D (3:20)

My youngest child went to college in Boulder. I have spent a lot of time here. I have been known to cheer for the Bucks during football season. And I have to say, Kim is absolutely right. People in Boulder are so tremendously wonderful and kind and weird, and my husband and I loved everything about it. But as Barb mentioned, I grew up in Los Angeles, and my granddad used to think nothing of piling my three cousins and me into his station wagon and bringing us to Colorado to go fishing. So I spent a lot of happy vacation time here as a kid.

B (4:00)

So what about you, Barb?

A (4:02)

Yes, yes, I enjoy visiting Colorado. I, too, like to come and ski here. Made a nice trip to Steamboat Springs earlier this year. Very nice place. And then we also went to this very odd place. It's called, like, Strawberry Springs or something. Very weird. Talk about liking weird people. It's one of these natural hot springs things. We chose to go during the day because we did read that in the evening, swimsuits are optional. So we opted in. We opted in for that. But, you know, speaking of attire, Jill, tell me about your pin. What are you wearing today? Oh, you know, Jill is famous for her pins. She's been featured in publications around the world about her pin collection. What are you wearing tonight?

B (4:52)

Tonight, I'm wearing chaos. And it's a wonderful, movable thing, as you can see. And I just felt like we're living in an era of chaos, so we're. That's why I'm wearing this one tonight.

A (5:06)

All right, fair enough.

B (5:08)

But I want to say thank you, Bobby, if you're in the audience. Thank you. Thank you. Because you're the donor of a very great paperclip, which is a sign of resistance, and I look forward to wearing.

A (5:19)

Yeah. Thank you to Bobby from the Denver Press Club. Thank you. We appreciate those. Well, you know, I like to think ahead about my attire. And so I sent a text message to each of the sisters saying, what color are you wearing? You know, I don't want to wear the same thing. And Jill and Joyce quickly chimed in with blue. I wear blue, so. So I had to wear the red.

E (5:43)

Great.

A (5:44)

I don't wear it a lot. But Kim came in with something I didn't expect, and she said, I'll be wearing pewter. Pewter. And sure enough, there it is. That's pewter. Pretty good looking.

C (5:57)

Well, I wanted to honor Denver because it is the home of one of my childhood Favorite television shows, which is Dynasty. And I thought that this would get the approval of Dominique Devereux. What do you guys think?

A (6:13)

Backstage, Kim was showing me a clip of amalgamations of a montage of all the times Dynasty characters fell down the stairs. And it was a pretty long. Pretty long video. Yeah. And, Joyce, I know you spent a lot of time choosing your shoes and socks. Those are pretty styling.

D (6:30)

I did. I did, absolutely. Because I'm a fashion goddess here.

C (6:38)

So what are you wearing, Barb?

A (6:40)

Well, it's not really a what am I wearing? It's a who am I wearing. Right. Because, as you know, I always like to sample some of the local cuisine. And for me, that means sports. I love all the sports teams here in Denver. I thought about. I know the Avalanche and the Nuggets are playing tonight in the playoffs. Go, Avalanche. Go Nuggets. I thought about sharing the score, but somebody told me earlier they're recording it. So whatever you do, don't reveal the score so nobody mums the word. I saw Coors Field today. I've been there. One of my favorite ballparks. Home of the Rockies. Great place. And I know your Broncos had a great run, but I chose tonight to honor the newest team in Denver, the Denver Summit.

C (7:31)

So for those of you listening at home, although Barb opted into the bathing suit, she's now doing a little strip tease.

A (7:38)

Jill, if you get cold, you can wear my red jacket. I think had enough of the red jacket.

F (7:52)

When it gets cold at night, there's nothing better than snuggling up under a Lola blanket. They're so warm and comfortable that they bring you back to a time when things were simpler. It reminds you of when the kids were little or when you were growing up and everyone got under a blanket to watch a movie together. It's a wonderful feeling, and, you know, it makes us realize that even just the blanket itself can bring back those memories. That's when we decided that the next time we bought a gift for a loved one, it was going to be Alola. And with Mother's Day coming up, it's the perfect way to create more of those experiences and give the people you love something that they can enjoy every day.

G (8:32)

Lola blankets come in tons of colors and beautiful designs, so you can find the perfect fit for any home or personality. They not only make your space warmer and more put together, but their softness is on another level. Each one is so luxurious, and there's no pilling or shedding, just pure comfort. Speaking as a blanket connoisseur, which I AM Lola's truly are the best. 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. Like even in as it's getting warmer here, I will still reach for them from time to time, either on cool nights or even when the AC is too high like this week because it was in the 90s here in D.C. and they're machine washable, double hemmed for durability. And even after countless washes, these, they look brand new.

C (9:28)

And you know, they're so soft.

G (9:29)

Like I felt bad at first because Snickers would try to like put her face on the, on the Lola blanket, but she's not allowed on our furniture

C (9:38)

and on our, on the, you know, the blankets on our furniture.

G (9:41)

But luckily Lola has dog blankets, so she gets her own, which she loves.

C (9:47)

And not only that, Lola makes the

G (9:50)

ultimate gift for your friends or your friends pooches. Lola's have that wow factor that makes them truly special. And everyone loves a soft, comfy blanket, even Snickers.

A (10:01)

Lola has more than 20,000 five star

E (10:03)

reviews with thousands of people gifting it, loving it and talking about it, including us. We love our Lola. We call her by name. There's a reason it's called the world's number one blanket. But 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. Later, she gave blankets like hers to her children so they'd always feel that warmth and love in her honor. Lola also runs a program called Blankets for the Brave where they regularly donate blankets to women living with stage four breast cancer. And they support breast cancer research to us that makes each gifted blanket so much more special.

B (10:46)

And I'm with Kim.

H (10:47)

I am so happy that Brisbie is getting his own Lola dog bed because I love our Lola blanket. And once you feel a Lola blanket, you'll know you've got a blanket for life. Lola blankets work for everyone. Moms, grandmothers, new moms, mother figures, or anyone who deserves a little extra comfort, including you. And for a limited time, our listeners can get 40% off. That's 40% off. Select Lola blankets products with Code Sisters at checkout. Just head to lolablankets.com and use code Sisters after you purchase. They'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and let them know we sent you this Mother's Day wrap.

B (11:34)

Mom.

H (11:35)

In the everyday luxury of Lola blankets, you can Also find the link in our show notes.

A (11:49)

Well, good. Well, enough of the chit chat. Let's get into it. Let's talk about what's going on in the legal news this week.

B (11:55)

Oh, my God. Is there anything for us to talk about?

H (11:57)

I'm not really sure, but I want

B (12:00)

to start with a juicy one. Cash Patel.

C (12:03)

Go.

A (12:05)

Bar is now open. Let's.

B (12:06)

Ladies and gentlemen, you can join the liquor cabinet.

H (12:12)

Anyway,

B (12:15)

I think you probably all know that he filed a $250 million suit against the Atlantic, but that wasn't his first one. He actually had filed one against a sisters in law friend, Frank Viclozy. And so I want to start with that because I think there may be some prediction value in talking about it. So I think, Kim, tell us about

H (12:39)

what happened with Frank.

