262: It's Déjà Vu All Over Again

Summary

#SistersInLaw Episode 262: "It's Déjà Vu All Over Again"

Date: November 15, 2025
Hosts: Barb McQuade, Jill Wine-Banks, Kimberly Atkins Stohr (Joyce Vance absent)
Podcast: Politicon’s #SistersInLaw

---

Overview

In this episode, Barb, Jill, and Kimberly dive into the latest legal and political clashes, dissecting high-profile cases, recent Department of Justice (DOJ) controversies, and President Trump’s newest round of pardons. The conversation weaves in legal analysis, personal anecdotes, and the hosts’ signature candid humor, offering listeners sharp insights into today’s most consequential legal news.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Personal Anecdotes: Car Trouble & Detroit Culture

00:10 – 09:30

• Barb shares a story about passing Detroit’s iconic Uniroyal tire—a massive roadside attraction—only to suffer a flat tire found poetic by her family.
• Kim recounts past car mishaps, including a dramatic axle break and her dad’s heroic repair skills.
• Jill describes recurring tire blowouts, notably two on a road trip from Florida with two dogs, prompting her to joke about needing a new, narrow car.
• Memorable Quote:
  • Jill: “My friends at one point said that I needed to hire a driver, that I should not be permitted to drive my own car.” [06:28]

2. Disqualification Hearing: Lindsey Halligan in Comey & James Cases

13:14 – 24:55

• Background: Jim Comey and Letitia James, facing federal indictments, align legal defense to disqualify Trump’s appointed special prosecutor Lindsay Halligan.
• Legal Challenge: The Vacancies Reform Act prohibits repeated 120-day interim appointments without Senate confirmation. The defense argues Halligan’s role is invalid due to procedural abuses by the Trump DOJ.
• DOJ’s Arguments: Poorly received; DOJ claimed it was mere “paperwork error” and suggested unlimited 120-day appointments were permissible.
• Grand Jury Transcript Irregularities: Judge Curry is troubled by missing transcript segments and questionable retroactive authority for Halligan.
• Likely Outcome:
  • Barb: “The judge seemed very bothered about some irregularities in the grand jury transcript... like where’s the missing transcript?” [19:56]
  • Jill: “If it is ruled... that Lindsey Halligan was not properly appointed, the case could be dismissed and that would be the end of it, because the statute of limitations has run.” [22:46]
• Implications: If dismissed, these charges can only be refiled under narrow timing and with a properly appointed prosecutor.

3. DOJ "War on Judges" & Rule of Law Crisis

30:50 – 41:42

• Federalist Society Speech: Deputy AG Todd Blanche declares a “war” on judges who halt DOJ actions—a statement hosts denounce as undermining judicial independence.
  • Barb: “To suggest that the judge is at war with the American people because they rule against you, that is a violation of respect for the rule of law.” [31:31]
• Judge Mark Wolf’s Resignation:
  • Kim interviews former federal judge Wolf, who resigned to publicly defend judicial independence against rising political attacks.
  • Kim: “The power that Donald Trump is amassing and seeking and trying to force judges to give him never belonged to him. Right. The power always belonged to the people. It still belongs to the people.” [34:16]
• Balance of Powers Warning: Hosts lament a congressional trend of ceding power to the executive and warn against efforts to erode judicial oversight.

4. Epstein Files & White House Interference

38:53 – 41:45, 61:09 – 62:55 (Q&A)

• White House Meeting: DOJ, AG Pam Bondi, and Rep. Lauren Boebert met about Jeffrey Epstein records. Boebert, a rare GOP advocate for disclosure, left with a cryptic message.
• Concerns:
  • Ongoing delays in file releases prompt suspicion about protecting certain names.
  • DOJ announces a new investigation targeting Democrats named in files.
• Barb on File Contents:
  • “It is a treasure trove of information,” including witness statements, physical evidence, electronic devices, and subpoenaed records. Much more remains unreleased. [61:09]

5. Trump’s Newest Pardons for Fake Electors Scheme

45:45 – 52:12

• Details: Trump issues federal pardons to 77 figures—including Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell, Mark Meadows, and John Eastman—linked to the “fake electors” plot and election interference.
• Legal Limits:
  • Pardons only apply to federal crimes, not state charges or civil liability.
  • These figures mostly face state indictments, so the pardons are “largely symbolic.”
  • Kim: “All in all, it’s really symbolic. It’s just something that’s like, you know, given a little token to these people who he loves so much.” [48:19]
• Abuse of Power:
  • Jill emphasizes pardons serve to rewrite history, reward loyalty, and undermine justice, in contrast to Gerald Ford’s pardon rooted in public interest.
  • Barb: “It seems to me that maybe these pardons are…an effort to rewrite history by suggesting that the challenges to the 2020 election are totally legitimate.” [50:10]
  • Jill: “…Trump is transforming the American system of justice into his personal plaything. Friends of the crown break the law with impunity. Enemies of the crown experience the sharp end of the law, whether they deserve it or not.” [50:35]

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Barb on DOJ Incompetence:
  • “We’re in many ways we’re very fortunate that the Trump DOJ is so incompetent. Imagine how dangerous they would be if they could actually do their jobs.” [21:31]
• Judge Wolf’s Perspective (via Kim):
  • “The power… always belonged to the people. The way this works is the people delegate that power. They lend it. They never give it up.” [34:16]
• Jill on Judicial Balance:
  • “They obviously want a unitary executive and to eliminate all other branches of government. And so far, Congress has ceded its powers because it’s under his sway.” [38:09]
• Kim on Pardons:
  • “You know, they have settled that under terms that aren’t released. All we know is that Rudy Giuliani didn’t have to give them his house, which actually kind of made me sad.” [48:19]

---

Q&A Segment

56:30 – 62:55

1. How did Kim Davis’s marriage equality appeal get to the Supreme Court?

• Kim: The Supreme Court receives thousands of cert petitions; most are rejected without comment. Davis’s was simply one of those. “It caught the attention of the press because of who she is.” [58:11]

2. Why aren’t more state AGs prosecuting fake electors?

• Jill: Some are—prosecutions are active in Arizona and Georgia; Michigan’s charges under a forgery statute were dismissed, likely due to statutory fit.
• Barb: Each state’s laws and facts differ. Lawmakers can and should update laws in response to gaps revealed by these events. [59:16]

3. What’s actually in the ‘Epstein files’?

• Barb: Witness statements, grand jury records, search results from Epstein’s properties, electronic devices, records from third parties, and more. Only a small fraction is public so far. [61:09]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Detroit Tire Anecdotes: 00:10 – 09:30
• Legal Challenge to Lindsay Halligan: 13:14 – 24:55
• DOJ’s “War on Judges” & Mark Wolf: 30:50 – 41:42
• Epstein Files/White House Interference: 38:53 – 41:45, Q&A 61:09
• Trump Pardons for Fake Electors: 45:45 – 52:12
• Q&A: 56:30 – 62:55

---

Tone and Style

The hosts blend serious legal analysis with humor “Your dad was a real hero” [06:16], candor, and lively banter. Their expertise shines as they tackle complex legal issues, but they keep the conversation accessible and engaging for listeners of all backgrounds.

