States. And so first, you know, there's been some reference to what happened in Los Angeles as the use of the Insurrection Act. But of course, the use of the National Guard here was not under the Insurrection Act. It was under a different statutory provision that allows, as Joyce described, the President to federalize the National Guard when there is a rebellion to help protect federal property and the execution of federal law. The Insurrection act is something different. Joyce, can you explain what the Insurrection act is and the consequences of invoking it?
- [17:59]
Joyce Vance
Right. So this is an important distinction to keep in mind. I think at this point, everybody has heard of the Posse Comitatus Act. That's the law that says you cannot use the United States military inside of the domestic United States for law enforcement purposes. In other words, the Marines can't go out on the streets and start arresting drug dealers or what have you. The Insurrection act is an exception to Posse Comitatus. It would let the President deploy federal military troops on United States streets in order to quell an insurrection. But it's sort of like the same analysis we've been talking about with, just with Judge Breyer. Right. Before you have the ability to deploy federalized National Guardsmen, you've got to have a rebellion here before you have the ability to invoke the Insurrection Act. You've got to have an Insurrection Act. But as we've watched Trump take this whole issue on, boy, it does seem like this is headed towards invocation of the Insurrection Act. I mean, the point that we are making about de escalation. Sane people would try to de escalate what's going on on the streets of Los Angeles when you've got a leader who's throwing gas on the fire and just trying to provoke an incident, or. Well, that starts to look like someone who's looking for an excuse to use the Insurrection Act. And that would be no holds barred, putting the military out on the streets in order to, quote, enforce the law, let me just say, because I feel like it would be irresponsible to leave it there without saying this. We have seen the President in the last couple of weeks engage in efforts to politicize the military. He has given speeches with members of the military as his backdrop that violate the Hatch Act. There is reporting that in some of the speeches he's given, they made an effort to get people who. Troops. Not people, but troops who did not support Trump to identify themselves and remove themselves from the audience. And, of course, nobody's going to do that. Right. It's just a measure to intimidate. Measure members of the military and into supporting the president. And I think what we are seeing is something that's unprecedented in American history, this effort to politicize the troops and then to deploy them on American streets. Hopefully, we're not going to get there, but I think this is not a moment that we can afford to ignore. This is a moment where we are headed towards a confrontation where Donald Trump may try to give the military an order that is in conflict with a federal court's order. And the question will be, what's the military going to do? They're supposed to ignore unlawful orders. If the president tells them to do something after a court has forbidden it. That's sort of the poster child for an unlawful order that should be ignored. I think this is a moment we are unfortunately going to face in this country during this presidency.
- [21:06]
Barbara McQuaid
Yeah. And one of the things that's so interesting, of course, is we now have Pete Hegseth as the Secretary of Defense instead of Mike Casper, who pushed back against Trump's suggestions of using the military in his first administration. You know, now he's got Pete Hegseth who is full speed ahead.
- [21:24]
Joyce Vance
You know, the point there, I think, is Hegseth will absolutely do Trump's bidding, but he is the civilian leadership at the top of the military. And I'm talking about the generals, the military leaders, the people who were trained at West Point and Annapolis who understand why you don't politicize the military. Why? Going back to the Federalist Papers, the Founding Fathers had concerns about a standing army and politicization. And it's my hope that that tranche of committed public servants will hold.
- [21:54]
Barbara McQuaid
Yeah. Yep. I mean, that is the training, the tradition, the history. And I have more confidence in the military than I do, certainly in Pete Hegseth. Kim Joyce mentioned the Posse Comitatus act and that the Insurrection act is an exception to it. But Posse Comitatus is the status quo. It is the norm. Can you explain what it is and why we have it?
- [22:19]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Yes. So the Posse Comitatus act was passed way back in the 19th century, and at the time, it was passed. This was after Reconstruction. And the Posse Com. Tatus act provides that members of the military, active duty military, it prohibits them from acting domestically in a strictly law enforcement capacity. So that does not mean, you know, if we, if there is an invasion, God forbid, certainly they can act in a military capacity on US Soil, but they can't be deployed into US Cities just to become the national police. That, that is something that we don't want to do. Now, there are a number of reasons why that's a very, very good idea. If anybody has seen any bit of history, the Gestapo, other people, when strongmen turn the military on its, on its own people, that can be incredibly dangerous. And democracy cannot stand when that happens. But it was actually passed out of fear after Reconstruction that the military could be deployed to enforce Jim Crow laws in the South. And so it was passed to prevent, specifically prevent troops from coming in and acting in a military capacity to essentially enforce laws put in place after Reconstruction, to sort of break reconstruction, to subjugate and marginalize black and brown people. So an inauspicious reason to have it, but it's still incredibly important to our democracy nonetheless. And if you don't mind, if I may put in a little shameless plug, I had a really great conversation about this with Liza Goytin on my podcast justice by Design. Just really breaking down the legal landscape, what is happening, what it means in terms of history. She is a fantastic expert and we had a really good conversation. If you want to dig down even deeper into the law and the history of this.
- [24:31]
Barbara McQuaid
And one other thing that we should mention, that sometimes people refer to this as martial law, which is different from the Insurrection act and is different from the Posse Comitatus Act. Martial law is when the military takes over all government functions. It replaces the civilian government. There is nothing that provides for that in the Constitution or any statute. There has been some history of it in the United States by when when state governors invoke martial law during issues within their states. But not since World War II has any state invoked martial law. I think it happened in Hawaii, which was just a territory right after Pearl Harbor. So when people talk about martial law, that's, that's some very serious stuff. And I don't think anybody thinks we're at that point, not just yet. Let me wrap up by just asking a couple sort of related things. Joyce. So on Thursday night on Truth Social, Donald Trump posts another About Face. Is this another just, you know, Taco Trump always chickens out. He posts on social media that farmers and employers in the hospitality industry are concerned that they're losing their very good employees through these immigration raids. And so changes are coming. What do you make of that?