C (12:41)

Yes. So Frank was giving his commentary on then msnbc now msnow, talking about Cash Patel. And one of the things that he quipped was that the FBI director had, quote, been visible at nightclubs far more than he has been on the seventh floor of the Hoover Building, which is where FBI headquarters is. And so Kash Patel filed a defamation suit against him. Now, before we talk about what the judge ruled, it's important to understand what you would have to prove to win a defamation suit. You would have to prove that the statement that Frank made was false or false. It has to be false. Truth is an absolute defense. And that it was made either knowing that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. Because as FBI director, Kash Patel is a public figure. So it's a little bit of a higher standard than if somebody who is just a anonymous citizen files a defamation suit. And most importantly, you have to prove that there was a reputational damage to, to the person that was being spoken about. Well, that's kind of where the judge stepped in when he dismissed this case for failure to state a claim. We call that a 12B6 motion in federal court practice. And he basically said, look, anybody who heard that statement would know that it was hyperbole, a part of analysis that he is making, not even to try to assert the truth or fact or, or falsehood, but that there is no reputational damage that was done here because all of these things that Frank was talking about, these were things that had been reported on, you know, that he is the implication, for example, that he is a partier. Well, since this suit was filed, we all saw him at the Olympics with the men's hockey, with the men's hockey team. So is it that there was also a lot of reporting that showed him in places that were not Washington, D.C. during his tenure. So it was a really, really weak lawsuit. It was clearly just made to try to bully Frank, and the judge saw through that and threw it out.

B (15:14)

So, Barb, that takes us to the Atlantic and what it reported. And in case people haven't already read it, you should read the whole article. But tell us what was alleged and, you know, could it meet the defamation standards that Kim just laid out?

A (15:29)

Yes, because I know that it's quite likely. Kash Patel listens to this podcast. I want to avoid defaming him. And so I'm going to read from the Atlantic about what was written about Kash Patel. It alleged that he engaged in excessive drinking, mismanagement, and erratic behavior that alarmed staff. He was sometimes unreachable and unwakeable, leading to rescheduled meetings. In fact, it once got to the point where other members of his security detail requested breaching equipment to extract him from a room when he could not be reached. Drinking, excessive drinking and unprofessional behavior at private clubs in Washington and Las Vegas. And at one point becoming quite agitated when he could not access his computer at work, believing he had been fired and engaging in what was referred to as a freak out, I think is a term of art. So he's denied all these claims. He says they're categorically false. And he has asked for $250 million in damages, which is just a number you kind of make up. Right. There's not much rhyme or reason to it. And then you ask the question whether it meets that definition that Kim just mentioned. Well, one is that truth is a defense. And one of the things I note in this article is that the author claimed to have heard from more than a dozen officials in the FBI, the hospitality industry. So, like, you know, like the people who are working, they're paying attention, they're watching all of these things. Journalists. But none of them wanted to give their name because they were fearful of retaliation. I saw an article today by the same author who asked, you know, there's been a request for a retraction. Will you be retracting? She said, absolutely not. We stand by our reporting. And since we reported that, I've heard from dozens more people who say, oh, well, now that you've mentioned it, I too, want to share that. So I think it may be very difficult for him to establish he has the burden of proof as the plaintiff in this case, to establish that it's false. And then as Kim Said not only that it's false, but that the authors knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard as to whether it was false. The Atlantic is standing pretty strongly by all of this. And so, you know, we don't know. We don't know all the facts, but, boy, that reporting seems pretty solid. And the Atlantic seems to be quite determined. You know, I once worked as a journalist for just a very short period

B (18:15)

of time as a sports reporter.

A (18:17)

I haven't had as many jobs as Jill, but I know that when publications are getting ready to publish something that they know is going to get a lot of attention, that they know is likely to attract a potential defamation suit, they bring in the lawyers and they say, what is your source on this? Do you have a source? Do you have. And they go through it and they go line by line and they remove things that they don't think they can defend in a case if there is to be a lawsuit. So I think we'll see what happens. But I think it may very well go the way of the case against Frank Figloozzi.

B (18:48)

Yeah. And I actually went through that when I was writing my book and the lawyer's review whether I was defaming anybody. And I was like, it's true. But they made me check whether someone was dead because did you know that dead people don't have any legal rights against defamation, which I think is a horrible rule. But I was, like, ready to go to bat because I wanted to make sure that stayed in because it was true. Anyway, I guess it's not hyperbole, like in Frank's case. It's also. I don't know how many of you have heard that Laura Loomer just got dismissed. Her case for defamation against Bill Maher, Slightly different thing he accused her of. Can I. I'm sitting next to Barb. I can't use the word. No, sorry. Of having sex with. Is that okay?

A (19:39)

Barb?

B (19:40)

Okay. That wasn't the word that he used,

A (19:42)

but carnal knowledge, I think, is what we say.

B (19:44)

Carnal knowledge.

A (19:46)

Intimate relations with Bill.

B (19:47)

With the president. And she sued him for saying that. And the judge sort of said, excuse me, but everybody was laughing. And any reasonable person would have known that's a joke, so it can't be defamation. So. All right, anyway, leading right along, do you think that his bringing this lawsuit is actually going to do more harm than good?

D (20:12)

Oh, yeah.

B (20:14)

Everybody in the audience, what do you think? Okay, I think everybody here agrees with that. And Joyce, do you think there's a third lawsuit that's going to happen because of the reporting that is going on about his girlfriend, Alexis Wilkins, who's a conservative singer and he flies the jet, the FBI jet. And I have a separate question for you about this, Barbara. In terms of national security, but do you think there's going to be a third suit because of all this reporting about the wrongdoing, giving her a security SWAT team when it's just for her alone? What do you think's gonna happen? Will there be another lawsuit?

D (20:55)

Yeah, I think the short answer is Kash Patel will not file a defamation lawsuit over this reporting. But he has another strategy here. And let me just be the buzz kill in the room for a minute. I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

A (21:09)

You're always the buzzkill.

D (21:11)

But I mean here, though, one has to be, because Kash Patel is the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. I mean, just sit with that for a minute and then think about the image of him in the locker room following the men's hockey team's victory.

C (21:31)

Could you imagine Jim Comey like Robert

D (21:35)

Mueller, I mean, or go further back, Louis Freeh, you know, I mean, take your pick. Any of these guys, Bob Mueller in the locker room in his starched white shirt, chugging a beer? I just can't get there. And you know who also shouldn't be able to get there is Donald Trump. Because Kash Patel is there, because Donald Trump tolerates it. And so to this story about his girlfriend Alexis, who has a full security team, four agents, two cars. You know, the FBI director's wife does not get a full time security team if she's traveling with the director. Yes, but not routinely. If she needs that, she can arrange for it privately. But Kash Patel has said that his girlfriend Alexis, who is in Nashville, she's a musician, has received death threats because of her relationship with him. And so here's an interesting thing, right? Normally, if the director of the FBI said something, you'd be able to take it to the bank. We'll hear who knows. And if he's not telling the truth about that, he may have all kinds of problems. We just don't know the reality of it. But as everybody has said, truth is a defense in a defamation case. And it is clear that he has arranged for that security detail, that he has been using the FBI, the director's jet, to fly back and forth. No defamation case, but you know what he has been doing. Did you see this new story that Mike Schmidt at the New York Times has? What they did was they investigated the reporter who broke the story. And even in this Justice Department, there's apparently still a red line, because after they started investigating, some unnamed prosecutor at the Justice Department said, absolutely not. There's no predication to investigate this reporter criminally. She's just doing her job as a reporter. That I think is absolutely shocking because it suggests that there's now retaliation against the press, or at least attempted retaliation over stuff that you guys are entitled to know. Right. It's a bad moment. It's all at Donald Trump's doorstep.