---

Summary

This episode of #SistersInLaw offers an in-depth, often frank examination of the politicization of federal justice, the continued fallout from election denialism, and the weaponization of legal levers for personal and partisan advantage. The hosts pull back the curtain on legal maneuvers that threaten the balance of power, underscore the dangers of executive overreach, and remind listeners that, ultimately, power—and accountability—rest with the people.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Kimberly Atkins store, Jill Wine Banks and me, Barb McQuaid. Joyce is continuing on her book tour, but she will be back soon. I have both read Joyce's book and listened to Joyce's book and both are a joy. So we hope you'll do the same. We also have our hot new resistance hoodie available to order. It was designed by our very own Kimberly Atkins store with a short and sassy look. So you can go to politicon.com merch for the hoodie and all of your other desirable sisters in law merchandise. Here's what we have planned for you in today's show. This week we will be discussing the court hearing to disqualify Lindsey Halligan in the Jim Comey and Letitia James cases. DOJ official declares war on judges and President Trump's pardons of Rudy Giuliani and others charged in the fake electors scheme. But first, I wanted to ask my sisters, do you are you familiar with the giant tire between Detroit Metro Airport in downtown Detroit on Interstate 94 in Detroit?

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Doesn't have that tire.

[B]

Uniroyal tire.

[A]

Uniroyal tire, yeah. You know that one, Jill?

[C]

I don't know that one, but I'll be looking the next time we do a live show in your area.

[A]

All right.

[B]

I call it the Statue of Liberty of Detroit. Like that's Detroit. Statue of Liberty. It's like the monument you think about.

[A]

It is. It is. It's great. If you're driving in from the airport, you'll see it. So for our listeners who have not had the privilege of seeing this giant uniroyal tire, it is a huge tire on the side of the road. And it was originally a Ferris wheel. At the time, it was the world's largest Ferris wheel. And the city of Detroit or Uni Royal bought it as an ad and they covered it in rubber and make it look like a tire. So it's this giant tire on the side of the road. So it's kind of an iconic Detroit thing. But I was driving by the giant tire the other day when my kids were little. They used to love to pass it. We would, we took them to daycare in Detroit every day and drove home to Ann Arbor. And they would compete for whose side the giant tire was on, not realizing that it was always on the right side on the way in and the left side on the way home. So it was about 5050 proposition of who. And they'd say giant tire, my side. And they would get so excited, like they Won the game. Well, yesterday I was driving along I94 with my mother in the car, and just as I said, giant tire in my side, I blew a tire. I hit a pothole or something and, like, started. You know, that horrible sound of, like, rumble, rumble, rumble, thump, thump, thump, thump. Oh, man. I think I just lost a tire. And I had a little gauge that said my tire pressure was going down to 20 to 10 to 1. And so I pulled over. Oh, man. So I haven't had car trouble in a long time. Knock on wood. And thankfully, it was the middle of the day, I was able to get help, and we were back on our way relatively quickly. But have you guys had any memorable automobile car trouble mishaps?

[B]

Oh, I've had so many, bar.

[A]

Well, we know about your burning car. Your car on fire.

[B]

Yes. We've talked about the time my car was set on fire on the street in New York City. Yes. And I blame the Red Sox bumper sticker. But even before that, when I was still living in Michigan and I was in college, there was one night that I was driving home from Wayne State University, and I was on Northwestern Highway. Yep. And I went to make a turn, a Michigan left for y', all, who. If. You know. You know. And all of a sudden, I just feel this lo. This loud thump. And, like, the back passenger side of my car, a huge Buick just dropped down. And so that's even a worse sound than your tire was. The sound of just a whole Buick side of your car dropping down and then, like, of, you know, steel against concrete. So I get out, and somehow my axle broke and it flew to the other side of the street. Oh, man.

[C]

Oh, my God.

[B]

So nobody was hurt, which is an important thing. I call my dad. You know, this is back in the day. So I had to run to a pay phone and call my dad. It's like, oh, get me a Northwestern Highway.

[C]

Oh, gosh.

[B]

And he comes out, and I was like, what do we do? Do we have to call the insurance? Like, do we have to do. He's like, wait. Wait a minute. And he gets underneath the car. You know, he puts up some cones. You know, he's a construction guy, of course.

[A]

Like, dads have this stuff, right? He's got his own flares.

[B]

Exactly. He puts up some cones.

[A]

Puts up some cones.

[B]

You know, he gets down, he looks underneath, and meanwhile, he's still wearing his suit from work. He looks underneath, and he's like, all right. So he reaches in the. He goes in the trunk, gets a jack. Jacks the Car up, sticks the wheel back in the jack. I mean, back in the car, and then lets it back down. And he's like, I will drive this. You drive my car. And you know, I will drive back. And I'm like, dad, you can't. He's like. And he drove the car back home after that. He looked underneath and he's like, eh, yeah, that axle's broken, but I can get it home. And he drives it. And it reminded me just of another instance when my mom had the car mishap. She was backing into the carport of our house and she accidentally hit one of the pillars of the carport. And. And then the pillar came off and like, part of the carport roof just buckled down. And she was like. And so she calls my dad. He comes home, she's like, what do I do? Like, do we have to call the homeowner's insurance? And what do we do? My dad's like, wait, wait, wait. He goes out and he looks at it. He gets out a jack and he puts the thing on the jack. Crink, crink, crank. And puts the pillar right back on the foundation.

[A]

Pretty handy.

[B]

Same thing to help both my mom and me out of our car trouble.

[A]

He knew all the tricks.

[B]

That was my dad.

[A]

Yeah. You know, you got. They go to dad school or something and they learn this stuff. It's amazing. Yeah, it's amazing.

[C]

Your dad was a real hero.

[B]

He was a jack of all trades. Yeah.

[C]

Good one, Kimberly.

[A]

Very good, Very good. How about you, Jill? Have you had any good auto mishaps?

