Loading summary
Transcript145 lines
- [00:00]
Barb McQuaid
Foreign welcome back to Sisters in Law with Jill Wine Banks, Kimberly Atkins, Door and me, Barb McQuaid. Joyce is away, but she'll be back next week and we look forward to her return. I also want to mention that the resistance, mini tote and T shirt are selling out fast. So get yours now go to politicon.com merch this week we'll be discussing Pam Bondi's complaint against Judge Boasberg in Washington, D.C. threats against judges and the latest in the saga of the Epstein files. Before we get to that though, I wanted to talk with my sisters about your view of the beach. Joyce is at the beach this week. She shared that on her substack so I feel comfortable sharing it. She's calling it Beach Book Week where she's got a stack of books that she's going to read and she's going to hang out at the beach. Are you would you consider yourselves beach lovers? What are your thoughts on beaches?
- [01:04]
Kimberly Atkins
Well, I am currently in one of my happiest places on earth which is Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts on the Vineyard. I was here for an event with for Boston University Alumna which they have a BU week here on the Vineyard every year. And I spoke at a panel there. But you know, they did not have to twist my arm because I absolutely A love the beach, love water, love the beach, try to get there as much as possible. And B, I particularly love the beaches here on Martha's Vineyard because it's beautiful and here in Oak Bluffs there is a long standing deep black community here. It was one of the first places in America where black people were able to vacation and buy homes and properties to spend on the beach. And there is a lot of history there. But even to this day it's just a very diverse but laid back and cool community that has, you know, that always makes me feel at home the minute that I land. So I am thrilled to be here. And yes, Barb, I love the beach.
- [02:16]
Barb McQuaid
Nice. What's your Jill, you got a beach there in Chicago, you beach girl?
- [02:20]
Jill Wine Banks
You know, I love the concept of beach. I love that Chicago has miles and miles and miles of beach.
- [02:30]
Kimberly Atkins
Beautiful beach.
- [02:31]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah, really beautiful beaches, great shoreline. We even have sand dunes. I mean it's really fantastic. I love sitting at the dock which is a restaurant on one of on Montrose beach which is where I grew up and other one called the Lakefront Restaurant. And looking at the beach, I hate sand. I don't like the feel of sand. So I, I do it when I'm going snorkeling or diving, because there's no other way to do it except to be at a beach, but to just go to the beach. I'd rather go to a pool and sit on a chair in cement than get sand in my toes. Sorry about that, guys. But Chicago is a great place for any beach lover, truly. And it's been in the upper 90s. Although I will say I felt like I was in a sauna or in the most searing beach when I was in Washington this week.
- [03:31]
Kimberly Atkins
Oh, my God.
- [03:32]
Jill Wine Banks
It was near 100. Oh, my God. It was really unbelievable. Inferno. So that was my beach day, Jill.
- [03:41]
Kimberly Atkins
I saw, and I don't remember all the specifics, I just scrolled past it on social media, but that there was an event or there is an event being held on the beach in Chicago where people can just go gather in the morning and just scream.
- [03:56]
Barb McQuaid
Just to.
- [03:57]
Kimberly Atkins
Let out all the stress about all the things.
- [03:59]
Jill Wine Banks
That sounds good. I'm going to look that up and join them.
- [04:02]
Barb McQuaid
I know.
- [04:02]
Kimberly Atkins
I wanted to fly out and do.
- [04:04]
Jill Wine Banks
Yes, absolutely. We also have winter dips for the very hearty people. I forgot what they call it, but iceberg diving or something really stupid.
- [04:15]
Barb McQuaid
That sounds pretty great. I like the beach. In fact, I am in Harbor Springs, Michigan, which is in the northern part of the lower peninsula as we record this. And I'm sure we'll be spending some time at the beach. But I like the water. I like the sand. I like all of it. As long as I'm doing something. The idea of just lying in the sun, I can read for a while, but I like to do stuff. So if I can swim at the beach or go on a boat at the beach, or I'll be doing some kayaking at the beach this weekend. That's all good. But I know there are people who like. I just like to, you know, sit and be lazy at the beach. Like, I gotta move. I gotta be moving all the time.
- [04:51]
Jill Wine Banks
So I completely agree with you on that. But I also want to mention you can kayak in the Chicago River. River.
- [04:58]
Barb McQuaid
It's a little like a walking tourism advertising for Chicago. All right, we'll go. We'll check it out.
- [05:03]
Jill Wine Banks
Really? I mean, it's fantastic. It's a little daunting because there are pretty big boats that are also in the Chicago river. And you feel pretty insignificant in a kayak next to a big boat. They're like tourist boats. Great architecture tours from the Chicago River. Yes, everybody come visit Chicago.
- [05:33]
Barb McQuaid
Here in the Midwest. We all have some questions of our seafood, but not Anymore. I know tuna aren't native to the Great Lakes, but when they come frozen and wild caught from the coast with wild Alaskan company, I know my friends, family and I are getting the best.
- [05:48]
Kimberly Atkins
You can fool people, Barb, and just say no. I found the fresh lake salmon. I found it and it still it tasted.
- [05:56]
Jill Wine Banks
Hey, we do have salmon here in the Midwest in Lake Michigan.
- [06:00]
Kimberly Atkins
Well, it's true, true. But you can still try to fool people. I just would like to see you try to do that, Barb. It would be fun. Everything from wild Alaskan is 100% wild caught and never farmed. This means there are no antibiotics, GMOs, additives or anything that you don't want in their catch. Just clean, real fish that support healthy oceans and fishing communities. Don't settle for less. Go with the fish that are nutrient rich and full of flavor. With wild Alaskan, that's a given. Their fish is frozen right off the boat to lock in the taste, texture and nutrients like omega 3s. So it's fresh when it gets to your door. And I have to say, I made the halibut.
- [06:43]
Jill Wine Banks
Oh yum.
- [06:44]
Kimberly Atkins
I found a recipe. Yeah, I found a recipe and I made the halibut. And I can't even tell like how much of the deliciousness was like my doing with the recipe or it was just the fact that the fish was so good and fresh and flaky.
- [06:57]
Barb McQuaid
Makes a difference really.
- [06:58]
Kimberly Atkins
It really is good stuff.
- [07:00]
Jill Wine Banks
I tried the halibut too and it was good. But send me your recipe because I can't wait to make it again. It is fabulous and I know that everyone listening like us is going to love that. Everything is sustainably sourced and wild caught from Alaska with every order supporting sustainable harvesting practices. Plus, becoming a member means your deliveries are flexible and at your own pace. And you'll get chef tips from the pros, including of course, Kimberly and an endless smorgasbord of truly feel good seafood. I love the halibut, but I also love all the other fish I have tried from them. It's your call. If you're not completely satisfied with your first box, Wild Alaskan company will give you a full, full refund. No questions asked, no risk. Just high quality seafood. Not all fish are the same. Get seafood you can trust. Go to wildalaskan.com sisters for $35 off your first box of premium wild caught seafood. That's wildalaskan.com sisters For $35 off your first order. A big thanks to Wild Alaskan Company for sponsoring this episode and for giving us such delicious fish. The link is in our show.
