B (3:31)

The soup is such a great idea, and using the leftovers for creating something new is one of my favorite things. And the friend who I am co writing the teen book with sent me some of her favorite leftover recipes. One was for turkey tetra. That sounds yummy.

C (3:50)

I love turkey tetrazzini.

B (3:52)

Well, the one I really loved the best was she sent me a Rachael Ray recipe for making waffles out of your leftover stuffing and then putting turkey meat in between to make a turkey sandwich. Doesn't that sound yummy? I don't have a waffle machine, but I think I could make it into a pancake and use that instead of bread.

C (4:15)

So I know there's like a Southern thing where you have a waffle with fried chicken tenders on it. You know, it's sort of like instead of a biscuit, you have a waffle.

B (4:23)

Right.

C (4:24)

It's really delicious. It's one of my favorite things to order for brunch. It might be worth getting a little waffle iron. It is. You know, we're taping this Friday. It's Black Friday. Jill, why not live a little?

B (4:35)

Maybe that's the answer. And my husband loves waffles. It's something he frequently orders in any breakfast restaurant. So maybe. Maybe that is in my cards or if my friends are listening, gift idea. Sorry. Okay, so now on with the show.

C (5:04)

This year is flying by way too fast. We're into the holidays, and between work, planning trips, and preparing for family, there's a lot of stress that can keep us from feeling and being our best. The where did the time go? Anxiety is real, and it can leave you feeling scattered and behind. The Calm app is the perfect way to reset and recenter. Calm is the number one app for sleep and meditation, and it's here to help you feel better. So if you're feeling like you could use some support navigating life's ups and downs, get the relief you need with CALM sessions. They offer a wide range of content designed with your peace and well being in mind.

B (5:44)

No matter what life throws at you, CALM is perfect for every mood and moment. There's every type of program that you could possibly imagine, whether it is a guided meditation designed to help you work through anxiety and stress, boost your focus, build healthier habits, and take better care of your physical health. There are also sleep stories. I know Joyce uses those to help her go to sleep.

C (6:09)

I love them.

B (6:10)

Sleep meditations, calming music that will help you drift off to restful sleep quickly and naturally. It's so relaxing. Even when you feel like you're juggling everything at once, like at these holiday times. It's the perfect end to a stressful day. But when you're feeling overwhelmed, we recommend you try their grounding exercises to help you relax and reset. CALM even has powerful expert led talks designed to help you handle grief, improve self esteem, better your relationships and more.

A (6:46)

I don't know about you guys, but when I was in law school it was just sort of unheard of that anyone would ever acknowledge that they were under any sort of stress or anxiety or feeling stress.

C (6:57)

What stress? I didn't know what that was.

A (6:59)

I think it was because at the time it was such a male dominated profession in law school. And now I think we acknowledge the importance of wellness and the importance of taking good care of yourself. And that's where CALM comes in. I know that when I'm traveling as I am now, there's nothing better because CALM puts the tools you need right in your pocket so that stress and anxiety relief are always within reach. With more than 2 million 5 star reviews, Calm can help you stress less, sleep more, and live mindfully. Don't wait to calm your mind and change your life. CALM has an exclusive offer just for listeners of our show. You can get 40% off a Calm premium subscription at calm.com sisters. This is an amazing value. Go to C-A-L-M.com sisters for 40% off unlimited access to Calm's entire library. Again, calm.com sisters and tell Calm you heard about them from us. The link is in our show notes.

C (8:07)

Well, as Jill said, we joined the rest of the country in mourning the shooting of two National Guardsmen from West Virginia who were stationed in the District of Columbia as part of the deployment of federalized troops in the nation's capital. One of them, a 20 year old woman has passed away. It was a tragic lead in to Thanksgiving and a horrific crime. Let's set the stage for how we got to this point. Barb, can we start with the judge's decision last week, which we didn't get a chance to cover in the press of all of the other news, but she held that the deployment itself wasn't lawful. Can you explain the basis for her decision and why after she made that ruling, there were still troops deployed in the District?

A (8:52)

Well, I joined Jill and Joyce in sharing my condolences to the families of the two Guard members who were shot, one of whom was killed. It's a terrible tragedy and it seemed like one that could have been avoided. But Joyce, to answer your question, we did have a ruling last week by a U.S. district Court judge in the District of Columbia. She issued a 61 page opinion. This was from Judge Gia Cobb. And she analyzed the federal law here. And remember that because Washington is the seat of the federal government, it's a little different from some of the other cities where we've seen federal deployments and ICE agents like Portland and Chicago and Memphis and Charlotte and some of these other places. Because as the seat of government, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to govern. And then by legislation, Congress, in enacting what's called the Home Rule act, gave the District of Columbia local control to elect a mayor and a city council and other things. There is a provision, however, that allows the president to federalize local law enforcement when necessary to protect the national security. And so what he really did was not so much to federalize the local police to help with some federal offense as to install federal agents to address crime issues. It's supposed to be for a limited period of time in an emergency situation. And what the judge found is that President Trump has exceeded those powers under the Home Rule Act. But the reason they're still there, Joyce, to answer your second question, is that she said that she would delay the implementation of her order for three weeks to give the government an opportunity to appeal her decision to the Court of Appeals. So even though she entered this ruling last week, we were still in that three week period when the shooting occurred.

C (10:52)

You know, and that's pretty routine, right? Especially when the federal government is the litigant. Judges will typically stay their orders to give the judge, or rather to give the government the opportunity to appeal. Sometimes they'll do that with other litigants as well. So there's no suggestion that anything improper happened here. But that does help us understand why the Guard troops were still deployed in the District of Columbia after the judge's ruling. And so, Jill, moving on to the specifics of the crime here, the shooter, it turned out, was a refugee from Afghanistan. He came into this country as part of the program that the Biden administration was pressured into implementing. You'll recall that there was a lot of criticism that they were moving too slowly to bring Afghani citizens who had cooperated, who had worked with the US Government into the country. And so as Biden was winding down American involvement in Afghanistan, there is an influx of people who came here. This individual was granted asylum earlier this year. And as a result of the shooting, the administration now plans to slow down all vetting of refugees from Afghanistan, even those who work with Americans. Is that lawful? And then is it a good idea? You have such a unique perspective, having worked in the military, that I've really been wanting to hear your take on this, because it's a difficult situation.

B (12:18)

It is a difficult situation, but let's look at it beyond just the law. People in Afghanistan helped us in our fight there. Whether you think the fight was just or not doesn't matter. We were there, and they helped us as did. And I'm not going to use his name because I don't think he deserves to have any recognition, but the shooter who worked with the CIA, and it's. It's sort of still in question. I think it's important to understand this as to exactly what his role was. There is some reporting that he was part of a killing unit, basically that he was a hired assassin.

A (13:02)

And.

