250: Everything Is Stupid

Summary

Sisters in Law – Episode 250: "Everything Is Stupid"

Date: August 23, 2025
Hosts: Kimberly Atkins Stohr, Joyce Vance, Barb McQuaid, Jill Wine-Banks
Podcast: Politicon's #SistersInLaw

---

Episode Overview

This episode, titled "Everything Is Stupid," brings together the full #SistersInLaw panel for the first time in weeks. The hosts dissect urgent topics including the mid-decade redistricting wars, a controversial DOJ search targeting Trump-critic John Bolton, and the latest appellate decision in the New York civil fraud case against Donald Trump. With their characteristic blend of insight, humor, and dismay at the state of American law and politics, the Sisters probe not just what’s happening—but why, what it means, and whether there’s any hope for sanity. The conversation also touches on the role of DOJ, ethical government, and the slow-burning impacts of political "arms races" in both law and governance.

---

Main Topics & Analysis

---

1. Back to School: The Joy of Shopping & Giving Back

[02:54–07:12]

• Hosts share nostalgic stories about the joy of back-to-school shopping, transitioning into how they use that energy now as professionals.

  • Barb: A self-admitted "back to school geek," fond of office supplies and choosing the perfect color notebook each academic year.
  • Jill: Remembers her “giant box of Crayolas,” but mostly loved clothes shopping, including pink suede loafers and vintage finds.
  • Joyce: Reflects on her mother, a preschool teacher, who spent her own money on classroom supplies. Now, Joyce contributes by "clearing the list" for teachers needing supplies—which she urges others to do:

    “Maybe it scratches the shopping itch a little bit.” (Joyce Vance, [07:09])

• Notable Moment:

  • Kimberly reveals she still owns an elementary school notebook with Barry Sanders on it—unused and “pristine.”
  • The hosts connect this nostalgia to the importance of supporting teachers struggling with underfunded classrooms.

---

2. The Redistricting Arms Race: Texas vs. California

[10:32–22:29]

Texas GOP’s Power Play

• Jill outlines Texas’ highly partisan mid-decade redistricting:
  • “Ever since the Supreme Court said political gerrymandering is okay, this was inevitable.” (Jill Wine-Banks, [12:03])
  • Massive racial disparities in representation are highlighted:
    • 445,000 white Texans vs. 1.4 million Latinos or 2 million Black voters per representative.
  • Texas Democrats’ walkout:

    “They did make the nation aware…a very good way.” (Jill Wine-Banks, [15:31])

  • Texas Rep. Nicole Collier's refusal to sign a "permission slip" for surveillance is discussed as a brave (if symbolic) act of resistance.

California’s Tit-for-Tat Response

• Barb discusses California's plan to counter Texas through a ballot initiative:
  • Expresses discomfort with the “arms race.”

    “Fighting fire with fire just makes everything burn.” (Barb McQuaid, [18:46])

  • But notes the process gives power to voters, not politicians.
  • Eric Holder's support: Democrats’ approach is a shield, not a sword.

Legal Battles & Political Theater

• Kimberly points out the inevitable legal challenges:
  • “Republicans…have already filed suit to block the California redistricting for me…” ([22:29])
  • California’s process, being voter-driven, offers a democratic countermeasure—at least in the short term.

Political Fallout: Newsom & Mockery Politics

• Gavin Newsom is described as both effective in “trolling” Trump (“Today we will make the maps great again!” [24:19]) and polarizing—even among the panel.
  • Kimberly: “I'm not a fan of politics by Twitter account.” ([24:43])
  • Barb: “I think leaders should be grown ups, and I think mocking…brings all of the discourse down…” ([28:11])
  • Jill: Initially “revolted,” but now acknowledges the effectiveness of fighting fire with fire.
  • There’s consensus that while the tactics are unfortunate, the issues are existential enough to justify extraordinary measures.
  • Barb, unwavering:

    “I like my leaders to be serious people and I don't like the…cheap shots.” ([30:10])

---

3. Department of Justice Under Trump: Retribution & Rule of Law

[34:18–55:44]

3.1. DOJ Executes Search Warrant on John Bolton

[34:18–44:51]

• Kimberly calls it “petty and retaliatory,” a clear case of Trump’s projection and retribution:

  “It looks like not only despotism… but petty.” (Kimberly Atkins, [35:15])

  • The procedure starkly contrasts Trump’s Mar-a-Lago search—there, DOJ followed protocol and discretion; with Bolton, news was leaked, creating spectacle.

• Barb raises legal barriers: Statute of limitations ("five years for most federal offenses") but possession is a continuing offense.

  • Points to DOJ’s lost “presumption of regularity.”

• Joyce clarifies legal standards:

  • Judges are “more lenient” on stale probable cause with documents, but bypassing requests for voluntary return of documents could harm the government’s case.

• Jill, connecting history:

  “You ask before you subpoena the president… or the former security advisor.” ([44:51])

3.2. Parallels & Protests: Authoritarian Playbook

• Panel notes the “classic disinformation” technique: accuse others of politicization, then do so yourself.
• The risk: Lasting institutional damage to DOJ's credibility, regardless of future court or congressional action.

3.3. Politicized U.S. Attorney Appointments

[55:39–59:14]

• Barb and Joyce break down the importance of confirming U.S. Attorneys: Only personal loyalty to Trump matters to the administration.

• New tactics for avoiding Senate confirmation: Appointing non-career, non-confirmed “acting” or “interim” U.S. Attorneys beyond the statutory timeframes.

• Alina Habba saga: Ruled by a judge to have been exercising authority “without legal authority”; everything she touched in NJ U.S. Attorney’s office for weeks could be void.

• Kimberly:

  “The office is paralyzed until there is a valid U.S. attorney in place…this is affecting thousands of criminal and civil cases.” ([57:02])

• Jill sees this as a serious constitutional test of executive power and Senate oversight.

---

4. New York Civil Fraud Appeal: Partial Win for Trump, But No Exoneration

[63:54–75:33]

Background & Trial

• Jill recaps New York AG Letitia James’ lawsuit—Trump, his children, and the Trump Organization found liable (non-jury trial) for inflating property values.
• Judge banned Trump from doing business in NY and ordered nearly $500 million in disgorgement.

Appellate Ruling Breakdown

• Joyce: Court upheld the fraud verdict but vacated the financial penalty as an “excessive fine” per the Eighth Amendment; penalty is to be recalculated.

  • “Trump is liable for civil fraud. Then we're not going to make him pay this much money.” ([67:29])

• Kim: Court did not find the case politically motivated, despite one judge's dissent.

• Barb: Cautions that politics in prosecution remains dangerous, encourages restraint in officials’ public comments.

• Jill: Calls media headlines about “exoneration” misleading:

  “Trump is still guilty of financial fraud. The headline should have read Trump fraud conviction upheld. He's barred from doing business in New York.” ([70:15])

  • Notes Tish James is now also being targeted by DOJ in a possible retribution move.

Next Steps

• Joyce & panel explain the “Yankee nonsense” of NY’s court hierarchy—expect appeals from both sides and a prolonged appellate fight.
• Kimberly doubts the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case, given its civil posture and lack of broad constitutional issues.

---

5. Listener Q&A

[78:23–87:05]

Trump 2028?

• Barb addresses whether Trump could run again post-2028, dissecting 22nd Amendment ambiguities and VP "plan B's"—concludes it would be a dangerous constitutional gray area.

  • “If he wins an election, he can't serve, so he should not be on the ballot as the president…But…it could…probably is, is legally permissible [to serve by succession].” ([80:58])

Legal Jargon: "Line Prosecutor"

• Joyce: Confirms that’s the hands-on prosecutor who “investigates, indicts, prosecutes, including taking the case to trial.” ([82:33])

“Frivolous Lawsuits”

• Jill breaks down Rule 11, financial and professional sanctions, and what makes an action frivolous:

  • “There has to be some fact that you can prove that supports what you're saying or some law that supports what you're saying. You can't just make stuff up.” ([83:52])

---

Notable Quotes

• Jill Wine-Banks: "Ever since the Supreme Court said political gerrymandering is okay, this was inevitable." [12:03]
• Barb McQuaid: “Fighting fire with fire just makes everything burn. … an eye for an eye leaves both eyes blind.” [18:46]
• Joyce Vance: "Trump is liable for civil fraud. Then we're not going to make him pay this much money." [67:29]
• Kimberly Atkins: "It looks like not only despotism… but petty." [35:15]
• Jill Wine-Banks: "Trump is still guilty of financial fraud. The headline should have read Trump fraud conviction upheld." [70:15]
• Barb McQuaid: “I like my leaders to be serious people and I don't like the…cheap shots.” [30:10]
• Kimberly Atkins: “Everything is so stupid.” [87:50]
• Joyce Vance: “I have to say I'm sort of a fan of the approach they've taken. … They have used it, in essence, as a shield and not as a sword.” [20:29]

---

Episode Summary & Conclusion

“Everything Is Stupid” captures not just the frustrations of the #SistersInLaw panel, but a moment in American civic life where rules, ethics, and norms are routinely bent if not broken for political gain. The episode is rich with legal insight, historical context, and impassioned debate about “fighting fire with fire,” the integrity of justice institutions, and the line between effective resistance and contributing to a downward spiral. The Trump/Bolton controversy, the subversion of DOJ appointment norms, and the partial appellate win for Trump in New York are explored with a mix of exasperation and expertise, always returning to a fundamental question: How can the foundations of democracy and justice withstand so much self-interested chicanery?