B (23:57)

So, embarb, you're our expert on national security, and the FBI director's job is 24 7. He has to be alert, awake, wakeable. And he doesn't seem to be. Is this a national security issue that we should be worried about?

A (24:15)

I think it is a national security issue. I mean, one is the FBI director may need to be called upon to make a decision, provide advice, show up at a scene. If these reports are true and he is so drunk that he has to be extracted from a room, how is he able to do his job? But the other thing that I worry about is compromise. One of the things that's so important when you do a background investigation of people in a sensitive position is they ask you and everybody around you if they have any secrets. Is there anything embarrassing that they would not want the world to know? Because if you have a secret, that is something that can be used to by a hostile foreign adversary or anyone as leverage over you, because I'm going to spill your secret if you don't do what I want you to do. And so when you are working in a sensitive national security position, it's a very touchy thing. I remember. I don't know if she would want me to share this, but I was once at a dinner with Loretta lynch when she was the Attorney General, and they were coming around with wine, and she declined and asked for a Diet Coke or something. And they continued on. And I said, are you going back to work late tonight? She said, you know, I have the privilege of being the Attorney General of the United States. It's only going to be for a few years. And I think that during that time, I can abstain from alcohol because I just never know when I might get a call to come to the White House and have to make a really hard decision.

C (25:45)

That's right.

B (25:46)

Those were the days.

A (25:48)

Right. And that's what we should expect from our public servants.

D (25:51)

And it's not, Let me just say

B (25:53)

his defense was, I've never been drunk on the job. His job is 24 7. So he is drunk on the job witness Loretta Lynch.

A (26:04)

That's right. If these reports are true, Jill, as your lawyer, I need to allegedly give

B (26:09)

you that qualifier that's alleged by dozens

A (26:11)

of people as alleged allegedly.

B (26:13)

I think so. Okay. So, Kim, you're a reporter.

C (26:16)

I am.

B (26:16)

So let's put this in context. And I want to look at whether he's just following the modus operandi of the President who files lawsuits willy nilly, everywhere. How many suits has he filed and what's his win record? We're talking about the President curring favor with him, who settle.

G (26:37)

Yeah.

C (26:37)

So we know that Donald Trump, long before he entered the political sphere, was known for threatening lawsuits, filing lawsuits that either he knew or certainly his lawyers knew to be frivolous as a bullying technique. And he did it in business, and he certainly has done it in office. I mean, he even tried to get, remember his first term, he tried to get people in the White house to sign NDAs and threatened to sue them if they spoke. It's like, hello, have you seen, like, no, he hasn't seen the First Amendment. So I'm asking my own question. And you know, people were asked to sign it even though they were being told by the White House counsel. It's like, these are not enforceable, but he just wants you to sign it. Right. So he has definitely done this. He has bought defamation suits against a lot of people and very few. In fact, none of them have been successful in court. He's threatened lawsuits against media organizations, but sadly, the only sort of wins he's gotten in these frivolous lawsuits are with two news organizations that chose to settle. ABC News and CBS News entered into massive settlements. And I have to say, as a journalist, I was just absolutely aghast that they chose to do this because these suits were frivolous.

G (28:04)

Yes.

C (28:05)

Does litigating them take time?

G (28:07)

Yes.

C (28:08)

Does defending them take money?

G (28:09)

Yes.

C (28:10)

Guess what? CBS and ABC have a little bit of money. But what will happen now? What happens to independent journalists or smaller news organizations who now feel like they cannot do robust reporting because they aren't going to have the millions and millions and tens of millions of dollars to settle a suit in the way that CBS and ABC set a precedent for? So I wish that those two things didn't happen. It would make the Patel lawsuits look even sillier. But I will make a note that there was a defamation suit involving Donald Trump that went the other way, and that was brought by one E, Jean Carroll. So sometimes defamation suits can, can win when they're not frivolous.

H (28:59)

Right.

B (28:59)

So now the question is, rumors are that Kash Patel may be the first male cabinet officer to be fired. We've seen three women go, Tulsa. Gabbard may be the next. But really right now, it's focusing on Patel. How many people here? What do you guys think? Is it going to be Patel or Hegseth or Gabbard? What do you think? Who do you want?

A (29:27)

All of them.

B (29:30)

Anybody want to say something different?

C (29:32)

I will never guess what the President is going to do. He seems to be rather petulant, so I'm not going to put my money on that.

D (29:40)

You know, I'm going to hawk my crystal ball because I called Pam Bondi right before it happened. And so I think that's my prediction for the rest of this terminology. Yeah.

A (29:53)

I don't know. I'm like, Kim, you know, I remember a time when we were prosecuting a terrorist, and we were trying to think about strategy, and every time we tried to, like, get into his head, we'd say, wait a minute. This is a guy who's willing to kill himself and 289 people who are on board a plane. We can't possibly get into his head. And I think Donald Trump has the mindset of a terrorist, so it's very difficult to predict what might be on his mind.

D (30:18)

But.

A (30:18)

But I will say this. Donald Trump does not drink. Donald Trump does not tolerate drinking. He is. You know, he had a bad experience in his family, and so he has spurned all alcohol. It's something I actually admire about him. And I imagine that these reports about Kash Patel are not sitting well with him. And so I think it could.

B (30:38)

And yet he fired three women. And Kash Patel and Pete Hexseth are still on the job, well known as drinkers, and both. Well, at least Hexethat said I'll not drink during my tenure as Secretary of War.

A (30:53)

Yeah, he is. He has a history, but I don't think he is currently drinking, as the reports are with Hexeth.

D (31:01)

He's not getting caught with Patel.

E (31:03)

Yeah.

B (31:04)

So my personal vote would be for Pete Hexseth, because as a former Pentagon person, I really care about that, and I think it's a horrible risk to have someone in the job, not because he's drinking, but because of everything else he's doing.

E (31:32)

You know, my mom is super sweet, super kind. She's just one of the nicest people you'll ever meet. But I have to say, she.

A (31:40)

She was also a mom of tough love if there was ever anything that I didn't like.

E (31:44)

Her response often to provide comfort was you'll get used to was not always

A (31:53)

the response I was looking for.

E (31:55)

But you know what? She was often right. Sentimental gifts that bring family together are the most special thing in the world on Mother's Day. All too often, Mother's Day gifts are about one moment. Storyworth is so much more. Storyworth gives your mom a year long experience and gives your family a book filled with the stories only she can tell. Each week Storyworth sends her a question about her life. Then she responds however she wants. Writing back over email or the web, voice recording or new this year, a guided phone call with no apps, logins or tech hassle.