B (13:04)

But he was brought in because we were letting in anybody who helped us. But he was granted asylum under Biden, not. Not Biden, No. He was granted asylum under Trump just a few months ago. So when the Trump administration keeps saying, oh, this is a Biden program, and blaming that administration, that isn't the case. They say he wasn't vetted by Biden's administration when he was admitted into the US but now what are they saying? That they didn't vet him before they granted him asylum recently. So I think we need to remember that this isn't a question of blame. But what's worse, and what I think is awful, although it may be lawful, is that they are now starting to reevaluate everyone who's here, who's from Afghanistan, and possibly from 18 other countries that are deemed questionable. They are going to look at all of those people who are here in America, from Afghanistan, from Cuba, from Haiti, from Iran, Somalia, Venezuela, and many other countries at the President's direction. And they're going to see whether they should be pulling the visas that were issued and the green cards that were issued. I think it may be lawful, but as you would say, Joyce, it's awful. And one bad actor does not justify this behavior. And so, you know, think about this man worked for us, the CIA, and is now. We don't know his motive. We don't know anything about whether he's a lone shooter or not. But that doesn't justify the action of trying to prevent all other Afghanis from coming and all who are already here from possibly being removed.

C (15:01)

You know, I really appreciate your take on that because I share your sentiment that casting blame shouldn't be what this is about. There needs to be an after action report. There needs to be investigation into did this individual come here compromised, Was he turned after he got here? What steps were missed in the process where he was vetted and permanently paroled into this country. And so the focus, it seems to me, should be both on the victims and also on getting it right in the future cases. I'm sure that there's plenty of blame to go around here. Right. This is shared responsibility under two administrations. And it seems really a shame that we're at the point where this is about finger pointing and not about protecting Americans. Perhaps, you know, sort of a little bit of the paradigm for where we are these days. But, Barb, the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, who always calls himself the Secretary of War, announced in the immediate aftermath of the shooting that Trump would deploy an additional 500 troops in the nation's capital. What's the status of that? And given the prior ruling that you discussed by the judge, would that be lawful at this point?

A (16:16)

Yeah, it's a really strange order, I think. You know, we've had this terrible random act of violence, but to sort of double down on it really does seem to be a blunt instrument here. We've got a judge's order finding the deployment to be illegal, especially to the extent they are bringing in National Guard troops from other states. And despite that order, now he doubles down, which strikes me as more of a political move than it is about actual need. But nonetheless, I think it violates the spirit of the judge's order. It violates the letter of the judge's order. But because she has stayed it for three weeks until December 11, in theory, it's not enforceable until that time. And so they don't have to remove troops until then. Presumably, if they file an appeal, they could get a lengthier Stay while the court of appeals looks at it. So I don't think it's. I don't think anything's going to be done about it. Let's leave it at that.

C (17:14)

So is this splitting hairs? I looked back at her original order, and she sort of specifies. She says no more troops can be deployed pursuant to. And she lists sort of a number of memos that were written. I mean, could he just come up with some sort of crazy new rationale? Could he just say, you know, I'm doing it because of this situation, and then just do it and skirt her order completely?

A (17:37)

I mean, I think so. You know, all of this will come under the appeal. I think he will say the situation changed from the time she entered her order. That created this new need for me to activate an additional 500. As I said, I think it violates not only the spirit but the letter of her ruling. But I think because of this status, that it's stayed until December 11th. I don't know that much is going to be done about it.

B (18:02)

And can.

A (18:03)

Can.

B (18:04)

Can I just add that I think that it's also possible that the plaintiffs will ask for a change in her staying the order because of what happened, because the guard here in D.C. are not doing anything that is productive, in my view. They have been doing landscaping work, picking up garbage, patrolling the streets with no particular thing in mind. They have no arrest power. And it just seems to me that maybe there is another case to be made for saying her order should not be stayed, that it should be put into effect and let the government try to make a difference in that and try to avoid it that way.

C (18:48)

So the law enforcement folks in the district have said, Jill, that the shooter acted alone, despite that initial conclusion. There are investigation basics that have to be completed to ensure public safety. What do you expect that agents are doing right now? What are they looking at? What sort of information do they need before they can make a final call that this was, in fact, a lone wolf?

B (19:12)

They have a lot of investigation to do and have already done some of it. They have started interviewing his family, his wife, and I don't know the ages. He has four or five children, I think five children. And I don't know what their ages are. So I'm not sure whether they're being interviewed. His neighbors, his friends, his clergy will be interviewed because they need to find a motive and to understand whether he is a lone wolf or whether he was part of some terrorist plot. They will and have already searched his home. They've seized his computer his iPad, his phone. They will go to work on analyzing his social media and anything that they find on those devices to see who he talked to and what he was saying. They will look for his phone records, which is different than looking at the phone. It's just who did he contact? They will also be looking at he drove from the state of Washington totally across country to Washington D.C. and so they're going to want to look at where did he stay along the way, who did he talk to while he was traveling. And some of that will be in his phone records, just who he called, not what they said in those calls. They're going to want to look at where did he get the.357 revolver that he used. And I think we have to be grateful that it was a revolver, although it was a high powered weapon, it wasn't an automatic because think of how many people would have been dead. And when we're saying condolences, I want to say condolences to the National Guard who had to shoot the shooter in order to stop him from doing more. And to all the Guard and all the civilians who saw this. That is going to cause them some stress going forward for sure. So I think they're going to do all of that. And I think they will also review what exactly was his role in the CIA and they'll look at what was the vetting process before he came here the first time, what was the vetting process before the Trump administration granted him asylum. And they'll talk to anyone he worked with when he was with the CIA. So there's a lot to be done. And the CIA and anybody else, the local law enforcement is now working somewhat with the National Guard. They may be involved in doing some of the investigation as well.

C (21:38)

So, Jill, you know, you just mentioned that the shooter was shot by another National Guardsman. He was neutralized, he was taken into custody, but he is in the hospital in serious condition, although they apparently expanded. Expect him to recover and if that happens, he'll be prosecuted, most likely by the local U.S. attorney's office. He would now be facing murder charges. Donald Trump, in the meantime, has called the shooter a, quote, an animal. And he says he shot the guard members, quote, at point blank range in a monstrous ambush style attack just steps away from the White House. Typically, presidents stay away from talking about any sorts of cases that are under prosecution. They have that. Their words might, for instance, give the defendant an easy get out of jail free card where a defendant can argue that the jury was prejudiced by the comments of someone as important who carries as much weight as a president. So presidents typically don't do this when they stumble into it. They've always issued quick apologies. Do you think that Donald Trump, engaging in the way that he has, because he's spoken repeatedly about the case, is there any risk that that could impair a prosecution when it happens? Barb, what do you think?

A (22:55)

Oh, yeah, there's always a risk. You know, a defendant's fair trial rights include a right, you know, of due process to have an untainted jury pool. And when you've got not just a member of the government, but the President of the United States making these kinds of comments, it makes it that much more difficult. Now, I think most often the jury selection process can help to weed out anybody who might have heard these comments or who says they can't decide the case fairly on the basis of what they hear in court. But it's making the prosecutor's jobs much harder to have these statements out there, because it's something they're going to have to deal with now at trial.

B (23:33)

I agree completely with Barbara. I think that it will complicate things, but that it is something that you can weed out in the jury selection process. I think you don't want somebody who has never heard anything about this, but someone who says, I can put aside anything I've heard outside the courtroom and make my decision based on the evidence presented in this court. And that has happened in other cases. The Manafort juror who came forward after the verdict and said, I believed he was, you know, innocent. I believed everything I was told until I heard the evidence, and then I voted to convict him. So I think that it is something that will be overcome.