The panel closes with practical advice for engaged citizens—support teachers, understand your government, and prepare for the next legal curveball. The refrain, “Everything is so stupid,” is not just a lament, but a call to vigilance, seriousness, and hope that someone, somewhere, will still stand up for what’s right.

---

End of summary.

Transcript

[Andrew Zucker]

I'm Andrew Zucker, the host of the Golden Age with Andrew Zucker, a weekly podcast where I sit down with people who are shaping our world today at the intersection of politics, culture, and media. I've been covering this intersection as a contributing editor at Town and Country and freelance writer for outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Vanity Fair. The Golden Age gives you a front row seat to the discussions that are defining our moment, whether it's talking about conservative dating apps or Learning more about JFK Jr. New podcast episodes drop every week on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Subscribe now because the conversations we're having today are the ones that will define tomorrow. This is the Golden Age with Andrew Zuercher. Join the conversation.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Barb McQuaid, Jill Wine Banks, and me, Kimberly Atkinstor. I'm so happy to be back. I've been gone for two weeks.

[Jill Wine Banks]

We miss you forever.

[Barb McQuaid]

Great to have you back and the whole gang.

[Joyce Vance]

This is our first time all together for a while.

[Jill Wine Banks]

And that's why I love laughing so much and having such a good time.

[Kimberly Atkins]

All right, and don't forget you guys, the Resistance Mini tote and T shirts are big best sellers. They're really great, but they're selling out fast. So get yours [e-mail] merch and now let's get on with the show because my goodness, there's so much to discuss, from the redistricting wars to all the things that the DOJ has been up to, including executing a search warrant on a Trump enemy. And also, let's not forget the New York verdict for fraud that was rendered against Donald Trump that for now has been upended on appeal. So much to get to. But I want to start out by asking you guys something that's been on my mind ever since I was a preschooler. I have loved back to school shopping season. Yes, I have not been in school for a very, very long time, but I may still be known to hit a back to school shopping sale because I love things like a fresh notebook or I just got a fresh bunch of highlighters like, and it makes me feel like I'm in elementary school again. Like I get so excited about back to school shopping and that's let alone what there is to be said about clothing. So I wanted to ask you guys, are you back to school shoppers or were you back to school shoppers and what were some of the things that you guys like to buy? So Barb, you're a Professor. So I'm sure you have to buy things to go back to school. What about you? What do you like most about back to school? Shopping.

[Barb McQuaid]

I love this question. I'm such a back to school geek. I love office supplies. You know, I loved them as a kid. You know, my mother would take me and my sister to get like back to school clothes, which didn't interest me all that much. We got back to school shoes every year, you know, a new pair of shoes for the school year that, you know, didn't do it for me. But the school supplies, you know what I used to love? They used to back in the day have what they called a cigar box. Do you know what that is? It wasn't really cigars in it, but it was the shape of a small box that opened. And you kept all your little things in there, like your, you know, in those days they didn't have the glue stick. We had Elmer's glue, the, the little scissors with the rubber handles, you know, some pencils, you know, the kind of eraser that you stick onto the end of your pencil. Yeah, we had a few of those. I love that. So now that I'm a professor, you know, the law school has available to me anything I could possibly need. They have a supply room where they have folders and other things. But I still go to the office supply store because I'd rather walk up and down the aisles and pick what color are my notebook's gonna be for this year. So I already picked out my notebook for my fall national security class. It's gonna be blue this year. I, I use a variety of colors every year, often fond of blue. I know that will surprise some of our listeners, but I love it. And I got some tab dividers because, you know, I gotta have different sections for different types of papers that will go into my notebook. So. Also lots of post it notes in various colors.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Oh my goodness, Barb, I love this. So I too loved shopping so much for back to school. And I would love it when the notebooks were pristine, right? And so I almost didn't want to use them. And I actually still have a notebook that was purchased when I was in elementary school and it has Barry Sanders on the front. Oh, excellent, excellent, excellent. I'm sure I could probably sell it on ebay or something, but I will never get rid of this prestige.

[Barb McQuaid]

Oh, that's great.

[Kimberly Atkins]

It's right in my desk in my office right here.

[Barb McQuaid]

That's great.

[Kimberly Atkins]

But not written in. So I feel you, Barb. What about you, Jill?

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, It's a really, really long time since I did any back to school shopping. But when you asked that question, the first thing that flashed through my mind was not just my giant box of Crayolas, which I really, really love that. Wait, the 64 sharpener in the back?

[Kimberly Atkins]

Yes.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Hey, I'm old enough. There was no such thing as a sharpener. Oh, well, sorry about that.

[Kimberly Atkins]

I had the sharpener built in.

[Jill Wine Banks]

What I really loved was clothes shopping. And I really still can remember getting pink suede loafers once. That was a big thing when I was in grade school and I can remember certain dresses and poodle skirts. That was a big thing when I was in high school. I love and I still love clothes shopping. And like you, Kim, I also love going to vintage stores and finding old stuff that just really not only reminds me of stuff, but I think it's still great style. So I'm a big shopper. I do like shopping, I have to admit.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Yeah, Jill, you've always had fantastic style. I bet even when you were in the second grade you had fantastic style.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I don't remember that far back.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Joyce, what about you?

[Joyce Vance]

You know, I'm like you and Barb. I love shopping for supplies. I like the organizational details. But my mom was a preschool teacher in one of the Johnson Great Society programs for kids usually from single par parent from you know, one parent families that were struggling a little bit. And my mom, who did not make a ton of money as a preschool teacher as you might imagine, spent a lot of money on supplies for her classroom. And so what I do now that I can't really buy supplies for myself like Barb, the law school gives me more than I could ever use. I like looking online for these teachers who they do it has different names. Sometimes it's clear the list and they write a list of supplies that they want for their schools. And you can go in and clear out a teacher or a whole elementary school, which I did one year. My husband was sort of perplexed by that. But it's really, really great to do that in areas that you know and are familiar with. And so maybe it scratches the shopping itch a little bit.

[Kimberly Atkins]

That's a great idea. I have seen people in my circles or on social media with teachers who have lists because there's so many teachers who they're they so little but they still take devote some of what they make to making sure their students have what they need. And so they create these lists on Amazon and elsewhere. So that's a really great way if you like back to school shopping, but you're not in school. That's a good place to put that energy. So thank you for that, Joyce. Our listeners can't see, but I'm batting my eyelashes at Jill because I'm wearing my Thrive mascara. As always, Mino too. And you know, summer is all about looking and feeling your best without piling it on. And that's why we want to tell you about Thrive. Thrive Cosmetics is your go to for simple, clean and radiant summer looks. Minimal effort, maximum impact. Every product is 100% vegan, cruelty free, and made with clean skin loving ingredients that work with your skin, not against it.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I am so with you, Kim on this. I have loved Thrive way before they became an advertiser. I was thrilled when they wanted to advertise with us because then I could tell everyone about how great the product is. I love Thrive's Vegan Tubing Liquid Lash Extension mascara. And there's a reason it has over 40,000 five star reviews. It's perfect for a salon look without the damaging glue or excess prices. Better yet, it's sweatproof for the summer with six shades that last all day without clumping, smudging or flaking. It's amazing how it makes your eyelashes look extra long by wrapping around each lash from root to tip with easy removal just with water. I use a special little soap for my whole skin and it works just perfectly on getting this off. It slides right off with warm water without yanking out your natural lashes. Plus, its nourishing ingredients support longer, stronger and healthier looking lashes over time. As soon as I found out about it, I started using it. It's the perfect way to make a big impression.

[Barb McQuaid]

You know, Jill's eyelashes look so long with Thrive cosmetics that she could braid them if she wanted to.

[Jill Wine Banks]

As a child, I did have braids.

[Barb McQuaid]

Not on your eyelashes.

[Kimberly Atkins]

On your eyelashes.

[Jill Wine Banks]

No, I know my hair was braided.

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, we love that. Cause is in the name for a reason. Thrive not only defines luxury beauty with clean skin loving ingredients and uncompromising standards, but they give back too. Every 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. That's beauty with purpose.

[Joyce Vance]

So don't wait. Maximize your look with minimal effort. Go to thrivecosmetics.com sisters for an exclusive offer of 20% off your first order. I love that mascara so much that I keep it in my purse. And truth be told, I've got tiny little eyes. Some days I just need a second coat. Middle of the day. It's good stuff. That's Thrive Cosmetics. C A U S E M E T I C S the link is in our show Notes. So, as we all know, a major battle line for the coming election has been drawn. Republicans made a power play to change the balance of power in the House of Representatives with a very unusual mid decade redistricting effort. That was just a pure political ploy. Donald Trump came right out and said it, you know, we can redistrict in Texas and get five more Republican seats. Well, Democrats seemingly, for once responded in kind. And for many of us, that was welcome news and very refreshing. But let's push the politics aside for a moment and assess where we are in this first very important skirmish ahead of 2026. Jill, can we start with the state of play in Texas? How does everything end up there?