- [25:48]
Joyce Vance
Oh, look at that. They're not all criminals after all. So, you know, I always, like, go back to my experience in 2011 when Alabama passed this horrible racist, deport yourself immigration law. And lo and behold, that season, there were no workers to pick the tomato crop, and a lot of it withered on the vine. The price of tomatoes down here rose incredibly. And some of the same folks who had been instrumental in passing that law sort of said, ooh, maybe we sort of screwed the pooch here. And I think the reality is that this is an administration that does not acknowledge the contributions that immigrants make to our society. Now that reality is being forced upon them. And, of course, Donald Trump is totally shameless, right? He can about face and tell you that that's what he meant to do all along. And, and he can sell it to his base, but this is clearly some of his big donors saying, you know, hey, bud, we got some problems developing here. You're deporting our workers. And I'll, I'll tell you sort of an interesting. Well, I don't know if it's an interesting story, but I think it sort of suggests what's going on here. We have these really great guys who work on our house. Just whenever, you know, we have a really old house, it needs a lot of work, and they're super great. And the owner of the company is from Guatemala, but he's an American citizen. His employees are all green card holders. Well, guess what? They got nervous about being arrested and deported, and so they've gone back home. And we don't, you know, we're having that little struggle. Imagine you're a big Trump donor, business owner. You're having that problem magnified out a lot of different ways in a lot of different dimensions. So, of course, we're going to see an about face.
- [27:35]
Barbara McQuaid
Yeah. I think this really also demonstrates the tension in Trump's base between, you know, the billionaires, the, the, the, the powerful, moneyed class who own luxury hotels and the base that he tries to stir up, you know, xenophobia and hatred for immigration and black and brown people. And so it's, it's interesting to see him perhaps backing down. Well, finally, Kim, let's talk about what's happening Saturday there in Washington, D.C. where you are. It's the 250th anniversary of the US Army. We are all supportive of the US army, and wonderful to celebrate their contributions. But it also happens to be Donald Trump's 79th birthday, and so he is planning a big military parade for the occasion. Meanwhile, protesters across the country are organizing what's being called the no Kings protests. What's your take of these two events occurring on the same day? I mean, do you share my view that Trump is using the military as a political pawn in an effort to divide the country?
- [28:47]
Kimberly Atkins Store
So I do think that the parade is far more political than it is commemorative. I, too, am very grateful for the service of the members of the United States Army. I have family members who are veterans. I cannot support the army more if I tried, but. And I think that's part of the reason why I'm really, as a Washingtonian, furious about this parade, because it doesn't seem that that's what it is about at all. There are many ways to honor members of our military without using tanks in a parade display that you usually see in places like China or Russia or North Korea. This is a display of. Meant to be a display of military strength, but I think it's telling that it required bringing out some military equipment that is decades old and needed to be repainted to look like it was at its best. And America has somehow managed to celebrate itself and its accomplishments and its service people without displays of strength. I don't think that's what makes America look strong. It also is going to shut down the city like there are, as this episode drops, road closures that are already in place that will remain in place until Monday morning in some parts of the city. So just people getting around, trying to go about their lives will be tremendously disrupted by it. If you've ever driven in dc, you tell me if you think a tank, if the streets here can support a tank without being busted up. I mean, no. So I have a lot of concerns about it. The, the, the demonstrations that are taking place across the country. Well, of course, that's not coincidental. They are because not just of what's going on in la, but because there is this big military parade taking place. All I can say about that is that I hope people, we talk a lot about your constitutional rights and the First Amendment and democracy. The First Amendment is not going to protect you from harm if you're out. So please be careful, be safe, be peaceful if you choose to do it. Also know that there are many other ways to protest the autocratic actions of this administration that we've talked about in this podcast, without taking to the streets if you're unable, or if it's not happening in a place near you. You can call your lawmakers. You can, you know, give comments on some of the actions that are taking place on the federal level. You can find out what's going on in your own community and to protect the people there, to provide legal assistance or other volunteer work, there are a lot of ways that you can help. I know there seems to be some bullying on social media to people. It's like if you don't go out and protest, then you are not on our side. Don't resist that kind of all or nothing attitude. Do your best, do what you can, but also protect yourselves and your families.
- [32:02]
Barbara McQuaid
One other thing to note is this parade is estimated to cost between 25 and 40 million dollars. I think if you really cared about celebrating the military, you take that money and use it to support our veterans.
- [32:13]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Did that go by Doge? Doge approved that? You know, beauty regimens are about more than just applying products or cleansing or removing makeup from your face. Now there's a new way of doing things. Osea's best selling Undaria Algae Body Oil is rich yet never greasy and clinically tested to instantly improve your skin's elasticity. I think of it as the scent of summer in a bottle because it does smell really, really good as soon as you put it on. The iconic signature scent of natural citrus, featuring uplifting notes of mango, mandarin fruit, grapefruit, lime and cypress, they take you to a tropical paradise all of your own. And you know, this, this. It also reminds me of having the cocktail with the umbrella in it when I'm on vacation. Like that's kind of what it smells like, right? The Andaria Algae Body Oil is osea's number one best selling product for a reason. And you know what? It sold out every 30 seconds when it was released before it makes sense. It's really great. It's so rich, yet never greasy. And it's clinically proven to instantly improve skin elasticity. Add in how it visibly firms your skin and makes it feel more sculpted and toned. As soon as you apply it, it feels amazing. And after you put it on, you'll love how it leaves your skin feeling silky, soft and unbelievably glowing.
- [33:54]
Joyce Vance
So look, I can always tell when my sisters have OCM Malibu products on because they positively pop on the show recording as soon as I see them on camera. It really does. It sounds painful, but you know, it's like there's just that little pizzazz in your face when you wear it. It's hard to describe if you haven't used it. I'll tell you my two favorite things about the OSEA products. One, I am addicted to their little under eye moisturizer. It's really, really good stuff and I also love the way it dispenses. It's in a little pump bottle. It just sits on my countertop. It's so easy to, you know, pump it once, pat underneath my eyes and it keeps everything feeling moist and pretty all summer long. The other thing I really like is that with osea you never notice a sheen. The non greasy ingredients in all of the OSEA products we've tried so far are great. And you know if you're going on camera you don't want to be shiny. But I also don't want to walk around shiny in daily life. So that's another thing I really appreciate.
