Loading summary
Transcript92 lines
- [00:00]
Barb McQuaid
Foreign. Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Jill Wine Banks, Joyce Vance and me, Barb McQuaid. Kim is away, but she'll be back soon. We do have some big news. The new Resistance mini tote is ready for order. This item has been flying off the shelves. Very popular. Mini totes are all the rage. And what better to have than the Resistance on your mini tote? You can go to politicon.com merch to get yours now. Now let's get on with the show. Today we'll be discussing DOJ's investigation of Jim Comey and John Brennan, the class action certified by a judge in the birthright citizenship cases, and the claims of a DOJ whistleblower. But first, Jill, we have to ask you about your experience as the grand marshal of the Fourth of July parade in Evanston, Illinois. How did it go?
- [01:06]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, it was a lot of fun. I have gotten a lot of comments from my good friends who said, why did I have to listen to Sisters in Law last week to find out that you were in the parade? And I just, I failed to notify my friends, so they weren't there to cheer me on. But there were a lot of people in the crowd who are big Sisters in Law fans and they were very excited to see me. And I did have my mini tote with me, guys. Oh, you were doing it all. I was doing it all. I was promoting it. It had my water because it was really, really hot. I rode in a Model T and the model type was called Depot Hack. And I learned that it is the original station wagon. Depot is what they used to call train stations. So station Depot and Hack was short for the English version of a wagon that picked people up, fancy wagons that picked people up for fancy hotels at the depot. And so the depot Hack had. And one of our fans has asked that I post a picture, which I will be happy to do as soon as someone explains to me how I can find her on Blue Sky. As soon as you tell me that, I will post a picture of me with a model T wearing, by the way, red, white and blue jewelry, a blue dress, a red and white necklace, a red and blue and white bracelet. So I stuck to the patriotic theme.
- [02:38]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, that's great. And was it fun? Like, were people cheering for you? Were you throwing candy to kids? Like, what was it like to be in the parade?
- [02:44]
Jill Wine Banks
I was just waving. My manicurist, Agnes was there from A and J retreat, little plug for them. And she said my nails looked really nice. I have a French manicure and you could tell it matched my white and red and blue theme. So it was all good. Yeah, it was really fun. But it was mostly, and I think I may have mentioned this, I forward it to you. At the end, I got out of this Model T and a young man who was in a summer program at Northwestern Journalism school, Medill, ran up to me. Are you really Jill Winebanks, the lawyer? And I said, yes. He said, I read your book when I was 13. Which made me wonder, why am I working on a children's book if my actual memoir was read by him? And then he wrote me an email through my website saying, I, I checked with my library and I've taken your book out 13 times. I've not only read it when I was 13, but I've read it 13 times. Wow. I don't know.
- [03:43]
Barb McQuaid
You have to stand there.
- [03:44]
Jill Wine Banks
I know. I may have to rethink doing a children's book. I don't know. What did you all do on the 4th of July?
- [03:53]
Joyce Vance
I didn't have nearly as much fun as you did. Jill, you're my hero.
- [03:58]
Barb McQuaid
A lot of fireworks and a lot of ice cream for me, which makes for a great holiday.
- [04:04]
Joyce Vance
Hey, can I ask you guys a question about ice cream? Because we're getting ready to go on vacation and I'm hearing a lot about soft serve up in Maine. Do you guys have soft serve where you are? We don't really have it.
- [04:16]
Jill Wine Banks
Oh, interesting.
- [04:17]
Barb McQuaid
I just heard the other day that someone who lives in Florida does not have soft serve.
- [04:23]
Jill Wine Banks
Really?
- [04:24]
Barb McQuaid
Do you not have Dairy Queen?
- [04:26]
Joyce Vance
I mean. Well, yeah, we do have Dairy Queen soft serve. I just don't think it's something else. This is like homemade soft serve at roadside places in Maine. It looks very 4th of July Z to me. Very, you know, Americana. And I'm excited about it. I just don't have a lot of experience with it.
- [04:42]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, there's two different kinds. I mean, there's Dairy Queen that Barb mentioned, but there's also a custard, a soft serve custard. And I haven't tried that yet, but friends are recommending it.
- [04:53]
Joyce Vance
I think that's what they have up in Maine. I'll report back. I'll report back next Friday.
- [04:57]
Barb McQuaid
It's your assignment. All right, looking forward to the full report. Joyce. Summer is here, and you know what that means. It's time for breezy dresses, bold colors, and all the effortlessly cool looks you've been waiting to wear. So whether you're heading to rooftop brunches, garden parties, or just soaking up the sun in your favorite sundress. The right shapewear can make all the difference, so today's episode is brought to you by HoneyLove, the brand redefining modern shapewear with real comfort and serious support. Their newest innovation, Mesh Sculpt, is the ultimate summer shapewear. Usually lightweight shapewear doesn't offer much hold, and strong shapewear is very heavy. But Mesh Sculpt changes all of that. It's breathable and lightweight without sacrificing its power. Plus it keeps you cool while still delivering the sculpted silhouette you want.
- [05:58]
Jill Wine Banks
Honeylove's targeted compression smooths and shapes exactly where you want it to and eases up where you don't. It works with your body, not against it. Plus, thanks to flexible boning on the sides, it stays in place. That means no rolling, no shifting, no awkward adjusting. Thanks to their incredible design details. Whether you're dressing up for a night out or just staying home in your go to sundress, Honey Love has you covered all season long. For a limited time, you can get Honey Love on sale. Treat yourself to 20% off your entire order by heading to honeylove.com Sisters support the show and check them out because you deserve this glow up.
