Loading summary
Transcript40 lines
- [00:03]
A
Welcome to the inaugural episode of Sister Sidebar with Kimberly Atkinstore and me, Barb McQuaid. We are so excited to launch this show. We get so many fantastic questions from our listeners and we don't have enough time to cover them in the main show. It really is our favorite part of the Sisters in Law podcast and so on. Sisters sidebar, Kim, we're gonna get to dive deeper into the topics that our listeners care about the most. This is gonna be a. We'll have a new episode every Wednesday with two or more of the sisters. So you'll be hearing from all of us just in some sort of mixture. So if you have a question for us, as always, please email us@sistersinlawoliticon.com or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. But don't just type them. Your voices are so important. We want to hear them too. Kim, can you explain how people might be able to give us a sample of their verbal question?
- [01:05]
B
Yes. So for those. Well, I can only explain it for people who use iPhones, because that's what I use. But there is something in there called a voice memo. You can take a voice memo and then you can email it to sisters in lawolitikon.com and listen in on Wednesdays because we may play your voice memo of your question before we answer it.
- [01:26]
A
Yeah, we're looking forward to hearing them. And of course, we love seeing you rocking our Sisters in Law merch. So don't forget to pick some up@thepolitikon.com merch website. Now remember, dear listeners, I am a teacher and I know the difference between questions and comments. We don't want to hear. We don't want to hear your long winded stories. You know, just. It's a question, right? Succinct. We're here to answer the questions. Right? We don't hear about your dog. We love your dog. But this is about legal questions. So that's what we wanna hear about. Well, let's get started. Kim, you ready for a question? Our first question comes to us from Hillary. Kim, Is it illegal to honk horns, blow whistles, and et cetera, to alert neighbors to the presence of ice? What's the line between what you legally can and cannot do?
- [02:14]
B
Oh, this is such a great question, Hilary. So the First Amendment is fairly broad in what people can do in terms of their own voice. That includes blowing whistles. That includes alerting neighbors that ice is in the area. That even includes speaking to ice. So as you are, so long as you are not interfering with them carrying out their duties. It includes filming them. If you are in a place of public accommodation or a public. Public property or a place of public accommodation, you are also able to film them. All of that is covered by the First Amendment. The only time it would become illegal would be, for example, as I said, if you interfere with ICE operations, if you get in and try to stop them from apprehending someone or something like that, you can be charged with a crime. Then even with the whistleblowing and stuff. If there are local ordinances that sort of designate where you can protest or have noise ordinances and stuff like that, watch out for that. But as I said in this past episode of Sisters in Law, the it's really important to be careful because the First Amendment isn't going to protect you in real time. The First Amendment will serve as a defense if you are charged with a crime or as a way for you to try to vindicate your rights later if you are harmed, if your constitutional rights are harmed in some way and things go left. So just be mindful, let people know if you're protesting, go there with other people. Just do common sense stuff to keep yourself safe. These protests are so important. I really think they're changing the tide of public opinion when it comes to this, really misuse of a federal agency. But do so in a way that is smart so that you protect yourself and you can continue to use your voice.
- [04:14]
A
Yeah, I'll chime in on that. You know, keep your distance, you know, be out there. It's great that we're seeing peaceful protests, but one of the things that we've seen is in its haste to hire agents very quickly. I'm not sure all these agents have the best training. And so I've seen, you know, I think they're authentic. Where an ICE agent grabs a phone out of someone's hand and says, haven't you learned your lesson? And these kinds of things. So they're not always getting it right. So you'll probably win in the end. But as you said, like, save yourself a little aggravation and just keep your distance. Get out there and protest, but, you know, stay out of their way.
- [04:47]
B
Yeah, I totally agree with that. Okay, Barb, the next question's from Caleb. And Caleb asks, State criminal prosecutions against federal officers acting in the scope of their official duties can be removed to Federal Court under 28 U.S.C. section 1442. Are you a lawyer, Caleb? Are you a law student? Because it sounds like you know what you're talking about here. And then I found 28 USC section 1455 gives some procedure for that. But how does this practically work? Barb, do you have an answer for that?