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, let's start first with saying this was a strategy that was never going to stop the redistricting that the majority in the Texas legislature wants. Ever since the Supreme Court said political gerrymandering is okay, this was inevitable. It's something that's been in the works for years. Republicans have focused on the courts, on taking state control of both the executive and legislative branches, and now they're implementing everything Project 2025 threatened us with. And they're moving ever closer to what I would consider one party, one person government. But to answer your question specifically, can.

[Joyce Vance]

I just jump back in though, and say I agree with you 100%. You know, this is the root showcase that we talk a lot about where the Supreme Court says it won't intervene in the case of a pure political gerrymander, only a racial one. Total abdication of responsibility. One of the early signs that this Supreme Court was off the rails.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Absolutely. And of course, that's why the Republicans in Texas are saying it isn't racial, it's partisan. Because partisan is, according to the Supreme Court, a legitimate grounds. I think that's ridiculous. And of course, I think the evidence here is that it is racial. So we'll get into that. But the Texas House did give final approval to the GOP map last Wednesday. This. This week. Wednesday. So a few days ago. And the Senate voted out the map the following morning. And it got full Senate approval this morning, you know, hours before we recorded. I suspect by the time that this episode airs on Saturday, the governor will have signed it and that court challenges will already have been filed. I think there's a number of voting rights groups that are ready to challenge this as racially discriminatory as well as politically. But the Republicans are fighting back, saying, no, it's really not. And I just want to point out a statistic, which is that under this map, it's estimated that 445,000 white residents of Texas will have the power to elect a representative. But it would take 1.4 million Latinos and 2 million black Texas voters to get one representative. That shows how racially skewed this is. And I think, you know, I think that that's what we need to focus on.

[Joyce Vance]

So let, let me ask you this. I know that there's a detail involving the way this whole thing played out with Texas legislators leaving the state to you and, by the way, doing an extraordinary job because, as you say, everyone knew that ultimately they couldn't hold out. What they did was they drew the nation's attention to what was going on in a powerful way that has provoked the response that we'll talk about in a minute. But I know that there's a detail involving a Texas legislator named Nicole Collier that's very much been on your mind. She's the legislator who refused to sign the little permission slip that would have let secret spies accompany her around after she left the floor of the legislature. Do you think that the way she handled that situation has any legs? Is this only the start of a quiet, peaceful rebellion?

[Jill Wine Banks]

First of all, Joyce, thank you for asking that question, because it really has been on my mind, as has all of the resistance that people are finally doing. It made me proud that the Democrats left the state and held up the vote, and they knew that they couldn't move away from Texas and still hold their seats. So they were going to have to return at some point. They also had families there and other things going on, so it was never going to ultimately prevail, but it did make the nation aware of what is happening and drew attention in a very good way. So for me, I think that it was the right thing to do. And I kept asking, you know, by what authority do Republicans have the right to order any member of the legislature to sign a permission slip to allow the invasion of their free speech and free privacy? And also, at one point, Representative Collier was on the phone in the bathroom off of the Senate chambers, and somebody came in and threatened her with a felony if she didn't hang up the Phone. Now I want to know what felony. I did some research and honestly, I can't find a felony for using your phone in the bathroom.

[Barb McQuaid]

And can I just interject here? It should be a felony to use your phone in the bathroom, though. I hate that. But go ahead. Okay, I digress. Go on.

[Jill Wine Banks]

That's a different story. I mean, really, just think about it. She was on the phone with the Democratic National Committee and they heard this intervention. It was unbelievable. I mean, it's just, it's such an invasion. And I also have to say, doesn't law enforcement in Texas have something better to do than following members of the legislature around to make sure they come back? And what is their power to make her come back if she doesn't want to show up? That's how she represents her constituents and she should be allowed to do that. I think it's a total misuse of law enforcement. And I just think drawing attention to this was a really powerful thing and that it's time for Democrats to, to start finding ways like this to make Americans, Democrat and Republican, independent, aware of the terrible authoritarian tactics of the Republicans.

[Joyce Vance]

Absolutely. I mean, these legislators did their job. The irony of this situation, you know, as you say, is that they were being accused of not doing their job. These folks are heroes. Which takes us to California, Barb. Right. Because California responded in kind of the governor Gavin Newsom fun fact who I actually heard speak. He was the speaker at my oldest child's law school graduation at Berkeley. He, like, I forget what job he had. It was a lower ranking job in, in the state. And we were so impressed. We'd never heard of him before. We were super impressed when he spoke. So I feel like first impressions are telling. But you know, he, his proposal is that California should balance out Texas. And the mechanism is a little bit different there. It's not like the state legislators in Texas who just go to the floor past maps. So can you explain how that is expected to work, please?

[Barb McQuaid]

So, you know, first, I am always a little unhappy with any kind of gerrymandering whatsoever. I think gerrymandering is a terrible thing. You know, I am reminded of, we were talking earlier about the Rucho decision and I'm reminded about what Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent. Remember she wrote that great dissenting opinion in Rucho where she said that gerrymandered districts. I looked this up. Are anti Democratic in the most profound sense and imperil our system of government. And then she added, she ended it with with respect, but deep sadness. I dissent and So I worry that, you know, fighting fire with fire just makes everything burn. Right. And so this idea that we are going to fight gerrymandering with more gerrymandering, I really worry it creates this arms race that is going to have very anti Democratic problems. But I will say that this is an interesting strategy because what I really think they're trying to do is show Republicans that the strategy is not going to work in an effort to deter them from going down this path. And in fact, in California, there is voter input into this decision. And so what they're doing isn't implementing redistricting. They are seeking a ballot initiative for a special election in November that would allow voters to approve a plan of redistricting that would offset the five seats that are going to switch parties in Texas. So it does empower voters to take control of the situation in that way. It's very different from Texas. But I just think, you know, gerrymandering is gerrymandering, and an eye for an eye leaves both eyes blind.

[Joyce Vance]

You know, it's a really interesting situation. My take on it is this. I don't love the race to the bottom, the downward spiral aspect of any of this, but in my view, the Democrats have had a very different approach from the Republicans. The Republicans were the one who came up with this crazy idea, were not embarrassed to announce that it was about gaining an advantage in the House of Representatives. And the response by Democrats has been very measured. They have used it, in essence, as a shield and not as a sword. And so I have to say I'm sort of a fan of the approach that they've taken. You know, our former boss, Barb Eric Holder, put out a statement, and he is usually a pretty measured guy, but here he believes that the Democrats are on the right track. What was his point and do you agree with them?

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah. So since leaving office, Eric Holder has fought against gerrymandering around the country. That has been his cause. And one of the things he said in his statement was to make the point you just made, which is, you know, California's measure is in stark contrast to what Texas is doing. Texas is trying to grab power to just switch five seats from Republicans to Democrats. What California is doing is to just try to fight back and neutralize that. And they're allowing voters to have input into that decision. So ultimately, the goal in California is to prevent people from losing their voting rights. And I think they are taking, you know, drastic action in an effort to call attention to the craziness in Texas in hopes of Maybe if not stopping what's happening in Texas, maybe stopping it from happening in other states.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, well, so Kim, you know, nothing is ever over in this country until the courts sing. Right. And curious about how this ends up. Will that be the case here, too? We know what the Supreme Court did in Rut show. Will courts step in and render decisions before any of this is final?

[Kimberly Atkins]

Well, Republicans, of course, have already filed suit to block the California redistricting for me.

[Joyce Vance]

But not for the Right.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Exactly. Because we're. You're not allowed to do that. What do you mean? So far the state supreme court has denied the petition. So as of now, it seems that the special election will take place and that this would go to voters. Now, keep in mind, one of the reason that reasons that the Texas Democrats went back to the district is because they knew this California plan would be in place. They went back. Yes, you're right. They couldn't have stayed there forever. But they realized that there was a countermeasure happening in California. And California sort of gave them cover in a way to say, look, we're gonna keep the worst case scenario from happen in the short term. Put this again in the hands of the voters, which I'm with you, Barb. I don't think that we should do a redistricting arms race any more than we should do like a court packing arms race. But this is a emergency happening and the Texas Republicans did this under cover of night with nobody including the Republican voters having a say in this. And so as a short term, keep the, you know, keep democracy from falling completely apart. I'm behind this California plan, especially the fact that it gave the Texas Democrats cover here. So so far everything seems to be a go. But you never know, as you said, Joyce, what the courts would ultimately do.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, well, you know, the law and the politics here are just inextricably intertwined. But let's go straight back to the politics of it all because Newsom is clearly considering a run for the presidency. I mean, he may have already decided to make that run.

