A (3:04)

Yeah, I mean, this is a great question. It's really interesting because it's, I think, important to remember what this case is and what it isn't. This is two civil defamation cases that Eugene filed and, and the jury finds in her favor, finding that she was sexually assaulted and that she was defamed when. When Trump called her a liar. And she gets a whole lot of money in the second case. I think the first one is 5 million. And then that gets amped up in the second case, because what Trump did was almost immediately after losing the first case, he goes out on a CNN sort of one of those town halls, and. And he does it again. He repeats it again. So her lawyer, Robbie Kaplan, turns around and files the second lawsuit. You know, that has slowly worked its way through the courts. Now there's a cert petition in front of the United States Supreme Court. Trump has asked that court to hear the case and reverse the damage awards that she won against him. And look, the Supreme Court doesn't always act quickly, but. But it can't stonewall indefinitely. Ultimately, this case will sit on its list for consideration, along with other cases that reach the court. It may decide to hear the case, but it's far more likely that it will simply allow the lower court's verdict to stand. There's not really, you know, the court has discretion about whether to hear these sorts of civil cases. And there's not a novel issue here. There's not a split in the circuit, some of those markers that we normally see when the court takes a case. Maybe it's unusual because the President of the United States is the party, but I'm not sure that that really makes it all that unusual. At bottom, this is just a standard defamation case. And so at some point, I expect that the court will permit the courts of appeals decisions to stand, and E. Jean Carroll will get her money. And knowing her, I suspect that she will use that money to be a force for good. She's not the kind of person to buy a lot of expensive clothes and go on vacation. I suspect that we will all appreciate what she does if she ultimately prevails. So, Barb, there's a question for you. They're actually two sort of related questions. The first is from Carrie. The second is from Robin and Betty. And I'll read their question. They say, we're troubled by Judge Cannon's ruling that forbids Jack Smith's documents, case findings from being publicly released. What can be done to get the findings released and to impeach such a party? Can FOIA be used? What a great question.

B (5:41)

Yeah, this is a great question. So you probably read this week that Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida ruled that Jack Smith's report that he completed as special counsel relating to the Mar A Lago investigation cannot be publicly released. We got the report from the election interference case because the judge there did allow that case, that investigation, to be released. And we read all about the details of that. The special counsel regulations provide that these reports should be released. But this case got a little bit mucked up, you may recall, because Judge Cannon found that the regulations appointing the special counsel were themselves unconstitutional under the Constitution's appointments clause. And so therefore, this report never should have existed and therefore should not be produced. It's on appeal, though, because the parties seeking this are free speech advocates. It's not the Justice Department that this is a matter of public interest, that this is something that should be released in the interest of transparency and that the public has a right to know what happened in this investigation and what was uncovered. So it will now go before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and I think we could get a different result there. It could be that that court does make a different decision. So we'll at least get it out of the hands of this judge. And frankly, if anything, I'm glad she just finally ruled. She's been sitting on this thing for, what, a year and a half? And so the fact that we finally got a ruling out of her means that it can move on to the next stage and that we can see this decided. So this is a FOIA request, and I think we're finally going to get some movement on it. Joyce, I know you are a close watcher of the 11th Circuit. Do you have any reads on the tea leaves for this?

A (7:27)

Yeah, I mean, I think this is a fascinating situation. Right. The two private media entities had tried to intervene in the case, and their pitch to the judge was the government is in bed with the president. Right. Donald Trump doesn't want this released. And the Justice Department, instead of trying to present the other side of the case, is just falling in step, so you should let us intervene. And that has happened in other cases. By the way, I have represented, for instance, New York's Attorney General, Tish James. I was the local counsel in the census case when it was in Alabama, because the federal government wasn't really you know, opposing this sort of bizarre move that Donald Trump wanted to make that was contrary to the actual language in the Constitution about counting all people. Trump just wanted to count citizens. And so Tish James, New York's Attorney general, had moved to intervene to represent the other side, and that became the issue in the case. That's sort of what happened down in Florida. And Aileen Cannon sat on that request for so long that the interveners went to the 11th Circuit, and they agreed. They said, hurry up and rule. So that was what triggered everything. It's a little bit messy because they've never formally been permitted to intervene. Whether or not they can is still on appeal. So I think the corporate court will have to actually sort that out, and maybe they'll sort of squish the issues together and decide whether they can intervene and maybe combine that with the appeal. But, you know, it's not on a fast track. Oral argument on the intervention issue has been set for June 22nd of this year, I believe. So we won't know the answer to this one anytime soon.