- [05:21]
A
Yeah. This is such a great question. Now, I have never dealt with this in my own practice. It's pretty rare. But if, for example, just hypothetically speaking, if state prosecutors in Minneapolis were to choose charge Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who shot Renee Goode, they could charge him with a crime, a crime of, you know, maybe murder or manslaughter or something like that. The federal government can remove that case to federal court, even if it's filed in state court. But one thing that's important is state law would still apply. They would still be analyzing it under the state of Minnesota murder law, and state prosecutors would be handling that case. Typically, they get sworn in as Special Assistant U.S. attorneys. Now, there is an argument about qualified immunity. You know, J.D. vance and some others have said these federal agents are absolutely immune from prosecution by state prosecutors. That's not right. They do have immunity, but they would have to show that they were acting within the scope of their duties at the time, you know, they're on duty. And. And that what they did was necessary and proper. And so that's going to be a question that gets litigated. But the mechanics are state law being applied in federal court.
- [06:38]
B
And I think an important point to point out here is just because it's in federal court doesn't mean it's under DOJ control. So the DOJ can't say, okay, this is federal. Now we dismiss it. It's still a state case. The only thing that changes is the venue. And the idea is they don't want state judges to be biased against this if this is tried in state court. So very, very good question.
- [07:04]
A
All right, our next question for you, Kim, comes from Tara. She asks, with Lindsey Halligan disqualified by a US District judge and her outrageous claims that she was politically targeted, is there any recourse to disbar her?
- [07:19]
B
Oh, our good friend Lindsey Halligan. The answer to that question is yes. Can she be disbarred? In general?
- [07:28]
A
Yeah.
- [07:28]
B
Any attorney in good standing who faces a disciplinary action, disciplinary complaint can be disciplined in some way. That includes disbarment. And I do believe there has been at least one complaint issued against her based on her action in bringing these criminal charges without proper predicate, without proper evidence to support them. And that is one reason, I think, the fact. One thing that will be interesting about this, I don't know how far this goes. Now, I should back up and say And Barb understands this, too. Disbarment is incredibly rare. Like, the only. I think I only personally know one person who has been disbarred, and that's because he stole his client's money. Yeah, like, it has to be, like.
- [08:17]
A
Really, It's a pretty high bar.
- [08:19]
B
Really, really bad. Usually there'll be suspensions and you have a chance to plead your case and try to get your, you know, get back in good standing. And they're pretty generous with that. But the fact that judges basically like, girl by, like, this is not your job anymore. And, like, kicked her out, it's like they basically came and, like, took off her name off the door while she was still sitting in the office to kick her out. I think all of that would bear evidence against her. And I think that a disciplinary action against her would actually be pretty strong.
- [08:59]
C
I didn't even realize I was wasting $415 a month until I downloaded Rocket Money. I thought I had my finances under control until the app laid out all my spending and categorized it for me. Takeout shopping and unused subscriptions were quietly draining my account, and as a result, my savings took a back seat. But Rocket Money doesn't just tell you what you're wasting money on. It takes action to save you money. First, the app looks at your income and monthly expenses and calculates how much you can safely spend each day to stay under budget. Rocket Money also finds and cancels unwanted subscriptions for you and even negotiates better rates on your bills so you have more money in your pocket. On average, Rocket Money members can save up to $740 a year when using all the app's premium features. Users love the app. With over 186,000 five star ratings, it's time to simplify your finances and take control of your money. Go to rocket money.com cancel to get started. That's rocketmoney.com cancel rocketmoney.com cancel.
- [10:08]
B
Our next question, Barb, comes from Paula. Paula asks Ms. Pirro is a U.S. attorney for D.C. she recently showed up at a gala at Mar a Lago. Is that standard practice? And would you have ever attended such an event? Barb McQuaid at the private home of President Obama while you worked as a U.S. attorney. Would you do that, Barb?
- [10:33]
A
Oh, my gosh. This is so far afield. You know, just in the same way we saw Emile Beauvais attend a Trump rally rally. You know the job.
- [10:42]
B
He's a judge.
- [10:43]
A
Yeah, a judge. My gosh. You know, a U.S. attorney is supposed to act without fear or favor, to be independent from partisan politics, and not just to really, really be, but to also create that public impression so that the public doesn't think, oh, this person is just doing the bidding of the president. So, you know, it's not illegal. I submit it might be a violation of the Hatch act, which makes it inappropriate and illegal for US Attorneys to engage in political activity while on duty. And U.S. attorneys are on duty 24 7. So I think that that is probably a violation of the Hatch act, but absolutely not, because when people see a US Attorney palling around with the president, I think it makes it very difficult to believe that they are acting impartially. Now, of course, she really has made no pretense of it. She has done President Trump's bidding with some of these investigations against Jerome Powell, against people on the Streets of Washington, D.C. charging the sandwich thrower. And so it appears she just doesn't care. But I think when we get past this moment and we restore independence and integrity to the Justice Department, making sure those political lines are firm and clear and enforced will be a very important part of it.