[C]

I have had so many auto mishaps. My friends and at one point said that I needed to hire a driver, that I should not be permitted to drive my own car. But. And of course, Chicago is known for its potholes. I have blown so many tires, particularly my current car has low profile tires. And I am now looking for a car that's narrow enough to fit in my garage and that does not have low profile tires. But I would say out of all of my experiences with tires, my most memorable was when you guys were so young. I had moved to Florida, which was supposed to be a permanent move, but ended up being a year. And at the end of the year, my husband and I and our two dogs at the time were driving back from Florida with all our possessions and had not one, but two. Two different blowouts.

[A]

Oh, geez.

[C]

The second was on Labor Day. And so finding anywhere that was opened was impossible. We had to find a motel that would take us and two dogs, which was not an easy task. In fact, I can think, I can now admit, because it was in 1991, the statute of limitations has run. We snuck our two dogs in to the room that we rented and paid extraordinary amount of money to buy a tire to get put on on Labor Day so that we could continue our journey. So I'd say that was my most memorable blowout. But there was one on Lakeshore Drive where I had to pull over and luckily was near enough a little indentation that I could. So I've had a lot of blowouts on my car. And if anybody has a recommendation for a narrow car, so 70 inches or less wide with not low profile tires, please text me or I guess contact me through Politicon. And I will be looking at that car soon.

[A]

You know, there's an Oscar Meyer Wienermobile. It might fit the bill.

[B]

I have an Oscar Meyer pickles on it, and it'll be like a Chicago dog.

[C]

I have an Oscar Meyer Wiener whistle. That is one of my prized possessions. Cause I actually was in the Ostermaier Wienermobile when my father, the hero, brought them to the playground he created to keep the neighborhood kids safe.

[B]

Jill, wait.

[A]

What?

[B]

It's true.

[A]

You've ridden in the Escarmyer Wienermobile.

[C]

I have. I have.

[A]

Of course you have. Of course you have.

[B]

Yes. You need to write another book, Jill, and put in all the stuff you left.

[C]

I'm working on a teen book. I am. And I'm gonna talk about my father, the hero, the Wienermobile, and a secret ride on silver with the Lone Ranger holding the reins.

[B]

Wow. All right. You have.

[A]

That's gonna have. That's gonna have to wait for another day.

[B]

When you love seafood, and I really do. You deserve the best at the grocery store. You never know where it came from, frankly, what it might have in it, or whether it's sustainable. And those things are really important to me and to all of the sisters. And that's why you need a provider you can trust. And for us, that means Wild Alaskan. We always recommend Wild Alaskan. It's wonderful to know that our friends, family, and ourselves are getting the best. And the taste is absolutely incredible. I won't buy salmon in particular anywhere else now from Wild Alaskan because it will always disappoint. And there's a reason for that. Everything from Wild Alaskan is 100% wild, caught and never farmed. This means there are no antibiotics, GMOs, or additives or any nasty stuff in their catch. Just clean, real fish that support healthy oceans and. And fishing Communities don't settle for less. Go with fish that is nutrient rich and full of flavor. With Wild Alaskan, that's a given. Their fish is frozen off the boat to lock in taste, texture and nutrients like omega 3s.

[A]

Yeah, I love this stuff. I have been actually using my air fryer to cook the salmon. It's super easy cause it comes in these little individual filets and so it's been delicious. You know, like us, we know that you're going to love everything from Wild Alaskan. It's sustainably sourced and wild caught from Alaska with every order supporting sustainable harvesting practices. Plus, becoming a member means your deliveries are flexible and at your own pace. You'll even get chef tips from the pros. It's an endless smorgasbord of truly feel good seafood. I love the Pacific halibut for a tasty treat that's low in fat, high in protein and rich in Omega 3s. It's perfect for tacos or a curry. But they have so many other amazing options.

[C]

You know, the halibut barb is so good, I wouldn't mess with it in a taco. Or it is just great in your air fryer or broiled in your oven. It's pan fried. I love all of their fish and I used to be afraid to cook fish. I never felt really comfortable. But they come in these vacuum sealed packets that you know are frozen on the boat. Fantastic. And I can't get over how really fabulous it is. If you're not completely satisfied with your first box, Wild Alaskan company will give you a full refund. But I guarantee you're not going to be asking for one because you are going to love it and subscribe forever. No questions asked, no risk, just high quality seafood. Not all fish are the same. Get seafood you can trust. Go to wildalaskan.com sisters for $35 off your first box of premium wild caught seafood. That's wildalaskan.com sisters for $35 off your first order. So here's a big thanks to Wild Alaskan Company for sponsoring this episode and for introducing us to the best fish ever. The link is in our show notes.

[B]

Well, this week the attorneys for former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Leticia James, who were fighting separate indictments in the Eastern District of Virginia, well, they joined forces in a joint hearing seeking to get President Trump's hand picked prosecutor Lindsey Halligan disqualified, a move that could torpedo both cases. Comey's facing charges of lying to Congress in the testimony he gave back in 2020 to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the FBI's investigation into links between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. And James is charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in Connecticut to a mortgage on her property in Virginia. Both charges, in my opinion, are politically motivated. But I want to hear my sister's thoughts here. Barb, what did the attorneys for Comey and James argue in this hearing before U.S. district Court Judge Cameron Curry? And by the way, Judge Curry is from South Carolina. So why was this case even being heard in front of a South Carolina judge in the first place?

[C]

Explain it.

[A]

Right. It's, it's a little bit unusual procedurally. Well, they are challenging the legality of Lindsay Halligan's appointment as the U.S. attorney there. And the court is potentially conflicted on this particular issue in the case, which is why they brought in a judge from another district just so that she doesn't know any of these players. And that's because the challenge they are making is to something called the Vacancies Reform Act. So ordinarily, for a U.S. attorney to be appointed, they have to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. But Halligan was appointed as an interim U.S. attorney. So it doesn't use that process. It uses a different process which says the Attorney General may appoint an interim, but only for 120 days. And after that time expires, and there's no, you know, presidentially appointed Senate confirmed U.S. attorney, then it is the court that appoints a successor until such time as there is a permanent U.S. attorney in that place. That's why the court could end up playing a role in this. And they wanted all the judges to, to be out of this decision making. But what they've argued is that Trump already appointed, or I guess it was Pam Bondi, the Attorney General already appointed an interim. That was Eric Siebert. You may remember, he said he resigned. Trump said he fired him because he refused to indict Comey and James after his 120 days expired. That's when Lindsey expired. The court appointed him to continue in that role once he left. Donald Trump appointed Lindsey Halligan, who was a White House aide, she's an insurance lawyer, to replace him. She promptly filed this indictment. So what they're arguing is because they already got their first 120 day U.S. attorney, they don't get a redo. And in fact, there's even a memo, I think we've mentioned this before, written by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that said, when this 120 days expires, the president doesn't get a reset and do it over. Otherwise it would just circumvent this rule that you have to get Senate confirmation for your picks. Right. A president could just keep reappointing people for 120 days. And the author of that Office of Legal Counsel memo was none other than now Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. And so what the Comey lawyers and the Letitia James lawyers are arguing is that this, their indictments, because they were signed by Lindsay Halligan and she in fact was the only person in the grand jury room with when these indictments were obtained, are therefore null, void and invalid.

