Loading summary
Transcript138 lines
- [00:11]
A
Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Barb McQuaid, Jill Wine Banks and me, Dijon Sauer. No, it's Kim Atkins Store. But I do have a raspy voice today because it's the first week of April. And for those of you who know here in Di, our cherry blossoms are at peak. But when that happens, so is my hay fever. So I ask your forgiveness as we get through the show because I did not want to miss it because a lot happened in this week news wise, and I just wanted to see my sisters and hash through it all. And I wanted to be here to make sure that you know that in Denver, Colorado, folks, we are coming at you on April 23rd. We will be at the Cervantes masterpiece. And on May 3rd, we are going to Atlanta where we will play the Buckhead Theater, right, as I said, on May 3rd. So get your tickets. You can get them@politicon.com tour. Get them quick. Our tours are known to sell out, but we want to see you there, both out in the mountains and down in Hotlanta. And that leads me to something else that's really exciting, which is we're on YouTube. For those of you who are listening, where you normally get your pods, you can now see us as we talk about these topics right here on YouTube. Topics like we're talking about this week, Pam Bondi being out. We are talking about the birthright citizenship arguments at the Supreme Court, and we're talking about a ruling against President Trump when it comes to funding public media. But we're doing it all on camera now. You guys, Are you excited about this? Jill?
- [02:05]
B
I am. I guess. It's a new thing for us and it's fun because we get to see each other every week even though we don't broadcast it. But now everybody can see us and how silly we act and how we interact and how we love each other. So it's really good.
- [02:23]
A
What do you think, Joyce?
- [02:24]
C
You know, I'm the least photogenic of the sisters. True story. True story, y'.
- [02:29]
B
All.
- [02:29]
C
My dad was a professional photographer. I've got four half brothers. And daddy used to say I was the only one of his kids who was completely unphotogenic. Oh, but it was. It was true. Cause, you know, I'm like a little bit. I'm always looking at 5 million different things and I don't sit still very well. I'm not knitting today, but only because I forgot to bring my knitting upstairs with me. So video will be a challenge for me. Thank you to everyone who puts up with it. But I'm excited that we're doing it for the same reasons Jill is. We have such good interaction. I think people are going to enjoy being a part of that.
- [03:05]
D
Yeah.
- [03:06]
A
And for our first show, Barb, I just knew you were going to be in maize and blue, but there you are in lovely pink.
- [03:12]
D
Yeah, well, you know, ordinarily you might catch me in running gear, you know, trying to squeeze a run in before we record. Or wearing a Tigers baseball cap, not quite camera ready. But this semester I teach on Friday afternoons just before we record. So I'm in, you know, professional attire, got my game face on. And I see. Speaking of game face, Jill's got her cap. You should tell our listeners why the ridiculous reason you wear a baseball cap while recording. Not like me as a sartorial choice, but you use it for functional reasons.
- [03:49]
B
Well, no, this is actually because my Illini are in the Final four. I mean, I have to cheer them on. But you're right, sometimes the light coming in and I also notice on camera, and when we take a break, I'm turning off the light behind me because it's glaring in the camera. That's awful. But the light in front of me sometimes gets so strong that I have to wear this in order to see you guys on the screen, making me squint so bad.
- [04:13]
C
So things we do to tape this podcast, this is.
- [04:16]
B
Yay, Helena.
- [04:18]
D
Well, I'll say go blue. We'll see you Monday night, Jill, in the national championship game.
- [04:24]
B
I hope I'll be texting you during it.
- [04:26]
D
Okay, fair enough.
- [04:36]
A
Are you one of those people who actually likes your money? Well, unfortunately, traditional big wireless carriers like your money too. So if you're tired of spending hundreds on crazy high wireless bills, bogus fees, and free perks that cost you more in the long run than a premium wireless from mint mobile for 15 bucks a month might be right for you. Every month you wait is money that could be in your pocket. And we've seen how quick the savings add up with Mint Mobile.
- [05:09]
B
And you can stop overpaying for wireless just because that's how it's always been. Mint exists purely to fix that. We all deserve affordability and Mint Mobile is here to rescue you from. With premium wireless plans starting at $15 a month. $15 a month? All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. It's easy to bring your own phone and number, activate with ESIM in minutes, and start saving immediately. There are no Long term contracts and no hassle.
- [05:49]
C
It's time to ditch overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. With service and a price like that, we strongly recommend you make the switch. Even if you aren't tech savvy. The website is incredibly simple to navigate and you can get down to business in no time. Add it all up and we knew we had to get our kids using it when we found out how great they are. Like all of you, they have a lot more important things to spend their money on than another overpriced bill.
- [06:20]
D
Go with Mint Mobile and start saving on great service today. If you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you. Shop plans@mintmobile.com sisters that's mintmobile.com sisters the link is in the show notes. Upfront payment of $45 for a 3 month 5 gigabyte plan is required, equivalent to $15 per month new customer offer for first 3 months only. Then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details. Well, let's roll right into our first topic, shall we? This week brought the news that President Trump had fired Attorney General Pam Bondi. This was big news as far as I'm concerned. You know, if you name least favorite cabinet officials for a thousand, Ken, I would think Pam Bondi has gotta be very up there, at least in my list. Joyce, do you have any thoughts about the reasons that President Trump fired Pam Bondi? I mean, there's been some talk it was over her rollout of the Epstein files or her failure to successfully prosecute his enemies. And what do you think was the reason for his decision to fire her?
- [07:41]
C
You know, boy, if you're unhappy with the job that Pam Bondi has done, right, when she's been willing to throw virtually every ethical canon and DOJ norm out the window, who is going to make you happy? So, Barb, look, we've all seen the reporting. There's a lot of reporting that suggests that it's over her handling of the Epstein files. You know, I accept the reporting for what it is. I'm not sure it makes sense to me for this reason. Could Bondi have fought Congress once they passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act? I guess she could have resorted to that great Trump strategy of delay. And maybe that's what he was looking for. Maybe he wanted somebody like Todd Blanch who went on Fox News last night and said there's nothing else that we're going to turn over. You know, a month ago Blanche said there are 3 million more documents. Suddenly tonight it was that there's nothing. So I hear this reporting that it's about the way she handled the Epstein files, the way she sort of over disclosed. I wonder though, if given the timeline for how this happened, there's not an alternative explanation. I'm going to speculate here, something I don't do a whole lot. But Carol Leonig broke a great story last week, and in that story, she had gotten her hands on a document. It was a January 2023 memo that we discussed that was written by folks on Jack Smith's team. And it was a remarkable document because it disclosed substance of the documents Trump was found to have in his possess session during the classified documents prosecution. And it was really damaging. Right. Y' all recall the two big pieces. He had one document that only six people in all of government, including the President, were entitled to have. And then there was information that I'm not sure exactly how Carol put it, but it was adjacent to the President's personal business interests. He had classified documents that had impact on his ability to make money. Trump has gone to a lot of trouble to keep that information out of public view. We've also talked extensively about his fight to keep volume two of Jack Smith's special counsel report from becoming public. Something where the clock is going tick tock on that effort, but nonetheless it's held for now. You know, that happened just days before this final decision to fire Bondi was apparently made. The President was quick to usher her out the door. She sort of wanted a face saving all stay until the end of summer, but he, we're told, rejected that. So I think that there's more to it than just the Epstein files. But that's intuition, not fact. I want to be clear about that.
- [10:25]
D
Yeah, no, pretty interesting. I mean, I think all of it is speculation at this point, but definitely some interesting theories there. Well, Kim, let's explore Bondi's legacy, shall we call it? Her track record in the kind of cases she brought or significant accomplishments, significant failures. How will history remember Attorney General Pam Bondi?