C (32:31)

My mom storytelling is her language. Like she will regale stories about everything.

G (32:37)

I remember the first time she met Greg. Greg learned like everything that I did as a child. She learned, he learned everything.

C (32:45)

Like just the whole my whole life story from my mom.

G (32:49)

And Storyworth makes it easy for mom so she can focus on the joy of remembering and reflecting.

C (32:56)

Because man, my mom enjoys that.

G (32:58)

You can even help pick the questions, choose from pre written ones, write your own or let Storyworth create personal, personalized questions based on her life. It's such a great way to strengthen your relationship with her and have something special to share with your kids. You get each story as she tells it and after a year, Storyworth compiles everything, her words, her photos or life into a beautiful hardcover book. After a meal or when everyone is together, being able to sit and tell stories or hear them in her own words is something you will cherish forever.

F (33:31)

Families have used Storyworth to create over a million books and more than 50,000 five star reviewers agree. It's a treasure your family will love. One of my favorite things was when I could get my mom or other family members to tell me stories about what she was like when she was my age. When she was small.

E (33:50)

That is the best.

D (33:51)

You know, it really is.

F (33:52)

I mean she was adorable with blonde braids and a blonde curl, which was nothing like the mom that I knew as an adult. So the question about what fascinated her as a child was so whimsical and touching. You know, even as adults we sometimes forget that our moms were children too. And it's really great to be able to draw those comparisons to what life was like across generations. And it's never a bad thing to remind the younger ones in the family that there was a time when people spent less time in front of a screen. With over 500 plus questions and the ability to ask your own. There's a lot to discover.

H (34:29)

As of this year, Storyworth has a new unlimited plan. Buy it once and you'll be able to give Storyworth Memoirs to friends and family all year. Plus it comes with all their newest features and multiple full color book copies. That means you can get all your Mother's Day gifts for your mom, grandma and any mom figures in your life. And take care of Father's Day while you're at it this year, give Mom a gift that helps her reflect on her life with fresh perspective and gives your whole family the gift of her stories. Mother's day is Sunday, May 10th. Order right now and save up to $20 at storyworth.com sisters save up to $20@storyworth.com sisters again storyworth.com sisters and if you can't remember that, the link is in our show Notes.

F (35:32)

You know the most difficult rooms for

D (35:34)

me to decorate have always been areas

F (35:36)

that have both indoor and outdoor usage, like the screen porch. Your dogs love to hang out in, muddy paws and all. So finding a fashionable rug with a design that suits my personality and my space, that's hard to but when you do it, it puts the perfect finishing touch on any room. To make it a little bit more difficult, rugs in this category can have shocking price tags or claim to be washable but start unraveling after the first wash. So you need more than a rug that transforms a room. You want one designed for the way you live your life. We've now got a new advertiser, Tumble rugs. I've got the first rug in my little screen porch. I'm so in love with tumble you can have it all.

B (36:19)

I'm in love with it because it's

H (36:21)

washable and Brisbee proof and at the same time their rugs look beautiful, but they're built to be used, not in a museum. We've all had rugs that are too delicate and a nightmare to clean, but spills, muddy paws and accidents are a part of life. I have mine totally redesigned the kitchen using this new blue and white rug that is so fabulous and it doesn't matter what happens on it. That's why tumble makes everything spill proof and machine washable. Make hunched over scrubbing a thing of the past. Instead of relying on elbow grease and a flexible back, you can let the washer take care of it. Even the largest ones are machine ready. Plus their proprietary spill proof surfaces keep liquids from being absorbed so you can wake them up in seconds. And I'M still amazed every single time I wipe off some spill from Brisbee.

G (37:17)

Yes, I've had tumble rugs for a

C (37:20)

while and one of the reasons that I started I turned to tumble was when Snickers was a puppy for reasons that you can just imagine for yourself.

G (37:29)

I love how fantastic tumble rugs look though. They aren't just functional, they are really really beautiful. They feature hand illustrated designs that look like designer rugs, not something temporary or cheap. And the latest one that we've added to our kitchen is the Petra Sand NC and I. I love it so much. We didn't have a rug in our kitchen and the floor would sometimes get cold in there, especially in winter. And my goodness, my goodness, I love it and Snickers does too. It looks really beautiful but you'll love exploring the styles and they're perfect for living rooms, kitchens, entryways, hallways and even kids rooms. We have tumble rugs in our kitchen, dining room and living room right now. Bas anywhere life gets a little messy and thanks to Tumble's cushion non slip rug pad that tucks into hidden corner pockets underneath it, everything stays securely in place and doesn't slide around. Not only that, all tumble rugs are O E K O Tech certified with non toxic materials. So they're safe for your animals, little ones and anyone spending time on the floor. Even if that may be you.

C (38:43)

I mean, I do yoga. That's what I meant.

A (38:44)

I love tumble rugs and I love

E (38:46)

the name of tumble rugs. Life is full of tumbling, rough and tumble. You might drop things, you might make messes. And that's the beauty of tumble rugs. Don't just take our word for it. Hundreds of thousands of homes have already switched to tumble rugs and they have more than 30,000 five star reviews including ours. Tumble Machine Washable Rugs Made Better For

A (39:10)

a limited time only.

E (39:11)

Our listeners get 10% off and free shipping@tumbleliving.com sisters. That's t u m b l e living.com sisters. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them our show sent you. The link is in the show notes.

A (39:40)

All right, Kim, I can't help but notice how much you resemble the disco ball up there in your pewter suit. But you have the floor.

C (39:48)

Well, it is April and that's the time of year that I and other people who watch the U.S. supreme Court call the home stretch. That is when we are awaiting the court to decide its final decisions. They will be wrapping up oral arguments in next Week. Those are the last arguments of the term. And then between now and the beginning of sort of before the fourth of July, generally, is the general rule, they wrap the session and they go off to summer recess. So I thought this was a good time for us to sort of talk about some of the cases that we are watching. There are a lot of cases that are still on the docket about, you know, things like voting rights, things like civil rights, things like presidential power. So, Joyce, I'm gonna start with you. What big case are you watching this term and that you think that everyone in our audience should be watching, too?

A (40:49)

Yeah.

D (40:50)

You know, so in addition to all of the above.

C (40:53)

Yeah.

