Podcast Summary: #SistersInLaw, Ep. 263: "A ComeyD of Errors"

Date: November 22, 2025
Hosts: Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuade (Kimberly Atkins Stohr away)
Podcast: Politicon’s #SistersInLaw

Overview

This episode, “A ComeyD of Errors,” delves into three major legal and political controversies of the week:

• The chaotic and error-laden prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey
• Congress’s push to release the Epstein files, including DOJ resistance and legal technicalities
• The legality (and morality) of alleged unlawful military orders under President Trump, especially the targeting of narcotics boats and the position of U.S. military personnel in following such orders

Backed by decades of DOJ and courtroom experience, the hosts pull apart not just the legal “how” but also the “why”, threading in political implications and the personal tolls of government blunders.

Key Topics & Insights

1. The Comey Prosecution: “A ComeyD of Errors”

(Starts at 07:58)

What Happened

• The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia charged former FBI Director James Comey with lying to Congress.
• The prosecution, already seen as thin on merit, ran into massive procedural problems this week.

The Grand Jury Debacle

• A hearing revealed the final indictment wasn’t properly shown to the entire grand jury before they voted (08:00–10:23).
• DOJ first admitted this error in court, then began walking it back, arguing the grand jury foreman had seen and approved it.
• The defense will almost certainly move to dismiss, a rare and serious scenario.

Joyce Vance:

“No, this has never happened to anyone. This is just utterly gross incompetence at work.” (10:23)

• Explanation: Grand juries are constitutionally required to see the full indictment and evidence before returning a prosecution; here, that process failed spectacularly.
• The insurance lawyer-turned-prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, handled the grand jury, despite no criminal experience. She allegedly rushed the process due to impending statute of limitations.

Jill Wine-Banks:

“The lawyers in her office would not even go into the grand jury room with her because they believed this was an unjustified case.” (15:06)

• Both the prior acting U.S. Attorney and experienced staff refused to participate, signaling internal ethical conflicts.

Fallout & Possible Consequences

• The judge may call the entire grand jury to testify about what happened—a virtually unprecedented move.
• The prosecution’s position is further weakened by other blunders, including misstating the law to the grand jury (putting the burden on the defendant, misrepresenting the Fifth Amendment).

Barb McQuade:

“In my wildest imagination, I couldn’t come up with these hypotheticals. They’re just too farfetched.” (13:50)

• Despite all, it’s possible the case survives this blunder technically (as errors relating to “form” not “substance”), but it taints the government’s credibility and strengthens other defense claims (vindictive prosecution, selective prosecution).

Attorney-Client Privilege & Fourth Amendment Issues

• Evidence may have been improperly seized and reviewed, violating the Fourth Amendment and attorney-client privilege.
• An old warrant was used beyond its proper scope, and a filter team was not initially used.
• If the taint is too great, a judge could, in theory, dismiss the case with prejudice (25:58–29:45).

Memorable Quote:

“The botches before the grand jury, all of these things are… They’d be laughable if they weren’t so serious.” – Barb McQuade (30:44)

Underlying Theme

• The appointment of Lindsey Halligan exemplifies the Trump administration’s willingness to install loyalists over competence.
• All hosts note the grave erosion of DOJ norms and the high risk such appointments pose.

2. The Fight Over Epstein Files

(42:00–51:04)

Congressional Action

• Congress passed the “Epstein Files Transparency Act”, forcing DOJ to release files on Jeffrey Epstein.

Legal Basis & DOJ Pushback

• While transparency and oversight generally support congressional access, DOJ has invoked exceptions—most notably the ongoing investigation exemption—to shield documents.
• The Attorney General, Pam Bondi, previously stated the investigation was closed but suddenly announced a new probe—targeting only Democrats—just as the files were poised for release.

Barb McQuade’s Skepticism:

“Call me a little dubious when she already said there was no case to investigate. And suddenly now that we’re on the brink of this release, she says, oh yeah, there is some investigation. Because now that gives her a basis to deem certain documents relevant, prevent their disclosure…” (44:11)

Trump Protection & Weaponization

• Jill and Joyce argue that since Trump isn’t under investigation, records referencing him should be released.
• The hosts agree this is political cover, likely designed to shield Trump-linked documents while scapegoating Democrats.
• Joyce: “Donald Trump is not under investigation. He has said only Democrats. Epstein is a Democrat problem is what Trump said, there’s no reason to not turn over the rest of this.” (46:18)

Victims Again Ignored

• The discussions increasingly center the political wrangling, rather than justice for Epstein’s victims.

Memorable Quote:

“I always remember this is about girls who were victims and women who became survivors, and I feel like so much of this is no longer centered on them. And their really legitimate demand for justice.” – Joyce Vance (46:42)

Statute of Limitations & Future Accountability

• On sex trafficking, there is no statute of limitations; were new facts to emerge, new charges could be brought even years later.
• Realistically, the hosts doubt the truth about Trump and Epstein’s relationship will emerge until after Trump leaves office.