- [10:50]
A
Well, I was gonna ask what her answer the question of what her legacy might be by saying, well, it depends on who you ask. Right. I mean, as an Attorney General, and it's important to realize that Attorney General oversees so much more than what we see in the news. So she has done a lot. But the question is, does the President like what she's done? I would say from his vantage point at coming in and making the DOJ basically the center of his Vengeance campaign, his vengeance agenda in his second term. She's done a lot of things that he should be very happy about, number one, being purging the DOJ of a lot of career folks who Donald Trump falsely believed were the Deep State, falsely believed were political actors just there for the purpose of going after him. You know, everybody from the people who prosecuted the January 6th rioters to the people who were involved in the investigation into Trump himself, and anybody who was just perceived to be disloyal. I have a lot of friends who are former DOJ officials Right. Right now because of that. But I think what President Trump wanted more is probably where he saw her failings. I mean, just in the last couple days, I have read. I'm not on Truth Social myself, but I have seen cover that suggests that he has been on a rant about Letitia James again. It's like, wait, what?
- [12:20]
B
What.
- [12:21]
A
What did Letitia James do? Clearly on his mind is the fact that she's not currently criminally charged or she's not in jail. Like, that's what he wanted. He wanted the DOJ to go after Eric Swalwell and go after, you know, Adam Schiff and other people who were on his enemies list and make charges stick. And that was one thing she wasn't able to do. He wanted her to do more, to uphold, do a better job at some of the challenges that are being done to his policies, which are being repeatedly struck down, at least at the trial and appellate level, in courts. Although through the Solicitor General, John Sauer, who I joked about. It was just a joke, y'. All. I didn't mean it that he's done a pretty good job at the Supreme Court on the shadow docket, but that clearly isn't enough. Donald Trump wanted to turn this DOJ into his own personal prosecuting arm. And despite as hard as Pam Bondi tried to do that, the courts had other plans.
- [13:33]
D
Yeah, I'm often reminded that Donald Trump, you know, really sees the world in this very transactional way and rules like a mob boss. And, you know, I think he was so influenced by his early interactions with Roy Cohn, who, of course, was a federal prosecutor early in his career, but went on to become Counsel to Joseph McCarthy on the Senate committee during the Red Scare, and then later was counsel to the mob. And so this idea of win at all costs, take no prisoners, fight, fight, fight, never show weakness, you know, the idea that the Justice Department is other to seek justice as opposed to seek vengeance, I think just doesn't occ to him. So she just wasn't good enough at it, I think. But, you know, you highlight some of these cases that she wasn't able to get it done because of fact and law and institutional protections against prosecuting people who are not guilty of crimes. I don't know how anyone is going to be able to satisfy him when that's the case. Well, Jill, I want to ask you similarly, but maybe more broadly, how Pam Bunney has shaped the Justice Department in her tenure. I mean, you worked there at one time. How has she put her stamp, if you will, on the Department of Justice?
- [14:50]
B
I would say it's not a positive stamp. She has really. And Kim pointed out a lot of the things that she did that are definitely changes. This is not what the Department of Justice is supposed to be, a personal vendetta machine. It's not supposed to even communicate with the White House, let alone take emails that say, go after Comey and James and why are you taking so long? So, I mean, but in a broader sense, first of all, as a result of what she has done, and she has fired anybody who touched any investigation against Donald Trump, whether it was January 6th, whether it was the documents case, whether it was the election interference case, those people are fighting, Maureen Comey got fired. And that was, I mean, ridiculous beyond belief. But she went after individuals and broad categories of people. But she also eliminated a lot of units within the department that served very valid purposes. Now, I will say to some extent, every president gets to set the priorities of an administration. You can't say, go after Letitia James. That is not right. But you can say, I want to spend more of the resources of the Department of Justice on immigration enforcement. Well, that will mean that you have to possibly cut back on some other activities. But you don't gut all of the civil rights group or things like no more Foreign Corrupt Practices act prosecutions. And those are things that she has done. Those aren't permanent. A new attorney general can go back to prosecuting those kinds of cases, but the thing that she has done is lost the presumption of credibility that all of us used to have when we were proud to go to court and say on behalf of the United States and to know that a court would accept what we said as presumptively true. We now know that any judicial notice has been taken of the lies that are repeatedly told by department lawyers, things that have in Trump, one resulted in disbarment, which has led to her trying to change the rules of ethics for lawyers at the department saying they cannot be held accountable at state bar associations, even though that's the law and the rule that they can only be held accountable, will investigate them and therefore, of course, do nothing. She eliminated the Public Integrity Section, the kleptocracy programs, organized crime, drug enforcement, even though, of course, they're going after drug cases, allegedly in the high seas, international waters, foreign corrupt, foreign agent registration. Oh, who cares about that. Civil Rights Division, voting section gutted. These are important and terrible things that have happened. And they've also eliminated a lot of investigations that were underway. And some of this is changeable with a new administration. Some of it is going to take a long time to overcome.
- [18:10]
D
Yeah, I agree with you on that, Jill. I mean, think about the way she's politicized the Justice Department. I'm firing all of those people. Not for good cause, just pursuant to Article 2. They got an email one day and they had to go. Allowing that banner of Donald Trump to hang outside of the building, going after his enemies, and as you say, moving priorities toward immigration and not pursuing some of these other kinds of cases that are really important and where the federal government is the only game in town. So I agree with you that it's going to take a long time to rebuild the Justice Department after the wrecking ball that was Pam Bondi.
- [18:54]
B
It was rebuilt after Watergate with Edward Levy was appointed to restructure and regain confidence after the Attorney general and deputy, other assistant attorneys general went to jail for their role. So it can be done. But I think compared to Watergate, this is 100 times worse, the things that she has done. And I think you said, Barb, that it's not gonna be easy for someone else to please Donald Trump because the courts have interfered, grand juries have refused to indict because there's no evidence. So if you can't make a case because there are no facts, he's not gonna be happy no matter what. So I wonder who's gonna take over and be willing to go be fired soon because they also will not be able to succeed.
- [19:45]
D
Well, let's talk about that, Joyce. It looks like Todd Blanche will be the acting Attorney General for now. What do we know about Todd Blanche, and should we feel better about him at the helm of DOJ than we did about Pam Bondi?
- [19:59]
C
I know that's purely a rhetorical question, Barb, and that the answer is no, no, no, we should not. Todd Blanche is, of course, Donald Trump's former criminal defense lawyer. He's the number two guy at DOJ right now, which means he has been There for all the bad stuff, it has all happened on his watch. You know, the deputy Attorney General is sort of like the chief operating officer for the department in the sense that everything goes through him. So if my office are more likely Barb's, because, you know, we were always super well behaved in the Northern District of Alabama. But if they were going to do something a little bit crazy up in Detroit, Barb would have to send an urgent report up to the Deputy Attorney General's office to loop him in. So you can imagine what that job looks like when you've got 93 U.S. attorneys across the country saying, hey, you know, I'm planning on indicting everybody in the leadership of state government or whatever it is that's going on in your part of the world. That's just one aspect of everything that the DAG has to manage. That means everything got fed into Todd Blanche's office, and he signed off on everything that happened. Something that's really different about Blanche than about someone like Pam Bondi, who, although she had been a state ag, had never been a federal prosecutor, is that Blanche has been a federal prosecutor. He came out of the Southern District of New York. He has the training and the background to know better than to permit stuff that's been happening to happen that I think is deeply concerning here. And something else that worries me about Blanche at this point is he's not going to ever become the Attorney General simply because he's not confirmable. He might even be Donald Trump's pick. I think Trump, in many ways, has been happy with his performance, but Todd Blanche will not be able to get the votes that he needs in the Senate. You know, he was around for the deportations to Seekot prison that happened in violation of a federal judge's order. He's been around for all the sloppiness of the Epstein files turnover. I just don't think he can get the votes in the Senate. And what do you do after you've been the acting Attorney General? Where do you go next? You probably don't go back to the deputy's job. Maybe he'll break the mold a little bit and he'll be the one that does that. But his clock is ticking. In essence, he knows he has to stay in Donald Trump's favor for his next act in life, and that concerns me. No attorney general should be beholden to the President of the United States. And I'll just say, you know, Barb, something I loved about Eric Holder, when we were for him, Eric Holder liked Barack Obama. He made no bones about it. They played basketball together. But Eric Holder was fierce about his views about right and wrong. And he would have stood up to the President of the United States every step of the way and respectfully explained his views to him. I worry that we're not going to see that in this Justice Department. We haven't with Bondi. I don't think we'll see it with Blanche.