- [06:43]
Joyce Vance
Speaking from experience, Honey Love is the perfect pairing with exercise and summer outdoor activities. I love how comfortable their leggings are and they're my go to for everything from Pilates and strength training to running errands. Best of all, their targeted compression technology means you never feel suffocated and I know you'll love your honeylove inspired look. Treat yourself to the most comfortable shapewear on earth and save 20% off site wide@honeylove.com sisters use our exclusive link to get 20% off honeylove.com sisters after your purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Experience the new standard in Shapewear with HoneyLove. The link is in our show note.
- [07:37]
Jill Wine Banks
Just two weeks ago, even though it seems like it was a lot longer, on June 27th in Casa v. Trump, SCOTUS said the federal district court could not issue a nationwide injunction that barred enforcement of President Trump's executive order that looked like it was rewriting the 14th Amendment of our Constitution and abolishing the right of birthright citizenship. And that's something the 14th Amendment has always granted to anyone and everyone born on US soil except for foreign diplomats offspring. We talked about the ruling a couple of weeks ago when it was first issued, and talked about the chaos that might result with conflicting rulings from multiple courts in various individual cases. We noted that a class action would be or could be a way around the chaos and inconsistent results. And that's what happened. Barb, can you talk about the case that's actually called Barbara versus Trump? What are the facts and what's going on there?
- [08:44]
Barb McQuaid
Yes. So, interesting case. You know, on the same day that the Supreme Court issued its decision striking down universal injunctions, which we talked about, and left anybody born in any state who is not a party to that case vulnerable to the Trump executive order changing the definition of birthright citizenship. On that same day, when we saw this lawsuit filed on behalf of a pregnant mother who is an undocumented immigrant, her name or her pseudonym is Barbara. It was filed by the aclu. You know, you have to believe they kind of had this ready to go in the hopper on the sort of if come if the Supreme Court had issued this decision. And as soon as the decision came down, they filed this thing and a judge in New Hampshire was assigned to the case, looked at it and said, yes, this is exactly the kind of case for which a class action should be certified. That there is a likelihood of success on the merits of challenging this brand new definition of the constitutional right to become a US Citizen for anyone born in the country. And that the plaintiffs, any baby born subject to this order, would suffer irreparable harm. They would be stripped of their citizenship and left in legal limbo. So I think in some ways the Supreme Court should or welcome this development because it's exactly what they said was available. When they sort of downplayed the harm of a universal injunction, they said, well, there's always class actions. Well, here we go. Now there's a class action, it's been certified, and the case will proceed. And in the meantime, the judge says that he's issued a preliminary injunction and certified a class so that no baby that gets born until this case is resolved should be deportable as a non citizen.
- [10:36]
Jill Wine Banks
Joyce, let's follow up on that. Very good explanation from Barb. And does what was now issued, does this protect everyone that the CASA plaintiffs tried to protect? And also because of your real job daily as a professor, please explain what's required for a class action and what is the difference between a class action and what Skoda said the federal district court couldn't do?
- [11:03]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. So I'm actually going to draw on my experience in practice as a real lawyer. How about that, Jill? When I was a young lawyer in Washington, I did some work on civil Rights class actions. My firm let us do some pro bono work and I worked on a class action civil rights case where we were certifying the same kind of classes that are now involved in the birthright citizenship case. They're called B2 classes. So here's the difference. The injunctions that the Supreme Court has now disallowed, that's where a district judge sitting in one district has some plaintiffs in front of him. Let's just say eight. And the judge rules government. You can't do this to these eight plaintiffs. And also you can't do it to any place else, anywhere in the country. That's a nationwide injunction. Class action is a little bit different. And let me explain that. There are four elements that you have to establish in order to get a class certified. You've got to show that, that the proposed class is numerous, that it's really big, but also that it's ascertainable. You can figure out who's in the class. You have to show that across all of these voluminous class members, common issues predominate, that they have the same issue that they need the court to resolve for them. You have to show that the folks who want to be the named plaintiffs are eight people from the nationwide injunction. Well, they're now offering to be representative plaintiffs for the entire class. And they have to show that their claims are typical of the rest of the class, that they're not in a different situation. And it might cause the issues result involved in resolving their situation to differ from other class members. And then you have to show that the lawyers are good enough to do it, that the proposed class representatives will be well represented. So, you know, that's the landscape. And when you certify a class, if you do it, you know, if, if your basis for doing it is broad enough, you can in essence draw up almost all or even all of those people who would have been covered by a nationwide injunction. And here the judge drew very widely. It's essentially, you know, all babies. So in my view, this is coextensive with the prior injunction, but I just have a little asterisk that I'm going to put out. Getting a class certified is not easy. You can tell from those four factors, right? There's a lot of legwork that's involved. So this is not something that you can use in the same fast way that you can use an injunction. You can't get a class certified quickly enough to keep a plane from taking off.
- [13:48]
Jill Wine Banks
That's such an important distinction because in this case of Course, it was an imminent threat when we talk about planes taking off. But it's also true that births are gonna take place regardless of when this executive order goes into effect. So that's an important point. But. So, Barb, what's next?
- [14:08]
Joyce Vance
And, Jill, can I just say, by the way, that they've gilded the lily a little bit. The judge was careful in his order to go back to a February date to make sure that no babies would fall through the crack. So that's, you know, lawyers can be clever and smart about crafting these sorts of responses. It's still not as. As nimble of a mechanism as a nationwide injunction would have been.
- [14:31]
Jill Wine Banks
So, Barb, what's next? When do you expect something to happen in this case?
- [14:37]
Barb McQuaid
Well, the judge gave the Trump administration seven days so that it could appeal the order. So there's sort of a stay on the effectiveness until then. I imagine the Trump administration will most certainly appeal. They've been nothing but aggressive in all of these cases. Even though they got the decision they wanted out of the Supreme Court to block universal injunctions, I imagine they will appeal this. We will see it decided in the Court of Appeals out of New Hampshire. There'll be the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and maybe to the Supreme Court, although, I don't know. You know, ordinarily, the Supreme Court is not supposed to get involved in these sort of preliminary questions.
