Podcast Summary: #SistersInLaw – Episode 265: "Indictments Dismissed"

Date: December 6, 2025
Hosts: Barb McQuaid, Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Kimberly Atkins Stohr
Main Themes: Legal system breakdowns in the Trump era, DOJ indictment failures, Supreme Court assaults on voting rights and campaign finance, possible Pentagon war crimes

Episode Overview

This episode of #SistersInLaw dives into a “doozy” of a week: how the Justice Department is failing to secure indictments in politically motivated cases, the Supreme Court’s hostile maneuvers against voting rights and campaign finance reform, and the swirling controversy over alleged war crimes in the Pentagon's recent military operations. Throughout, the hosts bring wisdom and wit to complex legal and political questions, with each drawing on deep personal experience as prosecutors and litigators.

Key Topics & Insights

1. Lawyer Civility Oath Proposal (00:50 – 08:53)

• Discussion Starter: California is considering requiring lawyers to take a “civility oath”—essentially an oath not to be jerks in legal practice.
• Kim’s Experience: Civil practice rife with incivility drove her away:
  "The number one reason I stopped practicing law was because ... lawyers I found to be really, really big...jerks just for no reason." (01:09, Kim)
• Barb’s Perspective:
  • Civil lawyers tend to be nastier than criminal practitioners due to the smaller, more collegial criminal bar.
  • "The jerks who already aren't doing it probably are not going to comply unless there is some punishment." (04:01, Barb)
• Jill & Joyce:
  • Frivolous, delay-based tactics are rampant in private civil practice.
  • Real change likely requires more than symbolic oaths; enforcement is key.

Notable Quote:
"Didn't your mother raise you to believe that you should behave and be civil and nice? So I don't know how an adult lawyer is going to change their behavior just because they sign a civility [oath]." (06:17, Jill)

2. DOJ Failures: Letitia James & Indictment Dismissals (12:07 – 31:28)

Background:

• DOJ efforts (under the Trump administration) to indict NY Attorney General Letitia James and others were thwarted by court dismissals due to improper U.S. attorney appointments and lack of evidence.

Breakdown:

• Extraordinary “No True Bill":
  • The grand jury in Norfolk, VA declined to indict, a vanishingly rare occurrence.
    "It happens in less than 0.001% of cases. ...It's just never happened, I'm sure, to any of us." (13:29, Jill)
• Improper Appointments:
  • Key DOJ mistakes, like presenting indictments through unlawfully appointed attorneys (e.g., Lindsay Halligan, Alina Haba), are being repeatedly struck down by courts.
  • The pattern: Senate blocks unqualified political appointees; Trump administration tries to “work around” confirmation via interim and special appointments.
• Forum Shopping:
  • Prosecutions shopping for a more favorable (“redder”) jury in Norfolk failed:
    “Alexandria was too woke. So they’re going to try again, little forum shopping in a different part of Virginia. But it still didn’t work.” (17:20, Kim)
• Exculpatory Evidence & Prosecutorial Duty:
  • Legal and ethical standards (and DOJ policy) require prosecutors to disclose significant evidence of innocence to the grand jury, though Supreme Court says it's not constitutionally required.
    "Only a foolish prosecutor would go in front of a grand jury and get an indictment knowing that there was exculpatory evidence..." (19:10, Joyce)
• Vindictive & Selective Prosecution:
  • Multiple hosts agree: these cases are politically driven with no legal merit.
  • Statements from Trump and Pam Bondi openly ordering prosecutions fuel the argument for vindictive prosecution safeguards.

Notable Quotes:

• “If you had a law school exam that gave this as a hypothetical, it would be too ridiculous and no one would believe it.” (15:25, Jill)
• "It’s a big waste of time, waste of resources. I feel terrible for any line prosecutor if they can find one that gets put on this case and they really need to stop it." (22:54, Kim)

3. Trump’s U.S. Attorney Appointments Crisis (24:53 – 31:28)

• Third Circuit Ruling:
  • Alina Haba, a Trump loyalist with no prosecutorial experience, found unlawfully serving as acting US attorney in New Jersey.
• Workarounds & Senate Skirting:
  • Pam Bondi’s tactics to install loyalists by exploiting interim rules, frustrating Congressional oversight.
• Broader Pattern:
  • Similar abuses found in Nevada, California, and New York.
  • Senate is supposed to be fairly deferential for these 4-year posts, but nominees were rejected due to abject lack of qualifications.

Notable Quote:
"It’s just too ridiculous. So there you go. You have a person saying, I'm going to use this job for political reasons. And she did, by the way, indict a lot of Democrats..." (26:34, Jill)

4. Supreme Court Watch: Campaign Finance & Voting Rights (38:45 – 57:19)

A. Campaign Finance – NRSC v. FEC (39:16 – 49:54)

• Case in Brief:
  • SCOTUS to decide if bans on coordination between political parties/campaigns and outside PACs violate First Amendment speech rights.
  • Hosts warn a bad ruling would “blow up” campaign finance, letting billionaires funnel limitless cash to favored candidates.
• Arguments:
  • GOP claim: limits restrict free association/advocacy.
  • Reality: Post-Watergate reforms exist to prevent the kind of corruption rampant in the ‘70s.
• Democratic Defense:
  • Mark Elias (not the Solicitor General, as DOJ sides with challengers) will argue limiting this coordination is necessary to prevent corruption and preserve equality of representation.
  • Barb: Court’s focus on “corruption prevention” is narrow; fails to address “equality among voters”.