B (9:30)

Our next question comes to us from Orin in New Jersey. Oren asks, with cartel violence in the news, I've heard talk of the government issuing letters of marque. Of course, that's spelled M, A, R, Q, U, E. Is this still legal? What is the authority?

A (9:46)

Okay, so this is so very interesting, right? Letters of marque, they're government licenses that were quite popular in the 16 and 1700s. They were used to authorize private citizens to act on behalf of the state on the sea, for instance, you know, attacking or capturing vessels of a foreign state at war. I mean, we're really talking about privateering, right? Legalized pirating. Very, very romantic. And it's authorized by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, which give Congress the power to go to war and also to grant letters of MARC and reprisal. But importantly, that is Congress and not the President. And I don't think Trump has the support in both bodies to start issuing letters of marque, even if it did. And look, I just want to say up front that I am not an expert on the law of war, but my read of this is that our foreign treaty obligations are US Law that the President is obligated to uphold, and. And international law no longer permits granting these sort of letters of mark, as they were done back in that era. So I don't think we'll see anything happen here. I do want to note that Mike Lee, the Utah senator, actually tried bringing up a bill on this Last year, he did not attract a single co sponsor, and then the bill got shelved in committee. And that was back when Trump was a lot more popular than he is with the public right now. Right. I'm sure that y' all saw that last year where he was down to around 20%. So, look, this is some interesting history, right? It was letters of Marc and privateers that are largely credited with the Elizabethan age of exploration of the New World. People like Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh, who we know they all sailed as privateers, but I don't believe we're going to see that anytime soon.

B (11:38)

I don't know, Joyce, don't underestimate this administration.

A (11:40)

Everything old is new again.

B (11:42)

Yeah. I mean, don't forget, international law is only a suggestion. We don't comply with that. And I could see, you know, a group of MAGA bros heading out and being pirates.

A (11:52)

Right.

B (11:53)

That'd be a cool gig.

A (11:54)

Yeah. I think a district court will put a stop to that, too.

B (11:59)

Sweet.

A (11:59)

But it is sort of. It's a funny image to have in your head, right? I mean, is this like the TPUSA guys or, you know, one of the other BRO organizations going out with their pirate hats and pirate eye patches on? Maybe Argentina. So, Barb, you've got a question from Erica in Seattle, Washington, and she asks, this is such a good question. What are the work responsibilities of a paralegal? Do they need a law degree? And before you get to answer, I'm just going to say I loved my paralegals so much when I was in private practice. I was, like, blessed with paralegals who were committed to turning me into a lawyer fresh out of law school and very green. I think in many ways, these folks are the unsung heroes of the legal profession. Same thing at the Justice Department. We have killer paralegals in my old office. Great public servants. So on that note, do you want to answer the question? Yeah.

B (12:54)

Paralegal is a great job. You know, it was glamorized by Meghan Markle, who portrayed a paralegal in all people.

A (13:00)

Right.

B (13:00)