D (40:54)

Because this court is unpredictable and volatile and dangerous, not to put too fine of a point on it. But every time that the court announces that it's going to issue opinions on a certain day, my colleagues who I work with in the civil rights community, and especially the people who do voting cases, we collectively hold our breath and wait on a case called Calais. Calais is a case that the Supreme Court had briefed, argued, and heard last term, and we were gearing up for the decision in it last term, and instead, the court said, mm, we want to brief this new issue. We're going to hold it over for next term, which is now this term. And the issue is this. It involves section 2 of the Voting Rights act, the last remnant of the act, and what it's primarily used for is to prevent gerrymanders. You know, the court has already said it won't invalidate political gerrymanders, that it doesn't have the ability to step in. But racial gerrymanders, at least up until the point where Calais is decided, are illegal. And that's what Calais is about. It's about a state that had some issues and it fixed them. And so, look, oral argument did not go really well in Calais. Many people expect, you know, there's all of this gamesmanship about which justices have written big opinions and who hasn't. So there's a lot of game theory right now that says that Justice Sam Alito is writing Calais. If that's true, it's really bad news. And here's the problem. You know, I'm not, like, really good at math. That's why I went to law school. But the people in the voting rights community who are are good at math. And a lot of people, my friends at Fair Fight, which is Stacey Abrams organization in Georgia, she so richly deserves that shout out. They have looked at the data, and they have concluded that if Calais goes the way we unfortunately suspect that it will. It won't just have an impact in Congress where it will have a big impact. Something like 19 of the districts, which are opportunity districts, which essentially means that black and Hispanic minority voters have an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. Because, you know, the whole thing behind gerrymandering. Right. You guys all get this, right? It's the notion that they're either packed into one district so that they can only elect one representative, or cracked out through the community so that their power is so dilute that they can't elect. If Calais goes the wrong way, Democrats could lose 19 seats in Congress. That's devastating change for a generation. But there's more. State legislatures too, particularly in the Deep south, will be impacted. So, yeah, I'm holding my breath about Calais and I'm not looking forward to it.

C (44:02)

Yeah, you know, the more I think about Kalay and all, all the dire warnings that Joyce just laid out, it really also kind of grinds my gears that with a Supreme Court majority that alleges itself to be so focused on originalism, they have someone on the court who actually has made repeatedly the originalist, the correct, originalist analysis of the 14th Amendment, which is what laws like the Voting Rights act and the other Civil Rights act that have acts that have passed in this country since the 1800s, right through the 60s and beyond, that they were based. It was a Reconstruction era amendment that was meant to support legislation like literally the framers of that amendment said support. So to support legislation to help people, black Americans in particular, integrate fully into American society after slavery, that they would not remain second class citizens. It would ensure their right to vote, to get an education, to live a full life and have the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So the fact that the Voting Rights act was on that, the fact that the Voting Rights act has been reauthorized I don't know how many times with bipartisan support. You know, I remember when I first went to Washington and I was a reporter and you know, George W. Bush was there smiling and signing the reauthorization. It was always a great ceremony until the Supreme Court passed the ruling in Shelby county, which eviscerated a massive part of it that allowed the Justice Department, well, as if it would do that now, but allowed the Justice Department to pre clear voting rules in problematic states before they passed. And all of a sudden after that, there was no political will on the part of Republicans to even give two thoughts about the Voting Rights Act. And how is that originalism? Ketanji Brown Jackson made that case so clear in oral arguments in this case. And I'm so glad that she's on the court. I look forward to her dissent.

D (46:21)

It is gonna be lit.

C (46:23)

Yeah. But I hope that it serves as a guide to the future. So, Jill, on that cheery note, I want to turn to you. What case are you looking out for?

B (46:34)

Well, I wish that it was something that would cheer us all up. I, of course, share concern about Calais, but I'm also concerned about Slaughter and Cook, which is two cases in which the President, without cause, fired one, Slater Slaughter, who was a member of the ftc, and Lisa Cook, who was a member of the Federal Reserve Board. No cause. Although he did allege a mortgage thing with Lisa Cook. So at least he had sort of an unproven, unfounded, probably unsupportable allegation.

C (47:10)

I think that's called pretext, Jill.

B (47:12)

Pretextual, yes. That's a very good definition. But not even a pretext with Slaughter. And he fired people who have a term of appointment. It's seven years for Slaughter in the ftc and you can only be fired for cause under the law that set it up. And he just said, no, I'm the executive and I get to do whatever I want. And this interferes with separation of powers, my powers. Congress can't limit my powers. And the court is seriously considering allowing him to get rid of a 1935. I think 1935 was Humphrey's executor, a case that has stood the test of time for over 100 years almost. And that said, yes, Congress can set up a way with a four cause requirement. And now they're saying, well, maybe not. Maybe he's right. So that would really obliterate any kind of bipartisan. And by the way, the FTC is supposed to have three members from one party as a maximum and two from the other party. And right now there are only two members on the ftc, both Republicans. So he has. He could fill one Republican seat, but if he filled the rest of it, it would be two Democrats. That's just the way it is. And so he's not filling the seats. They're operating with two people. It's outrageous. And I fear this could be a split decision because the court has sort of indicated that the Federal Reserve is different, that the independence of the Federal Central bank is so sacrosanct that maybe he doesn't have that power there. So maybe Lisa Cook will survive, but we might end up with an FTC that's totally run by Republicans. And then, of course, hopefully the Democrats would fire all of them because the next president, hopefully, will be a president of the Democratic Party and would have the same powers as Donald Trump is purporting to have. Now.

A (49:24)

Can I just say what is so awful about this philosophy, you know, this idea of the unitary executive theory, since like 1873, when Congress passed the Pendleton act, the idea has been that Congress can set rules so that we can develop an independent and professional civil service, and the President can't just fire them at a political whimsical. And that has been like the crown jewel of the American government. We've got experts at NASA and the CDC and the EPA who aren't beholden to politics. They're doing their job and exercising their expertise. But of course, that's what Donald Trump considers to be the deep state. And he wants to get rid of those people so that he can have political operatives in those jobs. But are we better off with that group? And even if it's Democrats, like, I don't want to live in a world where we've got political actors in these really important jobs where we should have independent career professionals.

B (50:21)

Well, I would go even further than that because I hate to raise another issue, but the major doctrines case where the court is saying, well, yeah, the expertise of all these agencies, yeah, maybe not so much where we used to abide by the expertise and now maybe not so much that the government can do whatever it wants, ignore the recommendations, there will be no more independent agencies. Congress, if they don't delegate specifically the powers to do things, those agencies won't be able to do it, and the President will be able to do it. And you're right, no president should have unlimited power, whatever party it is. I think the decisions would be better under certain parties than others. But it isn't how our government is set up. We need independent agencies with expertise.

C (51:16)

Yeah, well, I look forward to the day where members of Congress will be approving drugs. Barb, what case are you looking out for?

A (51:28)

Well, all of these are very interesting cases, but I think the one that has me most concerned is the case called the National Republican Senatorial Committee versus the Federal Election Commission. You know, if you thought Citizens United was bad, this is like son of Citizens United. And it is just another case in this cascade of cases that is opening the door to dark money in politics. You know, in 2024, super PACs contributed like $2.6 billion to candidates, and it was about a two for one ratio of Republicans to Democrats who were giving that kind of money. But regardless of which party is giving that money, the idea of this big money in politics is why members of Congress are beholden to their donors and not their voters, because that's who really controls whether they stay in office. So this case was actually originally brought by JD Vance when he was a senator in Ohio, and he challenged a rule that said that parties cannot coordinate their expenditures with candidates. Now, there has always been a ban on contributions. And the idea is everybody gets it, that if you have limits, if you have unlimited contributions, that can create either a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict of interest, that could open the door to bribery. Everybody gets that. So what he says is, though, but expenditures are different, and I should be able to coordinate as a candidate with the party. And there's nothing wrong with that. And after all, the landscape has changed since the court last decided this issue in 2001. And now the court should overturn its decision upholding these limits on expenditures in light of the changing landscape with Citizens United. I mean, after all, if we're gonna allow corporations and super PACs to make these donations, why not parties as well? But, you know, the best argument I saw was that there were intervene an intervening party, the Democratic Party. Mark Elias, representing the Democratic Party in this case, made what I thought was a very good argument was, which is like, you're just gonna launder the contributions and call them expenditures, Right? So I can't give the candidate a contribution, but I can pay any expenses. So I'm gonna pay their light bill, I'm gonna pay their canvassing bill. I'm gonna pay for all these other things, which frees up other dollars for them to do other things. I mean, Kim, if I were to say to you, I'm not gonna give you any money. Cause that would be wrong. But I will pay your mortgage, your. Your car payment, and all your utilities for the next month. So remember me when it comes time to dole out those favors. But just expenditures. I'm not giving you any contributions.