- [22:56]
D
Yeah. I always thought it was useful that Eric Holder and Loretta lynch had both been U.S. attorneys at one point, because I think they had deep in their bones that idea about independence from the political part of the government. And I don't know that we've seen. I know we haven't seen it with people like Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, but I think if you've never had that role, Merrick Garland, too, he'd come from the judiciary. So I think he understood that these are very separate functions in the government. Well, one of the names we're hearing, Kim, is Lee Zeldin as a potential Attorney general pick for the permanent spot. What do we about Lee Zeldin, and do you think he would be a good choice for Attorney general? Again, a rhetorical question. It's like, you know, they tell lawyers, never ask a question to which you do not know the answer. I think I know the answer, but go ahead.
- [23:46]
A
I mean. All right, so Lee Zeldin is currently EPA administrator. And so in this sense, if I'm using the same standard of judging his performance as Bondi's, I think that the president is probably pretty pleased with him. Right. I mean, he's rolled back a lot of the environmental regulations that were meant to keep the air clean and the water clear and our soil healthy. He's rolled them back in favor of big business interests, which is exactly what Donald Trump has wanted him to do. So he's probably one of the people who in the last week or so can breathe easy now that the president is on firing streak. He is a lawyer, but pretty much been, I think he practiced for a little while, but it's pretty much been a career politician, first in the. In Albany, in New York, and then before coming to Congress, he unsuccessfully ran for governor. But he said it confirmed. Which is what? Like earlier when right after Pam Bondi was fired and people were rolling, you know, bouncing off names like Alina Haba. And I just, like, I did a spit take because, like, in what world could that possibly happen?
- [24:57]
D
But, Lisa, let's see. Raspberry.
- [25:01]
A
Maybe during the show, if, if I'm taking a sip of my tea. That'll happen. But, you know, Lee Zeldin is known by members of the Senate. These are his colleagues. You know, he's been Senate confirmed before, and so he probably will be somebody who gets. Who gets serious consideration for this role again, if he wants it. I don't think I'd want this job to the point you made before, but it's possible.
- [25:28]
D
Don't they all think I'm gonna be the one that survives? Look at Jeff Sessions, William Barr, Pam Bundy. But, you know, I'm gonna be the one that is able to get along with Donald Trump and do the job and have.
- [25:39]
A
No, it'll be different.
- [25:41]
D
Yeah. You know, the other thing, I saw a clip on Ms. Now yesterday with Lee Zeldin. He's one of those people who, when they say, will you agree that Joe Biden won the 2020 election? He just says over and over again, joe Biden is the president. Yeah, but will you agree that he won the. Joe Biden's the president. No doubt about it. And then starts quibbling with like, are you gonna ask me again? So he's. He's very cute with that.
- [26:05]
A
I don't know how many times I can answer this.
- [26:08]
C
Do y' all know who else did that? Pamela Jo Bondi did that in her confirmation hearing.
- [26:13]
D
Isn't it really Pamela Jo?
- [26:15]
C
It is Pammy Jo. I went back and I reread the transcript last night of parts of her confirmation. She declined to say that Joe Biden won the election. I mean, this is a real litmus test for being a Trump appointee, at least at doj, I think.
- [26:31]
D
Oh, my gosh. It's like, you know, did you ever see that movie, the STEPFORD Wives? Yeah, 1970s. Like, yes, I. I am programmed to say this. Well, Jill, do you think that when the Senate goes through this confirmation process, it might actually do its job this time around and demand an attorney general who will uphold the rule of law instead of allowing Donald Trump to make DOJ into his personal law firm? We have any expectations it could be different this time around.
- [26:59]
B
I have a feeling that's another rhetorical question.
- [27:04]
D
Be a little bit hopeful. You know, in 2025, they were really. They. Other than Matt Gaetz, who they did reject, they were pretty rubber stampy with a lot of people saying, like, oh, a new president deserves to hit the ground running and have his nominees appointed. And even though they may not be my favorite, it's his prerogative. I mean, now that we've seen the way Pam Bondi has really Abused the Justice Department, do they? You think there are at least a few Thom Tillis, Somebody in there might have a different view of this.
- [27:28]
B
There may be a few, but not enough. I do not think that the Senate will not confirm almost anyone that he puts up. If Jeffrey Epstein were still alive, maybe he'd get confirmed.
- [27:42]
D
You still have to be a lawyer, learn it in the law. I don't think he's a lawyer.
- [27:47]
B
You don't have to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court. So, I mean, maybe he'll change that rule too. But here's the thing that I think about when I think about it, it they can ask all the right questions. And when I say they, by the way, of course I mean the Democrats, because the Republicans aren't going to ask any hard questions. But if they ask the right questions, they will get, as Pam Bondi said, of course I will obey the rule of law. Of course I will maintain the independence. And there's no consequences for that being a lie. That was a lie. She never intended it and she immediately acted contrary to that. And there's no consequences. So it doesn't matter if they ask the right questions. And again, you know, if you look at during Watergate, Elliot Richardson said in his confirmation hearings that he would not fire the special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, except for cause. And when he was asked by the president to fire him without cause, he said no. And then it was bye bye, Elliot Richardson, it deputy Attorney General becomes the acting. He's asked to do the same. I made the same promise, no, I won't do that. And so he was gone. Those were men of integrity who, when they made a promise to Congress, to the Senate in confirmation, they abided by them. We're seeing the opposite of that now. And so I don't know what the answer is. I don't see a way around this. They can ask all the hard questions. They can say, you must do this. Will you do? Yes, I will. Except for admitting that Joe Biden won the election and it's not going to have any consequences. So where is the accountability and what difference will it make?
- [29:37]
C
Now that the sun is coming back out, our skin finally gets to see the light of day, and we all want it to look and feel its best. I don't know about y', all, but we've tried so many different regimens over the years. So when you find something that truly transforms your skin, you become a fan for life for us. That's osea. It's like summer in a bottle with clinically tested seaweed powered formulas that quickly deliver visible results. They have so many incredible offerings and each one feels like it transports you to the tropics the moment you apply it.
- [30:11]
B
I'm so glad we've discovered their incredible best selling Undaria Algae Body Oil. Allure highlights this great product and named it their Best of Beauty winner in 2025. It's a fast absorbing, non greasy body oil powered by hand harvested Andaria seaweed to deeply hydrate, improve the look of elasticity and leave your skin radiant with a healthy looking glow. I can't get over how good it feels afterward every time I use it or my husband uses it now too. It's pure indulgence. You'll quickly find yourself savoring its light citrusy scent of grapefruit, lime and cypress with Mango Mandarin notes and amazed by how your skin looks and glows.
- [30:57]
A
Don't just take our word for it. A two week third party clinical study of 53 women ages 25 to 65 had astounding findings. 100% showed a significant improvement in moisturization and skin elasticity, 100% agreed their skin looked firmer and less crepey and 100% agreed their skin felt softer, smoother and more supple. That did just come from osea's users. It was also backed by expert skin grading and instrumental measurements too. I can see from using it that the clinical proof is spot on. This body oil definitely improves skin elastic. It also visibly firms your skin and leaves it feeling super sculpted and toned and soft. I mean I really like My basic thing is are the things I'm doing making my skin soft? And the answer with OSEA is yes, this is not your typical body oil. Plus it quickly absorbs so you'll look silky, soft and unbelievably glowing right away.