[B]

Wow. So, Jill, how did the DOJ defend against those arguments?

[C]

Very poorly would be my conclusion, because their arguments were ridiculous. They made sort of two arguments. One, oh, it's just a paperwork error. Well, no, it isn't. The law is quite clear. And as Barb said, the Department of Justice already said that you can't do it multiple times because that would invade separation of powers where Congress would no longer have a confirmation role. But they also argued, yeah, no matter what we said before, we have an unlimited right to appoint 120 days anytime we feel like it. So we're going to just keep on appointing for 120 days. Then there was a sort of third argument, which is that Pam Bondi reviewed the indictment and that she approved it. So that it wasn't just Lindsey Halligan who was the only one who signed the indictment, the only one who appeared before the grand jury. And the reason that that's true is because no one in her office, no professional prosecutor was willing to go ahead with this case. They prepared a declination memo that advised her that there was no legitimate basis for this indictment. But that didn't stop her. She went ahead with it, and that's where we are. The argument of the plaintiffs is very well, the defendants who are making the motion, the movements, not the plaintiffs, is quite clearly the winning argument.

[B]

Yeah. And you know, Barb, Judge Curry seems to agree with Jill. I mean, she didn't really seem convinced by the doj. One of the most interesting things, I think one of the most interesting questions that she asked the DOJ attorneys was whether or not they thought that Judge Cannon, remember Judge Aileen Cannon down in Florida, whether she made the correct ruling in finding that Jack Smith was improperly appointed to the special counsel role. And it's not exactly the same statute, but it's pretty close. It's basically its twin. And she Held of course, as we mentioned in the past, that he was improperly appointed because he was not Senate confirmed. I thought that that was a telling question. Barb, what did you think? What are your predictions about how this may play out?

[A]

Yeah, so that was super interesting, wasn't it, where they said that, well, you know, we don't endorse everything the Jud Cannon did there. We think that although that was improperly appointed, the remedy was wrong to dismiss the case. And so this case shouldn't be dismissed either. I think one of the things that's super interesting here too is the judge seemed very bothered about some irregularities in the grand jury transcript. She said that Pam Bondi claims to have retroactively appointed Lindsay Haligan now is a special attorney so that she's not utilizing this clearly expired 120 days and that she went back and reviewed the grand jury transcript and sees that everything was done procedurally properly and therefore she is ratifying everything that Lindsay Haligan did. And I think number one, the court says I'm not sure that's how it works, that you can, you know, sort of backdate the appointment that way. And even if you did, she said the transcript just like suddenly stops at 4:28pm the grand jury was in the room until 6:30pm like where's the missing transcript? So that's sort of, I mean, that.

[B]

Was such a, I mean what a dumb blunder to make. When you, when you submit something that the court asks you for, you make sure that it's, it's exactly what they asked for and they sort of gave half the information that was asked for, which was just such a self own when you already have an upward hill to climb in making your case in the first place. That was just wild.

[A]

We're so, we're in many ways we're very fortunate that the Trump DOJ is so incompetent. Imagine how dangerous they would be if they could actually do their jobs.

[B]

Well, Jill, this can have really big implications for the case, right? Couldn't they get dismissed altogether? And what does the fact that. Well, I'm gonna ask you a two point question. If, if it, if they are dismissed, can these cases just get refiled? I mean, is this just, you know, delay is the only problem? And what does the fact that three other prosecutors have been disqualified by other courts, including one of our favorite people to talk about, Alina Haba, although that case is being appealed and she's still in her position as that appeal goes on. But you know, three times they've The DOJ has tried all kinds of shenanigans to get around this vacancies reform act, including this, you know, argument that Pam Bondi is essentially saying she built a time machine to go back in time and properly install Alleghen, and so everything is fine now. I mean, you know, what do you think, based on those other cases, could happen here?

[C]

In those other cases, there were other prosecutors who were legally appointed and serving, who were in on the grand jury and who were in on the indictment. So the result could be very different. I think that those where there were legitimate prosecutors involved, the case won't be dismissed. I think in this case, where no legitimate prosecutor was involved, and if it is ruled, like these other three, that Lindsey Halligan was not properly appointed, that the case could be dismissed and that would be the end of it, because the statute of limitations has run. There is one little hook on this that could change my answer about it couldn't be refiled, and that is that there is a rule that if your case is dismissed not based on the statute of limitations or on substantive grounds, but on an error of this sort of, that the prosecution can refile, even though the statute of limitations has run within six months of the dismissal. There are a couple of problems with that. One is you would need a legitimate attorney to do that, and that's going to require hiring someone from a district outside of the Eastern District of Virginia or adding a new AUSA in the Eastern District who's willing to go ahead with this, because no one existing in the office has been willing to. And then they'd have to represent it to another grand jury, and they would also not have time to appeal this ruling, assuming that the case is dismissed, because with only six months to file, they'd have to choose one or the other. So it's a little complicated, but I think the bottom line is the case was bad. It had no substantive grounds. There's no evidence that supports this accusation. It should be dismissed. And it should be dismissed. Dismissed because Lindsay Halligan should be out of the office.

[B]

You know, guys, it's too bad that Joyce isn't here, because when it comes to Helix mattresses, she may have bought, like, half of the mattresses that Helix has sold because her house is full of them. And I'm still looking forward to going to visit her because I know I will get a great night's sl. And great sleep is critical to success. And there's nothing better for sleep than a Helix mattress. Sometimes the perfect gift to yourself during the holiday season is spending some extra time in bed. Amen to that. Especially when the weather gets colder, comfort is a must. We first heard about Helix when they asked to sponsor our show, but we're very selective on Sisters in Law about the sponsors that we accept, so we wanted to try them out. And when Joyce took their quiz to tailor her mattress to her sleeping style, she got matched with the Helix Midnight mattress. She must have aced that quiz because she's told us time and time again how she's been getting the best sleep of her life ever since it arrived. After trying it, she got Helix for her whole family and they've all loved finding the perfect bedroom fits.

[A]

Not only is Helix the most awarded mattress brand by reviewers like Forbes and Wired, but they also make it easy. They have so many options and you'll love how they combine memory foam and individually wrapped steel coils for the perfect blend of softness and support. There are even enhanced cooling features to keep you from getting too warm when the heater is blasting as the weather cools. I'm amazed that Helix has been part of my sister's sleep habits now for over two years. Making the switch is such an upgrade. Since then, we've heard so many stories of people seeing transformational improvements in 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.