- [34:57]
Barbara McQuaid
Well, I know that OSEA can make you shine just like my sisters. Get healthy glowing skin for summer with clean vegan face and body care from Osea. They have a great deal. You can get 10% off your first order sitewide with code sisters10@oseamalibu.com plus you'll get free samples with every order and free shipping on orders over $60. Just head to o s e a malibu.com and use code sisters10 for 10% off. The link is in our show notes.
- [35:40]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Well, I know we've been talking a lot about democracy, holding on by a thread. But if two lawmakers being treated as lawbreakers is not a searing example of that fact, well, I don't know what else could be clearer except perhaps federal troops marching on US Cities, I don't know. But on Thursday, Senator Alex Padilla of California was manhandled, pushed to the ground and handcuffed after going into a press conference being held by DHS Secretary Kristi Noemi, identifying himself as a senator and by his name and attempting to ask her a question. Now, I think it's really important. I think there has been a lot of coverage in the way Senator Padilla was treated. But I think it's important to say exactly what Secretary Noem said that prompted him to ask a question. This is what she said. We are not going away. We are staying here to liberate the city, we from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city. This should go without saying, but I'm going to go ahead and say it. It is not the job of the Department of Homeland Security to liberate cities of socialists. So if I was in that room, I got to say I would have questions too. And everybody should have had questions just like Senator Padilla did. But, Barb, aside from that just being outrageous, what's your reaction to the treatment of Senator Padilla and his reaction afterwards?
- [37:21]
Barbara McQuaid
Yeah, so, you know, he's in the room. There's video of this confrontation, although I've noted the video doesn't really start until after the confrontation has already begun. So we don't really get to see exactly how this goes down. But let's assume that it's the worst case scenario for Senator Padilla, that he has become combative. He says that he questioned some of the things that Secretary Noem was saying. Let's say he's as combative as he can be, and they're asking him to leave, and they're kind of physically taking him out of the room, and he's kind of pushing his way back in. Once they get him out in the hallway, like he's done, you know, you throw him out and you say, I'm sorry, you have to leave. You're being disruptive. I think that's the best what you do in the worst case scenario. Instead, they take him to the ground and they handcuff him. Now, you know, I don't think that a US Senator is generally, you know, is certainly not above the law, but you know, who's gonna be in the room, you know that this guy is a U.S. senator, you know that he is up in arms about what's happening. It seemed to me that as soon as he raised his voice, maybe again, I haven't seen the video, but it seems like the reaction of the folks in the room was to pounce, like, oh, this guy crossed the line. Here's our chance. Let's make an example of him. And ordinarily, what we typically see is a great deal of respect between co equal branches of government. You know, I can remember when I was serving as U.S. attorney, if we ever had any interaction with the judiciary or the legislature, my gosh, it was all, you know, kid gloves, hands off, don't make an incident. We've got liaisons to deal with these kinds of things. I imagine she was briefed before she arrived as to who might be in the room, how to deal with situations. And it was shocking to me to see how aggressively they responded to Senator Padilla and not showing any sort of deference, but it seemed to me going out of their way to do just the opposite. And so Senator Padilla's Reaction. He said later that if this is how this administration responds to a senator with a question, if this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds, you can only imagine what they're doing to farm workers or to cooks or to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the country. We've told this we will hold this administration accountable and we'll have more to say. It's a really interesting point.
- [39:56]
Joyce Vance
Right.
- [39:57]
Barbara McQuaid
If this is how they treat you when the cameras are on, how are they treating people when the cameras are off? Although I might say they knew the cameras were on. And I think they are leaning into this very aggressive response to say, don't mess with us. And if you do, we will do all we can to the furthest extent of the law.
- [40:18]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Yeah. I also caught how initially the response from DHS was that they thought he was an attacker. It's like, okay, if you play back the. From where Secretary Noem was speaking, leading right into where Senator Padilla tried to speak. He identified himself almost immediately.
- [40:36]
Barbara McQuaid
They know who's in the room.
- [40:38]
Kimberly Atkins Store
What?
- [40:39]
Barbara McQuaid
They know who's in the room. They're not letting strangers in the room with the secretary.
- [40:43]
Joyce Vance
But to see that on the Immigration Committee, there's no way she doesn't know who he is.
- [40:49]
Kimberly Atkins Store
And to say, you think that he's an attacker to a Hispanic member of the Senate when he's trying to ask a question, too, was outright like, there are so many aspects of this that are outrageous that it's hard to keep track. But, Joyce, the response from Democrats on Capitol Hill was swift. They really rang the alarm in a way that I was happy to see. We don't always see that lately, frankly. Do you think this can be an inflection point to standing up to what? I mean, I think that looked. I keep saying, if tyranny had a face, that was it. Right. Do you think that this is an inflection point and what tools do they have? What can they do?
- [41:29]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. So I think that's a super important question. I have to just back up a tiny bit and use the podcast for therapy to say that watching that, I mean, this, they weren't in Washington, D.C. where maybe she could be confused. They're in California. Of course, she was briefed off the plane about who the senators were. Padilla is on, you know, the immigration subcommittee. She knows who he is.
- [41:53]
Kimberly Atkins Store
And he was in the building doing other work. He didn't go over there.
- [41:55]
Joyce Vance
He was there to meet with a general.
- [41:57]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Correct.
- [41:58]
Joyce Vance
And he walks into the room, he's he's accompanied into her press conference, you know, with his official minders. Right. They're not just letting him walk through there unaccompanied. That's right. And so there's. There's every marker, every indicia of his office. Kristi Noem should have looked out, seen what was happening, and she should have said, wait a minute. If the senator from the great state of California has questions for me, I would love to answer them. I think this is, you know, the start of the outrage that we saw from Democrats in Congress over this incident, that this is so foundationally not how the three branches of government deal with each other, to Barb's point. But this is very much writ large, an indication of what this administration wants to do, how it wants to be perceived. None of this is an accident. You know, the video follows this incident out into the corridors where someone is telling whoever's taking the video, you can't take video out here. And whoever it was with their phone is doing a masterful job of putting them off for just long enough to see the senator knocked to the ground, forcibly cuffed. Give me your hand. Give me your hand. And then the agent making the arrest says something interesting. Give me your hand. Sir. Sir. They understood that this. I mean, you know, if this was a garden variety offender attacking the secretary.