[Barb McQuaid]

Right.

[Joyce Vance]

He's out there mocking Trump on social media. And on Thursday, in one of the most recent volleys, he posted in all caps. Today we will make the maps great again. He's been very effective at making fun of Donald Trump. Do you think it's a good strategy or do you think he's taken it a little bit too far for your taste?

[Kimberly Atkins]

Listen, I'm not a fan of politics by Twitter account. Yes, you want to have a Democrat, Is it helpful to have at Least one Democrat, one who knows that they could get under the skin of Donald Trump, sort of trying to match him at his own game. Okay. But I didn't love that, you know, back when Marco Rubio was making cracks about Donald Trump's hands. So I don't know that that is the way. Certainly not. I wouldn't want that to be the new Democratic strategy writ large. But if it's one person who thinks he can get under his skin in doing that, sure. Does a potential presidential campaign out of that make. No, I think what we need is somebody to be a counter to Trumpism that puts democracy first, puts the people first, and who runs on making this country economically a place where you can get by economic, a place where your rights are respected and a place that welcomes the humane treatment of human beings. I think that should lead first as opposed to, you know, all cap, Twitter spats.

[Joyce Vance]

I would vote for that policy platform. Kim, when are you gonna run?

[Kimberly Atkins]

Ah, you could not pay me.

[Joyce Vance]

Okay, y'.

[Barb McQuaid]

All.

[Joyce Vance]

I mean, what do you think, Jill and Barb? I feel like I know where you guys are on this, but let's play it out. Fans of what Newsom is doing, do you think that he's running a little bit roughshod here?

[Jill Wine Banks]

My first reaction, Joyce, was revulsion that it was just going too low. I've since re evaluated that because it seems to be effective, and not just because, as Kim said, it's getting under Donald Trump's skin, but because it is making Democrats proud that someone is standing up to Donald Trump and showing the ridiculousness of. And the irony of all this, of course, is that the Republicans are going. That is so not gubernatorial. It's really bad behavior for a governor when they applaud Donald Trump doing the exact same thing and are missing the fact that this is just mimicking Donald Trump. So I'm sort of okay with it. And lately have been thinking, you know, we need someone to stand up and fight back on fair grounds. And although I agree with Barb that, you know, you poke out one person's eye, and an eye for an eye means two people are blind. Burning the houses down means everybody's house is gone. But we. I agree with Kim even more that we are at an existential threat for our democracy, and something seriously and strong needs to be done. And I think what Gavin Newsom is doing is. Is working, and that I'm applauding it.

[Joyce Vance]

You know, I'm not gonna lie. It has also made me laugh a time or two to see him doing it. And then I felt a little bit sad about myself because I hate the way that Trump does this with his followers. But I think Newsom is doing it in a. You know, he's not serious. He's clearly mocking Trump. He's clearly trying to cheer all of us up in a moment where we need it. I'm sort of where you are too. I started out a little bit distasteful about it, but now, as long as he continues to do it in this nuanced way, yeah, I think I'm okay with having a cheerleader for Democrats. Barb, what do you think?

[Barb McQuaid]

Hate it. I think leaders should be grown ups, and I think mocking and all of that just brings all of the discourse down to a level of degradation. So I don't like it. I think that, you know, the more we do it, the more we normalize it, and that just becomes the way of politics and it becomes more polarizing. I'm looking for leaders who will unite us and not divide us. Where's George W. Bush when you need him? Isn't that his campaign slogan? I'm a uniter, not a divider. Remember that?

[Kimberly Atkins]

I was just thinking about that today. I was just thinking about W today. But can I just add one thing to what I said about Newsom? I like the action. So one thing that's helping me tolerate his tweets is the fact that he's doing things like putting redistricting in the hands of the voters in an effort to try to save some semblance of democracy before it's all destroyed. So, yeah, give me that. But just before the redistricting gambit, I was really down on him too. I was basically where Barb is because it's like, this is the last thing that we need. But if he's taunting while also actually taking action, which we have not seen enough, in my opinion, from Democrats in this moment, then I'll give him more slack.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I agree with you, Kim. He's taking effective action. And Barbara, doesn't it make you feel a little better? I agree. I don't like the discourse that Donald Trump engages in. So I don't like it when Gavin Newsom does the same thing. But because it's clear he's doing it as satire, it makes it less unpleasant to me. And he is mixing it with actual policy statements about what the Democrats need to do and how they can serve the American public. And so he's balancing his ridiculous mimicry with actual good statements that make me think that he is a powerful Democrat. So it makes me feel better. Does that help you at all that it's mixed?

[Barb McQuaid]

Not really. You know, I know many people who study authoritarianism. Ruth Benriot and others say that ridicule is a way to diffuse the power of an autocrat. And so, you know, there is some of that to, you know, ridicule and expose to the public how absurd all of it is. I know that there's a role for that, but I, I like my leaders to be serious people and I don't like the, you know, the cheap shots.

[Joyce Vance]

This episode of Sisters in Law is brought to you by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first baked from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, seasonal pastries and fresh pastas. Plus, all items conveniently bake in 25 minutes or less. Unlike store bought, Wild Grain uses a slow fermentation process that's easier on your belly, richer in nutrients and antioxidants, and made with simple ingredients that you can actually pronounce. Wildgrains boxes are fully customizable and they're constantly adding seasonal and limited time products for you to enjoy. In addition to their classic box, they now feature a gluten free box and a plant based box. So there is something for everyone because you are going to want some of this stuff.

[Jill Wine Banks]

You certainly will. It really is wonderful how fast it goes from being frozen to on your table. My husband and I have enjoyed all of their different breads, pastas, pastries, and their butter, which is unbelievably yummy. And we do customize our box from week to week. We will change what we ask for just to try all of their different breads. And my guests are really impressed when I serve them this bread. They think it's homemade and can't believe when I tell them it came from frozen. And because they have enjoyed the bread so much, many of my guests have ended up subscribing to Wild Grain just like I do. It's wonderful for meals, snacks, or summer parties.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, I'm a big fan of those chocolate croissants.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Those are really yum.

[Joyce Vance]

They're so good.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, you put them in, you can watch the, the color and the, and, and, and smell the smells coming alive. Those Bavarian pretzel buns, have you had those? That's another one. The aroma of fresh bread and pastries coming from the oven is incredible. And don't get me started on how good the cheesecake is. Have you guys had that? Let's just say that you'll never have to call everyone when the food is ready. As soon as the smell reaches them, they'll come running, especially on game day. Wild Grain items are delicious, super high quality, and easy to make. I can guarantee the chocolate croissants will be a big hit.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Listen, whenever I need people to pay attention to me, I put the chocolate croissants in the oven. Because that's the way every everybody protect the everybody comes running. So this fall, treat yourself and your loved ones to warm sourdough bread and seasonal baked goods from Wild Grain. Rumor has it they have apple cider donuts. Whoa, hold on. Biscuits.

[Barb McQuaid]

Whoa.

[Kimberly Atkins]

So get them before the seasonal items sell out. They're only for a limited time. And for a limited time, Wild Grain is offering our listeners 30 bucks off the first box, plus free croissants in every box. I need like 20A that siren sound. Free croissants when you go to Wild. Thank you. When you go to wildgreen.com sisters to start your subscription. You heard me. Free croissants in every box and 30 bucks off your first box when you go to wildgrain.com sisters that's wildgrain.com sisters. Or you can use promo code Sisters at the checkout. Don't miss their seasonal products and look for the link in our show notes.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Seems like we talk about something DOJ did wrong every single week. Something that disturbs all former DOJ attorneys because it is the opposite of what justice and the rule of law should mean. Today I want to dig into some of this week's Department of Justice wrongdoing, starting with breaking news that we all woke up to today. The FBI searched John Bolton's home and office, reportedly under a search warrant. Bolton, of course, is a frequent Trump critic after serving as his national security advisor in the first administration. His security clearance and his protective detail were withdrawn on day one of Trump's second term. And now this. Kim, what do we know about what the FBI was looking for? And does this look like a legitimate use of DOJ powers, or is it part of Trump's promise to be your retribution, end of quote?

[Kimberly Atkins]

Yeah, so I'll answer the second part first. It looks like not only despotism, which is the misuse of power against one's enemies, but petty. I mean, the way he's going about it. Oh, oh, he. Let's see if he has classified documents. Because Trump is a classic projectionist. What happens to him is what he does to other people. He's not even that imaginative with his retribution. Right. He just goes back and tries to do to other people what he sees as wrongly done to him. But in this way, he did it very differently. Recall during the Mar A Lago investigation into him mishandling classified documents, which we know he actually did. When you are no longer president, you can't just pack up classified documents like souvenirs and take them with you and store them in the bathroom of your resort estate. That's not how the law works. But even in that case, there was an ongoing discourse between Trump's people and the doj. They were trying to be as accommodating as possible. It was not. Federal agents bursting into the doors of Mar A Lago are showing up early in the morning. It was a very organized. And we wouldn't have even known it had taken place if Trump had tweeted about it. Recall, right? That's right. This is very different than showing up at someone's house early in the morning with only apparently. We'll get to this later. But a conservative news organization getting the heads up beforehand, that seems to be something very different. Again, the claim is that he had classified documents in his home. Recall that Bolton left the White House six years ago when he was last a White House advisor, and he was an advisor for Donald Trump. But since then, he has become a very frequent, frequent Trump critic, like you said. And most recently, he's been very critical of Trump's approach to the war in Ukraine and his handling of Vladimir Putin. So to me, this feels very retaliatory. I acknowledge this, that for this search to have happened, a judge had to have signed off on a warrant. So that's something. I don't know what the DOJ presented to get that warrant, but this feels very petty and retaliatory to me.