[C]

You know, I've heard from a lot of our listeners that they have gone ahead and bought the Helix mattress and they love it. And if you want to snuggle up on an incredible mattress this holiday season and beyond, you need to take advantage of today's special deal. Right now, Helix has an incredible Best of web Black Friday sale for our listeners. Go to helixsleep.com sisters and you'll get 27% off site wide. It's exclusive for our listeners of sisters in law. Sisters in law go to helixsleep.com sisters and you'll get 27% off site wide. It's exclusive for our listeners of Sisters in Law. Sisters in Law make sure you enter our show name into the post purchase survey so they know we sent you. Again, that's helixsleep.com sisters. The link is also in our show Notes. The holidays are all about creating a cozy, safe home. But if you're using laundry or dishwasher pods, then hidden microplastics could be sneaking into the places and people you care about most. They get on our dishes, in our food, and then into Our bodies. Most of us don't know we're cleaning with plastic every day and that's just gross. That's why we've made the switch to Blueland across all our cleaning products, especially during the holidays. After all, that's when most of us spend more time cooking, hosting and cozying up indoors. Blueland products meet the highest standard of cleanliness. They're effective, yet gentle on people and the planet. In fact, Blueland was named an EPA Safer Choice Partner of the Year. From cleaning sprays and toilet bowl cleaners to dishwashers and laundry detergent tablets, Lulan's formulas are 100% microplastic free, made with certified clean ingredients, free from chlorine, bleach and harsh chemicals. In short, they're safe to use around the family, pets and all your loved ones. You'll love not having to choose between the safe option and what's actually getting your home clean.

[A]

Blueland is on a mission to make it easy for everyone to make sustainable choices. Like us, they believe that hardworking clean products can be the norm, not the exception, so that you can do better for your family and the planet. At the same time, it feels great knowing that I'm incorporating sustainable practices into essential, everyday activities. I'm always amazed by how well their dishwasher tablets work. They're proven to perform no matter how intense the baked on or burnt on stains can get. You won't even need a rinse aid. I know that with all the holiday chefing coming up, there's nothing I'd rather have helping us get the dishes done.

[B]

And don't forget the toilet tablets. Barb, the toilet tablets are fantastic.

[A]

I'm contractually prevented from saying that word.

[C]

On air, but you go and you do, you do.

[A]

You go ahead.

[B]

If you want to stock up on sustainable cleaning products for yourself or to give a beautiful, sustainable gift to your friends and family this holiday season, go to blueland.com/sisters and save up to 30% during Blueland's holiday sale. Don't wait. They only do this once a year. That's 30% off Blueland's holiday sale by going to blueland.com sisters again, that's blueland.com sisters for 30% off. And you know where you can find that link in our show notes.

[C]

Wasn't it Joe DiMaggio who said deja vu all over again? Well, that's what I feel like now. Yogi Berra. Oh, of course I knew I'd get it wrong. But Barb, I knew you'd fix it. Yeah, Yogi Berra. Almost every week, DOJ does one or more things we think violate the rule of law and the principles that we held dear when we. That is Joyce, Barb and I served at justice, and this week is no exception. Barb, let's start with Trump's personal attorney turned number two at DOJ and his announced war on judges. We're talking, of course, about Todd Blanch. Would you fill in our listeners, please?

[A]

Yeah. This is really a disturbing thing. So Todd Blanche is the deputy Attorney General. This is the number two official at the Justice Department, the person who really runs the operations day to day while the Attorney General is out, you know, traveling the world and doing other other things as a Cabinet official. So Blanche is speaking at a meeting of the Federalist Society. This is an organization of conservative lawyers and law students. It's not a political organization. It is a legal organization. 501C3. But during this event, he makes a recruiting pitch to join the Justice Department. Again. Fine. He wants lawyers who are hungry and thirsty. Great. But then he says, we need you. I'm quoting now, because it is a war, and it's something we will not win unless we keep on fighting. He said it's hard to get the media, it's hard to get the American people to focus on what a travesty it is when you have an individual judge be able to stop an entire operation or an entire administrative policy that's constitutional and allowed just because he or she chooses to do so. So it's a war. Boy, I'll tell you what's wrong with that is this idea that if a judge rules against you, somehow they're at war with you. The judiciary has a very important role in our society. Sometimes you disagree with a judge's decision. You're allowed to say you disagree with a judge's decision. But to suggest that the judge is at war with the American people because they rule against you, that is a violation of respect for the rule of law and the role of the independence of the judiciary. Casting a judicial decision against you as war, I think is irresponsible and harmful. And, you know, we've got people like Donald Trump referring to judges who rule against him as a radical left lunatic, as he did about Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge in the District Court for the District of Columbia. We've seen J.D. vance saying that when judges have ruled against the Trump administration about, you know, SNAP benefits and other things, that that's absurd. That the judiciary is trying to tell the executive branch how to use its Executive power. That is what courts do. And so when they slam them in this way, I think they are undermining a very important institution that protects our democracy.

[C]

Kim, you know, there is one judge who has now resigned this week because he felt he had to speak out on behalf of the rule of law. And you interviewed him and wrote an excellent piece about it. Tell us what he said and why he felt compelled to resign and speak out.

[B]