C (54:21)

Right.

A (54:22)

So that's the issue.

C (54:23)

I'm just gonna put you on my private jet and fly you on a fancy fishing trip.

A (54:28)

The seat would otherwise have gone unoccupied, Kim.

C (54:31)

Right, exactly.

B (54:33)

So I want to add something to this. Because these rules came about because Richard Nixon had unlimited funds. You could contribute cash. You didn't have to record anybody's name. And there were millions of dollars in cash in White House safes. Watergate would not have happened if they had had to think about, is it worth spending money to Break into the DNC to hire a houseboat to lure delegates from the Democratic convention with prostitutes so we could blackmail them. They didn't care because they had so much money. So we do need to control the money. And as Barb said, I can't use the money to contribute to the candidate, even if I'm, you know, if I'm the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, I can't. But I can coordinate the message, which means I can pay for the ads that they would have otherwise had to pay for. So it's really the same as contributing to them. And the law, Nobody's challenging the law that says there's a limit on contributions to candidates. There needs to be, or else we're going to be in a horrible situation again.

C (55:42)

Oh, that's such a good point. You know, it's just really amazing looking at the Supreme Court docket as a whole and how many of the cases are focused on our election system. I mean, you have this case, you have the Kalay case. There's a challenge that seeks to limit the counting of mail in votes, mail in ballots that arrive after election day, even when they are sent before election day. It's just really. It's not by accident. Most of these challenges are brought by political parties and apolitical party. And guess which one. So the case that I want to talk about is actually a bit of good news. I want to talk about the birthright citizenship challenge. So it's bittersweet, even if it goes the way that I think and hope that it will go, because this case has already done some damage. Right at the shadow docket stage of the birthright citizenship case, the Supreme Court issued what is now an infamous ruling hampering the ability or really eliminating the ability of. Of district court judges who examine challenges. When they come, they look at all the records, they hear the testimony. They understand the cases better than anyone else in terms of presidential policies and how they may or may not be illegal. And if they are purported to be illegal at the preliminary stage, they can say, okay, let's put that on hold for a minute, such as an executive order that can end birthright citizenship. Because, hello, have you ever seen a constitution? And the Supreme Court said, well, no, that's not your job. It's really up to us. And what we say is, no, only we can put a stop to a presidential policy if we think that it might be illegal or unconstitutional. Once the case is ultimately decided on the merits, and then the Supreme Court proceeds to say almost uniformly, no, no, we cannot stop A presidential policy, because under one of the standards, whether there will be irreparable harm caused by putting this in place, it will irreparably harm the president to keep him from putting his illegal or unconstitutional policy in place. So there's already been damage done. But at the end of the day, after listening to oral arguments, I do not think the Supreme Court is going to rule that this EO is constitutional. I never know these days. I've been covering the supreme court for over 20 years at this point, and I'm more and more wary to make predictions. But during oral arguments, I could count to at least six, seven justices who thought this was utter nonsense. And in fact, one of the justices who was most skeptical of it was Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee who just didn't seem to think that that made any sense. So I think there is a bright spot that the Supreme Court will do the right thing when it comes to birthright citizenship. They will not go along with efforts by the president to punish babies in order to score political points, try to tear families apart, and just be awful that this will actually go the right way. I know some people are predicting that this might even be unanimous. I'm not going that far. I'm just saying I counted to seven, so. But we will keep watching. Go ahead.

D (59:27)

No, I was just going to say I got the, the same count as you. You know, maybe the chief justice will talk some of his colleagues around. Chief justices like, for cases, especially easy ones. And look, I mean, this is an easy case, right? If you're a strict constructionist, this is an easy case. But I don't think it's going to

C (59:46)

be unanimous, which is sad in itself. But you know what? We'll take the good news where we can get it, and we will keep watching the Supreme Court until this term is done.

B (59:57)

And I'm glad we could end on a happier note about the Supreme Court than the other three of us.

D (60:03)

Oh, girl, there are no happy notes about this Supreme Court.

A (60:17)

The pace of life just keeps getting faster.

E (60:19)

And when you have trips coming up, emails flying in and people to see, every minute you save counts, you finally hit your flow state and hunger strikes.

A (60:29)

Then you have to find the time

E (60:30)

to plan a meal, cook and clean up. Add in going to the store and before you know it, you're eating fast food or settling for an unhealthy snack. For those of us who are busy, eating healthy isn't a willpower problem, it's a setup problem. Or at least it was until we found factor.

H (60:49)

You know with Factor you can hit your nutrition goals this season without the planning, grocery runs or cooking. It's easy because Factor has meals built around whatever your goals are, whether that's weight loss, overall nutrition, more protein or GLP1 support. And for strength and workout recovery, check out Factor's Muscle Pro collection. After the show, I'm looking forward to enjoying their roasted Garlic chicken with gravy, chive, Yukon mash and green beans. Best of all, it only takes two minutes so I can get back into action right away. It has made my day to day life so much more convenient and it's made a real difference in the quality of my meal choices.

F (61:32)

Oh, you've just made me hungry Jill. We love that Factor's meals are fresh and never frozen. And with over 100 rotating weekly meals, including globally inspired flavors like Mediterranean and Asian, there's always something new to look forward to. Every meal is crafted with functional ingredients, lean proteins, colorful veggies, whole foods and healthy fats so you know you're getting the good stuff. Factor even bans 175 plus ingredients you shouldn't have. So no artificial colors or sweeteners, no high fructose corn syrup and no refined seed oils. Just nutrient dense food.

G (62:14)

I recommend trying the newly launched Ready to Eat salads. They're filled with vibrant ingredients like miso edamame and Elodie corn. And you know, if I had to look up how to pronounce that, it's gotta be good. And with over 70 add ons to round out your nutrition, from green juices to peanut butter energy bites, there's something for any craving. Ready in two minutes. Factor shops, preps, cooks and delivers straight to your door so you have more time for everything you love. This spring, head to factor meals.com SIL50OFF and use code SIL50OFF to get 50% off and free daily greens per box with new subscriptions only while supplies last until September 27, 2026. See the website for more details and the link is in our show Notes. When you combine being a podcaster, a lawyer, a professional, a journalist, or one of the 57 other jobs that Jill has had, keeping track of your schedule can get crazy. Then there are partners, kids, and even pet appointments. Add it all up and managing everyone's time and keeping everyone on the same page is almost impossible. Not only do things have to get done, but you also want to be in sync so that you can make the most of your free time together. That's why we're so glad to get our household together using the Skylight Calendar.