[Jill Wine Banks]

And some commentators are saying, Kim, that they are shocked. Are you shocked?

[Kimberly Atkins]

No.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Me either.

[Joyce Vance]

Not the least. I agree.

[Jill Wine Banks]

This is predictable, totally predictable. And, Barbara, so Kim mentioned that there was a search warrant, which the FBI seems to have confirmed, but we aren't really positive of. But was Bolton detained or charged with anything? Is there even a possible crime? As Kim said, he left office six years ago. His book, which is a place where he was accused of publishing classified information, came out more than five years ago, and the statute of limitations is five years. So is there a possible crime? Or could this be a continuing conspiracy? Or is there some recent leak that he's accused of making, or is this just an attempt to recover classified documents?

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, we don't know. So all we know is that the search was executed at his home. We have not seen the affidavit. Which is typically something that is sealed, and we wouldn't know that. But one of the things you mentioned, the statute of limitations, which I think is a very good thing to mention, he has been out of office for more than five years, and for most of federal offenses, five years is the statute of limitations. There are a few offenses that are longer. And so to the extent this has something to do with the publication of his book, I don't think that is something that would be fresh enough for a crime. But if the argument is that he possessed classified information, information relating to the national defense outside of the proper handling channels. Right. So if he's got it in a desk drawer and it's not in a government skiff, if he took things home with him when he left his job, those could still be fresh because possession is a continuing offense. It isn't necessarily the day he took them. But if he still possesses them, then the statute of limitations is still fresh. It's as fresh as today. You'd say that on today's date, he possessed documents he was not entitled to possess. There also seems to be some sense, based on what I've read the media, that he may be suspected of leaking classified information to members of the press. So that would also be a problem if he kept some of these things at his home and he shared with, with someone who's not authorized to have classified information. That could be a basis as well. But, you know, I think what this case comes down to for me is it could be rock solid that they've got a great case on John Bolton. But, you know, the likelihood of the coincidence that the person that Trump said he was going to go after, a person who shows up in Kash Patel's government gangsters book as a member of the deep state and for a the exact same crime for which Donald Trump was charged and had his home searched, lo and behold, John Bolton has done the same thing. I just think that, you know, this, this Justice Department has lost any presumption of regularity, any good faith, any benefit of the doubt they might otherwise have had. So we don't know what has happened yet. But, boy, I look at this with a lot of suspicion based on all those factors.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, we certainly have moved to an era where it is not a presumption of regularity, but of irregularity. And this is another example of irony or projectionism, as Kim described it, because it is exactly that. And it's ironic that this is what they are going after Bolton for, even if there is a legitimate thing. Let me ask A different question related to it being sort of maybe it's different, but isn't it different than the search of Mar? A Lago and Joyce talk about how it's different from that or even, and.

[Kimberly Atkins]

I don't mean to interrupt, but even different than with Joe Biden or with Mike Pence? Like this is. This is not the first time this has happened, but it generally doesn't go down like this.

[Joyce Vance]

So I think it's an important question and I think Barb says exactly the right thing. We don't know the details, we don't know the allegations, we don't know what the evidence that supposedly amounted to probable cause in the affidavit accompanying the request for a search warrant was. We do know that a federal magistrate judge in Maryland signed off on it. And I presume that, that any judge who had this search warrant land on his desk understood that this was going to be a high profile case and that his decision would be second guessed and scrutinized. So I suspect that the judge took his or her time with the affidavit and made sure that there was probable cause and something, you know, that's really important here. Barb, I know you remember this, right? If you were doing a drug case and wanted a search warrant, that probable cause had to be really fresh. The drugs really had to have been there within the last few days. But judges will give more leniency with documents because they sit around for a longer time without being moved. And so that probable cause can sometimes be a little bit fresh. Frankly, I'm very curious to see what's in the affidavit. I don't know how quickly we'll find out, but there have to be allegations that at least were enough to satisfy the this judge, you know, but, but it is very true that the situation is different with Trump. And again, we don't know all of the facts here, but if Bolton was not asked to return these documents in advance like Trump was, that would be a real bright line distinction. It would certainly impact the government's good faith.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Right?

[Joyce Vance]

You find out that you're missing classified documents, the first thing you really do is go to the responsible human being who was, by the way, Trump, Trump's national security advisor, and ask him to give them that. And if you don't do that and you go straight in with a search warrant, the government's criminal prosecution really could have difficulty because there's such a high standard of mens rea, the state of mind that Bolton had to be acting with to ensure this kind of a prosecution is successful, that I think they really sort of hamper the viability of their own prosecution by going straight in. I mean. I mean, we don't know for sure. Maybe there's a witness who's going to say, I will speculate wildly. Right. Bolton had these documents that somebody who's there currently gave to him, and he's been leaking them to the press. Maybe they've got direct evidence of that. Great. But if these are older documents that Bolton had retained, they're going to have to show that he was, in essence, intentionally trying to impair the security of the United States of America, that it was deliberate, intentional activity, not lazy or sloppy. The sort of allegations, allegations that we saw in the Biden and Pence cases. So this could be a bad move by the government. It really looks like a revenge, sort of a step more than a legitimate one towards a prosecution.

[Jill Wine Banks]

It does make it look more like revenge. And it also does, as you said, make it harder for the government to prove mens rea. Because if they had asked him, it shows that he knew that he had them. He might be unaware that he has them. And this is why, you know, and I'm going to go back to Watergate. When we first found out about the tapes, we immediately wanted to subpoena them. And Archibald Cox said, no, you should ask for their return for the delivery first. Go to the President and make a request. And we all thought, that's ridiculous. It's a waste of time. He will never give them to us. Which, of course, was true, and he didn't. But now that I look at it through this perspective, it was the right thing to do. You ask before you subpoena the president, to do something or even the former security advisor to the president. So I think that that's a huge difference. So, Kim, both from your position as a journalist and a lawyer, what did you think of some of the social media postings? Kash Patel and Bondi have been posting.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Stuff Patel said, he said, no one is above the law as FBI agents on a mission. Like, he didn't name anybody, but come on. Like it literally, he posted that right as the news was breaking. Then Pambandi responded to his tweet, and to boot, miraculously, somehow the New York Post got the exclusive about this search at his house that cited a source, but also quoted Patel's tweet like, have we all forgotten James Comey? You are not supposed to talk publicly about an investigation while it is ongoing. There's also the President today who he was asked about it, and he said, oh, he knew nothing about it, but, you know, he said, but I am the top law enforcement official in the federal government, which, okay, maybe technically as the head of the executive. The executive is the branch that enforces laws, but you are not a cop, and you certainly should not be directing prosecutions of your political enemy. He claimed not to know anything about it, but then sort of like, sort of, kind of claimed responsibility. I mean, it's a mess, and it's breaking every norm that was in place at doj. But that's the problem with norms, right? If it's not something that they could be directly somehow kicked out of office for, they have no problem in doing it. So everything about it stinks. Is it unconstitutional? Probably not. Is it really, really bad for democracy? Absolutely.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah. I'd like all of you to weigh in on that last part, because to me, this looks like a significant step by DOJ against those that Trump perceives, we've been saying enemies, but they're perceived as enemies by him. The grand jury was authorized to look at Trump, Russia origins, and now this search of another perceived enemy. Do you think this is a really authoritarian move by the Department of Justice? What do you all think, Joyce?

[Joyce Vance]

Well, you know, we're taping Friday afternoon. I'm sure that by the time this episode airs, there will be more information. But there are some early reports that the FBI left without taking anything from Bolton's home. I think his office. Office was being searched, too. I mean, if they come up empty handed on this, I think that will be a factor that will tend to weigh in on the side of this being very performative, very much. You know, the Attorney General and the head of the FBI operating to impress the President rather than acting on behalf of justice and the American people.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Barb, you want to weigh in on this?

[Barb McQuaid]

You know, I'm just reminded of that executive order that talked about how the Biden Justice Department had weaponized government when there's absolutely no evidence that that's what happened and that now they needed to hold accountable all of the people who participated in that weaponization. It really feels like classic disinformation to me. You know, accuse your enemy of doing exactly what you're now going to do to make people think that, oh, yeah, this goes on all the time and they're just righting wrongs. And so, you know, I want to emphasize we don't know all the facts that are going on in this Bolton case, but, boy, it sure stinks to high heaven. And I think that there is going to be lasting harm to the Justice Department because in future administrations, Republican or Democrat, people are going to have a hard time believing that their activities are not colored by politics.