Yeah. So Judge Mark Wolf, who was on the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, that's the trial level federal court, he was appointed by Ronald Reagan. He was a senior judge, which meant he still was a member of the bench. He still had lifetime tenure and all the benefits that that come with it. But he gave that up because he said he did not want to stay silent anymore. And he wrote an amazing essay in the Atlantic. And a couple days later, I was able to talk to him. You know, judges, we talk about judges speaking publicly and not speaking publicly, particularly when it comes to trial level and appellate level federal judges. I'm not talking about the leaving the SCOTUS aside here for a moment. Trial and federal level judges really do not speak out about things like even the attacks on the rule of law or the threats that they've been receiving and things like that, because they want to make sure that in the event a case comes before them involving the administration, there is not even a hint of a conflict of interest, that they know that they are going to be ruling on the basis of the strength of the case and not on anything else. And even the appearance to the public that it's otherwise is really detrimental to the rule of law. So I actually had been since January talking to a number of federal judges at the trial and appellate level. And they've been telling me privately about their concerns about this. And I've been trying to get them, even on background, just to say something so I can really capture their feelings in a column. And they've all declined. And I get why, but it's a problem because that's the kind of stuff that the American people need to hear and understand. So I was so grateful that Judge Wolf spoke to me and is speaking to other media. And I hate that he had to give up his job to do it. But what I found, you know, amid all of the terrible things that are going on with respect to the rule of law, the attacks like we talked about, coming from folks like Todd Blanche, was he made it really clear how this is supposed to work. The power that Donald Trump is amassing and Seeking and trying to force judges to give him never belonged to him. Right. The power always belonged to the people. It still belongs to the people. The way this works is the people delegate that power. They lend it. They never give it up. They lend that power to their lawmakers in Congress, for example. Lawmakers in Congress then lend a little bit of that power to the executive with limits, limits imposed by law and by the Constitution. And what the courts do is they're the people who decide whether or not the executive goes beyond those limits. So it is an essential function of courts to say, yeah, no, the law doesn't allow you to do that, or, yes, that is okay. That is not being at war. That is not being rogue. That's doing exactly what the Constitution is set up to do. That's the role of courts. That's why they have lifetime tenure, so that they don't have to worry about elections or politics as they do that job. That is why they are a separate branch of government, so that they can look at it independently. That was the way the framers sought to keep the judiciary independent. So what Donald Trump and folks in Congress, in the GOP caucus who are backing him up are saying about these judicial rulings just show how little they regard the power that the American people that they serve have, because that's only their. It's only borrowed. And that's why they're there to do the job, to do the work of the American people, not to not do the work that they're there to do. And then also gaslight the American people about it. And that's exactly what Donald Trump is doing. And I was really glad Judge Wolf laid that so plainly.

[C]

And of course, we'll put in our show notes your interview of him, because it really is good and does make all these very important points about the basic premise of our government, which is three CO/ each serving its purpose and having oversight to balance the power of the other. And they obviously want a unitary executive and to eliminate all other branches of government. And so far, Congress has ceded its powers because it's under his sway.

[B]

They see no Congress has ceded the people's power or tried to cede the people's power to the president. And he doesn't. They didn't have it to cede. It didn't belong to them to cede in the first place. And the president does not own that power.

[C]

So Barb but there's something that bothers me even more this week. That DOJ did. It frightens me. It upsets me and that is a reported meeting in the White House situation room with Attorney General Bondi, FBI Director Patel, and once again, the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanch, with a member of Congress, Representative Boebert. There are so many things that are wrong with this picture, but let's fill in what we know and why it's wrong. And what are they so worried about that they are doing? This pressure on a member of Congress to vote in a certain way on the Epstein files.

[A]

Yeah, you know, it's not really clear what happened at this meeting, but there was a meeting at the White House regarding this effort to release the Epstein files. And so Lauren Boebert, who has been one of the few Republicans who has pushed, put pressure on and, you know, signed a discharge petition to say that this should be released, all of these files. And she has been part of that group. After the meeting, she posted something like, I want to thank the White House officials for meeting with me today. We remain committed to ensuring transparency to the American people. It is the mo. The least transparent message.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Like what? Like you're so. I don't know. It does appear that they continue to try to do damage control about what's in the Epstein files. Boebert, obviously, is one of these people whose constituents want the files released. She has pushed for the release. And we know that the Justice Department has been really slow walking this stuff. We've seen some release, including this week, some more emails, but, you know, it's only a small portion of all of the material that's in the Epstein files. There may be some very good reasons to withhold some of this stuff. There's material relating to survivors, I am sure, whose privacy should be respected. But, you know, Donald Trump could end all of this right now by just saying anything that refers to me. Just go ahead and put it out there in the public domain. Anything about other people who are other than survivors, go ahead and put it out there. But he hasn't done that. And in fact, there's news reporting today that says the Justice Department is now going to investigate prominent Democrats whose names appear in the Epstein file. So again, it's just another effort to distract and deflect from whatever it is Donald Trump doesn't want released in the Epstein files. Maybe there's nothing there. Who knows? But he sure is acting like there's something there.

[B]

Isn't that like this is like the Streisand effect on steroids, Right? Yes. Had he just. Had he just released them right from the beginning like he said he would. Nope. We would not be talking about this right now at all, like nobody is.

[A]

But there's gotta be a reason, right? That's all I can think of. He's making it worse.

[C]

Yeah, well, time will tell. Let's wait and see what comes of this.

[B]

You guys. We are officially in holiday party season. The invites are racking up in my inbox. And you know, being festive is great to do, but you always want to look your best while doing it. And now that the weather is getting colder, everyone needs to fight back against winter winds and the dryness your skin gets from baking under the heater. Or in my case, wrapping myself in like four blankets at a time. That's why we are recommending a skincare experience that summons the best of a warm, beachy California summer from Osea Malibu.

[A]

Yeah, that stuff's great. You know, I am starting to get that sandpaper skin of wintertime. So I need to load up on my Osea Malibu. There's nothing better than osea's Ocean Body Glow set. It's a surefire hit for everyone on your list, even the hardest to please. It includes three of osea's best selling body care products at an incredible value. Each item is full sized and packed in a box that's so beautiful you can skip wrapping it thanks to OSEA Gifting just got made easy and we know you'll want to grab one for yourself too. But hurry. This luxurious limited edition set sells out. So save $40 on the [e-mail] and get an additional 10% off with code sisters10 while you can.

[C]

So what does it have? Osea's limited edition Ocean Body Glow set includes a full size Andaria Algae body Oil for antioxidant rich hydration that softens, nourishes and firms. You also get the full size Andaria Algae Body Wash, which is really fantastic. I have very sensitive skin and I was using something that had like no ingredients that would harm it and I tried this and it's even better. It's really, really good. It cleanses and removes impurities, but leaves your skin soft and revitalized. Then to finish it off, you even get the full size Andaria Algae Body Butter, which is a next level body butter that delivers up to 72 hours of hydration and it really, truly does. We all love that one. The OSEA Ocean Body Glow set is the perfect way to try three of osea's best selling products at an incredible value. It's your go to gift for everyone on your list, including yourself. But don't Forget yourself. As soon as I heard about it, I knew it was for me. I particularly love the body butter. I get so many compliments and it leaves my skin with such a smooth texture. It feels so good to apply it. And every time I do, I'm transported back to the coast, even if I'm stuck in Chicago's winter.

[A]

Yeah, that body butter is the best. It smells so good. I want to eat it. It's like, I don't know, it's like a frosting or something. It's the best. You too can give the gift of glow this holiday season with our listener discount on Osea's clean, clinically tested skin care. Just use code SISTERS10 for 10% off your first order site wide at oseamalibu.com that's 10% off your first order with code SISTERS10@o s e a malibu.com the link is in our show Notes well, earlier this week, President Trump issued a new round of pardons for people who participated in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, in addition to the 1500 that he pardoned on Inauguration Day. Jill, can you tell us who are the beneficiaries of this latest round of pardons?