A (24:18)

Yeah.

C (24:19)

You know, in my perfect world, presidents wouldn't comment on criminal cases that are going to be brought by the federal government. And I think it sort of speaks to Pam Bondi's relationship with the President. I mean, maybe by now she has had the conversation and she has said, sir, you're making our jobs a little bit more difficult. But it's important that someone who commits an act of terrorism like that, I mean, that's the. I think that's the suspicion. Right. As you point out, there's investigation underway. We don't know the motives yet, so I don't want to get in front of my skis there. But something like this that involves attacking National Guardsmen, members of our military deserves to be prosecuted, and this defendant should be held accountable, and we deserve justice for this crime. So I hope everyone who's involved will be cautious about that when they make public comments. Fall feels like a reset between the back to school hustle, busier routines and shorter days. Finding time to cook can be tough. That's why we had to tell you about how much we love Factor because we know you'll love it too. Factor's chef prepped dietitian approved meals make it easy to stay on track and enjoy something comforting and delicious no matter how hectic things get this season.

A (25:45)

There's so much variety and so many meal options every week. It seems like they have a wider selection of weekly meal options for you to choose from, including premium seafood choices like salmon and shrimp at no extra cost. I'm loving these Factor meals because there is no assembly required. You just heat em up and they're good to eat. Factor is also perfect for supporting your wellness goals since you know exactly what you're getting and the nutrition it contains. You can even enjoy GLP1 friendly meals and new Mediterranean diet options packed with protein and good for you fats. With Factor you get more choices and better nutrition than other services. That's why 97% of customers say Factor helped them live a healthier life. You'll be amazed at how quickly the time and money you save can add up.

B (26:34)

You know, I grew up with TV dinners which were frozen horrible things that came wrapped in tin foil. But that's not what this is. This is fresh product that tastes like it was homemade. It's really good and you can feel the difference no matter what your routine. Just think of how much time you'll save. I know Barb, you don't like cooking, but even for those of us who do, this is a way to really, really save time with Factor's two minute meals. They're restaurant quality and come ready to heat and serve. Just two minutes in the microwave and you have a great meal. It's great to have easy snacks, smoothies and more waiting for you when your hunger strikes. One of the best parts of the Factor selection is how you can savor global flavors. My husband and I really like ethnic food the best of all. And now for the first time, Factor has Asian inspired meals with bold flavors influenced by China, Thailand and more.

C (27:40)

Eat smart@factormeals.com SIL50OFF and use code SIL50OFF to get 50% off your first box plus free breakfast for one year. That's code SIL50OFF@factormeals.com for 50% off your first box plus FREE breakfast for one year. Get delicious ready to eat meals delivered with Factor Approved by Barb McQuaid. This offer is only valid for New Factor customers with the code and a qualifying auto renewing subscription purchase. The link is in our show Notes.

B (28:24)

One of the best parts of the holidays is sharing gift and memories. Looking back on the great times you've had with loved ones is the best and looking forward to the times to come is truly incredible. Luckily, we have the perfect gift to celebrate remembering and displaying those memories. It's called an Aura Frame and it allows you to relive your favorite holiday moments every day.

A (28:50)

Yeah, this has been one of my go to gifts and my mom has one, my father in law has one and he just loves it and he tries to describe it to his friends and he doesn't know what to call it. He always says what's that thing with the pictures that rotate? And I say your digital Aura frame? Yes, that's the one. Well, whether you get one for your home or for a beloved friend or family member, one of the most exciting things about the gift is picking out the photos that go into it. I like to add photos to the gifts, especially when I give it to my mother and father in law. So it's ready to go. But since it's on a digital picture frame, you can load as many memories as you want. There is no limit. Better yet, it's super easy to set up. Just download the Aura app, connect it to wifi and from there you can put in an unlimited number of photos or videos. Plus you can change what it displays at any time. I actually change it every month. I have a folder I create for like the month of January. I've got pictures of my kids skiing and you know, all kinds of good stuff. And I change it up every month which makes it kind of fun because it's always a new assortment of pictures.

C (29:52)

You know, looking at our photos and videos from the past is one of my family's favorite holiday traditions and our Aura frames make it easy. Especially if you have kids, even grown ones. It makes a great gift to keep you connected. You can even personalize your aura frames by adding a message for the recipient before it arrives.

A (30:12)

For a limited time you can visit auraframes.com and get $45 off Aura's best selling Carver mat frames named number one by wire cutter by using Promo Code Sisters at checkout. That's a U R A frames.com promo code sisters this exclusive Black Friday Cyber Monday deal is their best of the year, so order now before it ends. Support the show by mentioning us at checkout terms and conditions apply. The link is in the show notes.

B (30:50)

After President Donald Trump publicly urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute the former FBI director and the New York attorney general, the interim US Attorney, Eric Siebert, who wouldn't do that because he said there wasn't enough evidence, he was let go just days before the statute of limitation was going to run. And a newly appointed Lindsey Halligan was put into office to get the indictment despite the lack of evidence and the refusal of anyone in the office who worked on this case to be involved in it. So she did get the indictment. It, of course, made it look like this was a vindictive and selective prosecution by an unlawfully appointed Halligan. And this week, a federal district judge, Cameron Curry, ruled that Halligan's appointment was indeed unlawful and that the cases against Comey and James had to be dismissed as a result. And that's before they even heard any of the substantive merits grounds for dismissing the indictment. So Joyce Curry is a judge in South Carolina, not the Eastern District of Virginia. Why was she hearing the motion to dismiss on grounds that Halligan was not lawfully appointed?

C (32:11)

Yeah, you know, this is such a great question. It's the kind of thing that we all assume the answer to, but it's not obvious to people who haven't practiced this kind of law. And it's a simple answer. It was done to avoid a conflict of interest. So the judges were being called upon to decide whether or not Halligan had been properly appointed as the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. And that's a tough thing for any of the judges in the Eastern District to decide for this reason. In fact, the defense argued it wasn't up to Donald Trump or to Pam Bondi to appoint a U.S. attorney because the government, the executive branch had already had its temporary 120 day appointment with Eric Siebert. And because that period had expired and he had been appointed by the court before he resigned as their pick to be the interim. It's actually up to the court, not the government at this point to decide who the U.S. attorney is. Well, you can't have the judges who would be making that decision in the role of deciding whether Halligan's appointment itself was valid. So instead of having one of the Virginia judges make that decision, the chief judge of the 4th Circuit kicked it up to Judge Curry, a senior judge highly respected in South Carolina, for her to make that call on this one very limited issue. All of the substantive issues that you referred to are in front of Judge Nachmanoff. And the magistrate judge working with him in edva.

B (33:41)

Exactly. And although we did discuss last week some of the reasons for the arguments, I think, Barb, it's worth a quick reminder for why Trump and Bondi cannot appoint an interim after their first choice, who had already served 120 days, was then appointed by the local judges in the federal district there. Why we're in this situation now.