- [43:20]
Kimberly Atkins Store
He was an attacker.
- [43:22]
Joyce Vance
There would have been no sir attached. So look, in context, this incident, I think, at least if I'm the lawyer for the state of California, I am using this incident on appeal to say this wasn't deployment of the guard over a rebellion. Kristi Noem told you exactly why they're there. And it's not a rebellion. It's a takeover by the federal government. That's the outrage. And we saw it last night in the Senate. You know, I wrote my column in my newsletter, Civil Discourse. I just essentially reprinted Patty Murray, the Washington state senator's, comments verbatim. She rose to the floor of the Senate very shortly after the incident, spoke from the cuff. It was extremely powerful. She closed by saying, I say to the entire country, we have a democracy. We will lose it. If we can't use our voices, we will lose this democracy. None of us should be silent. None of us. And the question is, Kim, we have seen these moments before, and we've watched them. We've been horrified. We've called it a coup. We've said it's a constitutional crisis. And then everybody goes back to their knitting and we move back on, right?
- [44:34]
Barbara McQuaid
Yep.
- [44:34]
Joyce Vance
Is this the moment where members of the Congress in the Democratic Party finally go, okay, we must do this differently. We can't go on trying to play with these folks because they don't want to play with us.
- [44:50]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Yeah, it really needs to be. And Joyce, your substack civil discourse, you also did a great deep dive into the indictment of Congresswoman Lamonica McIver. We talked before when she was charged with a crime for a tussle that happened outside of a New Jersey detention facility. Can you explain this indictment, how it differs from the complaint and what you think of it?
- [45:18]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. So, you know, this is pretty usual, right? If. If you're a federal prosecutor, you often charge someone via a complaint if they're dangerous and you need to get them off the streets immediately and don't want to wait to go to a grand jury. Just like sweet Congresswoman McIver, who looked like such a threat to that community that they had to arrest her immediately, they go to the grand jury. It's a three count indictment. The first two charges charge her with assaulting specific Immigration and Customs ICE employees, and the third count charges her with the same crime, assaulting government employees. But it doesn't specify the people. It's a refinement of that original complaint that better meets the statute that the government uses. It's 18 USC 1111, the federal assault provision. You know, the federal government can't just charge any crime that occurs. There has to be a federal hook. So normally, assaults would be charged by the state of New Jersey, but here, because the government's making the allegation that the victims are qualifying federal employees, then it's a federal crime. And so they've tightened up the charges to make that jurisdictional hook very clear.
- [46:30]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Well, Barb, what are your thoughts on this indictment, especially now that we are hearing reports of inhumane treatment happening in. Inside the detention facility in New Jersey that Congresswoman McIver and other lawmakers were trying to conduct oversight, things like a lack of food. There is actually a report of unrest inside and that a wall was breached. And, I mean, it does not seem like a great place. It is not. And it's worth noting, this is a temporary facility. This is not like a licensed place where people who are facing immigration proceedings are normally housed. Right. So now that we know that and knowing the. The These outside, this outside context, what do you think?
- [47:18]
Barbara McQuaid
Yeah, so there was a reason that Congresswoman McIver was there and the Newark mayor was there to inspect what was going on at this facility. As you said, it's a private facility that has sort of been rigged up to be able to house all of these detainees with this new, aggressive arrest of immigrants in the Newark area. And so, as you say, not only was there, you know, a lack of food and visitation and other kinds of things, they've actually had some escapes from this place. So it doesn't sound like it is operating under the best of circumstances, but, you know, this charge against Congresswoman McIver, we've seen some video. Though I will say the video we see is a lot like the video of Senator Padilla. The video all kind of begins after the confrontation begins. And so it's really difficult to assess whether she's initiating any contact or she's just kind of caught up in this scrum of people as people become agitated over this facility and their unannounced visit. So I don't know how this case will come out. I could imagine a jury perhaps nullifying the law under these circumstances, but it seems to me not all that hard to prove that somebody obstructed or impeded the work of ICE agents if you get in their way, as alleged there. But this, to me, is one of those situations. Just because you can charge someone with a crime does not mean you should. As we've said before, if you've got members of a CO = branch of government who are just trying to do their jobs, even if you disagree with the way they're doing it, criminal charges should not be kind of your first go to. There are a lot of other ways to resolve differences, to have conversations, to try to de escalate the situation. If what you really wanted to do is simply enforce the immigration laws, instead, what they seem to be doing is leaning into these confrontations in an effort to stoke fear and intimidation and maybe cowboys, some members of Congress, so that they learn their lesson and stay out of these kinds of altercations. But it's. I can't imagine filing these kinds of charges during the time I was serving it. It would take an awful lot more than somebody being kind of caught up in a scrum to say, yes, we're going to charge you with two felonies as well as a misdemeanor.
- [49:47]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Yeah, I mean, I think, again, we are at this inflection point where we are seeing before our eyes. And I think it's worth remembering in the case of Congresswoman McIver, after this whole scuffle took place where people were being tussled, she did the tour of the facility. She went and went through with DHS officials and did this. So again, another surrounding circumstance. Just like Secretary Padilla had a conversation with DHS officials after, after he was handcuffed. I still am not certain whether Secretary Noem, I think Secretary Noem said that she spoke to him, but I don't know if it was there or later but, or what the circumstances of that were. But just, I mean, clearly these people had no intent to go there causing, causing violence. They went there to do their jobs. And, and I, I really do hope that this inflection point holds and that Democrats really use every lever at their availability to push back on this. And I'm so glad that you talked about Senator Murray's comments choice because she's not somebody. Like she's not a filibusterer. Like she's not somebody who gets up and just, you know, bloviates for the sake of it. And she was clearly visibly shocked and speaking from her gut, making a plea to the American people about where we are. And I agree. You should go see her words. I know a lot of people are fed up with politicians talking right now, but I think at times we need that clarion call and I think I second that. That was a great. You know, some days, especially now that it's summer, I just like to slide on a bit of mascara and some lip gloss and go. But other days I like to play with makeup. You know, I think it's a lot of fun. But either way, Thrive always has me covered. It is a trusted favorite that I know will also be perfect for whatever your needs are. Thrive makes certified, 100% vegan and cruelty free products you can depend on for everything from simple daily wear to show, stopping self expression, plus everything from Thrive uses clean skin loving ingredients, high performance and trademarked formulas, and uncompromising standards that you'll be proud to wear.