- [08:20]
Barb McQuaid
You know, Jill, while you were talking, I looked up smorgasbord. Do you know the origin of it and what it means?
- [08:25]
Kimberly Atkins
I'm going to guess Scandinavian.
- [08:27]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, good.
- [08:28]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah. Oh good. Absolutely.
- [08:30]
Barb McQuaid
Swedish.
- [08:30]
Jill Wine Banks
Yes.
- [08:31]
Barb McQuaid
And it literally means butter goose board.
- [08:34]
Jill Wine Banks
Really?
- [08:35]
Kimberly Atkins
Well, if there's butter on anything, it's delicious.
- [08:39]
Jill Wine Banks
Oh my God.
- [08:40]
Barb McQuaid
I'll eat a board with goose if there's butter on it.
- [08:53]
Jill Wine Banks
Pam Bondi, along with President Trump have been very busy again this week. DOJ filed a misconduct complaint against Federal District Court Judge Boasberg alleging that his comments at a closed door meeting of judges reflect bias against the Trump administration and require that he be censured by the Judicial Council of the D.C. circuit and also, of course, removed from the caseload he has of administration lawsuits. Kim, who is Judge Boasberg and why is he getting attention from Bondi?
- [09:28]
Kimberly Atkins
Yeah, so Judge Boasberg is a federal judge based in Washington, D.C. and we have talked about him a lot on this podcast because he has been assigned several cases involving challenges to orders of the Trump administration and Trump executive orders because he's based in D.C. when those challenges come up, D.C. is the venue where those are brought. So he's been picked in some of these cases assigned. I should say some of those cases have been assigned to him involving the most notable was the one where he ordered that planes that had taken off with people being removed to El Salvador turn around and land because he had previously issued an order halting in joining that move from happening, joining President Trump's executive order saying that they had the authority to do that under the Alien Enemies Act. Well, it ended up being all for naught because subsequent orders were lifted. That and the Supreme Court is basically these days just letting the president do most of the things that he wants to do. But Boasberg also was still considering and is still considering contempt proceedings against Trump because for the original violation of his court order. So he's not somebody who Trump is a big fan of. And yeah.
- [10:55]
Jill Wine Banks
Okay, so while this appeals court case is pending against this background, why did DOJ take this action? Let's dig into this topic and then if we have time, we're going to talk about some other Bondi evil deeds this week, including her DEI order.
- [11:15]
Barb McQuaid
We couldn't possibly have enough time to cover all of them.
- [11:17]
Jill Wine Banks
Joe okay, maybe I won't even mention them, but I will say one other, just at least so that we alert our listeners that she silenced the DOJ IG one of the only IGs not fired in the first weeks of the administration. But, Barb, let's go back to the thing we're talking about. What does the complaint that Bondi filed allege about Judge Boasberg's comments at a judicial conference, and what are the actual facts that answer those allegations?
- [11:46]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. So he is at a judicial conference in March of 2025. Judicial Conference is like the rulemaking body for the judiciary. So every district court is represented, the circuits are represented, and Chief Justice John Roberts shows up as sort of the administrative head of the entire federal judiciary. So Boasberg is there in his capacity as chief judge of the district court for the District of Columbia. And as they're kind of reporting out, he says, my colleagues are want to know, want you to know that they have concerns that the Trump administration might disregard rulings of federal courts, and that could lead to a constitutional crisis. So he's at this conference. It is closed to the public. He shares what his colleagues have been reporting to him and reports it up to the chief judge. I don't see anything at all wrong with that whatsoever. But here's what we get. A complaint that he has violated the judicial canons of the code of conduct. And among them, one, a judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. They say that was violated. Two, a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. And number three, a judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. I don't think he did any of those three things.
- [13:11]
Jill Wine Banks
He sure did not.
- [13:12]
Barb McQuaid
I mean, for one, it's not public.
- [13:14]
Kimberly Atkins
It's not public. It's like, again, public. It's not.
- [13:17]
Barb McQuaid
He's not in public. This is a private conference among judges, and he is alerting his. He's fulfilling his responsibility to share with the chief justice of the Supreme Court concerns that have been mentioned to him by his colleagues. And what Pam Bondi says is, one, he's violated all these canons and that it's not even true anyway, really. I mean, this court has certainly dragged its feet in enforcing orders. It's played cute with, like, the meaning of the word facilitate. The return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia didn't really mean they have to bring him back. It just means that if he should somehow find himself at the border and free himself from the terrorist prison in El Salvador, well, then they'd have to let him in. So, you know, it's just. It's just absurd on its face, Jill.
- [14:03]
Jill Wine Banks
It is. I completely agree. And so what relief are they asking for, Kim?
- [14:09]
Kimberly Atkins
So the relief they want is threefold. First, they want their complaint forwarded to a special investigative committee to determine, quote, if there was conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. I think, as we've already mentioned, we don't think that there is also. They want to order interim current. They want ordered interim corrective measures during the investigation to prevent further erosion of public confidence in relation to this case. Jggv Trump. And third, they want appropriate disciplinary action which could include, but is not limited to, a referral for impeachment, which, of course, that's the only way that a judge can be removed. Trump cannot fire a judge. The Judicial Conference cannot fire a judge. But they can refer. The conferen, can refer impeachment measures. They're not going to do this. They're not going to do this. This is just. I cannot see in any world, especially a world where the Judicial Conference. Listen, I don't trust a lot of things about Chief Justice John Roberts, but he is the figurehead of the Judicial Conference, and he has already spoken, as we'll get into more later, that he doesn't like these kind of attacks on judges. He doesn't think that judges ought to be impeached because the litigants don't like the outcome. So this is a waste of paper.
- [15:36]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah. Well, so then, given that, why did Bondi file this now? Is there any chance of success or is it as total nonsense as all of us think? Is it, is it dangerous and without merit and just intended to send a warning to all judges, some of who may be less fearless than Boasberg and may fail to take actions that they would have otherwise taken and make decisions against the administration. What do you think, Barb?