A (34:10)

Yeah. The whole point of these interim orders and the statutes about them is to make sure the President isn't circumventing the Constitution's advice and consent rule for the Senate. So ordinarily the way US Attorneys are appointed is that the President gets to nominate somebody and then the Senate must confirm them. But the law does recognize sometimes there is a situation where a temporary leader is needed. And so to fill those vacancies, the President is allowed to appoint, I guess it's actually the Attorney General is allowed to appoint an interim U.S. attorney, but only for 120 days. That is again, to avoid this circumvention. And then after those 120 days expire, the statute says the district court gets to choose who is the U.S. attorney unless and until there is a Senate confirmed U.S. attorney. And what President Trump tried to do here is after Eric Siebert had left, whether he was fired or resigned for refusing to indict Comey and Letitia James, they tried to get a do over. They tried to start over and restart the 120 day clock by appointing Lindsey Halligan. And what the court has said here and in several other districts, no, you get 120 days and that's it. That's what the statute says. You don't get to keep adding sequentially more. And the judge even said this also can't be ratified retroactively because otherwise you could just keep doing it again and again indefinitely without ever complying with that Senate confirmation requirement.

B (35:38)

Right. And that's one of the premises of our government is separation of powers and who has the power to do this. But. So, Joyce, let's look at what Curry said. Let's look a little more in depth about the need to dismiss the cases as a result of this unlawful appointment of a U.S. attorney.

C (35:59)

Yeah. So, you know, the argument really is a very simple sort of an elegant argument. Right. The judge concludes that since Halligan wasn't properly appointed, she couldn't seek an indictment from the grand jury. Only someone who's a federal prosecutor can do that. Halligan wasn't that, hence no indictment. And so she writes in her order, because Ms. Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment. I will grant Mr. Comey's motion and dismiss the indictment. And she explains all Aactions flowing from Ms. Halligan's defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. Comey's indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby set aside. And of course, that's very interesting. Right, because that suggests that there are implications beyond the Comey indictment and that anything else that Halligan and only Halligan did might well be at risk of being set aside too.

B (36:57)

And of course, we know that she dismissed the Letitia James case as well. She wrote a similar opinion on that. But I think the Comey case is getting more attention because of the statute of limitations which had run and, and both of these cases were dismissed without prejudice. So all of you non lawyers listening, that means that it could theoretically be refiled. And so that would mean that even though it's been thrown out, it isn't the end of those cases. But Barb, can you talk about whether it actually does mean that?

A (37:37)

Yeah. So in the case of Letitia James, mortgage Fraud has a 10 year statute of limitations. And so what the judge said is, I'm putting them back in the position, the defendants back in the position they were in before they were indicted. So if they can get a validly appointed U.S. attorney or some other legitimate attorney for the government to go back into the grand jury and convince the grand jury there is probable cause, then Letitia James can be re indicted. Comey is a trickier question because you may recall that he was indicted on the Thursday before the statute of limitations was to run, which was on the following Monday. In fact, I still speculate that the reason of all of this mess is that they got to Thursday at the end of the day and there was a problem. And Lindsay Halligan knew, like, I don't have the opportunity to go back to a grand jury before Monday. And so we, this, this grand jury has to return it. I think that may have caused some of this mess because they were up against the statute of limitations. But there's some questions as to whether even though the statute of limitations had run, they can still indict it. There's a federal statute that says whenever an indictment is dismissed for any reason after the statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned within six months of the date of the dismissal. So it would sound like ordinarily, six months from the date of the dismissal is now the new deadline to file a new indictment against Jim Comey. And that may be true, but his lawyers are Making an interesting argument, and that is this, that because there was never any valid indictment filed whatsoever, then there is not such a deadline. The statute means, you know, dismissal for a variety of reasons about a failure to state a claim or other kinds of things. But because this was never valid in the first place, it's as if it didn't happen. And so for that reason, this statute can't save it and the statute of limitations has run. I don't know about that argument. I haven't seen that argued before. I haven't seen that happen before. My gut is that because the statute says for any reason that they will get this six month grace period. But I think this is going to be an issue. If he gets indicted again, this will be a grounds for dismissal on the next round.

C (40:00)

So, you know, this is a rare occasion where I disagree with you, Barb. I think we might need to have like a deli lunch bet over this one.

A (40:08)

Okay.

B (40:08)

All right.

C (40:08)

I think it's like a genius argument because they're saying, well, you know, if the indictment wasn't valid, nothing ever happened that told that prevented the statute of limitations from running out three days later. And that makes a lot of sense to me. I think you're right that it's gonna, you know, it'll just end up being how whatever appell court makes the final decision sees it. That might be the fourth Circuit. The Supreme Court could easily sidestep this one and just let the fourth Circuit's decision control. Or maybe the Supreme Court will decide to look at this. I think it's a pretty novel first impression sort of issue, something no court has ever been called upon to decide before. So it's fascinating. But it does show how good Jim Comey's lawyers are that they could craft such a carefully nuanced argument.

B (40:56)

It was a brilliant argument and it's very persuasive. I agree that it is a case of first impression, but that's because I think we've never had such an incompetent department of Justice, I'm happy to say. And so this is really incompetence.

A (41:12)

But can I just interject? I don't know about you, Joyce, but I'm working on writing law school exams right now. And you try to come up with all these crazy hypotheticals where this crazy thing happens in the kids. Not in my wildest imagination could I come up with a scenario with as many mistakes as happened in the this Comey indictment.

C (41:31)

It's like, you know, when you write these exams, they're always, you know, they're issue spotters where you just, like, make up ridiculous things. And I have made up some very ridiculous things for exams, never one where the U.S. attorney was not properly appointed. And so you ask them, well, was the indictment valid?

A (41:48)

It.

C (41:49)

It's crazy.

B (41:51)

It is. But so let's look beyond that, because if the case can be refiled, Comey and James have great lawyers who have already filed motions that are now pending before the judge of the Eastern District of Virginia, the judge that really has substantive control of the case. And those motions might be the end of the indictment for substantive reasons. So if you could, Joyce, go into, what are the charges that could be dismissed, and are they the result of selective and vindictive prosecutions? What are those motions? And could that end the case with prejudice, meaning that that's the end of it? They could never be refiled.

C (42:35)

It seems less and less likely that even if refiled, these cases will ever go to trial. And I think it's worth pointing out, by the way, even if they get the six months right, they still have to find somebody to indict the case. And if that. Let's just say for a second that Judge Curie is right, that her decision is upheld, and that they have to find someone, you know, a U.S. attorney appointed by the district court. Until Trump gets his own pick, his own choice, Senate confirmed. It seems to me it's going to be heavy lifting to get somebody that the court puts in place to bring a bogus prosecution. And this will be one of the Most vigorously debated U.S. attorney nominees of all time, knowing that this case is hanging there. So the six months may expire before there's any action. So that's one path. But you're right, Joel, the selective and vindictive prosecution motions, a lot of traction here. And that, too, I think, will loom large. And of course, Comey has this unique standalone argument where he says, hey, folks, what I did was not a crime. I simply reaffirmed my prior testimony. And that's just not the sort of a false statement the government has alleged here. So there are a lot of reasons that these cases may never see a trial jury. Yeah.