[Jill Wine Banks]

And hopefully they won't be going forward in a new administration. And this is only one of the bad things that DOJ did this week. And Joyce, I want to ask you, because you and Barr both had the honor and privilege of serving as U.S. attorneys in the Obama administration. So I want you to talk about the importance of the role of the U.S. attorneys and the importance of having qualified nominees for the position and what's going on with Trump nominees.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, I mean, you know, the 93 United States Attorneys are each the top law enforcement officers in their respective districts. And I had sort of an interesting experience early on as a U.S. attorney. You know, like Barb, I was career in the office. And so I had been first aligned prosecutor trying cases, and then I was in the Appellate Division and the Appellate Chief. So I always had relationships with the SACs, the special agents in charge, who ran each of the law enforcement agencies that we worked with. And it was a collaborative relationship. And I didn't really see that changing when I became the U.S. attorney. I mean, I still thought of us as a team. And we were over at the FBI office doing a community panel. It was the head of dea, the head of atf, the marshal, and the FBI special Agent in charge. And me and people in the audience were asking questions, you know, what's the relationship like? What do y' all do? And the head of DEA looked at everybody and he said, you don't understand. Joyce is the boss. And when she tells us what to do, we line up behind her and we do it. And they went on to say nice and very flattering things about, of course we do that because we trust her leadership and her expertise. But in that moment, I really realized, I think in a way I hadn't before, that you were that single point of failure.

[Barb McQuaid]

Right?

[Joyce Vance]

You were the person who was responsible for not letting anything, for instance, that was an injustice happen on your watch in your district. It was, it was the buck stopped with you. That requires somebody who has expertise as a prosecutor, or if not as a prosecutor, as a defense lawyer. You can only have people who understand the playing field doing that job. And yes, sometimes there are folks who show up who are young or inexperienced. And when that happens, Main justice typically insists on the insertion of a very qualified first assistant, the primary deputy in the office, to keep that person on the path and help them learn the job. I mean, we all learn the job, you know, while we're doing it to some, some extent. But having that background is important. And Donald Trump, like he does in all other regards, is only looking for people with personal loyalty to him. That's not a qualification to be a United States Attorney.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Yeah, and many of them have run into problems getting confirmed. They, you know, a U.S. attorney is a presidential appointment that has to be confirmed by the Senate. So at the end of the administration, the last administration's U.S. attorneys resign, and then someone has to run the office immediately upon that resignation. And that happens until the president's nomination is approved. So who's now serving in those roles, Barb? And how long can they serve? Because looks to me like many of them have exceeded the duration of their temporary service. Service without confirmation.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yes. So typically what happens is when the U.S. attorneys leave at the end of an administration, their first assistants will serve as acting U.S. attorneys until a new U.S. attorney is appointed and confirmed. And these are career people, you know, these are people who are not political appointees. They are usually among the most senior people in the office. They have institutional knowledge, they're widely respected by members of law enforcement, by the people in the office, by the courts. And they can, you know, handle the office while they await a new U.S. attorney. You know, you're a little bit in limbo during that time. And so there's usually, you know, a hope that there will be a confirmed U.S. attorney at some point, but sometimes it can take as much as a year to get somebody in place. What we are seeing in this Trump administration that is very, very different is that he is appointing new people to serve as interim U.S. attorneys. Rather than rely on those career people, he is choosing people that he is satisfied with, that he is interviewed to be interim. There is a statute that allows for the appointment of interim U.S. attorneys. This is just, you know, basically to fill emergencies. The duration of those appointments is 120 days, so that's four months. And if there is no nominee appointed by the end of that 120 day term and confirmed, then that person's term expires. What happens next to fill the vacancy by statute is that the court in that district selects an interim U.S. attorney to fill out the rest of the time until the president appoints and the Senate confirms a candidate. The reason for that is to prevent the president from being able to simply keep re upping new interim appointments without ever going through the Senate confirmation process. Because, of course, the Senate confirmation process is there to make sure the people are qualified and that they are not simply political activists serving in that role. And so that's what is supposed to happen. But, of course, what we're seeing now is the Trump administration looking for various ways to disrupt that with Alina Haba in New Jersey and with a U.S. attorney, an interim in the Northern District of New York, where the judges refused to appoint him. And so the Attorney General just said, fine, I will appoint him a special assistant to me, and he can serve as U.S. attorney with that title. So they're taking a lot of different steps to circumvent the congressional advice and consent rule.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I just want to emphasize how important that is, that this is a way to gut the power of the Senate. You don't need Senate confirmation if he gets away with this and is able to appoint an interim and then an acting and then a special counsel to him, and then with Haba, special counsel with all the powers of the Attorney General. So let's talk specifics, Kim, and let's talk about Alina Habba. She was the interim for New Jersey, but her 120 days ran out, and the federal judges in the district district refused to approve her to stay. And they named another person, the career first assistant. And then to evade the rules, that first assistant, whose last name is Grace, was fired by Bondi, who then named Haba a special counsel with all the powers of a U.S. attorney. And that was about a month ago, and this just yesterday, we're recording on Friday. So on Thursday, a federal judge ruled that Alina Habba had been serving as New Jersey's U.S. attorney without legal authority for that period of time that month. And that thrust the state's already paralyzed federal court system deeper into disarray. What are the consequences to trials that are scheduled to grand juries that are underway? What is DOJ and Haba's response?

[Kimberly Atkins]

Yeah, so right now, the U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey is making Newark look like it's being run smooth, because what Judge Matthew Braun said is that Alina Haba has been operating without authority since July 1st. So for almost two months now, everything she touched, everything she signed off on is considered void. The judge said himself that anything for the past seven weeks may be declared void and Haba must be dead, disqualified from participating in any of the office's cases as a leader. Now, keep in mind, this is affecting thousands of criminal and civil cases. Basically, the office is paralyzed until there is a valid U.S. attorney in place. And Haba has vowed to fight. She says she's staying right where she is because that's what people in Trumpland do. They just dig in and fight. And I have to be honest, a lot of times that's an effective strategy. But I just, I mean, I don't know. I'm the non DOJ alum of the group. I just can't imagine what that must feel like for the line prosecutors and other attorneys in that office who right now just have no idea what the state of any of their cases where that have seen any action in the last seven weeks is.

[Jill Wine Banks]

So there are so many other things we could talk about, including Ed Martin and his new role and a US Attorney who resigned after one month of after being appointed, which no explanation. So I'm suspicious. But let's end with just talking about what I think is a really important question of what we've been talking about is will this opinion from Braun be appealed and will it be upheld, potentially placing limits on the President's power to choose his own top federal prosecutors without Senate confirmation? Or will it get overturned and eliminate the Senate's role in confirming U.S. attorneys? What do you think, Joyce?

[Joyce Vance]

You know, my crystal ball is a little bit dirty when it comes to predicting what this Supreme Court will do when it comes to presidential power. So instead I'm just gonna say what should happen here. This is a decision that should be affirmed. This is a judge, you know, who, who far from being the sort of political dingbat that Haba accuses him of being, is a card carrying member of the Federalist Society, a conservative. And the fact that he looks at this confirmation process and finds it to be unusual and irregular and sufficient to divest her of her authority, I think is very telling. Now look, I'm not certain that if she is divest of authority, that it makes everything that has happened in the district illegitimate because there are still bill fully competent qualified prosecutors signing off on indictments, for instance. So some that's something that a court is going to have to parse carefully. But the notion that she can't remain in office indefinitely without Senate confirmation, the Supreme Court has to stand for that principle. It's constitutional, it's necessary if the Senate's going to be able to continue performing its advice and consent function.

[Kimberly Atkins]

With summer ending, well, it's not over yet, but you can see it on the horizon. I'm all about refreshing my wardrobe with staple pieces for the season ahead. And Quince nails it with luxe essentials that feel effortless, look polished and are perfect for layering and mixing. Their styles are so versatile and I find myself Reaching for them again and again. It's the kind of wardrobe upgrade that just clicks. Their clothes are timeless, lightweight, and far more elevated than anything else at their prices. Like, y' all know, I like to shop, but one thing that I appreciate about Quint is that their prices are so reasonable for the really beautiful products that they have. I just bought a pair of leather shoes that I've already gotten a ton of compliments on. They're made with real leather, they're very comfortable, and they're just a great wardrobe staple.