F (64:03)

The Skylight Calendar is designed to bring families together for more time. It's an all in one digital smart calendar that syncs seamlessly with Google Calendar, Apple Calendar, Outlook and more, giving you customizable views for daily, weekly or monthly planning. And for those who like to procrastinate, it has plenty of ways to keep them on mission. The Tasks feature helps kids build healthy routines and independence so brushing teeth, homework and chores become more fun and rewarding. You can even manage events, chores and grocery lists while assigning colors to each family member, eliminating excuses for not knowing

D (64:41)

what they need to do.

F (64:42)

I think I'll use that one for my husband.

E (64:44)

It gives you such peace of mind and the whole house runs smoothly, you'll wonder how you ever used to manage One of my favorite things about it is how much easier it makes it to see when we all finally have some time off so we can plan a family dinner or a short getaway. It saves so much time compared to juggling everyone's availability across multiple phone calls or multiple calendars. You never realize how many important things used to slip through the cracks until you get everyone using Skylight.

H (65:14)

And just as important, you never get to have double bookings again where you both scheduled something at the same exact time. And your happiness is Skylight's happiness. So if in four months you are not 100% thrilled with your purchase, you can return it. A full refund, no questions asked. Families are better when they're working together and right now Skylight is offering our listeners $30 off their 15 inch calendars by going to myskylight.com sisters go to myskylight.com sisters for $30 off your 15 inch calendar. That's my S K Y L I g h t.com sisters the link is also in our show Notes.

D (66:11)

Have y' all heard of a little civil rights group down in Montgomery, Alabama? Oh, you know what's coming? The Southern Poverty Law Center. You know the Southern Poverty Law center broke the back of the United Klans of America, right? The Justice Department couldn't do it and the state of Alabama couldn't do it. But some very smart lawyers at SPLC came up with this strategy of suing them after a young black man was was lynched. And I think it's important to say that this is a man who had nothing to do with anything. They just randomly picked him and lynched him. And Southern Poverty Law center spoke with his mama and she sued the Klan and bankrupted them. By the time that lawsuit was over, the Klan had to turn over its headquarters to her. But, you know, nature abhors a vacuum. And when the Klan was dissolved, of course, that wasn't the end of it. Right. I mean, we see that today, frankly, white domestic terror groups, national, you know, these sort of folks that we're seeing now, the white nationalists, they reformed with a bunch of different groups. And so the Southern Poverty Law center continued to do its work, really good work. And as we all saw earlier this week, the Justice Department seems to not appreciate that work the way many of us do. And so they've now indicted the Southern Poverty Law center on a theory that involves their use of paid informants to get information about some of the terror groups that they were focused on dismantling. So we want to dig a little bit deeper to make sure everybody understands this newly filed process. And, Jill, I'm going to start with you. The indictment alleges essentially three buckets of crimes. Can you just tell us what those crimes are and lay them out?

B (68:20)

Of course I can, but I want to read something from your friend Doug Jones, who was the senator that you know so well. He recently, just today I read this, he said, the indictment is simply outrageous. It is not the pursuit of justice. This is pure political retribution. And I think that's pretty much a good summary. But, yeah, they were indicted for wire fraud, money laundering, and false statements to a bank. And it was all based on payments made to paid informants who gave them valuable information that led them to be successful in their pursuit of these white nationalist groups. And they shared the information with the FBI. So it's not like they did this behind the scenes. And so that's what they're indicted for. And I agree with Doug that it's ridiculous.

D (69:16)

Yeah, I mean, Barb, you've brought these charges. Money laundering, wire fraud, false statements. As you look at this indictment, how does it hit you? Are these valid charges? Did the SPLC err. Should this indictment have been brought?

A (69:31)

Oh, Joyce, you ask a question, and you practice the very good lawyering skill of only asking a question to which you already know the answer. So, wire fraud. Well, we'll start there. Wire fraud, serious crime. It makes it a crime to commit a fraud scheme. A scheme or artifice to defraud is the language of the statute. Utilizing a wire transmission, kind of a bread and butter charge on a fraud case. Because if you can show any wire transmission, you know, using the Internet, wiring money, then if that is done in service of some fraud scheme, you've got wire fraud. And they List, I think it's maybe six or seven counts of wire fraud where they have specific funds going on the same day.

D (70:23)

Right. All on one day in 2023. Yeah.

A (70:26)

And what appears to be the case is that this is money that the Southern Poverty Law center admits was being sent to paid informants who are people inside these organizations for the purpose of infiltrating them. What the indictment says is, here's the fraud. Follow me if you can. The Southern Poverty Law center holds itself out to donors as being engaged in the mission of dismantling hate groups. But by paying these people, who are themselves members of hate groups, they were supporting the hate groups, thereby defrauding those donors when they told them they were engaged in dismantling them. And so stick with me here, because Todd Blanche says in announcing this, the SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence. So in other words, they seem to be alleging. Their theory seems to be, we paid these people to stir up trouble just so that we could be the good guys and say we take them down. That's their theory. If they can prove it, then, as my friend Joyce Vance would say from the south, bless their hearts, I just don't think it holds up. They also alleged that there were false claims to a bank based on fictitious shell corporations. I think we're going to have to see whether those were real corporations or if they misled the bank in some way. The money laundering really requires a specified unlawful activity. And so if the wire fraud theory falls, I think the money laundering falls as well. They said, you know, they were paying to conceal these payments because they didn't want people from the bank spilling the beans and telling people, hey, you know, that informant just got a lot of money from the Southern Poverty Law Center. So their concealment was not about defrauding donors. It was about protecting the secrecy of the relationship with these insiders.

D (72:31)

You know, the FBI uses paid informants, too, and we go to so much trouble to protect the identity of those informants because we understand that if that becomes public, that their lives may be in danger. So I think we can all understand the fact that the SPLC wasn't going out and telling its donors, hey, by the way, we're going to use your money to plant paid informants inside of the Klan. That's sort of the kind of silly nonsense that DOJ wants, will want, at some point, jurors to buy into. There's something else, though, in this indictment that I think is worth flagging. You know, just a couple of weeks ago last month, the Justice Department issued a new policy to prosecutors across the country. And that policy says if you're investigating a corporation or a business and an entity and you find that a crime has been committed, you should take important action against them. You shouldn't just indict the entity, because after all, a business can't go to jail, right? You should indict the individuals. That policy just came out. This indictment, does it indict individuals? No, it does not. It indicts only the Southern Poverty Law center, which I think is a little bit curious, because if you read the indictment, and it's a good short read, if you want to take a look, look at actually talks about individuals. And I actually had to go back when I was reading it for the first time, go back up to the top to see who they were charging. Sure enough, it was only the Southern Poverty Law center, not the individuals. I mean, Kim, what do you make of that? Does that hit you as being strange in any way?