B (43:56)

And, you know, there's another one that James might have, which is the person who referred her to the Department of Justice was the Pulte, who is now being sued civilly for invasion of privacy. And that seems like a pretty strong case that could affect the outcome here.

C (44:18)

I mean, he's also under criminal investigation in the District of Maryland, which I think is really interesting because that's where Adam Schiff is under investigation for mortgage fraud. And instead of seeing the indictment of Adam Schiff, we're Instead seeing the U.S. attorney there who is a career prosecutor. I think that she's technically Trump's interim in that district. I don't know if she's the. Has been nominated for the permanent job, but it looks like she's got a little bit of steel in her spine. And I had wondered all along, like, how is Bill Pulte, who's the head of Fannie and Freddie, how is he going in and pulling out information on the President's political enemies and using it, you know, publicly to talk about it, which is pretty strictly verboten. So I am watching that criminal case, along with the civil case filed by California Representative Eric Swalwell, with a lot of interest.

B (45:12)

Right. And remember his family, his. I can't remember if it's a stepfather or father and his mother's family. Yeah. Pulte's family is apparently done exactly the same thing as she is charged with, and therefore has not been prosecuted, of course. So it really is a strong case of vindictive prosecution. And I think there's a vagueness in the Comey indictment that really should end the case as well.

C (45:45)

So, Barb, can I just say one more thing? I mean, because this really galls me. You know, you would have situations in your office before I was the US Attorney, but when I was the US Attorney, where a person of some sort of, you know, public political significance would come to light in an investigation. And if it was somebody from the same party as the sitting U.S. attorney, we'd sort of say, well, too bad. You know, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Don't commit the crime if you can't do the time. And it was just never any sort of a issue that somebody was from the same political party as a sitting U.S. attorney, and nobody was ever targeted because they were from the other party. I think we need to make sure that we're constantly underlining how unusual and unacceptable this is.

B (46:31)

You know, you mentioned Maryland, and let's not forget that the Vice President of the United States, Spiro Agnew, was indicted in. Actually, I think it was a complaint rather than an indictment, but same difference. Was charged in Maryland with bribery and had to resign as a result. So it. And that was in the Nixon administration with A Nixon appointed U.S. attorney. So, yeah, I hate to say it, but we are maybe being Pollyanna when we think we could go back to the time when justice meant justice for all. But okay, so let's look at whether or not something is going to happen in the future. What's next in this particular case? Joyce, do you want to go into that?

C (47:20)

Well, I think what comes next is an appeal. Right. Barb has already hinted at that the government can't let this sit, in part because they have the other pending U.S. attorney controversies in other districts, but also because they are so just hell bent on vindictiveness in these cases. I don't think we'll see them, you know, let any of this alone. The really interesting question, however, the Fourth Circuit rules, is whether the Supreme Court will take this one up. And we won't know the answer to that until we get to that stage in the proceedings.

B (47:53)

And Barb, two last questions on this that I find fascinating. One, is this different than cases involving other improperly appointed U.S. attorneys? And there are several, including Alina Haba and California, Nevada. So first question, is this a different situation here? And then what are Comey and James responses and what does this all mean for what's happening at the Department of Justice?

A (48:24)

Yeah, this case is different from those cases. I believe, you know, courts have found that this excessive. 120 days or re upping after 120 days. There have been sort of different scenarios. But this issue in general has been addressed by courts for the U.S. attorneys in Nevada, New Jersey and the Central District of California, where Los Angeles lives. Los Angeles is. Sorry. Well, Los Angeles does live there too.

C (48:52)

I like that. Los Angeles does live. Yes.

A (48:56)

And found all of these to be improperly appointed. But what's different is in those cases, there were other attorneys for the government, which is the language that's used in the grand jury statute and rules. An attorney for the government must be present to present the indictment before the grand jury. And so they had assistant US Attorneys in all of those cases appointing all of the, presenting all of the indictments in those cases and signing them. So those were otherwise valid in the cases of James and Comey, unlike these other cases, it was Lindsey Halligan and Lindsey Halligan only who signed these indictments and made the presentation to the grand jury. So there was no. If, if her appointment is invalid, then there was no attorney for the government present in the grand jury room to present these indictments. And that's why they had to be dismissed in this case, even though the cases in the other districts were not dismissed. So that's why these cases could. This could be the end now. It could be that if there's an appeal by the government, those decisions get reversed. But one other course that the government could pursue is to just simply try to re indict both of them using that six month grace period from the statute. Of course, as Joyce points out, it may be that the Comey case is invalid, but in some ways they would be wise to do it. Because don't forget, as we talked about the comedy of errors last week, there were a lot of mistakes in the Comey indictment, including misstatements of the law that Lindsey Halligan made about Jim Comey's fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination, about other evidence being available that the grand jury had not seen. I think if they want to pursue this case altogether, then doing a redo might be better off. However, what might even be better is to just stop and go home. You know, Ed Martin, the head of the Weaponization Working Group, has said that his goal is to name and shame people, even if the evidence isn't sufficient to convict people of crimes. If it is to inflict humiliation. Maybe we're just done. And maybe if you're giving advice to Ed Martin, you would say, why don't you just declare victory and go home? You know, they're complaining enough about the left woke radical judges. Maybe the time has come just to pull the plug on these two cases. Places.

B (51:15)

Amen.

A (51:25)

Well, it's starting to get cold here in Michigan. I don't know about you, Jill, but the snow is starting to fall. There are some drawbacks to the winter season, but one of the best parts is being able to build out your wardrobe with stylish layers made to last. And that's where Quince comes in. It's our go to for quality essentials that feel cozy, look refined and won't blow your budget. I wore my cashmere crew neck sweater in burgundy for our Thanksgiving family feast. Jill, what do you think? It's probably getting there a little colder in Chicago too. Are you pulling out the quints?

B (51:59)

Yes, I am because the prediction is for 10 inches of snow starting at 3am on Saturday. So when I wake up on Saturday, I'm going to take out I have a cashmere quince shawl that I plan to wear even in the house. It just is so cozy and it feels so good and it's not like my pashminas. It's a really thick and warm and wonderful thing. I love Quince's Mongolian cashmere. It's perfect for warmth, comfort and style as we head into this horrible winter storm, especially when they start at just $50. They also have premium denim that fits like a dream and luxe outerwear you'll wear year after year. These are the pieces we turn to time and again and you'll find that they quickly become an essential part of your winter uniform.

C (52:58)

Quince's designer level Italian wool coats look gorgeous without the high end markup and the quality is really great. I'll fill you in on their secret. Quint's partners with top tier ethical factories and they cut out the middleman, which is how they can consistently deliver luxury quality pieces at half the price of similar brands. When you choose Quince, you're getting a wardrobe upgrade that feels smart, stylish and effortless at prices you'll love.

B (53:27)

You know, when you talk about stylish and smart looking, when you're getting dressed and you want to feel like really special, you need Quince's washable, stretchable silk blouse. The material feels amazing and the style is perfect for holiday parties or for under a suit jacket. There's nothing better than looking your best and that will make you do that. And if you're prioritizing fitness as we head into the holiday season, the best workout motivation is new activewear from Quince.