- [32:01]
D
Boy Kim, you had so many great adjectives there. Silky, softer, smoother and supple. What does supple actually mean really?
- [32:08]
A
It means it bounces back like when you touch it in, it bounces in.
- [32:12]
D
Supple, yes. Bouncing and behaving my supple skin well. I can always tell when my sisters have been using osea. They look positively radiant whenever I see them. And I know that OSEA can make you shine too. We're also proud to say OSEA is clean, vegan, cruelty free. So don't wait. Get a spring worthy glow with clean clinically tested skin care from osea. And right now we have a special discount just for our listeners. Get 10% off your First Order site wide with code SISTERS10@OSEAMALIBU.com head to OSEAMALIBU.com and use code SISTERS. 10 for 10% off. The link is in our show notes.
- [33:04]
B
Trump issued an executive order on the very day of his inauguration for his second term, and that executive order is now in court. A woman who is named Barbara, though we don't know that that's her name, that's the caption of the case, who was fleeing a gang in Honduras and came to America to apply for asylum and has now been living in New Hampshire since 2024, was pregnant and gave birth to a baby right after the order was issued. And she is worried that that baby is going to lose its rights as a citizen, its rights to freedom, its rights to an education. And so she, with the aclu, has filed a lawsuit that has now been decided by a district court. And that court said that the 14th Amendment means what it says and that it means that her baby born on US Soil is an American citizen and that Trump's order to the contrary is unconstitutional. Before we get to the arguments that were made in the Supreme Court this week, and they are very interesting on both sides, the Solicitor General Sauer, who we've mentioned already in this show, argued for the government, and the ACLU was represented by Cecilia Wang, who is herself, I believe, a birthright citizen. There was a historic first in the Supreme Court, which is that a sitting president came to listen to the arguments. And by the way, he was accompanied by Pamela Jo Bondi, who sat next to him in the court on the very day that she was then fired. But that's another subject.
- [34:50]
A
Actually, I saw a news report saying that he fired her on the way to the court.
- [34:54]
D
Get in the car.
- [34:56]
A
So she had to sit there through the argument. Oh, so painful. It's like he always does that. He felt Kristi Noem right before she had, like, a presser that was carried live on television. Like, it's like he picks his moments.
- [35:12]
B
Oh, he's, he's, well. And he fired Comey in first term while he was in California talking to agents. But, yeah, yeah.
- [35:20]
A
And she, and he couldn't get, get, because he was fired. He couldn't get back on the plane home. He had to, like, book commercial travel to get home. He's something else.
- [35:28]
B
Okay, so I, I guess maybe we've talked about it, but I, I, I, I wanted to ask you, Barb, why you thought he actually showed up for the argument.
- [35:36]
D
Yeah. So first time in history sitting, president sitting and listening to oral argument. I mean, I suppose Part of it is, why does anybody go? Because we're curious. It's an interesting, important case, and we want to hear the arguments on one of his signature policies and wants to hear the arguments. But I think there's more than that. I've got some speculation. I suppose, you know, one reason that presidents traditionally don't go. I mean, I'm sure President Obama wanted to go listen to the Affordable Care act arguments. Other presidents, maybe George W. Bush, when there were decisions about some of his signature moves in the war on terror, would love to be there and to listen to these oral arguments, but they've declined to do that out of deference to the independence of the courts. They don't want to send any message to suggest that they are there to in any way influence the court's decision, because they respect the independence of the judiciary and their role in our government is a separate and co. Equal branch of government. I think Donald Trump had no such compunction. Like, yeah, what? I don't care. Not only do I think he was unconcerned about sending that message, I think he wanted to send that message because, you know, he's talked so much about his transactional view of the world, like about how members of the court have been so disloyal to him and they're lap dogs for the Democrats. He's been especially down on his appointees, Amy Coney Barrett and at times Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, as if they have not demonstrated sufficient loyalty. So it feels to me like in some ways, he wanted to be a visual reminder to them. Don't forget who put you on that bench. As you think about this argument, I think that's what was going on there. And then, of course, he left right after Sauer's argument. He didn't care what the ACLU lawyer had. I don't need the other side of the argument. I'm out of here. So, you know, that's my speculation as to what he was doing there. It was all, you know, like, the mob boss coming in and mean mugging the witness on the stand.
- [37:45]
B
A very good speculation. And I would add, as a former Mafia prosecutor, it felt to me like was, you know, and that scowl that he has, I. I just envision him going, like, every time any of the justices said anything that displeased him that he would like, you better be careful. I might get you. But. But, Joyce, do you think it. It will have any impact on the result?
- [38:11]
C
You know, honestly, Jill, I think it won't. Barb is so Dead on the money here when she talks about his motivation. If he wanted to hear the argument, he could have sat in his office and listened to it like we all do online. He could have even had somebody who, you know, someone junior in the Solicitor General's office come over and tell him who was speaking. Because I feel certain Donald Trump couldn't tell the justices voices apart. Probably didn't know who they were as they were sitting on the bench. There's just no reason that he went there to better understand the argument. That's not what was going on. And I think he does not appreciate that justices have life tenure and they don't really give a about what the President of the United States is doing when he's in their courtroom. It's interesting, you know, he thought he could threaten the justices on social media. Over the weekend, I pulled one of his many posts posts to read. He not tweeted, but he posted on Truth Social. The world is getting rich selling citizenships to our country while at the same time laughing at how stupid our US Court system has become. Tariffs, dumb judges and justices will not a great country make. You know, and the justices, to borrow a phrase, really don't care. Right? I mean, they just really don't care. There's nothing he can do. If his presence has an impact fact, it's going to be at the margins on justices like Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh who want to establish their independence from the president who appointed him. If anything, it'll push that way. And you know, you talked about the fact that he walked out of the courtroom. That may have some influence on how the Supreme Court operates. I think he walked out shortly after Cecilia began arguing. And I should say so Cecilia Wong, who's been at the ACLU for a long time, we actually litigated side by side In Alabama, the 2011 Anti Immigrant Bill in the state of Alabama where the ACLU raised claims on behalf of individuals that I didn't have standing to raise on behalf of the federal government. So I'm very familiar with what a capable litigator Cecilia is. I thought she was extraordinary in oral argument, but she's always liked this. She's one of the most on point lawyers that I know. The fact that he showed that level of disrespect for her, you know, Kim, I texted you during the argument, I texted some friends in the Solicitor General's office and I said, is there a rule against this happening? And everybody said, absolutely not. There's no rule, but it is never done.
- [40:49]
A
Nobody does it like, that's a.
- [40:51]
C
We might end up with a rule for people. There might be a rule.
- [40:56]
A
I don't think that there's a rule.
- [40:58]
B
I actually wanted to ask you about the fact that he left.
- [41:01]
A
Yeah, well, let me tell you a
- [41:03]
B
very good piece that I put a link in the show notes for our audience.
- [41:07]
A
Well, thank you. So let me just talk about that a little bit. There is a rule. There are strong rules of decorum in the courtroom down to what you can wear. Speaking is very. Is not allowed during the argument. You may be. If you whisper something, a marshal may come over to you and ask you to quiet down one time. If he has to ask you again, he may ask you to leave. You are. Obviously, people can come and go in between arguments if there's more than one argument. But to get up during an argument, if you've never been inside the courtroom, it's small and it's marble, so noises echo all the way through. You can hear everything.
- [41:48]
D
Oh, I'm sure Trump is quiet. His mouse probably slipped right out.