Suits. Right. Because she was supposed to be this, like, super brilliant person, but she was, like, too nervous to ever pass the bar exam. So it was a great character. Paralegals do a variety of things. Some of them are really super lawyers who just never went to law school, never wanted to go to law school, Never. Never had an opportunity to go to law school or just flat out didn't want to. I have had paralegals who are quite senior to me I've had paralegals who are quite junior to me sometimes. Many of our law students started their careers as paralegals maybe right after college, went to a law firm and worked there for a couple of years and. And then went to law school after they sort of sampled what it's all about. But there is a very wide spectrum of the tasks of a paralegal, usually commensurate with their experience, their education, and their skill level. So, you know, some of the things they do is legal research. They can help find laws, they can help find cases. They can help pull things together. When a lawyer is putting together a brief, they can draft a portion of a brief. Maybe they can summarize a case. One of the things I know our paralegals did in my law firm was to summarize depositions. I suppose to some extent, some of those tasks can be done by AI today, but somebody's got to do the quality control with the AI. And so paralegals can do that. A huge thing that paralegals did in the U.S. attorney's office was helping to manage all of the evidence in an investigation. So we talked earlier last week about FBI 302s and these reports of investigation. Paralegals would gather these databases of all of this evidence and have it loaded and also be able to easily retrieve evidence that a prosecutor might need. So if you're going into a witness interview or in the grand jury, you might say, I need all the interviews of this person or all the evidence relating to that person. And they would help gather all of that information for you, keep track of it, what needed to be produced in discovery, and assist with those tasks at trial. Paralegals are helping put on the evidence. We would have these superb paralegals. I see you out there. Darlene Secord. Man, was she good. She's still there at the U.S. attorney's office. These paralegals who would have on their computer hundreds of exhibits ready to go. So that when I was examining a witness, I might say, I am now showing you exhibit number 712. And the paralegal would call it up and put it up on a screen, and they would have it prepared to go. And I want to draw your attention to paragraph seven of that document. And now she might blow up paragraph seven. And can you please read for me what those words say? And we would talk about those. And then maybe I'll say, now I'm going to call up document number 52. And we would show. Put them side by side and perhaps show a conflict between these two things, I can recall a time when we had a trial and we put up on the screen. I think it was Maria Cook, who was the paralegal in this case, two parallel documents where one had been fraudulently fabricated over the other. And she superimposed one over the other. And it was so beautiful, the way she showed the way one had been created from the other, that the jury actually paused and said, oh, my gosh, can you do that again? It was such a powerful moment in the courtroom. So paralegals are doing all kinds of really interesting work, you know, from low level to very high level, depending on their ability. So if anybody's interested in a career as a paralegal, it's a really interesting, challenging, and important job.

A (16:34)

Hello. This is a question from Ann. I'm calling to ask about Les Wexner, who has been called to testify before the House Oversight Committee. He has an advanced age of 88 years old. I was wondering if that's the probable reason why he will be deposed in his hometown or if there's another reason why members of Congress might have traveled to him. So, Anne, this is a really good insight, and I'm sort of reading the subtext in your question, because, of course, Les Wexner is extremely wealthy, extremely powerful. That's why he was in Jeffrey Epstein's orbit. And the question is really, was Wexner getting special treatment with when they had to go to his home in order for the House Oversight Committee to hear his testimony? And I suspect that your framing of the question actually identifies the correct reason. He's 88 years old. Even someone who's been involved in a horrible, horrible instance of criminal misconduct like Jeffrey Epstein's conduct. And of course, with Wexner, there are questions. There's no proof that he was criminally complicit. But for someone of his age, it only makes sense. Sense to defer and to go to where he is. You're likely to get better testimony, quite frankly, if you do that. And so I think that this was a courtesy, you know, with the Clintons, the committee also traveled to their hometown. I don't think that they did the questioning at their house. I think that they did it at a library in town. And I don't know what the reason is there. Again, it may be deference to age. President Clinton is 79 years old. It may have been practical realities of security and some sort of a negotiated deal with the Secret Service. But I think when you want to take testimony, it doesn't necessarily behoove you to be, you know, a hard ass as much as it behooves you to set up conditions that allow you to get the information that you want to get.

B (18:37)

Thank you for listening to Sister Sidebar with Joyce Vance and me, Barb McQuaid. Keep sending in more great questions for next week's show, and if you send in a voice memoir, we will try to play your question during our next episode. We hope to see you at our live show in Denver, Colorado at the Cervantes Masterpiece on April 23rd. Tickets are available at Politicon.com Tour so make sure you get them before they sell out. Follow Sisters Sidebar and Sisters in Law wherever you listen. And please give us a five star review. It really helps others find the show. Don't forget to pick up square Sisters in Law Merch and other goodies@politicon.com merch and see you every week on Wednesdays and Saturdays for new episodes of Sisters in Law and Sisters. Sidebar. We should give him our Webby.

A (19:37)

Oh, that's such a good idea you guys.

B (19:40)

We'll send him one of our Webbies.

A (19:41)

I will take one for the team and we can give him one of the hashtag Sisters in Law Webbies. Good call.