- [52:22]
Joyce Vance
I love Thrive's Vegan Tubing Liquid Lash Extensions Mascara. It's hard to say, but it's a great product and there's a reason it has over 40,000 five star reviews. It's perfect for a salon look without the damaging glue or excessive prices that come with fake eyelashes. Better yet, you can pick from six shades that will last all day without clumping, smudging or flaking and they slide right off with just warm water and a washcloth without yanking out your natural lashes. One truly amazing thing is how nourishing ingredients support longer, stronger and healthier lashes over time. Meanwhile, their flake free tubing formula makes your lashes look like extensions by lengthening and defining them from root to tip. As soon as I found out about this mascara and started using it, I realized it was the perfect way to make a big impression.
- [53:13]
Barbara McQuaid
We love that Cause is in the name for a reason. Thrive not only defines luxury beauty with clean skin loving ingredients and uncompromising standards, but they give back too. Every purchase supports organizations helping communities thrive across eight major causes, including the fight against cancer and domestic abuse, veteran and education organizations and more. Try your new trusty favorites with an exclusive set for our listeners. New customers can get the Liquid Lash Extensions mascara and a mini sized Brilliant eye brightener at a special set price with free shipping@thrivecosmetics.com Sisters again, that's Thrive Cosmetics. C A U S E M E t I c s.com sisters the link is in our show Notes.
- [54:14]
Joyce Vance
Well, last Friday we learned that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was being returned to the United States after multiple government officials said absolutely not. He was returned so he could receive due process. And surprise, he's not returning just to receive due process. There is also an indictment, federal indictment in Tennessee awaiting him. Barb, I have a lot of questions about this indictment. Do you want to just explain what the charges are in Tennessee? But what I really want to know is what do you make of those charges being brought now? I mean, is that legitimate or is there sort of an element of vindictive and selective prosecution here?
- [54:55]
Barbara McQuaid
Well, it's interesting. You know, I first heard the news that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was coming back to the United States. I thought, hey, because he's been indicted, right? Like, I couldn't spend his hand, right? And what's interesting is this indictment has two counts. One is a count of conspiracy to transport and harbor undocumented immigrants. Of course, it uses the word aliens in it. That is what the statute says. But I think most of us who have operated in this space would call them undocumented immigrants. And then also another count, in addition to the conspiracy that focuses on a very specific incident that occurred in November of 2022 in the Nashville area, Nashville, Tennessee. And that's it. These two counts, the Nashville incident, you may recall if you followed the story closely, has been documented in video because during the traffic stop, he was stopped by a state trooper on the freeway in Tennessee. And and based on the officer's body cameras, they've got video of this situation. And he was in an SUV filled with other men. He was asked where, you know, what he was doing, and he said that he was just driving these men from St. Louis where they'd been doing some work for the past week. And, you know, he was Asked for his license and registration. It was pretty uneventful, and allowed to go on his way. But now the allegations are that he was not simply transporting some friends for work, that these were, in fact, undocumented passengers, and he was transporting and harboring them in violation of the law. You know, he wasn't charged at the time. Here we are three years later, and he's being charged with something that they've, you know, had and maybe known about for a long time. It strikes me that if maybe they can prove that case, you know, I imagine they have evidence that we haven't seen in. Under normal circumstances, I would assume that they had things like phone records, and they say they have license plate readers indicating that he was in Texas, had come from Texas and not St. Louis at the time. So I don't know if that's enough to build a case. It's a grand jury found probable cause, and so I guess we will assume that at least there was sufficient evidence to reach that. But they allege in the conspiracy count, count one, some other kinds of things. But I will note that to get a conviction of the conspiracy on count one, they really only need to prove count two, because all they need to prove is that he agreed with another person to transport undocumented immigrants within the country. And so if they can prove that incident in November of 2022, they can prove count one as well. And, you know, they'll declare victory with. With only one count. So that's interesting. The ca. These are serious charges. The case will run its course. But your other question, Joyce, about whether this is selective or vindictive prosecution. I'm really glad you asked me that question, because these are legal terms of art. You know, it's not enough to say you hate me, and so when you charged me, that was vindictive prosecution. You're being vindictive. They're. They're very specific things. So selective prosecution means people who are similarly situated and do what you do are not ordinarily charged. And I singled you out to charge you for some improper reason. That's arbitrary, it's discriminatory, it's based on your race or your politics or something like that. That's selective prosecution. I don't think anyone would argue that's what's happening here, because lots of people get charged with harboring or transporting undocumented immigrants. Vindictive prosecution, however, is really interesting here because what vindictive prosecution means is being prosecuted in retaliation for the exercise of a known legal right. It's pretty rare. Most often when it comes up is when somebody, say, is convicted and sentenced and they appeal their conviction, and it gets maybe sent back for resentencing, and the prosecutor or the judge say, oh, yeah, wise guy, you decided to appeal. Tell you what, this time I'm going to seek even more time for you to go to prison. That would be vindictive prosecution here. It would be slightly different. You'd probably have to look at it.
- [59:29]
Joyce Vance
A little more broadly.
- [59:29]
Barbara McQuaid
But would this case ever have been brought if Kilmar Abrego Garcia had not himself filed a lawsuit asking to be returned from El Salvador after he was mistakenly sent there with a number of men from Venezuela? Probably not, right? I don't know. And even if we don't ultimately get there, does a motion challenging this prosecution for vindictive prosecution open the door to discovery to read the internal memos of these ICE officials talking about what they want to do with Kilmar Abrego Garcia? I think that could be absolutely fascinating. So it certainly rubs me with an eye of suspicion. It's a shame that it's come to this idea that we can no longer presume regularity with this Department of Justice, but I think that's where we are.