C (74:22)

Well, it hits me in a way that makes me think they didn't have the goods to charge any individual. Because this lawsuit, as we have all hinted, was not based on discovering the commission of a crime and then trying to prosecute that crime. This was done in an effort to target and intimidate a civil rights group that has been doing yeoman's work in targeting and dismantling hate groups in America. Basically groups that would, if there were such a law prohibiting domestic terrorism, these would be the domestic terrorists. Right. And this is work that, as Joyce pointed out, the FBI used to do. I know people who worked in the FBI who were agents, who themselves infiltrated groups, white nationalist groups, in order to, you know, dismantle them in the same way that Southern Poverty Law center has done. You know, it's interesting. This is just off the cuff. When I was in law school, when, you know, most students were really trying to get a big firm job, I got an interview at Southern Poverty Law center and I went to Birmingham. It's the first time I've ever been to Birmingham for the interview. And I wanted this internship so bad, and I didn't get it. And it's just, you know, because that's how prestigious for lawyers it would be to work. This isn't just a ragtag group of.

A (75:47)

Of.

C (75:48)

This is a prestigious organization that lawyers across the country would give their eye teeth to work for because of the solid work that they do. And I also want to step back a bit just so that we understand what we're talking about here. The government is targeting them. Why Is it possibly because the party that is in power right now depends on, at least in part of its base, the very people that these groups would be targeting and trying to dismantle, to shine a light on the very type of dangerous ideology within our country. But these people may vote for a certain party more than they may vote for Democrats. Is that why this is happening? I think this is a very important question to ask, just as important as we are breaking down the statutes and. And what it will take to prove this case, to understand why this is the focus. It used to be a time, as you said, that the FBI worked hand in hand with them, that the FBI would put out a report every year highlighting what the number one, what the top domestic threats in America are. And for years and years and years and years, I haven't seen one lately. But for years and years and years and years, the number one threat was hate groups in America, mostly affiliated with white nationalism and white supremacy. So that's the question to ask yourselves.

D (77:12)

So the theory of the government's case, if I had to sort of sum it up in one line, it's a lot like the foreign terrorism cases that Barb and I would sometimes indict that involved someone in the United States who was providing material support to terrorism. Right. You charged those cases. I charged those cases. Cases. And this case looks so much like that. You know, we've all referred to it. The government's argument at trial is going to have to be that the Southern Poverty Law center, who Kim speaks about so eloquently, was dredging up support for the very terrorists that they pretended to be dismantling. And maybe, as Jill suggests, they did it for this nefarious reason. Or maybe it was you, Barb. I'm sorry. It's of kind. Getting late.

A (78:00)

You and I are the ones people confuse, not me and Jill.

D (78:03)

There's a first time for everything, and now here it is. But this notion that they were doing it to sort of like the people that run in, you know, who set a fire so that they can put it out, that sort of thing. This is going to be tough, I would think, for the government to establish at trial to convince a unanimous jury that this was the case so that they can get a conviction. I might even go out on a limb here and suggest it's going to be pretty damn near impossible to convict in this case. And so, because I'm suspicious by nature, that makes me wonder, why did the government go to the trouble of bringing this case at all? And it seems to me and we've talked about it a little bit, that this is a case that's meant to send a message. Don't do anything to help the people that are fighting for democracy, or we will expose you. Right. Don't work undercover and provide information, because we might put your physical safety at risk. I mean, you guys, you know, Kim and I are notorious for going out on a ledge together here. Well, I'm out on a ledge on this one because I don't think that this is just a case about the Southern Poverty Law Center. I think, much like what we saw with universities and with law firms, this is the first salvo against the civil society groups, the civil rights groups. Am I out on the ledge? Too far. What do y' all think?

A (79:40)

Well, I think you're right in assessing what's happening. I think they're underestimating a couple of things. One is, I have to comment on. Joyce posted something about the Southern Poverty Law center and how this case will not succeed. And somebody, some nasty person on social media wrote back, welcome to Alabama, hag. They don't know who Joyce Vance is. Joyce Vance is from Alabama. In fact, Joyce hosted a group of us when we were U.S. attorneys in Montgomery, Alabama. We went down for the 50th anniversary of the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in selma, Alabama, in 2015, which was incredible. But we also had an opportunity to visit the hallowed halls of the Southern Poverty Law Center. And at the time, the Justice Department held it in great esteem. As you mentioned, the FBI relied on the report put out by the Southern Poverty Law Center. My office hosted training for law enforcement agencies where trainers came in from the Southern Poverty Law Center. That is how highly regarded they were. But the second reason I have hope and think this is different is the nonprofit community is putting their arms around each other. You know, we saw law firms kind of go out and cut deals with the president in a way that I

B (81:04)

think, yeah, I'm not a law firm.

A (81:07)

General Block was one who fought. I think that those firms will live in eternal shame for cutting those deals with the president. Because what's happening in the nonprofit community is our friend Vanita Gupta, who used to run the Civil Rights Division, was the associate attorney general. The number three official at the Justice Department has led a group they call NATO for nonprofits, where they say, an attack against one of us is an attack against all of us, and we will surround you and lift you up. They've issued joint statements. They're gonna provide resources for each other because they know that United they stand divided, they fall, and they are standing together. So I really salute that group for doing that.

D (81:48)

Yeah. I mean, I think that's such an important point. The civil rights groups have learned the lesson of what happened to the law firms. They've always been supportive of each other. And it reminds me of that The World War II quote from Martin Niemoller about, first they came for the socialists, and I did nothing because I was not a socialist. Well, ever since Southern Poverty Law center was indicted, statements have come from groups that work for civil rights in the LGBTQ community, in the Hispanic community, in the Americans with Disabilities act, community groups that fight for women's groups. The support has been tremendous, and so perhaps we're finally learning the lesson. All right.

A (82:30)

Collective action will set us free. All right, well, we'll have to end it there. Thank you all very much for coming out. See you next week. Another episode of Sisters in Law. Well, that was a lot of fun.

C (83:03)

That was really fun.

A (83:05)

Yeah. What a great audience.

D (83:06)

So good to be together.

F (83:14)

VRBO makes it easy to claim your

D (83:15)

dream summer spot with early booking deals from homes with pools to poolside loungers.

A (83:20)

When you book a vrbox, you don't

D (83:22)

have to reserve any loungers.

F (83:23)

They're all yours.

C (83:24)

All you have to do is book early. Book with vrbo.

H (83:29)

You know what they say.

C (83:31)

Early bird gets the ultimate vacation home. Book early and save over $120 with VRBO.

B (83:38)

Because early gets you closer to the

D (83:40)

action, whether it's waves lapping at the shore or snoozing in a hammock that overlooks.

C (83:46)

Well, whatever you wanted to so you

H (83:49)

can all enjoy the payoff come summer

C (83:51)

with VRBO's early booking deals.

D (83:53)

Rise and shine. Average savings $141.

H (83:57)

Select homes only.

B (83:59)

Booking a VRBO vacation rental means you

A (84:01)

get VRBoCare and 247 life support.

B (84:03)

Verified reviews from real guests and top rated homes with the Love by guest filter.

D (84:06)

I just booked my VRBO because there was a sweet wine fridge.

A (84:09)

We all have our reasons.

B (84:10)

If you know you, VRBO terms apply.

A (84:12)

See vrbo.com trust for details.