- [16:04]
Barb McQuaid
This is a classic use of disinformation, right? You make up something that's false, you give it the slightest grain of legitimacy by saying, oh, look at this bad thing Judge Boasberg said. He's bad mouthing the Trump administration. You know, it kind of sounds like it might ring true. People who are not lawyers, who have not read the canons of ethics that we just shared with our listeners might think there's something there. So I think this is an effort to, one, intimidate judges, as you just said, like, be careful, you might be next. And you're going to get it. Ignite Trump supporters. There will be people who believe this legitimately and then there will also be people who will harass Judge Boasberg and threaten Judge Boasberg because they believe all of this stuff. So it's incredibly dangerous, it's incredibly cynical because it advances Trump's agenda, but it undermines one of the most important pieces of our constitutional system, and that is our independent judiciary. And so it's one more blow to the independent judiciary that protects all of us. And so I think it's not nothing. It isn't, you know, just not worth the paper it's printed on. It will get dismissed, but it will cause real harm to the judiciary and to federal judges.
- [17:22]
Jill Wine Banks
That is such a insightful comment, Barb. It is, unfortunately. Well, you always have insightful comments.
- [17:30]
Barb McQuaid
Thank you.
- [17:30]
Jill Wine Banks
But it's not the only threat to judges, and I think that we need to move to some of those other terrible things that are being threatened of other federal judges.
- [17:52]
Kimberly Atkins
Well, it has been hot and sticky in D.C. this summer, so wearing a full face of makeup is not what I've been into. But luckily I have Thrive because they know how to let you look good without slathering too much makeup on. That's why we wanted to tell you about Thrive. Thrive Cosmetics is your go to for a simple, clean and radiant summer look with minimal effort and maximum impact. And every product is 100% vegan, cruelty free, and made with clean, skin loving ingredients that work with your skin, not against it.
- [18:29]
Jill Wine Banks
So, Kim, I have to say, you use the word radiant and you will remember I just wrote to you because I saw you on Instagram talking about a very important subject, but looking radiant and fantastic. And I wrote to you saying, what are you wearing on your eyes and your lips? And it was Thrive.
- [18:47]
Kimberly Atkins
It was all Thrive.
- [18:48]
Jill Wine Banks
It was Thrive. I know. And I asked you for the color lipsticks and you sent me the colors. I forgot that we have very different skin tones. They will not work on me. They will definitely not work, but boy, did they look great on you.
- [19:01]
Kimberly Atkins
Thank you.
- [19:02]
Jill Wine Banks
I am in love with Thrive, especially their brilliant eye brighteners. They are waterproof eyeshadow highlighter sticks that are made to brighten and open your eyes, giving you a radiant eye look for the beach, pool, or wherever you're heading this summer, including you on Instagram. Kim. Thrive's foolproof formula makes it extremely easy to apply and blend any of the, get this, 34 shades, and I actually use probably a dozen of those. You can use as little or as much as you'd like to create the look you want. Just apply it to the inner corners of your eye for a rested and effortless look. Sometimes I use another darker color as a liner and in the crease above your eyelid. And you can also use the eyeshadow for the perfect daytime glow. You can try applying the metallic shade all over your eyelid and blending it with your finger for an easy smoky eye that pops.
- [19:56]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, that always sounds like it would be painful. Well, we love it. 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 time you use your favorite Thrive Cosmetics product, you're doing more than enhancing your glow. You're helping others shine too. With more than $150 million in product and cash donations to 600 plus giving partners, your purchase directly fuels real impact. Imagine making a difference in things like education, the fight against cancer, stopping domestic abuse, and more. With every purchase, maximize your look with minimal effort. That's my style. Go to thrivecosmetics.com sisters for an exclusive offer of 20% off your first order. That's Thrive Cosmetics. C A U S E M E t I c s.com sisters the link is in our show. Notes.
- [21:11]
Kimberly Atkins
Well, speaking of attacks on members of the judiciary, there have been literal attacks and threats being made against a host of members of the judiciary, and some of them are coming directly from the White House. President Trump himself has repeatedly lashed out publicly against judges who have dared to rule against the administration, calling some of them rogue or deranged or anti American. And even, as we just discussed, his administration is calling for one to be impeached. Of course, this is a continuation of attack he took in his first term, remember in the Trump University case where he wanted the judge to be recused because, quote, he's a Mexican and I'm building a wall. Yeah. So this is something that Trump has been doing for a long time. Well, usually judges are very circumspect. They speak through their opinions and they rarely make public comments. This week, something rare happened. A group of judges spoke out publicly about the threats they are facing. It was part of the Speak up for justice forum that was meant to bring attention to the increasing attacks on the judiciary and their devastating personal and democratic impact. So, Barb, before we get into what the judges said at this remarkable event, let's remind listeners, let's give a greatest hits of some of the things.
- [22:35]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, how much time do you have?
- [22:37]
Kimberly Atkins
Just, just hit me with your top, your top standouts of the things that Trump and other Republicans and members of the MAGA world have Made against judges.
- [22:48]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah. Well, of course, Trump himself has called out Judge Boasberg, for example, calling him, you know, radical leftist. He's called judges Marxists, he's called judges lunatics, and he has called for their impeachment. But just last week, we had even more. There were a number of them. So, you know, the, the Trump's tariffs have been in the news. And so we have seen Stephen Miller, one of Trump's advisers, his deputy chief of staff, saying that we are living under a judicial tyranny. Judicial tyranny. Okay. And White House press Secretary Carolyn Levitt, she is mince words. She said that the decisions about tariffs have been marred by judicial overreach. And there's a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges. They're all unelected. Unelected, yeah. There's a reason they're appointed, to insulate them from politics. Unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision making process. Presidents can't have their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges. Let's get this straight. The role of judges is to rein in the other two branches if they act beyond their constitutional authority. The power to tariff and the power of the purse and the power to tax all belongs to Congress. And so when the President overreaches, this is their job, but instead of abiding by it, you know, I don't know about you guys, but when I was practicing, when I was serving in government, we were told that the strongest thing you could say is we respectfully disagree with the judge's decision, but we understand that reasonable minds could disagree, and we certainly respect the role of the court to make this decision, and we will comply with the court's order. This is complete opposite of that. This is, you know, bizarro world.
- [24:51]
Kimberly Atkins
So, Jill, who were some of the judges that spoke out during this Speak up for justice forum that took place Thursday in a webinar, what comments resonated most to you about some of the things they said? These judges have really experienced some horrific things.