- [60:18]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, I mean, it's such a fascinating sort of a legal issue when we sort of zoom back out to how we got here, right. In this whole notion of the deportations and is this a criminal? You know, I think it's important to say, I don't know who this guy is. He might be a member of a gang. He might be an angel and a virtuous father. I remember those early reports that he was taken into custody while he was driving one of his special needs kids to school. It doesn't matter. Saint or sinner, he's entitled to due process. And if he doesn't get due process, none of us have due process. Right. Because if he can be arrested without the ability to go to court and talk about these sorts of things, well, so can you and I. So you don't have to love Abrego Garcia. You don't have to celebrate him in order to understand the rights and the legal issues that are at stake here. And interestingly, his lawyers have now asked that he should be released, that he shouldn't be detained pending trial in this case. We all know, you know, the formula for this sorts of of thing. The government talks about whether or not he's a flight risk and a danger to the community. Barb, can you talk about that legal standard for assessment and what you think of the argument that his lawyers have made.
- [61:34]
Barbara McQuaid
Yeah. So ordinarily, there is a presumption of release in federal cases, and something like 80% of all defendants get released pending trial. It's a really fairly small percentage that get detained. And part of that probably is because of the nature of federal offenses. Right. It's a lot of corruption, white collar crime, less violent crime than in the state system as a percentage. I suppose there are two exceptions to that presumption of release. One is when a person poses a danger to the community. You know, if you're an axe murderer or you're accused of axe murder, sorry, you don't get out because we're afraid of you. You might hurt somebody. Danger to the community. That's one. The other is risk of flight. So, you know, for example, I can remember somebody we once detained for risk of flight because he had huge amounts of assets, he was very wealthy, he had a home overseas, he frequently traveled overseas. He had relatives overseas. And so it seemed that it would be very easy for him to just pick up his life elsewhere if he could get out of the country. So, danger to the community, risk of flight. One of the things the government argues here is that he's a danger to the community. Because this case involves minors. You only get a hearing on the basis that a defendant is a danger to the community under some very specific circumstances. Most of them relate to the. The charge. The offense you're charged with, you know, a very dangerous charge, or if the charges involve minor victims. There are no minor victims here. There's no allegation of minor victims here. So the lawyers for Abrego Garcia say, you know, that's kind of nonsense. So what it really comes down to is whether he is a risk of flight such that the court ought to change that presumption of release. And what's interesting is they argue that the reason he is a risk of flight is simply because he faces a long time in prison. And the defense says, you know, that's not good enough. There's no such. He has no ties to any other country. He has lived here now for. Since he was a. A young man. He does not have ties. He does not want to return to El Salvador because that's a place he fled because of persecution and gang violence. He has a family here. He's got a wife and children here. He is not a person of substantial means where he could, you know, flee within the country and assume another identity. And so most of the reasons that people typically stay ties to the community, in the view of Abrego Garcia's lawyers actually fall in the side of release. Now, I will say, oftentimes when a person is an undocumented US Citizen, I would say in many cases, that person is detained because there's this sort of presumption that, well, they'll just, they'll just go back home to where they're from. But as we said, that is not a realistic choice for Abrego Garcia. So I think this will be an interesting call to see how this case plays out on the detention question.
- [64:41]
Joyce Vance
I mean, this administration should be happy if he goes back home, right? I mean, that's what they wanted all along. They've given people, like, a thousand bucks and a plane ticket if they'll go back home. So it's sort of. They literally made that offer. Kim it gets still more interesting. The attorneys for Abrego Garcia have asked Judge Paulozenis. She's the judge in Baltimore overseeing the deportation case. They've asked her to impose sanctions against the Trump administration because of the delays in returning. Abrea Garcia oh, my. We're back to federal government in contempt. You know, they wrote, the government's defiance has not been subtle. It has been vocal and sustained and flagrant. It's one thing to ask for sanctions, though, and it's another thing. It's far less common to get them. What do you think's going to happen? How do you assess the arguments on both sides?
- [65:35]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Yeah, so the, the petition was made under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, which is basically holds that if someone defies a court order in the course of litigation, that they can be sanctioned, they can be fined or ordered to comply with it. And the more egregious the claim, the higher the penalties can be. I personally would have also sought Rule 11 sanctions, which goes when attorneys file pleadings that there is no substantive basis for. I think the state secrets excuse was my favorite among the ones proffered by DOJ attorneys in trying to explain why they were giving no information at all about the process of facilitating his return. I think that alone would rise to the level of Rule 11 sanctions as well, which is really like, that's really a slap in the face to the attorneys when something like that happens in litigation. But you were right, actually, getting this sanction. I've moved for sanctions a couple times as a litigator and was never granted them. But it is very rarely granted. Usually what happens is a judge will talk to the parties and say, look, I meant what I said and do what this order says. I think they would step even more carefully when it when the attorneys at issue are at the Department of Justice, regardless of how egregious the actions are. So I'm not holding my breath that this will actually be a successful motion, but I still think it was an important one.
- [67:14]
Joyce Vance
I mean, given that whole context, right. This idea that maybe they will, maybe they won't get sanctions, even though, look, I mean, if we're all being honest about it, if you're ever going to sanction anybody for anything in court, it's the federal government in this case, right? I mean, they weren't walking the line. They were so far over the line, the courts, as we've discussed, tried to avoid a confrontation. And I think that that's maybe okay along the lines of principles of de escalation, but for heaven's sakes, sanctions are merited here, but who knows if we're going to get them? And yet we have this course of conduct by the government. And you had actually shared something with us earlier this week, sort of talking about this. How do you see how the government behaved in this case tying into other developments in the Trump Justice Department?