- [41:51]
A
He was a precedent in all of his entourage to get up and leave. I mean, that is the height of disrespect. So, I mean, if calling the justices dumb before the argument wasn't dumb enough, then doing that is in no way, obviously endeared him to them. But to the question of why he got up, I would love to say that he knew just how badly the case was going. I mean, yes, John Sauer. During John Sauer's argument, it was clear that the justices were like, come on. Like, there is no way. It did not go very well. But I'm not sure he. I don't know. That would. I will. I'll put it this way. That would require understanding the line of questioning and the constitutional and statutory construction that was involved in the questions well enough to know that it was going badly. So perhaps he just thought there. So we've told you, and then, like, just got up after Sauer finished his argument. I don't know why he left, but it was. I agree wholeheartedly with Joyce. It was rude.
- [42:49]
C
I mean, I don't wanna belabor the point, but I will anyhow, because he's seated far forward in the courtroom. And, you know, when you're the President of the United States, you don't just get to go in alone. Right. You got a Secret Service detail with you. And so the fact that he stood up in the front of the courtroom and all of these folks had to walk out, I almost wondered if it was designed to put Cecilia off of her game a little bit. If so, it failed dramatically.
- [43:15]
B
Yeah. So let's get to analysis of the arguments, and I'm going to try a sort of more free for all, and I'm going to just ask a general question, and then each of you gets to answer. And I'll maybe cue you as to who should answer first, so you don't all talk at once. But first, I want to ask what stood out to you in the arguments. Let's start with Sauer's arguments, and tell me what stood out to you. So let me start. Okay. Barb. It's alpha. I'm going alphabetically. Barb.
- [43:47]
D
Okay, fair enough. One of the things that I think is interesting is I didn't listen in real time. I listened to the recording. But did you also see this? That somebody took the recording and generated an AI visual of the argument. So it was the actual words. I saw it on social media. So you see Chief Justice Roberts saying, we will now hear oral argument in the case of, you know, Trump versus Barbara. Mr. Sauer, you may begin. And then they showed John Sauer with the exact. So it was. And it was, you know, the generations.
- [44:22]
C
That is deeply frightening.
- [44:25]
A
That's really creepy.
- [44:26]
D
I kind of liked it. Now, you know, you could also do all kinds of things that warp and distort it, which would be. But it looked like it was intended to be as authentic as possible, and it was pretty good. It added, like, another dimension to it. And I never had the problem of wondering who's speaking.
- [44:42]
A
Right.
- [44:42]
D
Because you got to get to see that. Anyway, anyway, one other thing I'll say is, in this case, I love it that the name of this case is Trump versus Barbara. I'd rather call it Barbara versus Trump. Taking you on man, taking on the man.
- [44:58]
C
You go, Barbara.
- [45:00]
D
But what stood out to me about John Sauer's argument? Well, one of the things that he argued is this court has made it clear that they are all about originalism and textualism. It's gotta be the original public meaning of the words at the time they were chosen. And he starts talking about, you know, the language of the 14th Amendment is something like, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.
- [45:30]
C
Right.
- [45:30]
D
He starts throwing in, well, it also means you have to be domiciled in the United States. And it also means you have to have allegiance to the United States and not just you, but your parents. Like, where in the text does it say that? And in fact, Chief Justice Roberts even said that he found that argument quirky and idiosyncratic. And, boy, even if Trump doesn't know what these big words mean, he had to realize it was not going well for him at the time. So I think they lost the chief in the first few minutes of that argument.
- [46:02]
C
And Joyce, you know, there was so much not to like in Sour's argument that it's a little bit difficult to pick. I mean, he. Look, I have a tiny bit of empathy for him. He was given this position that he had to take, and it was a really terrible, indefensible position. So maybe he did the best he could do with it. Something that I thought was really stunning, and maybe this is a little bit of inside baseball, but Sauer makes this argument that birthright citizenship contradicts how other countries handle citizenship. And I'm just like, literally shell shocked thinking, did I just hear those words come out of the conservative Solicitor General of the United States mouth? Because Federalist Society Republicans have spent decades staking out the position that foreign law should never be used to interpret US Law. Right. I mean, we've seen this come up in case after case. Scalia, the Chief Justice Alito. They're all like, no, you can't use law in other countries that says the death penalty shouldn't be applied to minors to make that argument here. How dare you. You know, what's next? The imposition of Sharia law in the United States of America. So I was pretty stunned by the hypocris that was present in the courtroom during US vs Barbara.
- [47:19]
D
Can I just interject, too? President Trump has said no other country in the world has birthrights. 36 countries do, and most of them are in the Western Hemisphere, which are countries that at the time were trying to grow population. So it makes perfect sense. But I digress.
- [47:36]
B
Go ahead, Kim. You want to add anything to this about the argument?
- [47:40]
A
Well, one thing that I thought was really interesting was the fact that one of Trump's appointees, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, didn't say boo throughout almost the entirety of Sauer's argument. The only time he asked a question was at the very end. You know, when the Chief justice goes, like, down the line to make sure nobody has any more questions for the brunt of his argument, he didn't say anything. And during Cecilia Wong's argument, you could really see him, like, almost crafting an opinion in his head about, okay, do we answer this on this? Do we decide this on the statutory basis, or do we decide this on the constitutional like, which way you want to win? And she was like, any way you want. Anyway, so I think that, again, it was very clear that he didn't have Kavanaugh. It seemed clear to me he didn't have any of his appointees. I think if he gets any justices, the only two in play are Alito and Alito and Thomas. And I've heard some court watchers say that he wasn't even sure he got Alito. So that's how badly it went.
- [48:41]
D
You know, you're in trouble if you don't have Alito. Although, did you hear Alito? I'm sorry to digress again. But he tries to bring it back, like, no, no, no. This is a good originalist argument, right? It's like Justice Scalia. Look, I said Scalia. Everybody. And all the originalists love Scalia, right? Remember you had that great argument how even if you have something like a microwave that didn't exist at the time of the founding, originalism still applies because, like, if you steal a microwave, that's still a crime, right? The analogy does not work. Right? Because a theft statute is stealing a thing of value. So it doesn't matter if it's a pair of shoes or a microwave. Right. It's still a thing of value. But this idea that now we're gonna start throwing in new words like allegiance and domicile, like that just does not compute to the way.
- [49:30]
A
Or an armed robbery, you wouldn't say, well, he didn't rob the store with a musket, so it does not.
- [49:35]
D
Yeah, it's cherry picking of this orig.
- [49:39]
C
It really galls me, you know, sometimes you throw the spaghetti at the wall, and not only does it not stick, it just misses the wall entirely.
- [49:48]
B
So let's talk about Cecilia Wang's arguments and what stood out to you in that. And I'll start with you this time, Joyce.
- [49:56]
C
You know, Kim was just talking about part of that exchange. That struck me, too, for a slightly different reason. I mean, Cecilia's just so good at this, right? She's. She's just the consummate advocate at oral argument. And so I went to the transcript and I pulled that part of the conversation that Kim referenced. That because Kim, I, too, was struck by the fact Brett Kavanaugh is being silent for so much of this argument. He's not always the loudest voice in the room. He usually has some insightful questions. Usually they're on a different vein than the other justices here. That didn't really happen. And so they're having this conversation about whether the court should decide the case on the basis of laws or constitution. Usually the court tries not to decide constitutional interpretation questions unless that's the only path to deciding a case. Sort of out of this sense that they should defer those for when they're pressing and must be answered. And so Kavanaugh says to Cecilia, why would we address the constitutional issue? Our usual practice, as you're well aware, of course, is to resolve things on statutory grounds and not to do a constitutional ground. And she responds, sure. You know, I think we're obviously have. I'm sorry? She says, sure. You know, I think we obviously have these two paths to a win here. We're happy to win on either or both of them. And the courtroom sort of explodes in laughter. Right. That's just one of those on your feet moment that only comes because you're good at oral argument and saying, sure, Judge, you know, however you want to vote for us, we will take the win. She, of course, goes on to explain why they should reach the constitutional question. And it was a really good argument here, saying that this was an issue that needed to be decided for once and for all so that there could be no future uncertainty, nothing left hanging on this point. But I was so impressed. You know, so often we talk about the substance of the argument here. It was how good her form was, how capable she was, how well she represented her clients, and how happy it made me to see it happen. Right. This is a woman of color arguing in front of the Supreme Court, something that does not happen all the time. Janae Nelson from the Legal Defense Fund argued a case earlier. This term was extraordinarily good. I think it's important for all of us to see that sort of representation in front of the state.