- [12:08]
B
I would also worry a lot that you would get all these motions for disqualification in a lot of these cases that she's bringing, right?
- [12:14]
A
Yes. There are, you know, ethical concerns, motions to dismiss, you know, even worries about the fair trial rights of the defendants. So I'd worry about that. All right, Kim, I got one more for you. This one's from Jay, who says, I have heard of people suing because of the lawless actions of this administration. Can anyone sue Congress members for their failure to check the executive branch? Hey, Congress, you up?
- [12:46]
B
Oh, man, wouldn't that be something if that were the rule, Jay? The answer is no. The legislative branch of government operates differently than, say, the executive branch. You know, some. We've talked about section 1983. If a member, if an agent somehow or someone else violates someone's constitutional rights in some way, there is some cause of action, and lawsuits can be brought. They're hard to win, but they can be brought. But members of Congress are protected by a privilege that anything that they do that is associated with the conduct of their work, and that category is broad. They cannot be sued for it. But there's this thing called elections, and that's why there is that privilege. Because the idea is that if Congress, if members of Congress are acting in an inappropriate way, then the voters can vote them out. They. They work at the privilege of voters. So that's the way it works, not through lawsuits. Okay, I Love this last question. It's a great way to end this segment. Jordan asks, when did you first realize you wanted to have a career in law? What role did you see yourself in, Barb? Are you exactly where you wanted to be? Barb?
- [14:01]
A
Wow. You know, you never can envision the whole path. So I would never have imagined I could be a law school professor or certainly podcaster, which didn't exist, you know, back when I was a kid. I will tell you, you know what inspired my Lego career? Watergate. Watching the Watergate hearings.
- [14:16]
B
Oh, wow.
- [14:17]
A
You know, in some ways it was Jill Wine Banks, if she were here. I said, jill, I've been watching you, Jill, since I was a little girl. But no, you know, my two aspirations. My first aspiration was to be a journalist and later a lawyer. And it really came from Watergate because I was so deeply offended that the President of the United States had done something wrong. And I very much wanted to be part of a system that held powerful people who abused that power accountable for abusing their trust of the people.
- [14:46]
B
Oh, my God, that's so cool.
- [14:47]
A
Barbara.
- [14:47]
B
You wanted to be a journalist and then you became a lawyer, and I wanted to be a lawyer, and then I became a journalist.
- [14:52]
A
How about that? Well, and what about you?
- [14:54]
B
That's fantastic. Yeah, I always wanted to be a lawyer. I wanted to be a lawyer like on LA Law. I wanted to go to court, I wanted to have clients, I wanted to, you know, that's exactly what I wanted. And I literally got that job right out of law school where I was going to court all the time. And, you know, I had my own caseload very early. And one benefit of that is I learned very quickly that this was not what I wanted to do. And I switched to journalism, which has really served me well and still keeping the legal part in that. Including, again, podcast hosts which I didn't even know would exist back then.
- [15:31]
A
Well, we're all the better for it because we are all well informed because of your journalism.
- [15:35]
B
Oh, same to you with all of your informative analysis from your years as a prosecutor, Barb. Well, thank you for listening to Sister sidebar with Barb McQuaid and me, Kimberly Atkinstore. Keep sending in those questions for next week's show and if you send a voice memo, we may play it only if you keep it short. Remember Professor McQuaid's no comments.
- [15:57]
A
No comments.
- [15:59]
B
And follow Sister sidebar and and Sisters in Law, wherever you get your pods. And don't forget to give us a five star review so other people can find this. We're just getting started, and we don't want to lose that momentum. See you every week on Saturdays and Wednesdays with sidebar for new episodes of Sisters in Law and Sister. Sidebar.
- [16:37]
A
All right, Kim, who is going to explain to Jill how to record a voice memo?
- [16:41]
B
Well, does she know how to use her iPhone?
- [16:42]
A
No.
- [16:43]
B
She always complains.
- [16:44]
A
She always complains about it. I don't think she knows how, but I nominate you to teach her how to do it.
- [16:50]
B
All right, I'll do my best. She can get it. I have faith in her.