- [15:18]
Joyce Vance
And.
- [15:19]
Barb McQuaid
And so it may be that the court stands down and decides to let this case run its course. But we could see at some point a decision by the Supreme Court as to whether a class action is appropriate. I suspect the answer will be yes. I mean, they all but said that in the decision that they made on universal injunctions, that that's. That was the perfect vehicle here. So I think that's going to get upheld. And then, of course, we'll get to the merits of the question, which is ultimately what we want. And I think on the merits, I think most scholars agree that this is a losing argument. The idea that you can, you know, president, by executive order, can rewrite a constitutional amendment, I think is probably a non starter.
- [16:02]
Jill Wine Banks
I totally agree with that. And it is important to note that Casa, the original Supreme Court opinion, was procedural only and didn't get to the merits. So now it is important to get to the merits. And is this the best solution? And, you know, you've already. Barb, you've weighed in on what you think the outcome will be, which I agree with. Joyce, do you agree that the outcome's going to be that the 14th Amendment cannot be rewritten by an executive order.
- [16:32]
Joyce Vance
Well, that's what the outcome should be. The question is, how does that issue make its way back to the Supreme Court? You know, Casa was very cleverly limited this last go round by the Solicitor General to just that nationwide injunction issue. He managed to divorce it from this underlying issue that virtually everyone with any intelligence or common sense agrees is a stone cold loser. Donald Trump picking up his Sharpie pen and writing birthright citizenship out of our laws and constitutional rights. So, given John Sauer, the Solicitor General's track record of success in round one, I think we can fully anticipate that he will try to prevent the issue from going back to the Supreme Court for a decision on its substantive merits. And how does he do that? He just doesn't appeal when he loses in the courts of appeals. If this case is as bad and meritless as we all think it is, the courts of appeals are all going to rule against the Trump administration when it goes to them. And Sauer will just lay back and they'll be happy with their patchwork quilt. Maybe in the 5th Circuit and the 11th Circuit, there won't be birthright citizenship. Maybe, maybe it'll exist in other circuits. And so I think that there's some risk that they're playing this long game and that they'll be happy with confusion and chaos as a mechanism. My hope is that the Supreme Court will have had enough of their game playing. And I think it's important to remember that this constitutional amendment, the 14th amendment, came into place following a case that's a big blot on our nation's history, Dred Scott, which was a case that was brought by people who were enslaved. And there are argument was we were in a state where there wasn't slavery. Now we've come back here, there's no provision for our re enslavement. And so that was sort of the origin of that case. Well, you can imagine the same thing here, right? Kids that are born in one state, but they go to another state or maybe another judicial circuit, and suddenly they're not citizens. I mean, that's just the kind of chaos that this administration thrives on. And that's all the reason for the court to take some steps to get this issue back in front of them. They should have decided it the first time. It was irresponsible not to. Now I fear that babies and their moms will pay the price for that.
- [19:00]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, hopefully the case of Barbara versus Trump will resolve that. They will not be able to evade the responsibility to say that the language of the 14th amendment is clear, the precedent over 100 years is clear, and that babies born on US soil are US citizens.
- [19:20]
Barb McQuaid
You know, I kind of like the idea that the case that once and for all stands up to the President is called Barbara versus Trump.
- [19:29]
Joyce Vance
I'm gonna need the T shirt.
- [19:33]
Jill Wine Banks
I'm gonna need the pin. And definite T shirt. Definite T shirt.
- [19:39]
Barb McQuaid
You can have a picture of me and Trump's hair.
- [19:42]
Jill Wine Banks
Oh, God.
- [19:43]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. There you go.
- [19:55]
Jill Wine Banks
Did you know that there are statistics that show that 90% of parents are concerned about microplastics and cleaning products? But aren't we all? Most of us don't know we're cleaning with microplastics every day. They get on our dishes, in our food, and worst of all, in our bodies. That's why we've made the switch to Blueland. Across all the cleaning products around our houses, their products meet the highest standards of clean. They're effective, yet gentle on our families and the planet.
- [20:27]
Barb McQuaid
Blueland was previously named an EPA Safer Choice Partner of the Year for a reason. From cleaning sprays and toilet bowl cleaner to dishwasher and laundry detergent tablets, Blueland's formulas are 100% microplastic free, made with certified clean ingredients, free from chlorine, bleach and harsh chemicals, which are safe to use around my family in the house. I love not having to choose between the safe option and what actually gets my house clean. And I know you will, too.
- [20:58]
Joyce Vance
Blueland products are independently tested to perform alongside major brands and they're trusted in over 1 million homes, including mine. The fragrances add a pleasant vibe to your house. And I can't tell you how many times the subscription has saved me from running out of cleaning products, which is a big deal when you have four kids and you run the dishwasher a lot. It feels great knowing that I'm incorporating sustainable practices into essential everyday activities. And we know you'll love it, too. Best of all, right now, Blueland has a special offer for our listeners. You can get 15% off your first order by going to blueland.com sisters. You won't want to miss out. Blueland.com sisters for 15% off. That's blueland.com sisters to get 15% off. I never knew I cared about cleaning products before Blueland, but I really do. The link is in our show notes.
- [22:04]
Barb McQuaid
Well, reporting this week indicated that the Department of Justice is investigating. Wait for it. Jim Comey again, the former FBI director, of course, and John Brennan, the former CIA director from way back in the Obama administration and officially, I think, members of Trump's enemies list. So, Joyce, can you bring us up to speed on what we know about this investigation?