A (54:00)

So step into the holiday season with layers made to feel good, look polished. And last from Quince, perfect for gifting or keeping for yourself. Go to quince.comsisters for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q I N C E dot com sisters to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com sisters. The Trump administration is now investigating members of Congress for participating in a video message reminding service members of their duty to disobey illegal orders. Trump has called it sedition. Others call it free speech. Let's break it down. Joyce, first, just tell us about this story, like about the video, who's in it, what was the context and what did they say?

C (55:03)

You know, this is another one of those situations. If you made this up and put this on a law school exam like in a First Amendment class.

A (55:09)

Yeah, too easy.

C (55:10)

I mean, you would get fired, right? So there are six former members of the military or the intelligence community who are members of Congress who made a video together that most of you I think have seen. Barb, your new senator, Alyssa Slotkin, is in it. She's joined by Mark Kelly, the Arizona senator, Gabby Gifford's husband, Representatives Jason Crow from Colorado, Chris Deluzio from Pennsylvania, Maggie Goodlander in New Hampshire and Chrissy Houlahan from Pennsylvania. Those are the six and the Video states this very non controversial proposition that people in the military and the intelligence community should not follow illegal orders. You know, that's a correct statement of law. And this controversy is a little bit mystifying. I mean, does Donald Trump want people to think that members of the military should follow illegal orders? It's hard to think, but that's not at the heart of this. But the video itself, I think, is it maybe it's provocative to the extent that it suggests that Donald Trump either has or might issue illegal orders, but as a technical matter, that constitutes a violation of law. This just done ring that bell?

A (56:24)

Yeah. It's interesting you mentioned the members of Congress who are in this. They're all veterans, former service members, or in the case of Senator Alyssa Slotkin from Michigan, she was a CIA officer. So these are people who have worked in national security. And I think that was very interesting because, Jill, as we mentioned earlier, President Trump called it sedition, was very angry about this video. Is there any merit to it? And let me ask it to you this way. I have heard from some people who say, why are they so cagey in what they're talking about? We're just reminding you to, of your obligation to disobey an illegal order. Why not come out and say it? We're talking about these Venezuelan airstrikes, right? Why they don't. They never come out and say that. They just say you have a right to disobey an illegal order. Is Trump, is there any merit to the outrage? Even if it's, of course it's not sedition, but why not come out and say what it is they're talking about? Why talk around it like this? Is it more of a PR exercise or is it truly a message to these service members?

B (57:31)

I think, of course, it is not treason. It is not sedition. The threats of death or hanging are just. It's horrifying and so improper. There is no merit to what they're being accused of. Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military justice makes it very clear that you cannot obey an unlawful order. The real crisis here is that identifying what is a patently or manifestly unlawful order is a little tricky, especially when the T jags for all the services were removed from office.

A (58:10)

And tell us what a T JAG is.

B (58:12)

Oh, sorry. The T JAG is the Judge Advocate General, the general in charge of all the JAG officers for a particular service. So you have a T, Jack, for the army, for the Navy, et cetera. And they were all removed. And now you have people that I. I don't know them, so I'm not passing individual judgment. I'm just saying suspicious makes me not trust their viewpoint. And so what is a service member to do in determining? The Department of Justice similarly issued an opinion that we have not seen, despite requests to see it, that says that it is perfectly legitimate. These are lawful acts. I would say, by the way, that there's was new reporting that I read just before we started recording where Hegseth is quoted as having ordered the killing of all the survivors of shooting. There are two where there were survivors. In one, they were watching it live from the Pentagon and he ordered that all survivors be eliminated and they were then killed. They were hanging on for dear life to remnants of the boat and they were killed. To me, that is a patently unlawful order. That is against the law of war, it's against international law, it's against our moral ethics and everything to have killed these people. Drugs are not a capital offense in America. So even if they were guilty and there is no evidence that they are, there's no evidence that there were drugs on that. Maybe there were, but. But the normal way is the Coast Guard would interdict the boat, they would go aboard, they would search, and if they found contraband, they would take the contraband and arrest the people aboard. Further evidence is in one of the other cases where there were survivors, they did pick them up and then they released them back to their home countries. If they were guilty, why weren't they brought here for indictment and trial? The answer is probably there was no evidence that they were guilty. So. So to me, this is one of those examples of an illegal order. And I think that we need to make it clear, as the attempt was by these six members of Congress, that lawful orders must be obeyed. And you can be court martialed if you don't, but that unlawful orders can lead if you follow them. There's no Nuremberg defense of I was just following orders, you can be tried for murder or whatever the other crime happens to be. So it's a very upsetting situation. And the answer is what they did in this video was to state what the law is. And that's a clear exercise of First Amendment rights. It's clearly true. So there's no there to indict them for or to investigate them for.

A (61:12)

Yeah. Well, let's dig into these reports about investigations. Joyce, first let me ask you about the report that the FBI has opened a criminal investigation into the video or into the people who participated. What's the basis for that, for opening an Investigation. And do you think that there's a, you know, we're all familiar with, we've talked about before, the Diag, the FBI's Domestic Investigations Operations Guide. I mean, based on our understanding of the diag choice, is there any basis to open investigation here?

C (61:44)

So, you know, I think that this is the right question to ask because certainly people can make political claims, right? They can make political arguments. They can say that the senators shouldn't have done this. But invoking the FBI and inserting them into the controversy is an entirely different sort of a situation. And under the dialogue, as you point out, which is sort of the bible that FBI agents live by, it's their procedural sort of guidance for when they can and can't open investigations, among other things. And one of the most clear cut sorts of guidelines is that you don't investigate First Amendment protected conduct. And this is, as Jill has said, very clearly, First Amendment protected conduct. Whether it gets any other sort of protection, Barb, you know, we might want to go into if we have time. But what this is not, is the sort of thing that, for instance, incites, right? This is not incitement. This is not insurrection propagating sort of commentary. This is a factual statement of what the law in this country is. And so to open a criminal FBI investigation into a United States Senator over this and into others who are elected officials, that's next level sort of authoritarianism. And again, you know, we talk about points where this administration goes beyond any sort of existing president, does something that no other president has or would have done. This is another one of those moments. But because it's sort of cloaked in all of this rumor and innuendo, I worry that we're missing the significance. So let's be really clear. This is about trying to intimidate your and my elected officials to get them not to push back against this administration by threatening them with criminal prosecution. Just like the revenge cases we're seeing against Comey James, the investigation into Schiff and others.

B (63:49)

And if I can add on to that, Barb, that you asked earlier about why they weren't saying what this was all about, and that may be why right here is they did not accuse anyone of having issued a particularly unlawful order. They just said, hey guys, you should know that the law is there's no Nuremberg defense and you can't obey an unlawful order, and left them in the predicament of oh my gosh, how do I know what an unlawful order is?

A (64:21)

Yeah, no, I agree. It's just sort of a heads up. Maybe you ought to think about that. Maybe you ought to inquire. Maybe you ought to ask some questions. Well, Joyce gave us a very good explanation about the FBI's criminal investigation. Jill, let me focus with you on the military aspect. Got former General Counsel of the army here with us. It's been reported that the Department of Defense is also investigating Senator Mark Kelly for a potential court martial. How is that possible if he's retired from the military? And what would be the basis for finding him, you know, in violation of the law?