- [68:02]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Yeah. I read something interesting both in a news report and also something that was flagged by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse about the dismantling of, of the Department of Justice's Public Integrity Unit. And I would love for y' all to, as DOJ alums to talk about this, too, but this was a unit that was in place to ensure that investigations into corruption of public officials are, are investigated thoroughly and completely without any regard to the, the politics of the administration or who was being investigated. Right. You, if it's somebody who is a high profile person, you investigate that thoroughly, completely. And in its own independent unit, that unit was reduced from 30 people to 5 people under PAM Bondi. And I don't, I'm not, I can't say for sure what those five people are doing. But that was meant to prevent instances where you have claims that an investigation into a particular individual or a mistake, a mistaken deportation, so it can apply to Abrego Garcia. And then what seems to be under based on this motion. We just talked about the inability of the government to act in good faith under court order to facilitate bringing him back. That gets right to the treatment of an indictment of a sitting member of Congress that does not feel that it had the full and thorough investigation. As we said, just looking at the video, it doesn't seem clear that a crime was even committed, committed, let alone by her and that maybe there is a connection to the erosion of this particular part of the DOJ and some of the actions that we're seeing. But as alums, what do you guys think?
- [69:53]
Joyce Vance
Barb?
- [69:54]
Barbara McQuaid
Yeah, well, the Public Integrity section is one of those, you know, post Watergate efforts to depoliticize the Department of Justice to have career people there reviewing cases so that people who are, you know, political public officials are being charged on the basis of fact and law and not politics by a local U.S. attorney. I mean, you have to get their approval, their sign off before you can bring charges. And so what's interesting is they are now out of the picture. Of course, many of them resigned after the episode with Eric Adams, the mayor of New York, when Email Beauvais, you know, wanted to dismiss the case there. Public Integrity was very much involved in that and a number of people there resigned over that case. So it is now just a skeleton crew there. And they've been squeezed out of their primary mission, which was to insulate the department from politics. And so now we've got Pam Bondi, who is directly accountable, works directly for the president, appointed by the president. It certainly at least creates an appearance that there is partisan influence over charging decisions.
- [71:04]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Yeah. And overlay the fact that Donald Trump campaigned on this idea that the DOJ was weaponized against him, which was not the case in part because there were things like a functional, robust Public Integrity Unit at doj. It really shows why this was needed. I wish Join Banks were here to chime in on this, too, since this is the result of Watergate. But, yeah, it just rings true to me that making that connection rings true to me. You know, Father's Day is this Sunday, and it would be a great gift for all the dads and husbands out there. No matter what they say, I speak from experience when I say that they love a heartfelt. Were you thinking about, you know, getting the dads in your life a pair of socks? I mean, come on, weak sauce, right? Or a tie. I'm sure they've never gotten that as a gift before. I think it's good to give the men in your life something that they'll really love and you know, that they will use for years to come. So that's why we wanted to tell you about aura frames. They make unique and stylish digital picture frames that make displaying and sharing your favorite memories easy and fun.
- [72:26]
Joyce Vance
Most gifts get a big fuss when they're opened, and then no one ever looks at them again. And that is most definitely not the case. When you give someone an aura frame like Getting your dad one for Father's Day with an aura frame, you're creating an amazing way to stay connected to the important people in your life and remember the great times that you've shared. You know, I used to get the little printed photo books that you put together and you like physically give somebody the photo book and then it collects dust on a shelf with the aura frame. It's always sitting there. It's the perfect way to enjoy the best memories of past times together. There's even unlimited space so you can always add photos from new adventures. You know, I like these so much. Father's Day is great. But I'm getting them for each of my kids now that they're becoming adults and setting up their own households because I want them to remember what a great mom I am.
- [73:18]
Barbara McQuaid
Ooh, I like that. Well, you know, we've been talking about dads. I will tell you, I've given this as a gift as well. Cause I think it's really terrific. And we've heard from listeners how much they've enjoyed their aura frames. But nobody loves his aura frame more than my father in law. He loves his aura frame so much that he takes it with him when he travels because he loves the pictures. Yeah, we loaded it for him and it has hundreds of pictures of him with his grandkids and he loves it. He loves looking at these old photos and because it rotates, there are hundreds of photos on there, he gets to see new photos all the time. So aura frames, by the way, was named the best digital photo frame by Wirecutter and it's easy to see why. There's unlimited storage so you can add as many photos, videos, truly as many photos, videos and funny memes as you can find. Plus it's really simple to set up. All you have to do is plug it in and share away. So this Father's Day, if you're thinking about the guy who swore he didn't need anything, let the aura frame prove him wrong. Aura has a great deal for Father's Day. For a limited time, listeners can save on the perfect gift by visiting auraframes.com to get $30 off their best selling Carver mat frame. That's a U R A frames.com promo code. Sisters support the show by mentioning us at checkout. Terms and conditions apply. The link is in our show notes.
- [74:51]
Kimberly Atkins Store
So we have come to our favorite part of the podcast which is answering questions from our listeners. You know, you can email your question to sisters in lawoliticon.com but it's much more fun to send them to us on social media. Wherever you find us, just tag us, ask us your questions. We answer a few on each show and we also sometimes get in your mentions and ask them right there on the platform, so keep them coming up. First, we have a question from Barbara.
- [75:23]
Barbara McQuaid
Not me.
- [75:24]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Are there? Oh, yes. No, we have a question from another Barbara. Are there any possible legal consequences for politicians or who blatantly lie? So to keep us from having Barbara overload, I'm going to ask that question of Joyce.
- [75:40]
Joyce Vance
Well, Barbara, I have an answer for you. Maybe not the one that you're looking for. Yes, there absolutely are possible legal consequences for politicians who lie, but not the way you think. They're not going to get prosecuted. You can lie all day long, but you know, when you lose your job, that's a legal consequence of a. Of sort. Sort. Right. Maybe it's more of a political consequence here than a legal one. But the consequence is politicians who lie to their constituents should be rejected when they run for reelection. And so it's up to us, all of us, the voters, to make sure that we just don't tolerate that, that we get out and vote and we get our neighbors as angry as we are about people who lie and say things like, oh, I didn't realize that that was a United States senator who the FBI just hauled out of this room and threw to the ground and put in handcuffs. We should hold them accountable for those sorts of things. Or their bosses. Right. If it's your boss, the president, who's condoning that, then that should be something that we consider come reelection time. Our right to vote is under attack. There was a little bit of good news. I can't remember if it was Thursday or Friday, but a federal district court judge for the first time held that Donald Trump's executive order, that would have made it a lot more difficult for people to register to vote, that it can't move forward, or at least that parts of it can't. We'll see how that litigation progresses. But look, your right to vote is under attack. There's never been a better time to make sure that you've got identification. I applied to get a passport card just this morning. That's one of the pieces of identification you can use. Devote. It's a little bit less expensive. Expensive than getting a passport for people who maybe don't travel internationally, but this is the moment to be prepared because they are coming for your rights. And we need to make sure we hold the people who lie to us accountable.