- [22:30]
Joyce Vance
This investigation stems from a referral by former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, who provided evidence to the FBI regarding potential wrongdoing related to the 2016 election interference investigation, if you can remember that far back. And here's who Ratcliffe is. He was elected to Congress in 2014, became a strong Trump ally, particularly during the first impeachment trial. He was an outspoken critic. He called the process the weakest impeachment archive country has ever seen, and he's now Trump's CIA director. So the investigation also examines the handling of the 2017 intelligence assessment regarding Russian interference and the so called Steele dossier. I'm sure you've all figured it out by now. This is the politics of revenge and little more.
- [23:22]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, you know, one of the things, you know, there's so many red flags on this. I mean, one is, as we all know, the Justice Department is supposed to neither confirm nor deny even the existence of an investigation. And this story comes from some DOJ source. So somebody's leaking it and putting it out there. It doesn't, it reminds you of, you know, when Trump just wants an investigation to announce, like with Zelensky, I just need an announcement of an investigation. I don't need an actual investigation. Or remember what he said when he was talking to the DOJ guys after the 2016 election. I just need you to say there was fraud. Leave the rest to me. And Republican congressmen.
- [24:01]
Joyce Vance
So, Jill, that's exactly what this is. I think your point is a good one. And we'll hear Trump all the time say, you know, well, you know, Jim Comey is under criminal investigation. We'll hear that and we'll remember what you said.
- [24:14]
Jill Wine Banks
And Barb, isn't it also true? I read, and I'm not sure because I didn't hear this, said that part of the response was we don't comment on ongoing investigations, which is an affirmation that there is an investigation. And to your point, there is supposed to be no comment on whether it exists or doesn't.
- [24:36]
Barb McQuaid
Did they wink as they said that, you think, Jill?
- [24:38]
Joyce Vance
Yeah. Really?
- [24:39]
Barb McQuaid
Well, Jill, let me ask you, like, what about the statute of limitations, right? Both of these men have not been in office since the Obama administration. How would that work?
- [24:48]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, good point, Barb. It's actually a little more complicated. But in general, of course, there's a five year statute of limitations, which after 2017, means 2022 would be the end of any potential criminal investigation or charging. You cannot go beyond five years. In the case of Comey, there is some investigation, I hate to even use that word of a tweet that he put out of a photograph of seashells and at the beach where he was vacationing. And I think that may be a separate issue. But as to everything else, of course, the five years has long expired and there cannot be any potential criminal, which means that an investigation is completely a waste of our tax dollars and completely inappropriate. And to Joyce's. And your point is completely political revenge. It's what Donald Trump promised and what he is getting.
- [25:54]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. You know, I read somewhere that Brennan had testified before Congress in 2023, so maybe if he lied to conceal his misconduct from earlier, that could freshen the statute of limitations. But I tend to agree with you. You know, when we've got Trump on his very first day in office, issues this executive order about holding accountable people who have weaponized the government or engaged in lawfare, it seems like even Trump's most ardent supporters would see this as mere retribution, especially in light of the fact that we had that inspector general investigation into the origins of the Trump Russia investigation. Right. Then there was the investigation by John Durham into the origins, and he only ended up with two very minor prosecutions, one of whom was acquitted. You know, so you have to wonder what more they could be looking at. So, Joyce, can you tell us a little bit about some of the protections that exist at DOJ under the principles of federal prosecution and the dialogue that ordinarily prevent DOJ from going after a president's enemies just because they're his enemies?
- [27:00]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, I mean, I think that this is the perfect follow on question to the comment you just made about, you know, what are they going to get after everything that's gone before? Because, look, if this was any other administration, I could answer your question about protections that are in place, but in this administration, there are no rules. I literally cannot tell you if there are any ground rules. We are watching Pam Bondi in real time fire DOJ attorneys and other personnel just by flipping a note their way that says, essentially, the President of the United States wants you gone, and Kash Patel is polygraphing FBI agents in this, like, crazy loyalty test sort of thing. That's just. Just nuts. So in a normal world, you couldn't open a case if the prosecution was time barred, for instance, you wouldn't pursue it if it was clear that you didn't have a criminal case to Prosecute. There are sort of these two parallel sort of bibles. Prosecutors have the Justice Manual in the FBI, it's called the Dialogue. But they both have these same sorts of limitations, particularly when you're talking about public figures and government employees about when you can open cases. Comey in particular is an attorney, which means that there are additional strictures on sort of investigative steps that you can take. But. But this is about Donald Trump having an enemy to fight. Trump always has to have an enemy to fight. Without that, he is no one. And so he's resurrecting these old enemies in whatever. This is round six of the grudge match. And look, he is telling doj, either directly or at least signaling to them, who to investigate and who to indict. Abrego Garcia. Right. It's a ridiculous indictment brought because Donald Trump wants it. The judge in Wisconsin, the New Jersey congresswoman. So I think we're just operating in this rules free zone where the standards that are established in the Justice Manual and the dialogue simply cease to matter. And that, by the way, is not just a, oh, well, shrug your shoulders and move on. That's something that should be deeply disturbing because both the Justice Manual and the Dialogue are sort of living documents. They've been developed based on experience and standards, and they're an integral part of ensuring that the Justice Department adheres to the rule of law. You know, Barb, you may have had this experience. I was involved in updating one of the sections that was very, very basic, very important to all of us, the principles of federal prosecution, which tells prosecutors when they can indict a case and when it's got. It's when you have evidence that you believe would permit you to obtain a trial conviction and sustain it on appeal. Otherwise, you can't indict. It is really tough to figure out how they would ever get past that here. So I think that this is just theatrics. This is just Trump saying, I've got an investigation and these guys are guilty. And, you know, whatever it is that he's going to say. Yeah.