- [25:10]
Jill Wine Banks
Yeah. And I think it's important to really put all of this in context, because the judges speaking up are judges who have experienced real severe threats. And one of those is Esther Salas, a U.S. district Court judge in New Jersey whose son was killed by someone targeting her. He was 20 years old, named Daniel, and he was celebrating his birthday in July of 2020 and was shot by a gunman who was posing as a delivery driver. And even though it was aimed at her, he was unfortunately killed. And so she spoke up. But she wasn't the only one. Chief Judge McConnell, who's a judge in Rhode Island, a federal district court judge, found himself embroiled in a battle with the White House over the attempts to freeze federal funding that Elon Musk had instigated. And he. Musk called for McConnell to be impeached. Representative Andy Ogles put his face, that is the judge's face on a wanted poster with other judges in front of his office in the Capitol. And America First Legal, which is allied with the president, filed a judicial misconduct charge. His court, as a result, got over 400 threatening voicemails, and he faced six credible death threats. Pizzas were delivered to his home and to two of his son's homes in the name of Judge Salas son who was murdered.
- [26:55]
Barb McQuaid
That's horrible.
- [26:56]
Jill Wine Banks
Judges in Florida and Colorado have also received pizzas, as did District Court Judge Robert Lassnick of Washington State, who spoke out at the forum and said in the panel discussion about these threats and said, you know, he now is refusing Judge Lassnik to take any cases involving the Trump administration so that he would have no conflict of interest. Interest in speaking out. And the pizzas were delivered to him after he talked about the impact of rhetoric against judges. So he said, what's the message to Judge Lassnik? We know where you live. We know where your children live, and they could end up dead like Judge Salas son did.
- [27:44]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, gosh, that's just awful.
- [27:46]
Jill Wine Banks
So, I mean, this is, like, horrible. And they're not the only ones. Okay, so we have one other judge, Judge Koffenhauer. He called Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship unconstitutional. As a result, someone falsely reported to the police that he had murdered his wife. And, of course, that was a swatting event. Police officers arrived at the house with weapons drawn, and there was also a false report of a bomb threat. And he's worried about. He says, I took on the job. I became a judge because I wanted to, but my family is being threatened now. In addition, we have Supreme Court justices speaking out. And it's not just the three liberal justices, although Justice Sotomayor, Justice Jackson, and Justice Kagan have all given very, very important remarks on it. But even Justice Roberts has said that threats are unacceptable. Violence, intimidation, and defiance of court orders is unacceptable. He's raising a concern about threats and their consequences, and he's advocating for judicial security. Some of these judges who have been threatened have gotten extra security guards, at least for a time being. There you go. This is a lot of judges who are being threatened and are being brave enough to speak out. And this has to stop, because it's coming from the top that they are. The people supporting Trump are being encouraged to attack judges who, as Barb said, are the bulwark against the dissolution of our framework of government. Three independent institutions.
- [29:32]
Kimberly Atkins
Yeah, and I thank you for breaking that down, Jill, because I think sometimes we hear about judges being attacked, and some people may just think, oh, it's a truth social post, or it might be just some phone calls, or they might have heard of judges being delivered pizzas and think that that's kind of funny. No, it's. No, it's not. It's horrific. I mean, using the name of Judge Salas's slain son is just. It's diabolical. But, Barb, speaking about the list, which included the list of judges that were took part in Speak up for justice, which includes retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, I found that a little interesting because the last time I saw Anthony Kennedy was at the most recent State of the Union. Well, I guess it was just an address to the joint sessions of Congress, because the first one of the term is not a State of the Union. But anyway, the event where the president speaks to both chambers of Congress, Justice Retired Justice Kennedy was there with several current Supreme Court justices. And when he went to shake Donald Trump's hand as Trump entered the chamber, he could audibly be heard shaking Trump's hand and saying, thank you for teaching young people how to love America.
- [30:48]
Barb McQuaid
Gosh.
- [30:49]
Kimberly Atkins
So I was just, like, I was shocked that he would say that, but then I was shocked again. What do you think about that, Barb? And just generally the other, as Jill mentioned, other justices have spoken out directly about this, including some Supreme Court justices. But what. What weight do you think adds to this call by judges for things to change?
- [31:12]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, I had not remembered that comment by Justice Kennedy, which gives me some, like, cognitive dissonance, because it's hard to square, you know, that you shake his hand, you know, to respect the office or whatever, that's one thing. But to say that teaching children to love America. Oh, my gosh. But I think it's actually quite important that you have current sitting justices and someone like Justice Kennedy, who was appointed by a Republican president and stepped down to clear the way for one of Trump's appointees, I think all of that is really important because I think it sends a message to the public. Oh, wait a minute. You mean these aren't just a small group of rogue radical judges? These are members of the U.S. supreme Court, including Justice Kennedy, who was appointed by a Republican president. Oh, maybe I ought to take a minute it and pay attention to this. I think that's really important. In addition to the public message it sends, I think it's really important for the judges out there who are worried about, am I next? You know, I haven't had the pizzas delivered to me next, but I am one random case assignment away from getting the big Trump case in my district and having to decide that. And when you've got leaders like Justice Kennedy saying these threats against judges are absolutely unacceptable, I think it helps push back against that normalization, that that's what we do in America. You know, I can remember, you know, back in the quaint old days of the Obama administration, when I was working in the U.S. attorney's office, we frequently would send some of our assistant US Attorneys to work as legal attaches in other countries around the world. They were places like Indonesia, Bangladesh, Iraq, Pakistan, some of the former Soviet republics. And what was so interesting is they would come back and tell these stories about what life was like for prosecutors and judges in these countries. You know, people got assassinated, people got threatened. There was incredible corruption and bribery. And I remember thinking like, wow, I'm so glad we don't have that here. Imagine what that would be like. You know, we get to just do our jobs and do what we think is right and not worry about these kinds of repercussions. And, man, here we are just ten years later, eight years later, and we are seeing those things happening here. And so before that gets normalized and it might be too late, I think it's so important for people like former Justice Kennedy and other leaders to speak out and say, this is wrong and this is dangerous, not only to the individuals who occupy these jobs, but to our institutions of government.
- [33:49]
Kimberly Atkins
Yeah. You know, Jill, I have written and as a journalist, called on judges or encouraged judges to be a little more open in speaking to the press. They rarely do. They rarely speak publicly outside of their opinions. Other journalists, like the. I call her the Dean emeritus of the White House Press Corps. Linda Greenhouse, too, has urged judges to do that. I don't think we are making any sea change. I don't see judges suddenly picking up the phone when journalists call or making speeches. And that's fine. And there's a reason why judges are more circumspect. But this is important for them to be clear about what is happening to them, what the real life consequences are. Do you think events like this one will make judges more open to being a little more public. And do you think that something could ultimately change beyond just boosting the security against these judges? Do you think there will be enough of a groundswell to, I don't know, change course somehow?