B (64:58)

So, first of all, Barb, thanks for calling it the Department of Defense, because that's what it is, of course. And, you know, this idea of Department of War is just. Just upsetting to me. But, yeah, it's a really strange thing that most people don't know about, but retired military officers do, and that is if you are in retired status and are collecting a pension, you still are part of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, whatever. And because the senator is in retired status and he was a captain, which in the army is a lower rank, but in the Navy, which he is retired from, it is actually a higher rank. It's like the equivalent of a colonel in the Army. So you can be recalled to duty if you're in retired status, either because you have special skills or because you have committed some horrendous violation of law and you can be brought back for a court martial. This is a highly debatable thing when you've been retired for many, many years and gone on to other things, like being an astronaut and a senator, but it is the law that you can be recalled to duty and court martialed. I don't think he's done anything here that justifies a court martial or recall, but that is the law.

A (66:21)

Yeah. Joyce, I've seen some reports suggesting that the old famous speech or debate clause, not speech and debate, but speech or debate clause, protects members of Congress under certain circumstances. Can you tell us what the speech or debate clause is and whether it applies in this situation?

C (66:41)

Yeah, it's been a while since we've talked about the speech or debate clause. A prominent reoccurring bit player on the hashtag Sisters in Law podcast. The speech or debate clause protects members of Congress from criminal or from civil liability for official legislative acts, and it's meant to ensure that they can perform their duties without fear of harassment, prosecution, other engagement from either one of the other two branches of government. Right. You shouldn't be intimidated when you're doing your official duties. You should be free to do them. And that's the theory under which the founding fathers put this protection in place for members of Congress. So the protection clearly covers activities like speaking on the floor of the Senate or the House, introducing and voting on bills, and participating in committee hearings, but goes beyond that. It has typically been very broadly construed. And y' all may recall that during the Georgia debacle following the Trump contested election in 2020, Lindsey Graham made some phone calls down to elected officials in Georgia to talk about, you know, the votes down there, whatever he wanted to talk about. And when the. When Fannie Willis, the district attorney in Fulton county, wanted to question him and issued a subpoena, he does, pleading the speech or debate clause and saying that that which appeared to be very political. Right. Was actually part of his official duties. He was gathering information for his constituents. Here there's a much more colorable argument that the speech or debate clause applies. They were educating their constituents and the public about what was in the law, and that would seem to be protected conduct. Although, you know, like so much of what we're dealing with right now, if it were litigated, it would likely be an issue of first impression that would have to be decided. I don't think that we're gonna see that happen, because I don't think this investigation is gonna go anyplace. I just don't see it.

A (68:42)

Yeah, I agree with you that, once again, it is sort of unprecedented, you know, to charge somebody, a member of Congress, for statements made in a video. Is that within the scope of the speech or debate clause? Like, who would charge somebody for that.

C (68:55)

Like, when they're true? You know, it's like if you said something like, you know, murder is the intentional killing of a human being without cause or excuse. I mean, like, you know, that's just a statement of what the law is, folks.

B (69:09)

Yeah.

A (69:10)

Interesting. Well, Jill, just let me just wrap up with. With you asking about the potential harm. You know, so often Donald Trump has asked for not just an investigation, but an announcement of an investigation. Right. We saw that in Ukraine. We saw that with doj. What do you suppose is the harm of the announcement of an investigation under circumstances like this?

B (69:35)

Well, it is exactly what Joyce was talking about. It is chilling. That's its intent is to stop people from pushing back against what is clearly improper. And, you know, the speech and debate clause is not just sort of an afterthought. It was something that was put in to prevent the king or our president from exactly doing this. It was put in to stop that kind of behavior. And the extent of it has been pretty broad in terms of defining what is legislative action. You can't take a bribe and claim that it's part of your legislative duties. But publication of a document outside a press release, for example, outside of Congress, may fall into that thing that is not part of the speech and debate. And so that when they go and do a public announcement that could, under some of the cases that have been argued, fall outside of speech and debate. But I think the whole intent of this is to limit the protections of speech and debate, to limit and scare people into not speaking out. And it's not just for members of Congress. It would be for members of the press. It would be for us to watch what we say on this show because we don't want to end up having an investigation of us. Because even if it's thrown out, it's been a disruption of your life.

A (71:06)

Yeah, right. Sure.

B (71:17)

I am officially amazed and obsessed with the Ridge Wallet. I used to carry around a fairly sizable case that protected my cards from being hacked, but it took up a lot of room and it had the cards falling out. Now I have the Ridge Wallet and it takes up almost no space in my purse and it protects the cards. It's fabulous. It's. You know, using these other things is practically like using a historical archive. So this year you should get yourself a Ridge Wallet. It's also great for the man in your life. And I couldn't be happier to show it off and use it in every store that I go to. People are like, gosh, that's an amazingly small and wonderful device.

A (72:12)

Now, Ridge wallets are slim, modern, and made from real materials. Aluminum, titanium, and carbon fiber. They can fit up to 12 cards plus cash while still looking like sleek art pieces. You can pick from more than 50 different styles, so there is truly one for everyone on your holiday list.

C (72:29)

You know, where is Kim when you need someone who can sing I am Titanium? I mean, if I break into song here, nobody's gonna listen to the podcast. All of the Ridge products come with a lifetime warranty. So this isn't one of those gifts that sits on a shelf or gets used twice and forgotten. This is something the person you buy it for will use every single day forever. And Ridge just launched the Ridge Wallet 2.0. They upgraded everything on the one everyone already loves. So if someone in your life already has a Ridge, this is the perfect level up gift that they won't even know they needed but will brag about immediately.

B (73:09)

It is such a great gift for yourself or for your friends. Ridge makes more than just wallets. They make key cases, suitcases, rings, all the same sleek, durable design. If you're hunting for holiday gifts that don't feel like panicked 11pm shopping with over 100,000 five star reviews, Ridge is the way to go. And the designs are really great. My own is sort of like looks like marble with a white background and it just looks so great when you.

C (73:42)

Take it out, you know, it really does. So I'm pretty sure he does not listen to the podcast, so I'll just say I got one for my godson for Christmas because he's tough to shop for and this seemed like something where he would continue to believe that I'm cooler than his mom is my eternal goal with Christmas gift giving for him. But they're a lot of fun to shop, shop for as well as to give. And for the forgetful people in your life, you know who they are. They also have the tracker card so those people can always find their wallet before panic mode hits. Perfect for holiday travel and everyday sanity. And it's totally risk free. If the person you're gifting doesn't love it, which they will, they can return it, no questions asked. I mean, but seriously, honestly, they are going to love it. This is a great Christmas gift gift.

A (74:32)

You had me a tracker card. I think I'm going to get a bunch for myself and put them in all of my suitcases, backpacks and other kinds of things. Well, you can give them a gift they'll actually use. Right now Ridge is having their huge holiday sale. Head to R I d g e.com to get up to 47% off your order. This is by far the biggest discount they've given all year. That's ridge.com for up to 47% off your order during their biggest sale of the year. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them Sisters In Law sent you. Find the link in the show Notes.