- [30:05]
Barb McQuaid
And those principles, of course, also say that politics may never play a role in deciding whether to exercise discretion in bringing charges. And they also were enacted after Watergate in an effort to try to avoid some of the abuses that we saw during Watergate. Jill, based on what we're seeing now in this enemies list, you know, I hear these terms and it reminds me of Nixon and his enemies list. You see any parallels or shades of Watergate in any of this?
- [30:35]
Jill Wine Banks
I can and That's a great question, but before I answer it, I just want to say, unless in the time that my hearing of the show went dead, you have been referring to diag, which those of us former DOJ people know, but I'm betting that our listeners may not. And it stands for the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide. So I just wanted to add, add that to the show so that people listening will know. You know, I keep hearing from the Trump administration that everything that Biden did is worse than Watergate. Well, here's one where for sure what's going on is worse than Watergate. This is political retribution, for sure. And the enemies list that Nixon had was something that we now have seen publicly because John Dean released all the names that were on it. And I'm sorry to say I didn't make the list. I am sorry about that. But Mary McGrory, I think, may be the only woman who made it. She was a reporter, a columnist at the time. But that was child's play. I mean, they said, let's investigate them from the irs, and nothing ever much happened with it, as opposed to, for example, the deep dive audits that Andrew McCabe and James Comey have been subjected to in the past. And what is going on now. This current stuff with Brennan and Comey are certainly worse than Watergate. This is an enemies list that is the best, best example of what is now being called lawfare or weaponization. And this is truly proof that we are beyond a democracy, we're beyond justice, and that we are in real danger of slipping into what Russia is, what other bad countries are. And we have to do whatever we can to stop this. Right now, the best way is the courts. And in 26 elections. We've got to stop this by changing Congress, who may stand up to this kind of tactics.
- [33:00]
Barb McQuaid
Let me finish up by just asking about this case that Jill mentioned, and that is this incident where Jim Comey posted online seashells spelling out the numbers 8647, which, you know, 86 in restaurant parlance means to cancel. 47, I suppose, could indicate Donald Trump, the 47th president, some have said it said at the time that that was potentially a threat on the life of the president. Well, a story broke this week that following that post online, the Secret Service surveilled Jim Comey and his wife both physically and electronically. Joyce, is it first, Is it proper for the Secret Service or the FBI to conduct that kind of surveillance ones?
- [33:44]
Joyce Vance
You know, I'm sure you have the same experience that I have had every Time in particular, that Barack Obama got close to my district, there was a barrage of threats, some more credible than others. The Secret Service runs them all down to make sure that there's no threat to a president. Some are taken more seriously than others. And the problem here is that this is not really much of a threat coming from Jim Comey, who is nobody's idea of a risk to do anything to a President of the United States. Look, I mean, Comey may be his own worst enemy, sort of carelessly posting this, but he's clearly not a threat to Donald Trump. And so he and his wife, Patrice, they get tailed by authorities as they're driving from the North Carolina coast from the Outer Banks. Back home in Virginia, they've been vacationing. And there's no word as to whether or not Jim realized he was being tailed, but I would be surprised if he didn't realize it. And maybe if that's not sort of the origin story of the reporting in this area, the reality is that that kind of visual surveillance is just a waste of taxpayer money and Secret Service time. I mean, it may not technically violate the law. I'm not sure what their standards are for predicating that. They're certainly entitled to pick up the phone and have a call with Jim or his lawyer. They're even entitled to go to his house and have an interview. But this claim that they're tracking him so that they can talk to him when he gets home is a little bit silly. And I think it gets a little bit worse. Right. There's reporting that the service was receiving information showing the location of his phone so that federal authorities could be stationed waiting for him. I think depending on how they were doing, that this actually could cross the line. I mean, I've seen the Secret Service do a lot less for far more concerning threats. All they want to do is make sure that the President's life isn't really at danger. Donald Trump is out of the country while all of this is happening, so there's no urgency. I think that this is just intimidation tactics. Comey made an error, he gave them an opening, and they drove a truck through it.
- [35:55]
Barb McQuaid
Yes, I agree with that. Like, it's like, oh, gotcha, Jim Comey. I mean, what supervisor approves all of this, right? I mean, it's expensive to have physical surveillance and to go up. And even aside from that expense, it means your agents are not doing other things that they should be doing to protect the American people. I mean, Jill, what do you think about whether it's legal or Not, I think it's probably lawful to conduct surveillance. But what do you think about the wisdom of that expenditure of resources?
- [36:22]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, the answer to that is obvious. It is a. I'm not going to use the word that I really want to use, but it's definitely a waste of money. There is no predication that could have justified this. There are so many things posted online that are worse. A phone call to him, which he answered and spoke to, and then they picked him up and brought him down to headquarters to talk to them. Okay, that's something that's maybe worthwhile. Although even that I hesitate to think was worth the time and expense. But tailing him. And, you know, Joyce alluded to the fact that there may have been some sort of monitoring of his phone. That takes a warrant. You can't just do that. And as far as I've read.
- [37:14]
Joyce Vance
Well, but Jill, let me just say it's not clear. They might have just been sort of. I mean, there's ways to do it and ways to not do it. Right.
- [37:22]
Jill Wine Banks
It's possible, but I think it is questionable. And as you said, it definitely could cross the line. I think tailing him is ridiculous, but. And so to Barb's question, is that a good expenditure of our resources? Absolutely not. There are much more important things for FBI agents to be doing, and that's what they should be doing. But this is not just a warning to him and an annoyance to him. It's a warning to everybody who posts anything negative about the president. And that's to US Citizens who are afraid coming back into the US that they may have their phones searched to see if they've said anything or, you know, Joyce, you mentioned the fact that the FBI is using polygraphs and asking questions saying, have you ever said anything negative about Cash Patel? That is really crazy. It's insane. It is insane. But everything about this administration to me has become insane and threatening.