[C]

Barb, you asked about beneficiaries and I want to answer that in multiple parts. First, there are those who were pardoned about 77 for helping Trump interfere in the 2020 election. I'm not sure there are any real beneficiaries there because they're all charged with state crimes. So whatever he did, pardoning them at the federal level is not going to impact any state trials. And that group includes Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, one of my favorite bad people, Sidney Powell, Mark Meadows, Eastman, and they're all facing charges or have pled guilty in Georgia, Arizona. So I would say they're not really beneficiaries. There are some others who he did pardon in the past who have now been re indicted for new crimes. So I'm not sure whether he will pardon them again or not. And that's the, you know, there's just a partial list of these people and it shows the abuse of the pardon power. But addition to all of these, he's pardoned many in his first term, as I said, who have now gone back to a second thing. And I am reminded of pardons that maybe weren't illegal but were or at least not corrupt. His pardons of the other people involved are people who in some way benefited him. They either paid him money or made him rich with cryptocurrency So, I mean, Gerald Ford from your home state, Kim, and Barb has been criticized for pardoning Nixon, but he did it out of his own moral values, out of his own policy beliefs, not because it was a benefit to him. And I don't think you can compare that pardon to anything that Donald Trump is doing. Donald Trump is doing this for personal benefits, not because of anything that has to do with someone being wrongly convicted. So it's a really bad set of circumstances.

[A]

Yeah. You know, Kim, one of the things that's noteworthy about these pardons is, as Jill said, some of these people were charged in state court. None of these people have been charged in federal cases. These are all people who were wrapped up in the fake electors scheme. So can you explain the limits of the pardon power?

[B]

Yeah, I'd be happy to. So the pardon power, on the one hand, is one of the most broad powers that a president has. There's very few limits. Actually, I don't think there's really any limits at all on the ability of a president to issue a pardon and have that pardon stick. But those pardons can only apply to federal charges, as Jill said. So if someone was convicted in state court, like, I don't know, the president was, then that would not be subject to a pardon. And the president also said that he would not pardon himself. Right. Because, you know, he's such a great guy. He would. He would. None of. None of the pardon tea issues would apply to himself. So. Okay, great. Another thing that I think was I mentioned on social media that seemed to relieve a lot of people is that pardons are only for criminal offenses as well. So this was a state action anyway. But all civil actions, a president cannot pardon someone from civil liability. And so people weren't really sure how this might affect Lady Ruby and Shay Moss, for example, in that judgment against Rudy Giuliani, it doesn't. You know, they have settled that under terms that aren't released. All we know is that Rudy Giuliani didn't have to give them his house, which actually kind of made me sad. But, you know, that still is not disturbed by these pardons. So, all in all, it's really symbolic. It's just something that's like, you know, given a little token to these people who he loves so much. And I suppose if there was any new investigation that started that wasn't time barred involving the election interference, it would apply to that, but that's a really long shot. And. And under the present circumstances, these pardons really don't mean much.

[A]

Yeah. Although you know, Jill, it makes me wonder is is Kim said they don't really mean much as a matter of law. You said the same. And so it seems to me that maybe these pardons are instead an effort to rewrite history by suggesting that the challenges to the 2020 election are totally legitimate. This is how we expose fraud. Is there any concern that this is perhaps laying the groundwork for challenges to future elections?

[C]

Yes, it is. And it's part of a piece of his attempt to rewrite history. I mean, I hate to pick on Lindsey Halligan, but one of her jobs before she became the interim U.S. attorney was working for the White House at the Smithsonian to fix all of the historical references in the Smithsonian that might have offended Donald Trump, which is all part of an effort to rewrite history. And I think, you know, as David French wrote this week, acting just like a corrupt king, Trump is transforming the American system of justice into his personal plaything. Friends of the crown break the law with impunity. Enemies of the crown experience the sharp end of the law, whether they deserve it or not. I think the idea of amending the power pardon is really important because, as Kim has already mentioned, it is unlimited and can easily be abused, especially when you combine it with the immunity that the Supreme Court gave to the president.

[B]

Yes.

[C]

There's, like, no way to control him. And so I think it's a real problem. And he is rewriting history in every way he can. Signs at national parks marks have been changed. This is all part of his alternative facts and the world in which he lives versus the reality in which all of us live.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, the pardon power is in the Constitution. The Constitution would have to be amended to change that, or we could elect better people.

[B]

Maybe that's the solution.

[C]

That's the best answer.

[B]

The power is with the people. Don't forget it.

[C]

The holiday season speaks to all of us, and laundry sauce lets you capture the holiday spirit in every wash. From fireside comfort to crisp sophistication, each scent is designed to set the tone for your day and the upcoming celebrations. They have something for everyone, which is why we wanted to tell you about the Himalayan cashmere. It's their newest launch and is their first ever hypoallergenic fragrance designed for even the most sensitive skin, something I really appreciate. It's a soft blend of airy florals, sweet pear, and warm amber that wraps you in instant comfort. Doesn't that sound fabulous? Add in a base of creamy sandalwood and the Himalayan vibe. Summon your favorite cashmere. It's Sophisticated yet inviting. Cozy yet elevated. And when you're working hard, it's like a quiet mountain retreat amid the end of the year stress.

[A]

That sounds amazing. I want to eat that too.

[C]

Are you hungry, Barb? Do we need to feed you before we record this show?

[A]

I must be listening to all these things. Well, actually, Jill, I really love the Australian sandalwood. Speaking of things that smell and taste delicious. And it's warm, rugged, and quietly confident. Kind of like Jill, except for the quiet part. Between cedarwood, eucalyptus, suede and amber, you get a scent that's clean and classic, that never misses and always makes you feel on top of your game. They also have a French saffron that's rich, vibrant and full of character. Elements of velvety saffron, tart sherry and wild strawberry give it a juicy burst. While ribbons of caramel and a hint of spice add a holiday sweetness. There are even warm hints of wood and amber to give you something bold and unforgettable.

[B]

Yeah, I still love the Italian bergamot because it just, you know, it just. I can pretend like I'm on the Amalfi coast and just ignore all the, you know, all the stuff I have to do. There's a lot to choose from with laundry sauce, but no matter which vibe you want to set, the signature and essentials packages deliver the full experience. They even have detergent pods, set boosters, dryer sheets, and more. You'll love how everything is designed to infuse your laundry with high end fragrance fight stains and elevate your laundry to five star status. And one thing I know, not everybody loves a ton of fragrance, but to me it's not overwhelming. It's. It smells good, it's pleasant, but it totally does not overwhelm me. I can get pretty sensitive to scents and they can give me migraines, but that never happens for me. And here's the best part. Laundry sauce is having its biggest sale of the year. Get up to 40% off site wide for a limited time so you can stock up, you can give gifts, you can just treat yourself. That's good enough. And you will have that laundry luxury show up right at your door. There are no last minute store runs or heavy bottles to lug around. Just everything you need exactly when you need it. It makes everything so easy when you have a subscription, especially if you or your loved ones hate going to the store. I really don't like stores, like grocery stores, so I love that. Plus, no matter what your flavor of the week is your house and your fits will truly have a vibe that makes an impression.