B (75:19)

We're now at the point of our show that we love the most. It's because we have great listeners who send us really thoughtful questions that make us us think about things we hadn't this week. Every single question was like amazing. And so we're going to answer a few of them. But if you have a question for us that you haven't asked yet, please email us@sistersinlawoliticon.com or tag us on social media using SistersInLaw. If we don't get to your question during the show keep an eye on our feeds throughout the week because we sometimes answer questions that we didn't get to during the show. The first question today I'm going to ask Joyce, and it comes from Mary, and she wants to know, says, I understand that Bondi has said at Trump's urging, that she's investigating Democrats in relation to the Epstein files, allowing her to pick and choose what documents are released because some would be barred from release because they're subject to an ongoing investigation. In a normal world, Mary asks, wouldn't a prosecutor investigate anyone without fear or favor committing serious offenses connected with a sex trafficking ring? What are the legal or ethical rules that prevent prosecutors from targeting or telling off or letting off people based on their political associations? Is this insertion of politics giving Democratic defendants a First Amendment defense? I am being prosecuted because I am associated with Democrats. Democrats. What do you think, Joyce?

C (76:59)

Yeah, I mean, this is a great question, and there are a lot of threads to pull here, but I'll start with this one. Prosecutors don't investigate people, they investigate crimes. And this question demonstrates why that's the approach prosecutors should, should take. You go out, you have reasonable cause to believe that a crime may have occurred. You have reasonable suspicion is actually the standard. It's pretty low. You investigate the crime to find out, a, was it really a crime and B, who's responsible. You don't just pick your defendants, your targets in advance. You pick them based upon the evidence that a crime was committed and that they were involved in committing it. So if you see the four of us getting apoplectic sometimes when we try to discuss what the Trump administration is doing, that's why it's precisely this. It's because they're turning the way prosecution is supposed to work on its head. The question about whether they have a First Amendment defense, I think, is a very interesting one. And it sort of implicates what we're seeing in the Comey and the James case and other cases where defendants are arguing selective and vindictive prosecution. And what we haven't seen yet, although I think we're headed there with some rapidity, is I was selected for prosecution because I'm a Democrat, right? And other people who were similarly situated Republicans, including Donald Trump or Peter Thiel or other people who, whose names came up in the Epstein records, they were not investigated after Donald Trump said Epstein is a Democrat problem, even though Donald Trump's name appeared pretty prominently. So I, I think that we're about at the point where we will see that as a defense.

B (78:46)

And Barb I have a great question for you from Aneel who asks when the president's lawyers come out of a courtroom and go to address the press, they are often seething, expressing outrage at the indignation and injustice that their client is being subjected to. And then Aneel asks, is this because, one, they have to sell a narrative to the public, so this is all part of that gamesmanship. Two, because they have to give the appearance of selling an aligned narrative to keep their client happy and keep the billing hours rolling. Three, because they truly believe the narrative they are communicating to the press or public and the reason they were hired is because their values and perspectives happen to align with their clients client so that there is a selection bias there.

A (79:42)

Oh, great question, Anil. I think the answer is all of the above. In different situations, you know, I, I don't, I can't read the minds of Trump's lawyers per se, but just to talk about things I've seen of, of lawyers, and it could be, you know, in a, in a civil case, plaintiffs or defense lawyers, prosecutors typically are restrained from saying much outside of the courtroom. But I love it that you are asking about outside the courtroom because inside the courtroom all lawyers are officers of the court. And so a court is going to constrain them and make to making legal arguments and fact based arguments. When they're out talking to the press, the rules are obviously a lot looser. And so that's where maybe they are selling a narrative to the public. They are, especially when they're representing a public figure like President Trump. They need to protect his reputation, not just win the court case under the law, but protect his reputation in the court of public opinion. And so that's where you may see these accusations about the judge or about the government's motives. It is important, however, that lawyers follow ethical guidelines. And some of the things I've been seeing about attacking judges, attacking the integrity of judges, I think goes beyond the pale. And certainly you can say, my client is innocent, my client is going to defend these charges. We will speak in court. All of those things I think are fair game. And I don't think lawyers need to be aligned with their clients in terms of what they believe or the values that they share. Everybody's entitled to a defense. But I do think it's important that lawyers operate ethically. And when they start to accuse prosecutors of bad motives and they start to accuse judges of having a bias, I think that that risks undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system altogether.

B (81:36)

And there's a Great question from David in Stillwater, Minnesota that I want to answer and there's actually a related one from Lee in Arizona, so I'm going to answer both in the same time. David says, God forbid, Trump pardons Ghislaine Maxwell, but if he does so, do the known elements of her trafficking conduct constitute a basis for a state prosecution? If so, what jurisdiction would be most likely to pursue criminal charges? Lee asks, can Ghislaine Maxwell be charged separately by Florida or New York? Would this be impacted by a pardon since it is a state and not a federal case? And the answer is yes, Maxwell can be prosecuted in states if she has violated any state law, which no doubt the trafficking that occurred in both New York at the Epstein Mansion or at his home in Palm Spring. Palm Beach. Sorry, sorry, Palm Springs, I'm coming to talk to you. I'm sorry that I mentioned. I meant Palm Beach. There were clearly crimes committed there against minors and so that would no doubt be subject to state charges. We already had state, well, federal charges in those locations that obviously went away. So yes, they could. And yes, the pardon has no effect. He can only pardon federal crimes. So any Florida or New York charges would stand on their own. Thank you for asking that question and all the others. We we look forward to hearing from you again next week with more questions. And thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Barbara McQuaid and me, Jill Wine Banks. You can follow SistersInLaw wherever you listen to your podcasts and please give us a five star review because that's how other people will find us and we want more people to be listening. Please show some love to this week's sponsors. Com Factor, Aura Frames, Quince and Ridge Wallet. The links are in the show notes. Please support them because they make this podcast possible. Look forward to seeing you next week with another episode of Sisters in Law.

C (83:57)

Break is what we say to our puppy when she can stop staying.

A (84:00)

How is she doing, by the way?

C (84:03)

Horribly.

A (84:03)

Oh no.

C (84:04)

Horribly.

B (84:04)

Oh no.

C (84:06)

She's been with her dad for six weeks while I've been on the road doing book tour stuff and there's no discipline going on in my house. The man is a terrible puppy parent. She's so cute. She's the cutest thing I've ever seen.

A (84:18)

That's the problem.

C (84:19)

But she just totally has her way with him. It's shameful.

D (84:25)

Save over 200 when you book weekly stays with Verbo this winter. If you need to work, why not work from a chalet play? If you haven't seen your college besties since, well, college. You need a week to fully catch up in a snowy cabin. And if you have to stay in a remote place with your in laws, you should save over $200 a week. That's the least we can do. So you might as well start digging out the long johns because saving over $200 on a week long snowcation rental is in the cards. Book now@vrbo.com with stays under $250 a night. Night VRBO makes it easy to celebrate sweater weather. You could book a cabin stay with leaf views for days, or a brownstone in a city where festivals are just a walk away, or a lakeside home with a fire pit for cozy nights with friends. Or if you're not a sweater person, we can call it corduroy weather. More flexible, and with stays under $250 a night, you can book a home that suits your exact needs. Book now@vrbo.com.