3. Illegal Orders and the Use of Lethal Force Abroad

(56:11–67:03)

The Issue

• The Trump administration has authorized the military to attack boats allegedly carrying drugs, resulting in the deaths of more than 80 civilians.
• Trump’s legal rationale, according to reports, is that drug smuggling (specifically cocaine, not fentanyl) constitutes an “armed attack” on the U.S., justifying military action.

Legal and Moral Quagmire

• Unlike past presidential military actions (e.g., the Bin Laden raid), no clear evidence of ongoing armed conflict is presented here.
• Even Bush-era OLC head John Yoo considers the strikes illegal.

Barb McQuade:

“Automakers make cars that end up causing people to die. And we don’t, you know, use lethal strikes against auto factories… This is a legal issue. It is not a military issue.” (57:40)

Definitions & Precedent

• Legal “armed conflict” requires sustained hostilities by organized armed forces—not drug running.
• Code of Federal Regulations: prior limited interventions didn’t rise to the level of “armed conflict” (59:08).

Soldiers Ordered to Commit Potential Crimes

• Military members must follow lawful orders and disobey unlawful ones—but in practice, when the top military lawyers (JAGs) are pushed out for dissent, this becomes nearly impossible to navigate.
• The OLC’s secret memo greenlighting the strikes is described as “CYA” (cover-your-ass): legal theater masking real legal peril for soldiers.

Jill Wine-Banks:

“They could be tried for murder of civilians… And they aren’t able to get the kind of answers [because] the T JAGs… have been fired…” (63:11)

Congressional Oversight and Public Dissent

• Six members of Congress (including veterans) made a public video reminding troops about their duty to disobey illegal orders.
• Trump responded by calling for them to be tried for treason—a chilling echo of authoritarian regimes.

Joyce Vance (reading from her Substack):

“Even if these members of Congress had done something traitorous, which they absolutely didn’t…the president doesn’t get to impose punishment. That’s up to the courts, and he certainly doesn’t get to impose the death penalty. That happens in countries like North Korea, Iran, and Saudi Arabia...This news…is not politics. And it should be discussed at kitchen tables and Thanksgiving dinner tables across our country.” (65:34)

4. Listener Q&A

(75:28–82:10)

Connecting Epstein & Watergate

• Jill draws parallels: both scandals featured government cover-ups, loyalists, and high-level criminality.
• Watergate’s crimes were petty compared to the grave human harm in Epstein’s case.

“We need to keep in mind not just the similarities… but even more serious than Watergate and that we need to do whatever we can to end this nightmare.” – Jill Wine-Banks (78:26)

Ghislaine Maxwell’s Prison Status

• There’s a strong legal basis for a new administration to reclassify her to a higher security prison based on protocol, unless she’s pardoned.

State Charges for Pardoned Federal Co-conspirators

• Presidential pardons don’t impact state charges, so the fake electors and co-conspirators can still face accountability at the state level.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Joyce Vance on Grand Jury Chaos:

  “This is, frankly, a defense lawyer’s dream, bringing in grand jurors to talk about all of this.” (13:36)

• On the Consequences of Appointing Loyalists:

  “It reminds me of a concept…in authoritarian regimes…people get picked for high level jobs not because of their skill or experience or expertise, but…willingness to do the bidding of the boss…” – Barb McQuade (29:55)

• On DOJ Weaponization:

  “It is proof of weaponization of the Department of Justice. For all of us who really took pride in being part of the Department of Justice…this is an egregious error.” – Jill Wine-Banks (33:43)

• On Political Retaliation and Violence:

  “We need to understand that this is country, not politics, and we need to be talking about it.” – Joyce Vance (66:56)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Holiday Traditions/Recipes: 02:04–05:46
• Comey Grand Jury Blunder & Legal Analysis: 07:58–34:19
• Epstein Files Congressional/DOJ Battle: 42:00–51:04
• Illegal Military Orders & UCMJ Discussion: 56:11–67:03
• Listener Q&A: Watergate & Maxwell: 75:28–82:10

Tone & Style

• Wry, pointed, but deeply informed and exasperated by mounting government dysfunction.
• Candid, often humorous moments (especially with metaphors about blundering officials and ridiculous analogies).
• Serious undertones, especially regarding the threats to legal norms and American democracy.

Bottom Line

This episode captures a deep sense of alarm and exhaustion among lifelong professionals over the legal “errors” being normalized at the highest levels. The hosts tie each story to the broader erosion of the rule of law, with repeated calls for accountability and public awareness. For anyone tracking the arc of American justice—both the technical intricacies and the larger battle between principle and power—this is a must-listen.

For detailed analysis of each discussed legal controversy, refer to the segments with the noted timestamps.