- [34:58]
Jill Wine Banks
It's so hard to answer that question because the bravery of those who do is something that would have to be deeply admired. Let me answer it in a slightly different way. Aside from whether it is appropriate for judges to talk about threats to themselves as opposed to the cases they are handling, totally apart from that they now face threat of impeachment, threat of misconduct complaints, threat of violating conflict of interest rules. As Jud Lasnick said by I'm not going to handle these cases so that I can speak out. Threats of delivery of pizzas. To say we know where you live, the death of a child. There's a federal judge in Chicago who's a friend of mine who's husband and mother were killed by someone coming to her house, obviously looking for her. She wasn't there and unfortunately they were. These are real life things that should never happen in a democracy. And so I think there are a lot of reasons why judges may not want to speak out. On the other hand, I'm very grateful for those who are because this is a threat to democracy and it's important that the public understand that it isn't just, oh, it's a joke that someone's delivering a pizza to your house. No, it's not the pizza. It's the message that Judge Lassnick so clearly laid out. We know where you live. We know where your children live. And they could end up the same way as Judge Salas. Son, that is a chilling thought. And so we have to find a way to stop it. And one of the ways is to stop fomenting it from the White House.
- [37:02]
Barb McQuaid
You know that more than 100 million Americans suffer from allergies every year and 48% of allergy sufferers have avoided social gatherings due to allergies. That's crazy. And that's why this podcast is sponsored by Packaging. Owning a cat doesn't have to mean endless itching and sneezing. I was shocked to hear that almost 20% of people suffer from cat allergies and three in four people aren't happy with their current allergy solutions. That's why my daughter, who is cat sitting at her college house, recently told me she turns out she's allergic to the cat. She loves the cat, but she's allergic. I recommended packagen. That's because Packaging's Cat Allergen neutralizing spray targets triggering home based allergens and breaks them down so that you and your family or your college roommates can live and breathe in peace.
- [37:56]
Kimberly Atkins
You know, I appreciate this because I have an allergy and did you know that most people when they are allergic to cats, they're allergic to the cat's saliva. My allergist from many years ago told me that, you know, cats lick themselves and groom themselves all over and so it's particularly bad. But that's when Packagens cat allergen neutral neutralizing spray comes in. It uses their patent pending whisker block protein to bind and neutralize allergens in your home. That almost sounds like something in a like a superhero movie. Whisker black protein sounds like fancy stuff, but it's good. There's no harsh chemicals and no side effects. Just spray it every few days to keep allergens at bay. That's why 97% of Packagen customers feel relief and breathe easier or with their cats. And that's a big deal.
- [38:51]
Jill Wine Banks
So I don't have cats and I don't have allergies to cats. But I have a friend who has cats and says that a lot of her guests don't like coming to her house because they have allergies. So I have given her the packagen spray so that she could have her company come over. It was amazing to learn that you could stay sniffle free if if my dog were to get a cat friend. I know that Pachygen would be a power player in Joyce's home. But as a dog person I was so excited to learn Pachygen has dog and dust allergen neutralizing sprays too. Founded by a team of passionate scientists from top universities, Pachogen has set a new standard for allergen management. Their products are allergist recommended, vet approved and PhD engineered to precisely zap allergens to deliver the results and safety you and your family deserve. Your pets aren't just pets, they're family. So get the relief you need for packagen head to packagin.com sisters and use promo code sisters for 15% off your order plus an exclusive gift for our listeners at checkout. That's packagent P A C a g e n.com sisters for 15% off plus an exclusive gift. Make sure you use our promo code sisters one last time. That's packagen.com sisters and promo code sisters and you can find the link in our show notes.
- [40:36]
Barb McQuaid
Well, the ghost of Jeffrey Epstein continues to haunt Donald Trump. With more developments in the news this week this case is really becoming a political firestorm for Trump. But I want to start by focusing on the victims and the survivors who I think in many ways are being re victimized by this whole episode. Kim this week, Trump shared some information about a woman named Virginia Giuffre. You may remember her. She is one of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. She died by suicide in April. And Trump said something I thought was very strange. He said that Epstein stole her from him at Mar A Lago. Can you give us just a little background about who she was and what he was talking about and then maybe just your reaction to that comment.
- [41:22]
Kimberly Atkins
Yes. So Virginia Giuffre was came to, I guess, if you can call it that, when she came public with accusations that she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, and that among the people who she was connected to, to put it euphemistically, is Prince Andrew, the king's brother in England. And there was a photograph that she showed with her and Prince Andrew with his arm wrapped around her waist when she was just a teenager. Prior to that, Giuffre worked at Mar A Lago. She started working at Mar A Lago when she was only 15 years old. So when Trump was asked, keep in mind, Trump was asked about the disagreement that he has repeatedly said he had with Jeffrey Epstein. They had a falling out sometime in the early aughts. And he responded that Jeffrey Epstein would keep going to Mar A Lago and poaching his employees. And he warned him about it once, but he kept doing that. And that Virginia Giuffre was one of the employees that he allegedly lured away. It's a terrible phrase for it. And then he. But Trump said it twice. He stole her. Yeah, he stole her. And it just, I mean, it just cut through the gut. There's very few things that really shock me these days, but the way he said that was just so sickening, you know, as if she was a piece of property that could be stolen, which is essentially which was how she was treated based on her own testimony. And obviously the entire experience was devastating. And she is no longer here to tell her story. She took her own life, as you mentioned, and it's just a tragedy from beginning to end.
- [43:16]
Jill Wine Banks
But her family is speaking out and they are saying exactly what you just said is that they feel as if his remarks make her own property a thing, not the human being that she was.
- [43:28]
Barb McQuaid
Jill, while we're talking about survivors and victims, you know, that also comes to my mind when Donald Trump says he has the Power to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell. You know, he's asked if he would consider a pardon and he doesn't rule it out. Right. Ghislaine Maxwell, of course, is the accomplice of Jeffrey Epstein, who is convicted of sex trafficking, being his co conspirator, sentenced to 20 years. Why on earth would he not just.
- [43:54]
Jill Wine Banks
Completely rule out the idea it's insanity. Except if I'm speculating, he wants to shape her testimony and get her to cooperate with a version of events that holds him harmless and finds guilty anyone who is a Democrat. Why else would he not have said, this is a horrible sex trafficker who engaged in sexual misconduct. In addition to luring and training these victims, she also actually engaged in physical abuse. How could you not do that? And there's no reason for him not to have said, of course I have the power, but I would never. Especially because his followers really find juvenile sex trafficking, pedophilia, a really serious crime, something that they really would never forgive. So it's not even politically smart unless he's shaping her testimony in some way. So I think it's the wrong thing. And if I can just say, we also learned today, it's Friday, and we just learned that as a result of, or, or let's not say, as a result of following her interview with Todd Blanche, she has now been transferred to what I would call Club Fed, which is a minimum security federal prison farm with arts and crafts classes. And I'm serious about that. It is actually something that's offered there and it certainly looks like a reward for her. Talking about 100 names that were put to her. So I just think we have to be careful about what this is all about.