- [77:31]
Barbara McQuaid
And Barbara My namesake, my name, sister, I have a little Barbara story for you. I once had a chance to meet former President George W. Bush, and I was introduced to him. And this is Barbara McQuaid. And he said, barbara, I am surrounded by Barbaras in my life. And I said, I bet you say that to all the Barbaras. So, Barbara, if you should meet former President George W. Bush, be ready for that line.
- [77:58]
Kimberly Atkins Store
That's funny. All right, our next question comes from TC Boy 1, who asks, with all the lawsuits currently being filed against the Trump administration, as well as all of the appeals, who ends up paying for the lawyers and legal costs that are being racked up? Is it the taxpayers who end up footing the bill for the administration? Barbara?
- [78:18]
Barbara McQuaid
Well, TC Boy 1, get out your wallet, because it's all of us. It is taxpayers. And it's what's so interesting about, I think my view of Donald Trump's litigation strategy is make bold moves, stretch the court, you know, executive power, redefining birthright citizenship.
- [78:40]
Joyce Vance
Right.
- [78:41]
Barbara McQuaid
Just throw the Hail Marys all day long. Because if you win, you've expanded executive power, and if you lose, you've lost a lawsuit that's been paid for by the taxpayer. So he is playing with house money. We are all paying for it. Now, of course, these lawyers are already there. They're not paying additional money for them to bring these cases. But what it really comes down to is the opportunity cost. Because while they're defending all of these lawsuits, what are they not doing? They are not enforcing other laws. They are not defending the United States against other kinds of lawsuits. They are not bringing environmental enforcement and civil rights enforcement and fraud claims on behalf of the United States. So our tax dollars are instead being used to defend Donald Trump's executive orders.
- [79:31]
Kimberly Atkins Store
Yeah. And just be, and yes, the, the attorneys are already there. But litigation is expensive. It is not cheap. There are fees. There's litigation costs with discovery. It's very expensive. So it is a lot of taxpayer money going out of the window there. Our final question for today comes from Michelle, who asks, I'm curious, what happens to the debts and assets of deported people? Are they at risk? Michelle, this is a great question. So being removed from the United States in itself, in terms of property rights, what you own and what, whatever debts you have, does not change it at all. But of course, functionally, it does. Right? The, the assets, if you have bank accounts and, you know, your home or, or car, anything like that, if you're removed from the United States, obviously you can't access them. They still remain Yours. But there could be trouble with family members or other people trying to deal with those debts for you. Also, if your banks get noticed that you have a new address outside of the United States, they may close your account and it may be difficult for your family members to access that money. Some immigration attorneys actually advise people who are at risk to have some estate planning and giving power of attorney to other family members in the event that something like that happens and they're unable to access their assets themselves. Another thing that happens is your debts do not go away. If you have debts but you are unable to pay them either because the payment systems are different, your banks are, the banks are located in the United States, you will still go into default. That will still negatively affect you. You could still, if you miss your mortgage payments, your home can go into foreclosure and you can lose it. So there is a lot at stake in terms of people's own assets and properties if they are deported, even if they, the deportation itself does not strip them of their property rights directly. Well, that's it for this very long episode of Sisters in Law. There's a lot going on this week, you guys and we, we always come here in an effort to educate you about it and break it down for you. Don't forget to follow Sisters in Law wherever she you listen. Please give us a five star review because it helps other people find the show and please show some love for this week's sponsors, Blueland, Osea, Malibu, Thrive Cosmetics and Aura Frames. The links are all in the show notes and please support them because they support us on behalf of Joyce Vance, Barb McQuaid and absent Jill Wine Banks and me, Kimberly Atkins store. See you next week with another episode, Sisters in Law.
- [82:24]
Barbara McQuaid
Yeah, well, I'm just sitting a little closer to the mic.
- [82:26]
Kimberly Atkins Store
I was speak closer to the madness. Now singers, they be like, they are all like the lips are touching the phone when singers sing. When I used to sing, I hated singing after somebody because you know that their spit was just all over the.
- [82:42]
Joyce Vance
Mic and it was, ew, that's so gross.
- [82:45]
Kimberly Atkins Store
You don't have to do like the mic is doing the work. You don't have to lick it like, okay, so bye.
- [82:56]
Joyce Vance
Packages by Expedia. You were made to be rechargeable.
- [83:03]
Kimberly Atkins Store
We were made to package flights, hotels and hammocks for less. Expedia made to travel.
- [83:11]
D
Hi, I'm Richard Karn and you may have seen me on TV talking about the world's number one expandable garden hose. Well, the brand new pocket hose Copperhead with Pocket Pivot is here and it's a total game changer. Old fashioned hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the Copperhead's pocket pivot swivels 360 degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home. When you're all done, this rust proof anti burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for effortless handling and tidy storage. Plus your super light and ultra durable pocket hose. Copperhead is backed with a 10 year warranty. What could be better than that? I'll tell you what. An exciting radio exclusive offer just for you for a limited time. You can get a free pocket pivot and their 10 pattern sprayer with the purchase of any size Copperhead hose. Just text water to 64,000. That's water to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase W A T E R to 64,000 by texting 64,000.
- [84:06]
Barbara McQuaid
You agree to receive recurring automated marketing.
- [84:07]
Joyce Vance
Messages from Pocket Host. Message and data rates may apply. No purchase required.
- [84:10]
D
Terms apply.
- [84:10]
Joyce Vance
Available@pocket host.com terms packages by Expedia. You were made to be rechargeable.
- [84:18]
Kimberly Atkins Store
We were made to package flights, hotels and hammocks for less. Expedia Made to travel.