- [52:21]
A
And I would echo what Joyce said. And also considering that one of the key precedents in this case involves Asian Americans who. And the precedent said that even when the. The law that prevented specifically prohibited Chinese immigrants from ever becoming immigrants was in place and someone had a child on US Soil, that child was still a citizen. So this whole idea that Sauer was given, it's like, oh, it means you. You have to be here permanently trying to build a. Well, back then, people were here trying to build a life, and they couldn't. Couldn't. And those kids were still citizens. So I think that that was important. On the other hand, I will be honest and say that right after the argument, the first thing I thought was Cecilia Wong had the easiest job on earth just because she came after sour and just be like what you got? What question you got for me?
- [53:19]
B
I'm glad you raised that issue about the statutory versus the constitutional grounds because we did have a listener question about that. And now we don't have to answer the listener's question because we already have. So thank you. And you know, in terms of who, not not only was the representation from an Asian American, but in the audience was the main case involved here was Kim Wong. Ok. And his great something.
- [53:46]
D
Yeah, yeah. Grand something.
- [53:46]
C
His descendant was in the courtroom.
- [53:48]
B
Was in the courtroom. And so, I mean, that's pretty amazing. And he, the descendant wasn't aware of the role of his ancestor until very recently. So I listened to the arguments and I came away feeling pretty good about how the outcome was going to be. It's only going to be a few months before we get the answer, so stay tuned and we will find out whether or not citizenship as written in the Constitution means exactly what it says. After a long workday in Chicago's wind and whether the weather is warm or not. And it changes so frequently here that it can be in one day that it's 70 and then hours later it's 40. My favorite part of the night is finally winding down and getting cozy. Lately, I can't end my day without my Lola blanket. I'm obsessed. The moment you feel one, you'll understand why and so will your pets. The ivory fawn style matches Brisby's perfectly. It doesn't show his hairs, which is like an amazing thing. And it's so luxurious. They're incredibly soft and they make your space feel warmer and more put together. There's no pilling or shedding, just pure comfort. We've all seen Lola online and exploding all over Instagram, but I actually discovered them right here on Sisters in Law. Now you should tell everyone and I'm excited to be telling you about it.
- [55:25]
A
Speaking as a blanket connoisseur myself, Lola's truly are fantastic. They're crafted with ultra soft luxury faux fur and a signature four way stretch that somehow makes them both plush and light at the same time. They're machine washable, double hem for durability. And even after countless washes, they look brand new. Not only that, they make a great gift, especially knowing it's something that the gift receiver will use for years to come. Lolas have a wow factor that just makes them truly special. And that's the reason why it is. I don't. We don't always keep a blanket on our main couch, but there is a blanket on our main couch. Right now. And it is the Lola. Everyone loves a soft, comfy blanket and so do we. Yep.
- [56:16]
D
We've started referring to ours as Lola as if it's, you know, an inanimate object with a name like where's Lola?
- [56:21]
A
It was Lola.
- [56:23]
D
There's a reason they're called the world's number one blanket. LOLAs are always a hit and they get used and loved right away. With more than 20,000 five star reviews, a Lola is a must in every home. The story behind it is what makes it even more special. Lola was founded by two brothers inspired by their mom, who found comfort in her favorite blanket while living with breast cancer. And their mission was to bring life changing softness to others. And it's woven in every stitch. Just make sure you get one for everyone in your family or they'll get jealous.
- [56:55]
C
I don't know what y' all are talking about, having just one Lola in your home. You know, we have one that lives on the couch, but I like sleeping under it at night. But I prefer for it to be a blanket that the dogs don't sleep on during the day. And then one of our kids liked it so much that he finally ended up getting one. I mean, these are. I am not usually a blanket connoisseur like Kim, but here I confess to really loving these. They're slightly weighted. It's not so heavy that I can't move it around and I just really like everything about it. A Lola or two or three is a fantastic addition to any home. And for a limited time, our listeners can get 40% off select Lola blanket products with Code Sisters checkout. Just head to lolablankets.com and use code sisters to get 40% off your order. After you purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and let them know we sent you. Wrap yourself in luxury with Lola blankets. The link is in our show notes. So on May 1, 2025, if you can remember that far back, it seems like a lifetime ago, Trump issued one of his many executive orders. This was the one that was entitled Ending Taxpayer Subsidiation of Biased Media. Donald Trump thought he was delivering a death blow to Big Bird and to his friends, not just at PBS but at npr. Here we are a year later and it's time for us to check in because there's been some movement in court this week. Kim, can you start by reminding us of what was in the executive order?
- [58:42]
A
Yeah. So, you know, basically too long didn't read because there's. It's filled with A whole lot of who Shot John. But essentially what it does is directs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is was soon to not be a government organization that was meant to support public media by providing a certain amount of federal funding for it. It's important to understand that it doesn't mean that it is state sponsored media. The amount of money that NPR and PBS get from the government is a small. It's a single digit percentage of all of their funding. But it's meant to say, look, in order to have a well educ electorate, we should ensure that media survives. And this is just an effort by the government to ensure that there is some funding so that it does that. Of course, Donald Trump has been very upset with NPR and PBS because he thinks of them as liberal news haven that just wants to make him look bad and put out anti Trump news. Somebody who me myself personally, not just as a journalist, but someone who appears frequently on PBS and who used to work for npr, I can guarantee you is not the case if they are dedicated. Some of the most dedicated journalists I know work for affiliates of both of those news organizations. So anyway, this executive order directed the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to stop funding NPR and pbs. And just a side note is since then the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has announced that it has begun winding itself down. So I'm not even sure even, you know, with what the judge ordered, how that impacts that or what the remedy might be. But what I do know is that the President's attacks on public media have harmed it tremendously, have caused other funders to back out too. And it's really been unhealthy for journalism and unhealthy for our democracy. And I'll get off my soapbox.
- [60:51]
C
No, I mean this is a soapbox that I'm hoping that there's room for two or probably, probably foreign because it's so disturbing to me to think, you know, npr, which I relied on as my sole source of news for many, many years. I mean, NPR was maybe not my sole source, but certainly my primary source. I listened to it in the car while I was commuting. I was a smarter and better person because I had access to npr. And I think a lot of people felt like that. And of course, a lawsuit followed challenging the executive order. So, Jill, earlier this week, Judge Randolph Moss in the District of Columbia ruled on that challenge. Can you talk with us about his decision and what he held?
- [61:31]
B
Yes, very good decision seen as a very big win for public media. He ruled that it violated the First Amendment, that it was a Viewpoint discrimination and could not stand and basically that the government funding cutoff was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, it's really pretty much a hollow victory because Congress has not cut off the funding. So it doesn't matter that it's unconstitutional. The executive order says no one has a constitutional right to funding. And Congress said, yeah, we agree, no more funding.
- [62:12]
C
Well, Barb, I wanted to dig deeper into that with you because, you know, this decision, which on its face looks so positive and so good for Big Bird, turns out to be problematic. Jill talks, you know, about the funding issue and of course, when you cut public funding to public television and public radio, there are consequences. So would it be naive to view this decision as a possible cure for the executive order?