- [38:38]
Joyce Vance
Have you heard about oneskin's scalp serum? OSO1 hair. People are raving about it. Since they launched a few months ago, I have been obsessed. I got this and I was a little bit unsure about, you know, doing the whole thing. It seemed complicated. But if you're familiar with Oneskin, you know about their patented OSO1 peptide and how it's scientifically proven to target aging at the cellular level. It's what powers their skin and their sun care. And now it's targeting age related hair loss and thinning. It works great for men and for women. And so listen to this. People are sending in reviews like my hair has never felt this thick and full and my scalp feels healthier than ever. And I started three months ago and I'm seeing new little hairs on my scalp line. One customer even wrote, I've tried everything for hair growth and finally I'm getting a response from my hair.
- [39:33]
Jill Wine Banks
Boy, that is so amazing. And it's not just talk. One skin scientist did a clinical study showing that after six months, participants had significantly thicker and denser hair. If you are Ready to give OS01 hair a try, you can get 15% off your first three months supply with Code Sistersneskin Co. I can't get enough of Oneskin, whether I'm out in the Chicago wind or basking on one of its increasingly rare sunny days. I use two of OneSkin's OSO One Face topical supplements to fight back against dryness. And I use their sunscreen too. The supplement makes your skin look fresh and leaves it ready for anything the elements throw at you, and the sunscreen feels great and protects you. I especially love that Oneskin's regimen works fast and the formulas feel amazing to apply. I'm certain you're going to be a big fan too.
- [40:30]
Barb McQuaid
Oneskin is the world's first skin longevity company. By focusing on the cellular aspects, aging of one skin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer. For a limited time, you can try one skin with 15% off using code sisters at OneSkin co. That's 15% off OneSkin co with Code Sisters. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Give your skin the scientifically proven gentle care it deserves with one skin. The link is in our show. Notes.
- [41:13]
Joyce Vance
Erez Revaney went to Boston University Law School, where he graduated summa cum laude. He was the articles editor for the Law Review. He wrote the best brief in the moot court competition. He went on to clerk for judges in the District of Massachusetts and on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2010, Rouvainy became a trial attorney at the Justice Department. He served there and was promoted to jobs of increasing responsibility under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Then In March of 2025, he was appointed the acting Deputy director in the Office of Immigration Litigation. You may recall that a few people had left the Justice Department and there were some vacancies and up he went into that spot. And and that's how Rouvainy found himself in court, arguing in front of Judge James Boasberg on the government's behalf as three airplanes flew toward El Salvador, where they were going to deliver their passengers, men being deported from the United States with no due process to El Salvador's notorious Seacot prison. Ravaney behaved the way you would expect someone with his legal pedigree to do. He behaved with candor to the court in a difficult situation as he was asked questions, and for that, he was fired. But that wasn't the end of his story. Ruvaney has turned into a whistleblower, surfacing with allegations that you've likely heard something about by now. In his whistleblower complaint letter, he alleged, among other things, that former Trump criminal lawyer Amal Bove, now a high ranking DOJ official, suggested to others, including Ravaney, that a time might come when DOJ would ignore a court's order to do Trump's bidding. He claimed that Bove said DOJ might have to say f you to the courts. That seemed like a bold claim to make if you didn't have evidence to back it up. And sure enough, some of that tea got spilled yesterday. So that's sort of our scene setting. Jill, can you talk about how this new information has surfaced and why?
- [43:20]
Jill Wine Banks
Yes, it's really important because he, through his lawyers, filed a whistleblower compliment complaint, a very lengthy document that had tons of details of emails and text messages, meetings with the dates and attendees that were verified, and that was given to Congress, as is appropriate, as well as to the investigative offices. And Dick Durbin has released that report. And so it is now something that you can go online. And in fact, we could, in our show notes, we can put a link to the report, the whistleblower report, and you can't help but read that and see that he has laid out in great detail a timeline of when he first heard things, when he was asked to do things. And it's quite clear that his firing was a direct retaliation for the fact that he told Judge Boasberg the truth. He answered, as is a lawyer's obligation, lawyers who do not answer truthfully have to be held to account for that. And so he answered truthfully. He also gave advice to all of his clients that they had to follow the orders of the court and was very concerned that they were deliberately not doing that. So the evidence is quite clear. Now, obviously some of the details are redacted and the complaint has footnotes that say we've left this out because it may fall within attorney client privilege, and so we can't release it. But I think it's really a clear set of information that says on such and such a date. This is what happened. I was in a meeting, and here are the other people who are in attendance. Now, some of those people, of course, have denied that those things happened, including Bovet in his confirmation hearings for becoming a circuit court judge, a lifetime appointment to review court orders and to see whether they are followed or not. Obviously, there's opposition that is mounting to his confirmation, but, yeah, he's denied all of this, but I think the evidence needs to be made public. There needs to be a public hearing.
- [45:50]
Joyce Vance
So a lot of evidence gets released in this tranche of documents, emails, other stuff, and it was pretty interesting to read through. I think the idea of putting the link in our show notes so our listeners can look for themselves is a great one. But did anything jump out at either one of you, anything that you found to be particularly compelling or disturbing in this package? Barbara?
- [46:13]
Barb McQuaid
Well, there are email messages that indicate that Beauvais was violating court orders. There's one where it's clear that it was Bovet who instructed DHS to turn over the men on the planes to El Salvadoran custody once they arrived in El Salvador, even after the judge had told the government that the planes needed to be turned around. And so that really suggests to me that he was willing to defy a court order and try to just say, like, you know, that was the one where Bukele, the president of El Salvador, wrote oopsie. It wasn't an oopsie. It was a deliberate defiance of a court order that one really struck out as not just. Not just inappropriate, but a violation of the separation of powers.