- [45:50]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, she's an interesting character and I am keeping an eye on her. You know, this idea that they went and interviewed her after her trial, after her sentencing. The person who interviewed her was Todd Blanch, the number two person at the Department of Justice and Donald Trump's former lawyer. I can't think of any legitimate law enforcement purpose for conducting that interview at this stage of the proceedings, other than to try to find out if she can somehow clear or exonerate Donald Trump. And so I'm very suspicious about that meeting that occurred and also the fact that even if there is something that we don't know that they're pursuing, that you send the deputy attorney general, right? I mean, you've got people for that, right? There are people who are deeply immersed in this case, people who work the case, whether those are prosecutors or federal agents who Are, you know, up to their eyeballs in this stuff. They've read every piece of paper. Instead you send Todd Blanche, Donald Trump's former lawyer. It's like sending, you know, from a Detroiters viewpoint, the chief operating officer of General Motors, to the mechanics store to change the carburetor. Right. We've got people who know how to do that really well. We don't need the COO to come down and do that. So it's really strange to me that that's happening. There's another issue that's developing this week, Kim, I want to ask you about that. It relates to the Supreme Court. So she was convicted and her sentencing occurred in 2022. She has appealed her conviction. Now it has worked its way up to the Supreme Court. She has asked the Supreme Court to review her conviction. Can you tell us a little bit about the issue she's raising and whether the court has said it will take up her appeal?
- [47:40]
Kimberly Atkins
Yeah, I certainly can. I want to make one point though about the, the testimony that she gave and all of the layers and layers of conflict of interest and bad ideas that you were laying out about that whole scenario. It's also worth noting that Maxwell's been charged multiple times for perjury for.
- [47:58]
Jill Wine Banks
Right, good point.
- [48:01]
Kimberly Atkins
Like how can anybody. She was not convicted of perjury. She was convicted of being, you know, a horrific.
- [48:07]
Barb McQuaid
She's a perjurer. That's like that scene in stripes. You remember that where Bill Murray is, is signing, is enlisting. And they say, have you ever been convicted of any felonies? And he kind of leans in, he says, convicted. No.
- [48:19]
Kimberly Atkins
Right. She was not acquitted. But it was just, it's just how can you trust, how can any, what, what value does anything that come out of her mouth hold? Absolutely none. But I digress. Yes, as you mentioned, she is appealing at the US Supreme Court. She is specifically appealing an order by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that, that held that her non prosecution agreement from 2007, remember the sweetheart deal we talked about in the first attempt to prosecute Maxwell and Epstein, that the non prosecution agreement that she entered into prevents the subsequent, her subsequent prosecution for which she was convicted and for which she's serving time in jail, the Second Circuit held that there was, quote, nothing in the mpa, the non prosecution agreement that affirmatively shows that the MPA was intended to bind multiple districts. So that was a separate case, it happened out of the District of Florida than the one that she was convicted of. So they said, too bad. So sad. You go directly to Jail. So she's asked the Supreme Court to overturn that. They tried to scare up this idea that there is a circuit split. This seems so fact specific. I'm like a circuit split about what? Like, you know, maybe there might be some different standards that different circuits have used. But I don't think that the Supreme Court is going to touch this with a 10 foot pol sitting on the list of petitions that tend to build up over the summer because Supreme Court justices like vacation too. But I don't think they're going to move on it.
- [49:56]
Barb McQuaid
I tend to agree with you. And you know, I wonder if one of the things that isn't going on here is that deadline now, September 29th, at the conference, they're going to consider this. It kind of creates a deadline for some sort of other resolution. What I worry about here is that this creates an opportunity for the Justice Department to do one of these fake settlements. You know, how they like gave $5 million to the family of Ashley Babbitt even though everybody said there was no crime committed by the officer because she's climbing through a window into the speaker's lobby. But they're trying to rewrite history. Right. And if they have the power to do that, could they not say, although I think all of us would agree, that this agreement out of the Southern District of Florida is in no way binding on the Southern District of New York. Maxwell herself never signed it. There's no way that she should get the benefit of it. But, you know, the argument her lawyer is making is like, hey, a deal's a deal and the Justice Department agreed not to bring charges against any co conspirator. Could they spin that to say, oh, we had no choice, it's the only justice required that we resolve this case. And so therefore we have dismissed her case in exchange for her truthful testimony. And then she comes out and, you know, exonerates Donald Trump. Now that's wild speculation.
- [51:19]
Kimberly Atkins
It is, and I get where you're going. But if that is the case, then that is being done for political reasons, not legal ones, clearly.
- [51:27]
Barb McQuaid
Absolutely, absolutely.
- [51:28]
Kimberly Atkins
But there is a good chunk of the people who are disillusioned and angry in Trump's base who thinks that she should stay in prison for the rest of her life. They think she's at the center of whichever one of the conspiracy theories each individual happens to believe in. All of them seem to put Ghislaine Maxwell at the center of it. So I don't understand what they'd be even the gaining her. Just saying it had nothing to do with Trump would be offset by, I think, just people across the ideological spectrum. Their head's exploding at the idea of her getting a deal.
- [52:04]
Barb McQuaid
I think so. But what if it's not so much a deal, it's just that they say this is what the law requires. Our hands are tied. We hate her, too, but we don't have any choice. And then she on her own, when she's test, you know, she's subpoenaed to Congress or something, she exonerates him. I don't know. What do you think, Jill? What do you make of her argument that the Southern District of New York is bound by that agreement? And do you think there's any room there for the Justice Department to try to use that as a fig leaf to get her out?
- [52:32]
Jill Wine Banks
Well, let me address first whether I think there is anything that should justify an appeal. And as you've already said, the circuit split is a ridiculous argument that just doesn't hold true.
- [52:48]
Kimberly Atkins
It's circuit splitting hairs.
- [52:50]
Jill Wine Banks
Oh, God. But also, as Barb said, it also isn't true that. That the Southern District of Florida can bind the Southern District of New York. And even if it could, no one has commented on this, but it strikes me because I was just rereading the indictment against Maxwell, and her acts charged were between 1994 and 1997. The Florida case was between 2001 and 2007. So they're not even the same acts.
- [53:28]
Barb McQuaid
So, I mean, that's a good point.
- [53:29]
Jill Wine Banks
It's just. It's one of those things where I just don't think there is an overlap that could possibly bind the Southern District of New York.
- [53:38]
Barb McQuaid
That's why Banks is so sharp. Look at that. That's a great argument. I was thinking about, you know, one entity can't bind the other. I was thinking about she's not a signatory to it. But you, Jill Wine Banks, you dig into the facts and you look at the fact that the dates don't match up or something.