[C]

This holiday season, upgrade your routine into a relaxing ritual with Laundry Sauce. During their Black Friday and Cyber Monday signature sale, you'll save up to 40%, get $75, $75 in free gifts, and get free shipping@laundry sauce.com it's the perfect time to treat yourself or gift the world's most luxurious detergent to someone you love. The link is in our show notes.

[A]

Well, now comes the part of the show that we really do like the best, the part where we answer your questions. If you have a question for us, please email us at sisters in law politicon.com or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. If we don't get to your question during the show, keep an eye on our feeds throughout the week where we'll answer as many of your questions as we can. Our first question comes to us from Amy, who asks, why did the case brought by Kim Davis to reverse marriage equality get all the way to the Supreme Court? I know they didn't take up the case, but how did it get that far? Kim, you're our Supreme Court analyst. What do you think?

[B]

Yeah, that's a really great question, Amy. So the answer really is it didn't get to the Supreme Court. As you pointed out, they didn't take up the case. The only thing that happened is Kim Davis, who, if you recall, was a town clerk in Kentucky who refused after the obergefell ruling in 2015 to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She, in refusing to do that, one of those couples sued her and won a jury verdict against her. So now she's challenging that jury verdict. She's appealing it. She has lost at every step of the way so far. And she appealed to the US Supreme Court by filing something called a petition for certiora. But she didn't just seek to get her jury verdict overturned. She could have left it at that, saying she's arguing that it violated her religious freedom, her religious exercise right.

[A]

I'm so tired of that argument.

[B]

I know, I know. She could have just taken that argument saying that because of her First Amendment protection of freedom of religion, that this jury award could not stand. But she went further. She was like, oh, and also, can you overturn Obergefell? And the court, without comment, just turned like, just slammed the door in the face, didn't even let her inside the courtroom and said, no, we're not going to take it. But that doesn't mean it reached the Supreme Court. Anyone can file a petition for certiorari The Supreme Court gets thousands of petitions for certiorari, and they turn the vast majority of them down. That doesn't mean the case made it to the Supreme Court. So that's a better way to think about it. It caught the attention of the press because of who she is. But this is no different than of the thousands of petitions that are filed that just get turned away as a matter of course.

[A]

Very good explanation. Our next question comes to us from Tom, who asks, why are attorneys general from states that had fake electors not pursuing criminal charges? Jill, you want to answer that one?

[C]

I do, because, Tom, actually, they are pursuing state charges. Arizona and Georgia have pending charges. They had charges against several defendants who pled guilty and have been sentenced to five or six years of probation and who have been disbarred or have their law licenses suspended as a result. So the state system is pursuing these cases. So feel good about that.

[A]

I will say in Michigan, where some of the fake electors were charged criminally, the charges were dismissed. They were charged under a forgery statute. So I'm not sure that was the best fit. So, you know, each state's gonna have its own law and different abilities to prosecute and different facts, so. Different abilities.

[C]

That's how the system works exactly, is we need to have the laws of each state observed. And where it violates state law and federal law, you can proceed with both. It's not double jeopardy because it's a different sovereign, but a good point.

[B]

And bringing this back to the people, state lawmakers can enact laws that are more that fit into a circumstance closer to this, now that this has happened. That's the whole point of one big job of lawmakers. When they hold hearings and things, when they're examining something that's happened, it's in part so that they can say, huh, do we need to amend our laws? Do we need to pass a new law? Do we need to do something in order to better address this kind of problem to ensure that justice is done? So I know some states have, even on the federal level, that the way that the electoral count is done was amended after January 6, 2021, in the wake of that, so that one person cannot just block the electors from being counted. So you can let your lawmakers know, hey, I want stronger laws that prevent this kind of shenanigans from happening.

[A]

Shenanigans. That's a great word. Our final question comes to us from Ann in Philadelphia. Ann asks, can you give us a sense of what actually constitutes the Epstein files? This is a great question. I'll take this one. So we don't know exactly, but I will tell you the kinds of things that are typically gathered up in a criminal investigation. So one of the things would be all the statements of witnesses that they've talked to. It could be just based on informal interviews with FBI agents. That's often the first way that an investigation begins, talking to a lot of people. It could also be transcripts of witness testimony, grand jury transcripts, even depositions from civil cases. So there's all of that. But in addition, and it's one of the reasons that when Pam Bondi said we're going to release the grand jury transcripts, it was such a feeble attempt to appease critics because that's likely to be a very small percentage of it. In addition would be items obtained from search warrants and from third parties. So third parties might be things like phone records, bank records, credit card records, flight logs and hotel records. You can learn an awful lot about what's happening from those kinds of records. And then the stuff that's really valuable and that is the fruits of a search warrant. So first they would go in and they did conduct searches at his New York City home and his Palm Beach, Florida home. And so in the physical search, they would have obtained, you know, notes, diaries, journals, objects, photos, videos, audio recordings, anything in the house, the houses that could be evidence in this case. And, you know, teams of agents go through the house and look for all of these kinds of things. In addition, they would have seized his electronic devices and had separate search warrants to look at all of those. So cell phones, tablets, laptops, desktop computers and all of the things that can be found there, email messages, text messages, photographs, videos. The other thing that can be obtained from the phone company is cell site location information requires a search warrant, but it can tell you where that cell phone was located at particular dates and times. So as you can see, it is a treasure trove of information. And the stuff we've seen, the little scraps of, you know, some little memos and some emails and the grand jury transcripts, we've barely scratched the surface. So there's a lot more information. There's that I think is why people are so eager to see all of this. Well, thank you for listening to Sisters in law with Kimberly Atkinstore, Jill Wine Banks and me, Barb McQuaid. Joyce will be back soon. Please follow SistersInLaw wherever you listen and please give us a five star review. It really helps others to find the show and please show some love to this week's sponsors, Wild Alaskan company, Helix Blueland, OCM Malibu and Laundry Sauce. The links are in the show notes. Please support them because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode. Sisters in Law.

[B]

Whoa. It is 4:21. That might be a record.

[A]

See, without that slow talking Joyce, look how fast we can go with her.

[B]

Accent and the way she says insurance.