[Joyce Vance]

You always look and feel great in Quince's chic cashmere and cotton sweaters, and they start at just $40. Washable silk tops, classic denim pants. It's all fabulous. They're all timeless styles you'll keep coming back to. But here's the best part. Everything with Quints is half the cost of similar brands because they work directly with top artisans. To cut out the middleman. That makes my husband happy because he is, for those of you who know him, not the guy who likes to spend a lot of money when he buys his clothes. And he loves what he can find at Quint's. That's how Quince gives you pure luxury without the markup. Cut out the middleman, you know, My.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Husband got the pants from Quince and they fit him perfectly and they are comfortable and they look great. In addition, we love how Quince only works with factories that use style, safe, ethical and responsible manufacturing practices to create the premium fabrics and finishes that make up their amazing offerings. I have to say, everyone needs Quince's washable stretch silk blouse. The material feels amazing and the look is perfect. I happen to love wearing a silk blouse under jackets for a speech or for just whatever I'm doing. And they also look great just with a pair of pants. It makes you all dress up. Dressed up, it's fabulous. The style is perfect for whatever you're doing, whether you're just seeing friends or running off to an exciting new place. There's nothing better for looking your best as we get closer to the fall season. And if you're prioritizing fitness this year, the best workout motivation is new activewear from Quince.

[Barb McQuaid]

Don't wait. Elevate your fall wardrobe essentials with quints. I love those quints sweaters, those cashmere sweaters. I think they look great under a suit jacket, and that's going to be my fall look. So go to quint.com sisters for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com sisters to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Again quince.com sisters the link is in our show. Notes.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Foreign.

[Barb McQuaid]

This week an appellate court in New York upheld the verdict finding Donald Trump and the Trump Organization liable for civil fraud but threw out part of the penalty including the 500 million dollar disgorgement order. Let's break that down first. Jill, can you please remind us of this lawsuit? It goes back sometime and then there was a trial that occurred in 2024. Remind us what that was all about.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I would love to. But first I want to praise you for having correctly stated that this is not a total victory because the verdict remains. Only the amount of the damages or of the penalty were upheld and thrown out. The suit was called New York versus Trump and it's a civil case under New York's business fraud laws and it was for falsifying business records by misstating property values to potential lenders and tax officials. It was filed by Letitia James, the Attorney General of New York several years ago. The defendants were Citizen Trump, he was not president, and three of his children, the Trump Organization and several others including of course Weisselberg and others that we would are familiar named. It was a non jury trial before Judge Engoron and resulted in a guilty verdict and penalties of not being allowed to do business in New York and an order to disgorge 364 million. That was the original verdict but then it's accrued interest so that it's almost half a billion in ill gotten gains as a result of the financial fraud.

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, so thank you Jill Joyce. Now on appeal we've got this weird 4 to 1 split decision running 323 pages. Now I know you as the appellate nerd have read it all, but can you just give us a summary of the bottom line of what the court decided and what it means for the case?

[Joyce Vance]

You know it's sort of a funny thing when you see a decision that's that long. When you open it, you know that something funky is going on. Right?

[Barb McQuaid]

I was looking for an appendix. I thought the same thing. Oh, there must be some massive appendix in this thing.

[Kimberly Atkins]

I know, I know.

[Joyce Vance]

They attached all the evidence and then you go, go, you know, holy meat. These judges didn't agree about anything in this case. So look, it's a 4:1 split as you mentioned and the disagreement is mostly about the penalty disgorgement of ill gotten gains. So the decision ends up leaving Trump liable for fraud. But the appropriate penalty will be the subject of further review. You know, there's a lot of judicial harm thing going on as judges complain about being able to agree on a decision going forward. But you know, know, look, folks, it's your job, right? Pick a side and rule. That's why this. The citizens of New York pay you money. Let me read the relevant language from the decision. It's brief and I think it helps us understand this very unusual ruling. The judge is right. The judge is in the opinion that ends up being sort of a. I don't know if it's a majority or a plurality, whatever it is. While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the state of New York is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. So you see the dichotomy. Trump is liable for civil fraud. Then we're not going to make him pay this much money.

[Barb McQuaid]

All right, well, we've got that. But one of the arguments that was raised on appeal was that the case was tainted from the start because of some of the campaign statements made by Attorney General Letitia James about Donald Trump. You may remember, you know, she said she was gonna hold him accountable and go after him. Kim, what did the court say about that aspect of the case? Was that a basis for overturning this penalty?

[Kimberly Atkins]

Well, despite what the president said, claiming that he was totally exonerated because he thought that this was a witch hunt, that is not at all what the ruling held. In fact, only one, one of the judges, Justice David Friedman, who's the only Republican appointee on this panel, said that he thought that this case was politically motivated and that the voters had already decided this when they re elected Donald Trump. He also said, quote, another trial would disrupt the political life of the States, United, United States, and would undermine its national interest, particularly at a time of high global tension. Nobody else joined him on that. Nobody. This is not a plurality. This is not anything but a, I guess a concurrence, if you can call it that. But that was not in any way the overall basis of this action.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, it's interesting. In fact, the two judges who wrote the first opinion really took that judge to task, saying, look, this has been before us before. We've already decided that. What are you talking about, man? So, you know, I always blanch at that a little bit lest I quote the name of the deputy attorney General, whenever prosecutors.

[Kimberly Atkins]

I see what you did there.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, yeah.

[Barb McQuaid]

Blanche, Blanche, you know, whenever prosecutors make, you know, politics and prosecution just do not go hand in hand. And so I didn't like it when Letitia James talked about, you know, going after Trump. I don't like it when this Justice Department talks about going after Trump's rivals because I think it makes the whole thing, you know, subject to second guessing. But what the court said here is, look, we've got, she had the goods, she had the receipts, she had the evidence. And so even though she did make these ill advised statements, there is nothing here to think that this case was based on anything but the evidence. Well, so Jill Trump, of course, is spinning this decision as a total exoneration. And, you know, I knew he would because it's easy to say that when there's a reversal of an opinion that the public will not examine the details. But do you see it as a total exoneration of Donald Trump?

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, I absolutely do not. And the headlines were so misleading that I'm outraged. The disgorgement amount was what happened here. That was said to be excessive. But, but the verdict and the penalty about not doing business in New York was upheld. Trump is still guilty of financial fraud. And the headline should have read Trump fraud conviction upheld. He's barred from doing business in New York. That's what the headline should have been. Yes, sub headline penalty of half a billion not upheld. That will be reviewed for some other penalty to be substituted. But I also want to note two other things. His lawyer in that case was Alina Haba. And I think we need to point that out. She's now the US Attorney under question in New Jersey. And I want to remind everyone that she filed a document consenting to a non jury trial and then said, oh, no, no, no, we want a jury trial. And of course it was too late. They had a non jury trial. And the second thing is, a month ago, the Attorney General Tish James sued the Trump administration again, this time for gutting some critical social services. And of course, she is now the target of a DOJ investigation which goes back to our earlier topic of is this retribution? It's for mortgage fraud, which several others are being looked at. Somebody on the federal board and Adam Schiff for the same exact thing. It's just, it has to be retribution. So there you go. I think this is really evidence of a misuse of the Department of Justice once again.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, it's, you know, as an alum of the Justice Department, it's really painful to see all of these at least red flags, we'll call them. Well, Joyce, what, what happens next? Right, so this is just the intermediate appellate court in New York. And, and you know, they've got these goofy names, right? The Supreme Court's the lower court. The court of appeals is the highest court. And this was an intermediate court. So, so what's, what's next? You think that an appeal to New York's highest court is likely?

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, I mean, you're right. We always have to remember that New York is different. Right. The trial court, which we would call the federal district court, is the Supreme Court in the state of New York, their trial, or is the Supreme Court? Go figure.

[Barb McQuaid]

It's wrong. It's just wrong.

[Joyce Vance]

Make them change. I'm convinced that, yeah.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I'm a New York lawyer and I gotta say it's right. That's what we learn in law school. Supreme Court division is next, and then the Court of Appeals. It's ridiculous.

[Kimberly Atkins]

As someone else who passed the, who passed the New York bar, I think they just do stuff like that to make it harder for people not from New York to pass the New York bar. There you go.

[Barb McQuaid]

It's an antitrust violation is what it is. Trying to keep eating them all out in the state.

[Joyce Vance]

The trial court is wrong. You know, they call their intermediate appellate courts the appellate division, and then of course, their high court is called the Court of Appeal. So I, I think this is just Yankee nonsense. But look, everybody involved in this case is going to appeal, Right? Tish James isn't going to be happy with this outcome because she wants the benefit of her bargain. She wants the full disgorgement. Trump and all of his cohort, they're going to appeal to. So it's going to be a pellet soup for a while longer here.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yankee nonsense and a pellet soup. That is why we love the homespun jargon of Joyce Vance. That's fantastic. So, Kim, help our listeners understand this. Could this case go to the Supreme Court? You. This is a state court, state law violation, but there's also an Eighth Amendment implication here of excessive fines.

[Kimberly Atkins]

What do you think it could. I mean, if the Court of Appeals, again, the highest court makes its ruling, then could a party appeal it to the U.S. supreme Court? They could appeal. It would. And should the Supreme Court tell you it's a different dead foot pole. I can't imagine, especially since it's a civil case, especially since it's not involving any apparent circuit split or state split. I think that they, they have enough smoke. There's enough on the Supreme Court's docket, which I'm sure we will talk about in the weeks ahead coming up, that I'm thinking John Roberts maybe doesn't want the smoke right now.