- [53:55]
Jill Wine Banks
But I also want to ask, why is she called, and everybody says this differently. G. Lynn. Ghislaine. Ghislaine. Ghislaine. I mean, everybody says it differently, but why has she used her first name and Jeffrey is Epstein? Why isn't she Maxwell? I'm sorry, I think it's sexist, but. So I'm gonna call her Maxwell and then I don't have to deal with how to pronounce her name. You know, I just think that this is one of those cases the Supreme Court should not get involved and they should go away and there's no getting around it. So.
- [54:29]
Barb McQuaid
Okay. All right, let me ask you a crazy hypothetical. This is crazy. You know how the Trump administration and the Supreme Court have been itching to advance the Unitary Executive theory? Right. That's this theory that the President is the executive branch. And under that theory could by extension, could they say, well, that means that if the President is the whole government, then every part of the government is the president. And you can't have the Southern district of New York being separate from the Southern district of Florida because it's all one and the same. It's all just the embodiment of the President. And if that's the case, shouldn't in the interest of the Unitary executive theory, the Southern District of New York be bound by an agreement put forward by the Southern District of Florida? Any as crazy as that sounds, do you see this court going for that argument or is it a bridge too far?
- [55:18]
Jill Wine Banks
It doesn't sound crazy and at all barb.
- [55:21]
Kimberly Atkins
I don't know what the court's gonna. I mean, it's hard to see, but I just cannot see them wanting to step into this.
- [55:28]
Barb McQuaid
Yeah, yeah.
- [55:30]
Kimberly Atkins
At all. And I don't know if you keep. If a court takes leaps like that, then what. What are the rules even for?
- [55:40]
Barb McQuaid
I mean, may I remind you of the Dobbs opinion, my sister to Shay.
- [55:46]
Jill Wine Banks
And immunity.
- [55:48]
Kimberly Atkins
Touche.
- [55:59]
Barb McQuaid
Dear sisters, I'm wondering if you've heard about Oneskin's scalp serum. It's OS01 hair.
- [56:06]
Kimberly Atkins
Yes, I have heard of it.
- [56:08]
Barb McQuaid
People are raving about it. I've actually tried it since they launched a few months ago. And it's an interesting product familiar with one skin. You know about their patented OS01 peptide and how it's scientifically proven to target aging at the cellular level. It's what powers their skin and sun. And now it's targeting age related hair loss and thinning.
- [56:33]
Kimberly Atkins
Yeah, I love this product. I have been using it. I've been experiencing a little bit of hair thinning particular around my temples as I get older. And that's where I use the One Skin serum. Just drop it right on and rub it in. And I have definitely noticed more thickness in that area. So it's really. It is definitely not hurting. And listen to this. People are sending reviews like, quote, my hair has never felt this thick and full and my scalp feels healthier than ever. And another commenter said, quote, I started three months ago and I'm seeing new little hairs on my scalp line. That's something that I've experienced too. And it's easier for me to tell because my hair is in braids. So when new hair grows in, they, they kind of stick up between the braids. But it's a good sign because that means that I know that my hair isn't just growing, but new hairs are growing. 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're ready to give OSO1 hair a try, you can get 15% off your first three month supply with CO code sistersneskin co. And I like you.
- [57:50]
Jill Wine Banks
Kim, have tried it and I think it is actually working. First of all, it feels good on your scalp and I use it just in the spot. I have one spot on my hair where it's definitely thinning and it doesn't make it greasy or sticky or anything. It just is working. And our producers are already the first customers and their hair is looking amazing. As for me, I can't get enough of One Skin whether I'm out in the Chicago wind or basking on one of its incredibly rare sunny days. Although last week puts the lie to that one where it was an inferno. I use two of OneSkin's OSO One Face topical supplements to fight back against dryness. I also 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. The formulas feel amazing to apply. I'm certain you'll be a big fan too.
- [58:53]
Barb McQuaid
All right. After all this talk, I just have been on my phone ordering the hair serum from Oneskin using the Sisters promo code and it really works. I just saved 15%. So OneSkin is the world's first skin longevity company company. By focusing on the cellular aspects of aging, one skin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer. And for a limited time, you can try one skin with 15% off using code Sisters as I just did 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. The link is in the show notes. Well, now comes the part of the show that is our absolute favorite. The part where we answer your questions. If you have a question for us, please email us at sisters in law politicon.com or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. If we don't get to your questions 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 Deborah, who asks, can any of Trump's egregious decisions, orders or appointments be overturned when he's no longer in office? Kim, what do you think about that?
- [60:17]
Kimberly Atkins
Hi, Deborah. Thanks for that great question. The answer is yes. I mean, if you're talking about the executive orders that Donald Trump has issued or appointments that he has made to the cabinet, you know, secretaries of defense, of energy, of everything. Well, least of all the agencies that will still be in existence by the time Trump's term ends, anything like that. Those people serve at the pleasure of the president. And executive orders are orders. They're not, not like laws, as we've talked about before. They're just expressions of the priorities to the different agencies that the president wants. So, yes, every president gets to set their own priorities about what they want during their term. The one thing that cannot be overturned are judicial appointments. Those are for life. Once you're on, you can stay on until you retire, unless you're impeached or until you die. So that's the only appointment that Donald Trump that could not be removed by a future president. But, yeah, presidents, presidents have broad power over their own cabinets and administrations.
- [61:33]
Barb McQuaid
All right, our next question comes to us from. Hold on. Is this really from Ellie Velshi?
- [61:38]
Jill Wine Banks
Apparently.
- [61:39]
Kimberly Atkins
Is it? We were. Jill and I were both on his show this past weekend, so maybe we were on his own. Oh, that's fantastic.
- [61:46]
Barb McQuaid
Well, Ali Velshi is asking this question. The DOJ is meant to enforce federal laws and administer justice on behalf of the American people. What happens to the people's interests when Trump stacks the department with his own lawyers? Jill, what do you think about that?
- [62:02]
Kimberly Atkins
That's a great question.
- [62:03]
Jill Wine Banks
It is a great question from a great questioner, and I'm thrilled that he is sending in questions to us. Unfortunately, the answer is pretty easy because we're already seeing it. Justice should be blind, which means fair and balanced, but it isn't. DOJ departments intended to enforce civil rights, voting rights, prosecute public corruption, have been gutted or eliminated. Court filings are no longer reliable for facts. There is a lot going on that sure looks like noncompliance with court orders, and those things are not in the public interest. So I think that it is correct that we think things like when a plane is ordered to be turned around and it lands in El Salvador, Instead, that's not following court orders. The complaints filed by DOJ against Judge Boasberg, the interim AGs who were rejected by the courts when they're 120 day limit on service as interim expired, are being kept on as either special counsel or as acting ag, which evades the Senate's constitutional role in confirming appointments. A conflicted Todd Blanche, because although he's the former lawyer for Donald Trump, once you have a commitment to your client, it's forever. You can't just walk away from it. So in my mind, he is clearly convicted and he's interviewing a witness who, who may be a witness against Donald Trump. So I would say that Ali, I'm sorry to say, but the public interest is not being followed. The mass firings that created openings to hire people who are totally loyal and those who aren't honest, ignoring people who do speak against him, like Rouveni, I could go on way longer. There are so many examples of why we don't have fairness for the public anymore. And thank you for your question and thank you for your concern about the American people's interests. We have to make sure that in the future their interests take priority because that's what is supposed to happen.