- [47:11]
Joyce Vance
I mean, can I go even further and say I think it's disqualifying for a federal judge. If this was any other administration, that nomination would have been pulled by now. And so there's that. Jill, what popped out at you?
- [47:24]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, that was certainly one of them because, you know, and there was some argument that there was. Well, it was oral. Any lawyer knows that an oral order is as enforceable as a written order.
- [47:37]
Joyce Vance
Can we just be more specific? Because this is like crazy applesauce that Pam Bondi tweets too. And it's like this. His justification is, well, the judge originally issued an oral order, and he didn't have time to put it in writing before the planes flew out of U.S. airspace.
- [47:57]
Barb McQuaid
And.
- [47:58]
Joyce Vance
And I mean, that's the kind of thing that you should just get bench slapped for, not put on the bench for.
- [48:03]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah, absolutely. So I think that. I think what stood out to me was the timeline. I agree with Barb about the importance of what she said, but it really lays out how Ravini got into the position he was in and what he was asked to do. And it follows through with specifying who was in the different meetings. It would be very easy for Congress to have a public hearing that brings forth, or for that matter, for Boasberg to have a public hearing. You know, in Watergate, when we did an investigation that would normally have been done in secret before a grand jury, Judge Sirica said, this is too important to the American public. They need to hear this evidence. And so the White House was forced to call witnesses in public, and we were allowed to cross examine them in public. And that's what you need, because I don't know that everyone who is now saying, well, that didn't happen, will say that under oath. And I would like to see the public hearing take place immediately and certainly before there's a vote on Bove's confirmation.
- [49:12]
Joyce Vance
Yeah, I mean, I feel like the Court of Appeals has sort of put Judge Boasberg's proceedings on hold. Maybe that'll shake out, but it's really disappointing, disturbing that we're not going to see this publicly aired, most likely. And I could not agree with you more on that. So, Barb, how big of a deal is all of this? I mean, I think we all can see that in a normal administration, this would do damage. Do you expect it to do any here?
- [49:39]
Barb McQuaid
So, interesting question. I think it depends on the constituency. So I think for Trump voters, I think, you know, he's convinced them that everybody's a crook and everybody gets away with whatever they can get away with. And as long as he's your crook, nobody cares. So politically, I don't know. But I do think when it comes to Congress considering the nomination of Emile Beauvais, I think it's a big deal. I think the way the courts are going to regard representations by the Department of Justice, which ordinarily enjoys the presumption of regularity, I think is very damaging to their stature in courts before judges who now know that this is their movie.
- [50:20]
Joyce Vance
And, Jill, what do you think about Bove's nomination? Do you think he survives this?
- [50:25]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, you know what I think of his nomination, which is it's an abomination. But will it survive? Is a different question. And I wanna sort of maybe put in perspective, it's not just this episode of did he say F you to court orders? And we have to just do what Trump wants. We have to fulfill his agenda. But remember, aside from ignoring court orders, he directed Ed Martin, who was at the time the U.S. attorney, to fire prosecutors who had worked on January 6th prosecutions, which Martin, of course, did. He himself fired senior FBI agents. He caused the resignation of the head of the Criminal division of the U.S. attorney's D.C. office because she refused to carry out what she considered an illegal order to freeze an environmental grant. So that's why I'm saying we need a public hearing about whether he's qualified or not. But to your question, politically, will he survive? Well, so far, the Republicans seem to be standing firm, and that means that he will survive. It's the wrong thing, it's terrible. But that's what happens when you have a Republican president, Senate and House. And I'm sorry to say, but until 26, this may be what we have to live with. And this will be a lifetime appointment.
- [51:45]
Joyce Vance
You know, Barb, I have sort of the same question, but on a larger scale, maybe for you. I mean, what do you think is going to happen next? Will this be like so many of these incidents where Trump survives and we move on and the country forgets it ever happened? Or do you think this one might have more legs?
- [52:04]
Barb McQuaid
I don't know. You know, this whistleblower complaint is interesting because ordinarily, when somebody who's a Department of justice employee is terminated, and I think that this lawyer has filed a claim under the Merit Protection Board system, you would expect the head of the Office of Special Counsel to proceed with that investigation and that there could be more. However, we know that Donald Trump fired the head of the Office of Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger, and then replaced him with a loyalist named Paul Ingrazia, who has advocated for, among other things, a national holiday to celebrate the people who fought for justice and truth on January 6, 2021, and to provide reparations to them and their families. And so I don't know if his complaint is going to go anywh anywhere, but I think his allegations are so disturbing that those of us who talk about such things should do our best to keep it alive in the public discourse.
- [53:19]
Joyce Vance
The headlines are chock full of data breaches and regulatory rollbacks about hacks that make us all vulnerable. Fortunately, you can do something about it with Deleteme. Deleteme is here to make it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online. Deleteme knows your privacy is worth protecting, and we do, too. Sign up and provide Deleteme with exactly what information you want deleted. Then their experts take it from there. More importantly, it's not a one and done experience. Delete Me is always working for you to constantly monitor and remove the personal information you don't want on the Internet. Consider it your personal warrior, protecting your data, your autonomy and your privacy.
- [54:05]
Barb McQuaid
In the Internet age, all of us are at risk from malicious actors, blackmailers, and worse. Especially if you have minors or children in your family. Delete Me is a must. I trust them to protect me, my sisters and my family. And I know that they can keep you and your loved ones safe too.
- [54:22]
Jill Wine Banks
Don't wait, take control of your data and keep your private life private. By signing up for Delete Me now, our listeners can get a special discount today. Get 20% off your delete me plan by texting sisters to 64,000. The only way to get 20% off is to text sisters to 64000 or 64,000. That's sisters to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply and the link is also in our show notes.