- [62:40]
D
Well, yes and no. I mean, one thing that I think is very important is this is a victory for the first Amendment amendment. The court has said viewpoint discrimination is a violation of the first amendment right. If you are attacking funding solely on the basis that you don't like the content of what an outlet is saying, that is a violation of free speech rights. So I think that matters. But as Jill has said, it is a bit of a hollow victory because one of the things we've seen from this Congress is this clawback, which is something we haven't seen before. This is where the president basically comes in and urges Congress to undo funding it had already done. This is some have seen as a real usurpation of the ability of Congress
- [63:25]
C
to have the power of the purse,
- [63:27]
D
that if the president comes in and bullies you enough and threatens you enough and suggests that you're going to get primaried, unless you take away funding you have already allocated, then you know, you might find yourself in a bad position that really is allowing the president to direct the power of the purse, not just advocating for it, but demanding that Congress pull back, claw back funding it had already allocated. So that to me makes it not just a hollow victory, but a very concerning victory that the president is really taking on legislative power and that the legislature is kind of like lying down and letting him do it. You know, just not pushing back, not objecting to this. I remember at the time there was even a member of Congress, I forget who it was now, who spoke on the floor about how bad it was to do this clawback thing. Just from an institutional perspective, we should not allow the President to direct us to undo spending we've already done. And then when the time came for the vote, he voted for the clawback.
- [64:31]
C
Yeah, you know, I mean, it's just so deeply disturbing for so many reasons that we're, we're pointing to right now. This notion, you know, that public broadcasting has integrity purely because it doesn't have to rely exclusively on large corporate donations is something that I think we lose here. Kim, I'm interested in your sense as a journalist and particularly because, as you've pointed out, you've worked with both PBS and NPR in the past. What's your assessment of their value in the American media ecosystem? What do you think we lose if, as you mentioned, right, PBS starts winding down its operations, there's now no more PBS weekend news? What happens here?
- [65:20]
A
Yeah, I mean, I think and I'm glad you brought up Big Bird, because it's important to recognize, too, that both NPR and PBS provide programming beyond the news. Right. So I think about it the news operation, because that's what I've worked with. But even, even just looking at the news operation alone, which is what the president is focused on, which is the whole reason for all of this. Again, not only is it true that some of the finest journalists I know on Earth are people that I've met working in public media, but it's also the fact that in a world where we no longer really have what I had growing up, which is, you know, at six o' clock and every, you know, people are home from school, home from work, and we we all watch the same sort of thing on tv. And that doesn't really exist in the sort of fragmented media that we have. People still, because I hear from them when I do appear on PBS and npr, when they are commuting on their way home from work, when they are on the subway, when they are getting ready in the morning or taking their kids to school. They do listen to the programs. I used to guest host on Pointe, the morning magazine on npr. And I would just hear from cross sections of America of different ideologies, too. This whole idea that NPR is just purely left leaning is nonsensical. And it's something that people really, really take seriously. If something changes, like they are used to their NPR and their pbs, it means something. I was walking my dog. This is no joke. I was walking my dog and someone came up to me and had a conversation about something I said on PBS NewsHour. I this is something that people use and value and it helps them understand the world better. So this attack on it is just really that's why I called it a blow to democracy and something and our listeners always ask what we can do, something tangible. You can do support your local PBS and NPR station Whether it's weta, wdet, WBER or gbh, wherever you are, support those stations because they need the support, because they are losing funding. And that means that journalists, friends of mine are losing their jobs and that. And they can't give you that same programming. So there's something distinct and direct that you could do to counteract this.
- [67:44]
C
Yeah, I mean, I'm glad to hear you remind people of that because, you know, we pay for the media that we consume. I'm happy to get to pay to support public television and public radio. And just to underscore what you're saying, you know, like the biggest honor of my whole book tour last year was getting to go on Fresh Air with Terry Gross and be interviewed by her. And the weirdest thing happened afterwards. I heard from everybody, my youngest kid, so 22, his friends, not all of whom are wildly liberal, they were all calling Ollie. And I did talk about him a little bit in the interview. So maybe that triggered it. Bless his heart. Sorry, Ollie, but, but they called and said that they had heard and a couple of them called me, you know, up to an 80 year old neighbor who I know is not a Kamala Harris voter, someone very conservative, who told me that they had heard me too. So I think this myth that public news sources are for left leaning liberals is sort of out the window and we do lose something in the community conversation. Jill? Barb, you know we know about the cuts at PBS and NPR that Kim's been talking about. About. There's been a lot of reporting on how traumatic those cuts are. The first NPR station to have to fold. That happened last year. I'm sure that more will follow. Some of that will happen in more remote parts of the country with less access to better sources of journalism. So can you talk a little bit about how important you think public access journalism is? Jill, do you want to go first?
- [69:24]
B
Sure. I'm a longtime member of wbez, which is a fabulous NPR station and of wttw, our public broadcast company. And they provide great programming. And I'm glad you mentioned that. It's not just news, Kim, because I mean, wait, wait, don't tell me. Comes from Chicago and everybody should enjoy that show. And there are so many. Anybody remember frickin frack?
- [69:52]
C
Yes, I love that I still have
- [69:55]
B
a coffee mug from them.
- [69:58]
C
Such a great show.
- [70:00]
B
It was fabulous. And, and there are a lot of other good entertainment shows and of course on PBS you get a lot of fantastic television. And although it is true that there is a much more competitive field now like you, Joyce, it used to be my sleep sole news source other than newspapers. And I was one of those people and they used to ask this question, how many of you sat in your car after you parked in your garage waiting till the story finished because it was so fascinating?
- [70:30]
C
Oh, it was all the time.
- [70:32]
B
Yeah, absolutely. Stayed in the car to listen. And that hasn't changed. Their news is still a really good source. And I, like the rest of you, do not see it as left leaning. I see it as pretty middle of the road and pretty fair coverage. I don't know why Donald Trump has made this conclusion that it needs to be defunded. So there you go. And I think it's very important to me. I think it's very important to the public. I think a well informed public is essential to our voters, to our ability to vote correctly. And I hope that we can resolve this. Obviously, it's going to be in a future administration.
- [71:10]
D
Well, the only thing I would add just very briefly is the importance of, of public radio to local news coverage. There are some rural communities where this is the only game in town. And you know, you're not gonna read about what's going on at the school board or the road commission or the city council, in the New York Times and the Washington Post or other national publications. You're not gonna see coverage of it on Fox News. And so to inform people about what's happening locally, public radio is often the only source. And if we lose funding for these things, we lose the ability for people to be informed about government decisions that matter most and mostly impact their lives. I also think local media can be community building when people can take pride in what's happening in their own community. You know, who won the local basketball championship or the state fair or the school science fair. All of those things I think are really important and can be shared through public radio, public television. So I share our my colleagues request to please fund your local PBS and NPR affiliates.
- [72:26]
A
You know what our favorite part of the show is? That's right, you guessed it. Listener questions. We love the questions that you give us. You challenge us. Sometimes I have to do a little bit of research to come up with some of the answers, but that's part of the fun. You know what to do if you have a question. You can either go on social media and use Sisters in Law or you can email us at sisters in law politicon.com and we may answer on this show or on our new popular show, midweek show Sisters Sidebar, which we dedicate to you, we do nothing but answer your questions there. So there are lots of opportunities for, for you to possibly get your question answered, either on your socials here, on Sisters In Law or on Sister sidebar. So I wanna get to our questions this week. Let's start with a question from Jill, who asks in this week's sidebar, you emphasize the congressional power of the purse. That's the basis of my question. How can Trump pay off wind turbine companies not to build their wind farms off the coast of New York? Surely the treasury is not not his personal piggy bank. Well, from Jill to Jill, what do you think the answer to that?