- [64:24]
Barb McQuaid
All right, well, thanks to Allie Velshi from MSNBC for that question. Our final question comes to us from Parkinson. Parkin asks, will the work product doctrine protect the discovery of any statements made by Ghislaine Maxwell to the doj? Thanks for that question, Parkin. First, let me explain to our listeners who are not lawyers what the work product doctrine is. It's a doctrine that protects the work of lawyers. So if I write a memo and it includes my opinion about things, typically that does not get turned over to opposing counsel or others in discovery. And it's to encourage candor and to encourage lawyers to, to work up their case and not worry about having to give away the product that they generated. The work that they generated, you give away the evidence, right? Here's a statement by a witness, here's a photo, here is a bank record. But what the lawyer writes about, their own deliberations typically are not given. And so it really depends on what we mean when we talk about the Epstein file, because that would include those kinds of work product documents. I don't know what DOJ could release anything it wants other than grand jury material, which a judge has denied. But if they wanted to waive their right to protect these things, they could do that. I think where this might be most relevant is if and when we see Ghislaine Maxwell come and testify before Congress. There are efforts afoot to subpoena her. She has said she will not testify without immunity. I don't blame her. I think that her lawyer is making the right call because she still has an appeal pending. Congress could give her what's called use immunity, which says, we won't use your statements made here against you. She's already been convicted. She's serving 20 years. So that seems like an easy decision to me. But so far they have not indicated they would agree to that. Maybe that's a bad political look, but I think if she does end up testifying or if DOJ lawyers end up testifying, that's a point where what they normally do is they go through something called. It's called the negotiation and accommodation principle, usually where both parties don't want to have to fight this out and go to a court. And so they agree to give up some of it, but not all of it, including these sort of deliberative process memos, which are arguably privileged. So I don't know if we'll get all of it. At the end of the day, it would be interesting to see what we get. But of course, what people really want to know, I think, are the names that likely are identified by witnesses and those I don't think would be protected by work product or any sort of deliberative privilege. So I think that if the Justice Department wants to, they could probably give up those names.
- [66:59]
Jill Wine Banks
But Barb, isn't it a long standing practice and rule at justice that we don't name people who were investigated but not indicted? And wouldn't that be doing that?
- [67:10]
Barb McQuaid
Well, it is and it is part of the Justice Department to protect both victims and subjects for whom there was not sufficient evidence to charge. But if Donald Trump wants to say, I had nothing to do with him, well, put your money where your mouth is. Right. He's got the ability to waive his own privileges, his own privacy rights and say, send out, you know, my name shows up four times. Let's produce those documents. So he could wave it if he wanted to.
- [67:35]
Jill Wine Banks
Oh, he could wave it for himself. I just don't know that he can waive it for everybody else.
- [67:39]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, no, no, no, no. I agree with you that it is a long standing principle that the Justice Department protects witness identity and the identity of subjects who are not charged. But Trump himself, I think could disclose that if he wanted to. Well, thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Jill Wine Banks, Kimberly Atkinstore and me, Barb McQuaid. Please follow SistersInLaw wherever you listen and please give us a five star review. It really helps others find the show. Please show some love to this week's sponsors, Wild Alaskan company, Thrive Cosmetics, Packagin and Oneskin. 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.
- [68:24]
Kimberly Atkins
You know, you guys, I've been coming to Martha's vineyard for over 10 years, but this is the first time I realized that all of the shark imagery around the island is because Jaws was filmed here and they were very into it. And so last night when I was at dinner at a restaurant, they were even showing Jaws on TV and like people were like reacting to it like it was a sports event. You know, it was just like, like some people in the restaurant and it's literally this shark attacking people in waters that we could literally see out of the window. It was kind of, it was kind.
- [68:56]
Jill Wine Banks
Of weird, but, you know, are there actually sharks there? I mean, I don't know whether it's even real.
- [69:01]
Kimberly Atkins
It's the Atlantic Ocean. Yeah, they're sure.
- [69:03]
Jill Wine Banks
But near the beach, near Martha's Danger.
- [69:06]
Kimberly Atkins
Yeah, they have been fired. Not, not, you know, 30 foot great whites, but yeah, there are sharks out there. There.
- [69:13]
Barb McQuaid
I don't know, I think that's just a little too much shark for me. I, I was just at the right or wrong age when Jaws came out and I went to see it and I gotta tell you, it's like ruined me for the rest of my life from swimming in the ocean. I go in, but all it's all I can think about when I'm there is that that music starts, you know, the da da da da da da da da.
- [69:32]
Kimberly Atkins
I thought about it when I was floating in the ocean and I had a great time.
- [69:37]
Jill Wine Banks
I had one encounter with a shark.
- [69:39]
Kimberly Atkins
What? Of course you did. I did.
- [69:42]
Jill Wine Banks
In Belize. After fishing, we went to a reef and we tossed our bait in and fish were roiling around it. And I asked our guide if I could touch a fish. Because when you're actually, you know, in the water snorkeling, the fish look close, but they are always further away. You can never touch them. He said, sure. And I put my hand in and a snapper grabbed onto my finger. Cut right through. I was bleeding. I was petrified. And then everybody said, well, it's time to get in the water. I said, I'm bleeding. I'm not getting in the water. It's the chum you're next to the other side where the chum isn't. That's where, you know, no one can crawl over you with flippers on. So bravely, I hold my mask, I jump in, I move my hand from the front of my mask, and I am face to face with a shark. I raise my hand up, honest to God. I raise my hand, bleed bleeding finger up, and yell, shark. Shark. And Michael grabs the camera and jumps over me instead of helping me out.
- [70:47]
Barb McQuaid
Oh, my God.
- [70:48]
Jill Wine Banks
Honest to God, that he. He took pictures of the shark. It. It wasn't that big, but it was plenty scary, I gotta tell you. So that was my shark experience.
- [70:58]
Kimberly Atkins
And how long did Michael have to sleep on the couch after that?
- [71:01]
Barb McQuaid
I wanna see the picture.