- [55:05]
Barb McQuaid
Now comes the part of the show that we like best, the part where we answer your questions. If you have a question for us, please email us@sistersinlawoliticon.com or you can tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. If we don't get to your question during the show, please keep an eye on our feeds throughout the week where we'll answer as many of your questions as we can. Our first question comes to us from Nemo, who asks, with the latest Supreme Court rulings, particularly regarding injunctions and the administration's use of the National Guard, what guardrails do we have left to ensure that people feel safe and showing up to stand in line and vote? Jill, what do you think about that?
- [55:49]
Jill Wine Banks
You know, this is such an interesting question. Thank you, Nemo. And one of my favorite characters in all of movie history. The obvious answer is people who are in line to vote are U.S. citizens, and so we don't have to worry about people being picked up out of the line for that. But I think it raises a bigger question. There is, of course, a lawsuit now pending against the use of the National Guard for law enforcement, which is barred by the Posse Combatan Act. And I think the only real particular guardrails we have is voting. We have to vote in huge numbers, massive numbers. And that, unfortunately, is more than a year away. So we have to, in the meantime, continue to protest, march, send letters, make phone calls, do everything we can to let our local representatives know how we feel about this and that they will not be reelected. If they allow this to keep happening, that's what we're going to have to do. It's a shame we have to rely on the courts, which have, for most of the time, I mean, Donald Trump's loss record at the district court is what, 90%? Unfortunately, at the Supreme Court, it's not. It's more like he's winning 60% of the time, and that's too bad. But for now, we have to rely on the courts as well as our elected representatives, and pressuring them is one way to protect us.
- [57:32]
Barb McQuaid
All right, our next question comes to us from Chaplain Jennifer, who writes, if each of you could perform an executive order that could save, reverse, or instill democracy as we know it or knew it, what would that be? Joyce, you want to take a stab at that?
- [57:48]
Joyce Vance
Well, since Trump has a magic wand, I'm going to claim one for myself, too, because I think the most important issue that we face, frankly, is how we conduct our elections. And so if I were drafting an executive order, I would draft one that would give states and localities, counties, the funds that they need to ensure that they've got safe and secure technology for conducting elections. I would give them support from the federal government, but I would stay out of it. I would not purport to impose a nationwide identification standard, which is what Donald Trump did in his executive order. It's what the SAVE act is trying to do. This, you know, just crazy nonsense that you have to have an expensive form of identification in order to exercise a fundamental right. And this idea that the federal government is going to step in and tell states that they can't let people register online or at voter drives because they have to actually show that proof of citizenship to a local election official in order to register and also to re register if they move or something like that. That's just such a way of tamping down on people's exercise of the right to vote that I think we should undo Trump's executive order. I hope that the courts will do that. It's a little bit more difficult without a nationwide injunction available as a tool for doing that. But I would write an order that supported voting, not one that suppressed voting rights.
- [59:21]
Jill Wine Banks
Joyce, I love your answer. I think it's absolutely needed to protect voting rights.
- [59:27]
Barb McQuaid
And.
- [59:27]
Jill Wine Banks
But I think before we protect voting rights, we also need to make sure that we mandate civics trainings for all voters. People need to know that there are three branches of the government, what their roles are and the importance of their vote, and they need to have the skills training to allow them to know what is true and what isn't, what is fact. That's really an essential. I would, if I had the power of the pen, write an executive order for that.
- [59:56]
Barb McQuaid
That's a great answer. Well, our final question comes to us from Chris, who asks, can you share how letters and voicemails are handled by elected officials? Do they ever make a difference? I'll answer that one, Chris, to the best of my ability. I know from talking to people who are in public office at our state legislature level, members of Congress and executive branch, that they do read those kinds of things. I have been told that email is actually the best way to communicate with your member of Congress who are particularly responsive because they're constantly in reelection mode. And so they're very responsive to the wishes of their constituents. You know, letters can sometimes take a long time to get to their source because of security issues. Voicemails, I don't know if they ever reach the recipient, but what I am told is that oftentimes staffers and interns will read the emails and respond, but they'll also collect a tally that, you know, 70% of your constituents, Mr. Congressman or Madam Congresswoman, are very interested in topic X and wants you to vote yes on this bill or no on that bill. In fact, I remember reading a very deep discussion about this in the New Yorker several years ago about how it was email from voters in red states who really saved Obamacare because they liked it and they wrote to their member of Congress all the time, please do not repeal Obamacare. I really like it that my kid is online until age 26. I really like it that I can get insurance with a preexisting condition. I really like it that I don't lose my healthcare just because I change jobs. So that way, emailing your elected officials, I believe is a very effective way to have your voice heard in Washington. Well, that's it. Thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Jo Wine Banks, Joyce Van and me, Barb McQuaid. Follow sisters in Law wherever you listen and please give us a five star review. It really helps others find the show. And please show some love to this week's sponsors. Honey, love Blueland Oneskin and delete me. The links are in the show notes. Please support them because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode. Sisters in Law.
- [62:17]
Joyce Vance
Hey. Hey, Barb. You know, as much as we fly, have you looked at those new rules on tsa? Relaxing the requirement that you take your shoes off? I'm pretty happy about it.
- [62:26]
Barb McQuaid
Well, I guess so. But you know, I did see that and it reminded me of some cases that have been prosecuted. You know, of course, there was Richard Reed, the shoe bomber, who actually had a bomb in his shoe. And actually one of the same prosecutors who was on that case ended up working in my office later and also prosecuted the underwear bomber. So she had the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. I like to think that if we ever have a hat bomber, I've got the prosecutor for you.