[Jill Wine Banks]

And could I just add that Engoron didn't pick this number out of a hat. He based it on evidence that Letitia James prosecutors put in. So it is based on not. It may be excessive because he did it excessively, but it isn't ridiculous. Yeah, right.

[Kimberly Atkins]

And that's the thing. Listen, if you only find people negligibly, then what's the point of fraud law? The point is to make people stop doing it and be a deterrent for it in addition to making people whole. That's why you have punitive awards. Otherwise, people would just pay out whatever the compensatory award is and keep doing the fraud. Like that's the whole point of this.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Foreign.

[Joyce Vance]

Sleep is critical to success, and there's nothing better for sleep than a Helix mattress. You know, we first heard about them when they asked to sponsor our show, but since we're very selective about stuff like this, we decided we wanted to try them out. So I took their quiz to tailor my mattress to my sleep style. I got matched with the Helix Midnight mattress mattress, and, you know, I aced the quiz because I've been getting the best sleep of my life ever since it arrived. We like it so much that our whole family has them. Our daughter, who likes a really firm mattress, just ordered one maybe about a month ago. She's been sleeping on it since then. She is ecstatic. She loves her new perfect bed.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Helix can be a marriage saver because of the way they have so many options, and they combine memory foam and individually wrapped steel coils for the perfect blend. So whether you like a soft support or a more firm support, they also have this cooling features that keep you from getting too warm if you run hot or too hot if you run cold. And so really, it helps me and my husband cohabitate it. Really. Thank you, Helix. Thank you, Helix. Four years of marriage and it's partly because of you.

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, I've been amazed that Helix has been such a part of my sister's sleep habits for more than two years now. Making the switch is such an upgrade. Since then, we've heard so many stories of people seeing transformational improvements in the quality of their sleep on their wearable devices thanks to their Helix mattresses. Add that to the quick and simple setup and no fuss. Trial policy and upgrading to a Helix is an easy choice choice.

[Jill Wine Banks]

It's especially easy because right now Helix has an incredible Labor Day sale for our listeners. Go to helixsleep.comsisters for Helix's best of Web Labor Day offering running from August 15th through September 8th, and you will get 27% off site wide exclusive for our listeners of sisters in London law. That's helixsleep.com sisters for 27% off sitewide through September 8th. Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they'll know we sent you. Again, that's helixsleep.com sisters. The link is also in our show notes.

[Kimberly Atkins]

And here we are at our favorite part of the show, which is answering listener questions. If you have a question for us, please email us at sisters in law politicon.com or you can tag us on social media. You guys know what to do because you already send us so many really, really good questions each week. And if we don't get to your question during the show, keep an eye out on our feeds throughout the week where we will answer as many of your questions as we can. So first up is a question from Wendy, who asks if Trump runs for president again in 2028. Sorry, I was just digesting that. What are our legal options? Barb, you know, you know, constitutional law, what then?

[Barb McQuaid]

Barbara, Remember when there was a time when we didn't have to think about like these scenarios, like, you know, what if the earth opens up and swallows us whole? Like we could just talk about real problems. But this is this, Wendy, is a legitimate question. And I do think we have to worry about it. I mean, Trump has already floated this idea of serving three or four terms, even though there is a constitutional amendment passed in the wake of the fourth term of Franklin Roosevelt to prevent anyone from being elected more than twice? Twice. The problem is they phrased it elected. They did not prohibit someone from serving more than once. So I don't think Trump can run for president again in 2028. Now, because it says elected, I think we could run into some of the same legal challenges we saw with the 14th amendment. Remember when there was the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment that says nobody can be president if you participated in insurrection before? And one of the things the Supreme Court said then was only Congress could be the ones to decide whether the president has met that standard and to say when that cutoff occurs so he can't be elected to serve. So does that mean he gets to be on the ballot? But if he wins the election in November, that only then is there a remedy I don't know. I would think that because of the 22nd amendment, however, even the Republican Party would say, say if, if he wins an election, he can't serve, so he should not be on the ballot as the president. Now, that doesn't end the matter, because there has been some ideas floated about how Trump could still become president another time. One is he could be the running mate of a president like J.D. vance.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Can he, though? Because then he's still running. I'm sorry.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yep. So I, I, I will explain. Fine. He would run as the vice president. There's nothing about that. There is a provision in the 12th Amendment that says a person cannot serve as vice president if he cannot meet the qualifications to serve as president. He does meet the qualifications to serve as president, which is U.S. citizen, native, born over the age 35 and been in the United States for more than 14 years. Because they use the word elected in the 22nd Amendment. I think that if you ascend the presidency by some other method, it's permissible. Or some people have said, you know, a new president, say J.D. vance gets elected, appoints Trump speaker of the House. That's third in line for the presidency. President and vice president resigned. So, as we said, this is like talking about the plot of a monster movie. We're going to hope this doesn't happen, but it could. And if, if there were to be some path like that, I think it probably is, is legally permissible. And so I think it is up to the good people of democracy to exercise our voting rights and ensure that some monstrous thing like that does not happen.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Oh, good grief. And even if it's an open constitutional question, it sounds enough to me for five justices of the Supreme Court to hang their hat on, I suppose. All right, I'm gonna sleep well. Okay, so the next question is from Jenny in Los Angeles. Who asks what is a line prosecutor? And is that the prosecutor prosecutor who's actually going to do the trial in court? Joyce?

[Joyce Vance]

You know, Jenny, this is a good question, because something that we are all guilty of is assuming that everybody knows what we know. So we throw these inside of government terms around without bothering to explain them. And I appreciate the opportunity to talk about line prosecutor and to be more thoughtful about this in the future. But a line prosecutor is what you think it is. They are the people in the criminal division who take cases. Cases are assigned to them. They work the cases, they investigate, they indict, they prosecute, including taking the case to trial. There are typically, you know, more and less experienced line prosecutors in Any office. There are a couple of layers of supervisors, deputy chiefs, and then of course a criminal chief or a civil chief chief who runs those divisions. So that's sort of the, the lay of the land there.

[Kimberly Atkins]

And our final question this week comes from Mary from the Bay State, also known as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a place I love very much. And this one's from Jill. For Jill. The Trump DOJ seems determined to file a number of frivolous lawsuits. How is frivolous defined? And what is the penalty for lawyers who file such, such lawsuits?

[Jill Wine Banks]

So I love this question because in my youth in law school, I actually helped the professor who had written our civil procedure book, Professor Rosenberg. And under the Federal Rules, Rule 11 defines what it's all about. And it says that you can't do certain things like you can't present a motion or a case case for an improper purpose, such as harassment causing unnecessary delay or needlessly increasing the cost of litigation. And you have to be careful about that because there are sanctions. And the sanctions can be imposed by a motion from the opposing party and can include financial penalties, including reasonable expenses for, including attorney's fees for defending against anything frivolous. And it can also be brought by the court on its own motion, not on a separate motion in certain limited conditions. And it is intended, of course, to deter any repetition of the conduct. And it can be non monetary. You could even be held possibly in contempt. But the payment is a real thing that would stop people from doing this. You can file something to extend existing law if it's reasonably possible, but you can't be ridiculous. And of course that's only the financial penalties. You can be disbarred, but not by the court, because courts do not have, and this is a common misunderstanding, courts and bar associations do not disbar. The disbarment is, I'm sorry, the courts can't disbar. It is bar associations who have discipline committees and they will consider the accusations. We've seen Rudy Giuliani disbarred for frivolous lawsuits involving the 2020 election and others have been sanctioned. Sidney Powell wasn't disbarred, but was sanctioned. So it is a very serious thing that lawyers should not do. And frivolous is where there is no legal or factual support for the action that's being brought. I think that that is the simplest way to put it, is there has to be something, some fact that you can prove that supports what you're saying or some law that supports what you're saying. You can't just make stuff up. I had one frivolous lawsuit when I was in private practice where someone sued a movie company because a airstrike prevented the delivery of the film. And in those days, it was an actual film in those big canisters that was delivered to a movie theater theater. And so they went dark rather than putting a substitute film that they could have shown. And they claimed damages for that. And it was ridiculous because of course, it was an act of God that there was a strike and it wasn't a fault of anybody, but we had to go ahead and defend it. And that costs a lot of money. So that was frivolous. That's a good example of what is ridiculously not based on fact or law.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Barb McQuaid, Jill Winebags and me, Kim Atkins store. Don't forget to follow sisters in Law wherever you listen to your pods and give us five stars because if you can believe it, there are still people who don't listen to this show. But that will help them find it and show some love for this week's sponsors because we love them. Thrive Cosmetics, FedEx, Wildgrain, Quince and Helix. The links for all of them are in our show notes and they make this show possible. They're a friend of the show and they are a friend to you and we vouch for them. See you next week with another episode. Sisters in Law.

[Barb McQuaid]

Eesh.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Oh, God.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Everything is so stupid.

[Barb McQuaid]

Everything is so stupid. That is the motto of our times.

[Joyce Vance]

That's everything is so stupid.