Notable Quotes:

• “If you blow through that distinction, it literally will allow corporations, anyone, Elon, anybody who wants to give any candidate an endless amount of money. It will really blow up campaign finance reform.” (41:44, Kim)
• “Wouldn’t that be a great day for equality in America?” (49:14, Barb)

B. Voting Rights & Texas Gerrymander (Shadow Docket) (49:54 – 58:19)

• SCOTUS Decision:
  • Supreme Court overruled a district court's painstaking findings of racial gerrymandering in TX, letting the Republican-friendly (Trump-inspired) map go into effect.
• Reasoning:
  • Cites a presumption of “legislative good faith”, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
• Impact:
  • Continues pattern of weakening the Voting Rights Act.
  • Kagan’s dissent called out as "slicing and dicing" the majority’s abdication.
• Hosts’ Anger:
  • Decision viewed as “a blow to democracy”, “preview of the disdain this court holds for whatever remains of the Voting Rights Act”.
    "If I was a U.S. district Court judge today, I would say, what's my job?" (53:17, Kim)
• Congress Called to Act:
  • Both Kim and Joyce: Only legislative reform (e.g., fair-redistricting rules, House expansion) can break the gerrymander stalemate.

Notable Quotes:

• “There is a presumption in a redistricting case, according to the Supreme Court and its precedent, that in analyzing a claim of racial gerrymandering, you give the legislature a presumption of good faith. … My question is, when can you ever overcome a presumption of legislative good faith? This was as bad a faith as you can possibly get.” (51:23, Kim)
• “The Supreme Court is not going to help. … At some point, this has to end.” (54:37, Kim)

5. Pentagon Controversy: Caribbean War Crimes Allegations (61:26 – 74:11)

• Incident:
  • Strikes conducted on a boat suspected of drug trafficking (09/02); survivors allegedly targeted and killed on order from top officials.
• Unknowns:
  • No public hearing, shifting stories from Sec. Hegseth; reporting suggests he ordered “leave no one behind” (in the lethal sense).
• Legal Analysis:
  • Joyce: Killing shipwreck survivors clearly violates the law of war, even if you grant the administration’s (likely false) “armed conflict” justification. "There's no one who's more shipwrecked than someone who's clinging to the side of the wreckage of a boat." (67:11, Joyce)
• Further Red Flags:
  • The boat had 11 people—unusual for a smuggling operation; other survivors in similar incidents were quietly sent home, not prosecuted.
• Consensus:
  • This likely constitutes extrajudicial killing/murder if not justified by the law of war.
  • Host Barb:
    "It seems to me, in my opinion, that these are murders. And maybe I'll be proven wrong because of some legal argument of which I am unaware. But that's where I see this going." (72:25, Barb)

6. Listener Q&A Highlights (76:45 – 81:24)

• Q: Can presidents pardon court-martial convictions?
  • A: Yes. Trump actually issued such pardons. "The answer is yes...the precedent most recently comes from Donald Trump..." (77:23, Joyce)
• Q: Are there any real limits on the president's pardon power?
  • A: Not for federal crimes; abuse can lead to impeachment only—not criminal charges, post-immunity decision.
    "He could not be criminally prosecuted, but he could be impeached for that." (78:41, Barb)
• Q: Can the International Criminal Court prosecute U.S. officials for war crimes?
  • A: No—U.S. is not a signatory, thus no jurisdiction.
    "We can violate international law and not be held responsible." (80:30, Jill)

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “If you had a law school exam that gave this as a hypothetical, it would be too ridiculous and no one would believe it.” (15:25, Jill)
• "If I was a U.S. district Court judge today, I would say, what's my job? Because if I do my job, the Supreme Court's gonna say, no, you did it wrong because the Republicans didn't win." (53:17, Kim)
• “There’s no one who’s more shipwrecked than someone who’s clinging to the side of the wreckage of a boat.” (67:11, Joyce)

Important Segment Timestamps

| Segment | Timestamp | |----------------------------------------------|-------------| | Civility Oath in Legal Profession | 00:50–08:53 | | DOJ Indictment Dismissals & Letitia James | 12:07–23:13 | | Trump U.S. Attorney Appointments | 24:53–31:28 | | Campaign Finance Case (NRSC v. FEC) | 39:16–49:54 | | Voting Rights Act & SCOTUS’s Shadow Docket | 49:54–58:19 | | Pentagon/War Crimes/Caribbean Controversy | 61:26–74:11 | | Listener Questions | 76:45–81:24 |

Conclusion & Tone

The episode’s tone is frank, outraged, but balanced by wry humor and camaraderie. The #SistersInLaw are deeply alarmed by the ongoing corrosion of legal norms and the warp-speed judicial maneuvers favoring partisanship and unchecked executive power. Their legal scholarship is interwoven with personal stories, listener engagement, and a clear commitment to the rule of law.

Closing Sentiment:
"Brisby is mad at the Supreme Court, and I'm with him." (82:23, Kim)

Recommended For

Listeners who want incisive, inside-the-room legal analysis on the crises facing American democracy—delivered with clarity, gravity, and a dash of humor.