- [73:41]
B
So thank you, Jill, for the question and thank you for sharing my name. I'm sorry that I left it vague in the original answer, so apologies for that. But yes, of course it's not his personal piggy bank. But. There's always a but with him. Unless Congress takes back the control that it's supposed to have and starts doing its job job, he's going to keep on getting away with doing whatever he wants, whatever Congress funds. He doesn't dole out the money. Whatever he wants to pay for, he somehow finds the money somewhere to do it. And so I think we're going to have to see what can be done to roll it back. So that, for example, he said, I'm paying TSA agents. And although we all cheer that because no one likes the long lines that have resembled exalted, he does have some discretionary funds and that may have been legal for him to use, but those funds are going to run out, but he's going to keep on doing it. So let's figure out a way Congress, to start doing your job and to stop him from, for example, giving 1.2 million to Flynn for having been prosecuted rightfully after the man pled guilty or for his collecting. What is it? It's $325 million from justice, and I think it's $10 billion. That's $10 billion from IRS because a contractor for IRS released his tax returns and he's going to negotiate with himself and get the government to pay him. And unless Congress steps in and says, it's our money, it's the people's money, and we control it, he's going to get away with it.
- [75:22]
A
All right, let's hear our next question, which comes from Sue. When it comes to free speech versus hate, can you explain what is protected speech and what is not? Barb, what do you think there?
- [75:34]
D
Oh, yeah, this is a great question. You remember Pam Bondi. Speaking of Pam Bondi, she got this one wrong. When Charlie Kirk died, remember she talked about how she was gonna prosecute people who were engaging in hate speech about Charlie Kirk. And all the right wing libertarians said, wait a minute, no, you can't really do that. And she had to walk it back the next day. But free speech, you know, we are permitted to say things that are our opinions. We are permitted to say, with few exceptions, things that are false. We are permitted to say things that are hateful. That is protected under the First Amendment. Hate speech is often things like saying things about various groups, saying things designed to make people feel uncomfortable, things that are disparaging about individuals, and it's largely protected by the First Amendment. The place where you can cross the line is when what you are saying becomes a threat. And that is not just any threat, but what's called a true threat. And a true threat is where somebody makes a statement intending to communicate an intent to cause physical harm or death to an individual. So just saying things like members of this group should all be excluded from our community alone is not enough. And so we tolerate quite a bit of hate speech in the name of free speech, unless it crosses over into a threat.
- [77:10]
A
Yeah, I think that's an important point that people don't get. I mean, one the of the Seminole Supreme Court cases on this involved the Westboro Baptist. I didn't want to call them the church because they weren't really a church. It was a family that went around to Gold Star funerals and said horrible things during the funerals to the families, using slur LGBTQ slurs and all kinds of things and saying awful things. And the Supreme Court said, yes, that's awful, but it's also protected by the First Amendment. So that's a good explanation. And finally, we have a question from Blue Dot, who asks, why was Trump, a convicted felon, allowed to vote in Florida? Why? Joyce?
- [77:55]
C
Yeah, you know, this is a really, really great question. Every state has its own laws about convicted felons and voting. And under Florida law, if a voter has an out of state conviction, Florida defers to that state's laws for how a felon can regain or exercise their right to vote. So Trump is the beneficiary of a 2021 New York law that allows people with felony convictions to vote as long as they're not serving a term of incarceration at the time of the election. It's really interesting to me because Florida notoriously makes it difficult for people with convictions, even old ones, to vote. There was a 2018 ballot initiative. You it's become very popular to restore people's voting rights once they've paid their debt to society. Right. I mean, you serve your sentence. Many people would argue that you should not lose your right to vote even while you are serving a sentence. But Florida still thinks that you should. But they restored voting rights after people had completed that sentence. Republican lawmakers in Florida were so affronted that they passed this law that said, well, you've got to pay all of your, your old fees and fines before you're able to vote again. And there's no centralized system for trap for tracking that. People have to pay interest. You know, if you go to prison for 20 years, it's amazing how those interest rates wrap around and become almost impossible to pay off. So for a lot of reasons, Florida has created a real drag on people with former felony convictions to keep them from voting. But not Donald Trump. Trump, who has that right.
- [79:33]
A
Well, thank you for listening and watching Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Barb McQuaid, Jill Wine Banks and me, Kim Atkinstore. And don't forget, if you are in Denver, get your tickets. We are coming to you on April 23rd at the Cervantes Masterpiece and down in Hotlanta for coming your way, too. I know you, you don't call it that. I'm sorry. I know better down in Atlanta. That's, it's like somebody said to me, it's like, you know, oh, you're from the D. I'm like, I'm from the where. Like, we don't, we don't call it that. Motown will give you. But not. But anyway, Atlanta. We will be there on May 3rd at Buckhead Theater. You can find all those tickets@politicon.com tour and we can't wait to see you there. Also, if you want to wear some merch to that tour, see how, see how cute it is. Our YouTube watchers, you can go to politicon.com merch to get something to wear to the show or pick something up at the show, whatever your pleasure is. We love the way you support us and show that you are a part of the resistance. So please don't stop. And please show some love to this week's sponsors who are Mint Mobile, OA Malibu and Lola Blankets. The link is in our show notes and they really make this show happen. We couldn't do it without them. We're grateful for them and we hope that you support them, too. See you next week with another episode here on YouTube where please leave a comment. If you're watching on YouTube and like and subscribe or if you're listening where you normally get your pods, be sure to like and give us a five stars there too. And we will see you next week in both places. Sisters in law. It's a throwback for me. It's reminded me of my like radio days. But like, is it that different? We are all, all of us do tv. Isn't it the same thing?
- [81:30]
C
I don't know. You know what worries me is I'm bad to text one of my kids while we're taping and go, please bring me a cup of tea or a latte or whatever it is. And they usually come in in various states of disarray. And I think I probably can't do that anym. What do we do? I mean, you know, Jill has a dog, I have a dog, you have a dog, Kim, all sorts of animal interruptions. I guess those just become part of the show now.
- [81:55]
A
Snickers would be a treat. She's negotiating her contract right now.
- [81:58]
D
Yeah, we want to see more Snickers. I think it's going to be like, have you ever seen that famous video where the guy's giving his like analysis of world peace or whatever it is and the kid comes in and then the babysitter comes in and drags them out. I think we're going to have a few of those moments. I look forward to it.
- [82:12]
B
Those will be good ones. I think our audience will love them. Notice how some homes sell faster in your neighborhood. It's not luck, it's local. Know how RE Max agents know their streets, schools and communities, inside and out. And with RE Max, those local pros are everywhere. Which means when you're ready to buy or sell, you'll get trusted neighborhood insight that puts you a step ahead. Reach out today reMax the experts close to home. Each office independently owned and operated this
- [82:46]
D
week with digital coupons at Safeway and Albertsons.
- [82:48]
A
Get beef rib roast for $7.97 per pound. Member price with minimum purchase of $50 or more in a single transaction.
- [82:55]
D
Exclusions apply.
- [82:56]
A
See store for details and broccoli, cauliflower or russet potatoes are 97 cents per pound. Member platform price limit 6 pounds plus selected sizes and varieties of Lucerne butter cheese or Philadelphia cream cheese are 197 each member price. Visit safewayralbertsons.com for more deals and ways to save.
- [83:17]
B
Notice how some homes sell faster in your neighborhood. It's not luck, it's local. Know how RE Max agents know their streets, schools and communities inside and out all. And with ReMax, those local pros are everywhere. Which means when you're ready to buy or sell, you'll get trusted neighborhood insight that puts you a step ahead. Reach out today. ReMax the experts close to home. Each office independently owned and operated.