Loading summary
Transcript157 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Kimberly Atkins, Door. Jill Wine Banks, Joyce Vance, and me, Barb McQuaid. In today's show, we'll be discussing Trump's slush fund. That's what we're calling it, the Presidential Records act, and the indictment of Raul Castro in Cuba. But first, sisters, it's Memorial Day weekend, the kickoff of summer, which is my absolute favorite month, season of the year. And I just wanted to ask you how you're celebrating the weekend or how you're kicking off the summer. Joyce, how about you?
- [00:47]
B
Well, you can tell, you know, one of these things is not like the other. I'm dressed a little bit differently than the three of you. We are already off for the holiday.
- [00:56]
A
Look at you.
- [00:57]
B
Bob is outside assembling a barbecue. Love it. Guys, I'm not sure when it comes to Bob versus the barbecue, Bob might lose, but I'm trying to have confidence in him. But we have all sorts of plans with friends and to be out of doors and to try to relax because, you know, not to be overly serious, but. But there are days where I just find it difficult to breathe. And so we thought, you know, we were overdue for a vacation where we would just relax and have fun and enjoy ourselves. So here we are. I wish you guys were all with us.
- [01:31]
A
Yeah, that sounds really nice. Kim, how about you? How are you kicking off the summer?
- [01:35]
C
Well, you know, we had planned to do the sort of traditional thing and hit some barbecues over the weekend, but the only activity you can do outside this weekend in the D.C. area would involve building an arc because it is rain. It is going to rain, not stop. It is rainy and cool and kind of yucky. So I'm just, you know, I'm just looking forward to summer. I've always been a summer girl. I'm with you, Barb. I like, you know, going out in short sleeves or being able to, you know, just do stuff outside with the dog. So once this. Once this rain lets up, I'm just going to be really looking forward to using outdoor spaces and spending time out of the house.
- [02:20]
A
You know, you can tell you grew up in the north like me, because summer is just such a great relief. And the idea of, like, going outside without giving thought to whether you need a coat, isn't that the best? It's such liberty. How about you, Jill? You got any plans for the weekend or the summer?
- [02:36]
D
Oh, yeah, for both of the above. And I have advice for Bob, though, because.
- [02:42]
B
Oh, really?
- [02:43]
D
Well, Michael converted our gas grill into charcoal because he burned his eyebrows off lighting the gas grill.
- [02:50]
A
So.
- [02:50]
C
Oh, my God.
- [02:51]
D
Just saying.
- [02:53]
B
I'm the fire starter here. This is not fancy. This is. This is an old silo burner stove that he's got a conversion kit.
- [03:01]
D
So. Okay, well, I'll share charcoal if it works out, but yeah. And we love the charcoal barbecuing. I actually, I am very excited because the weather is turning nicer here and I am actually taking Richard, Benvenisa and Donna grill. Richard, of course, was my partner in Watergate and Donna is his wife. They are visiting for a wedding in Chicago and we're going to a lunch on the beach, which is just such a cool Chicago thing to be able to do is to have a restaurant on our huge lakefront. So that's going to be my start of my day. And then we're going out to dinner with other friends and then we're going to go swimming, which will be wonderful. We have huge beaches and we also belong to a fitness club that has an outdoor pool. So we're gonna just have a nice, relaxing, wonderful weekend. And we are not going to be snorkeling over the graves of the war dead. So John had to get that in because that was so disgusting that he did that.
- [04:04]
C
Jill, Jill, you know, I'm so glad that you are talking about the beach. I think there are a lot of people who don't realize that there are beaches in the Midwest. Big, beautiful, gorgeous beaches that you can't see the other. You know, the water goes all the way to the Horiz horizon. And there's even one right in like. Right. Basically in downtown Chicago, which I've been to many times and spent a lot of fun there. I think people forget that, but places. Michigan and Illinois have.
- [04:29]
A
Michigan all around. All around. Michigan has beautiful beaches. As you said, water as far as the eye can see. And you, of course. Which reminds me, Kim, of our state motto, which I'm sure you know.
- [04:41]
C
The Great Lake Steak.
- [04:42]
A
Yes, Great Lake. And the motto itself.
- [04:45]
C
That's our nickname. Yeah.
- [04:46]
A
Our motto, of course, is if you seek a pleasant peninsula look about you.
- [04:51]
D
Oh, okay.
- [04:53]
C
Well, I admit I did not know that.
- [04:56]
B
I have never heard that before.
- [04:59]
D
Everyone should come to Chicago to see our beaches and enjoy it. It's a fabulous thing and I'm just looking forward to enjoying it all summer long.
- [05:09]
A
Yeah, that's great. Well, same here. I have finished my grading, which takes pretty much the whole month of May. And, um, I know better than to complain about it. Cause I have such a great job. But grading is a bit Tedious. I'm really happy to be done. Got a couple kids coming home this weekend, so we're just gonna do all those great summer outdoor things and just hang out with the family. So looking forward to that. Listeners, let us know how you spend your holiday weekends. Always looking for ideas to find ways to unplug and find a distraction from the challenges of the world.
- [05:52]
C
Spring is the perfect time to refresh your lawn and garden for the summer growing season. Which is why we are excited to tell you about the world's number one expanding garden hose and their brand new product, the pocket hose ballistic. You know, we all grew up with that awful, really heavy green rubber hose, you know, that never see to, you know, you had to yank it across the lawn, it was heavy, and then it would kink up and you couldn't really, you know, you couldn't really use it. Well, that's a thing of the past. Enter pocket hose, the number one expandable hose in the world.
- [06:31]
D
The pocket hose is an amazing product. I got to use it last week for the first time when it was warm enough in Chicago to actually water some of our trees and plants. The pocket hose is super lightweight, easy to manage and easy to store. Just turn the water on and it grows. Turns the water off and it shrinks back to pocket size. It's seriously like something out of science fiction. It comes in this little teeny box and it is amazing. It's just one of the best things I've ever used. The pocket hose ballistic is even reinforced with a liquid crystal polymer. And it's the type thing that's used in bulletproof vests, making the anti burst sleeve practically indestructible. The same polymer fiber is actually five times stronger than steel.
- [07:20]
B
And it gets better. The pocket hose is made to last with an upgraded UV coating that ensures it looks new year after year. And it was re engineered with thicker washers that resist leaks. It also comes with the pocket pivot, giving you total freedom of movement at the spigot. Thanks to its 360 degree rotation, it's easily the best yard and garden upgrade I've made in years. And no matter how much I've needed to water, this hose moves with me. It saves so much time that I used to spend unblocking the water flow or dragging the old hose from plant to plant. When you're done, it's just so much fun to watch it go. Out of sight, out of mind. And now our yard looks great.
- [08:04]
A
Yeah, this thing is so much fun. You know, I used to dread yard work. But now this is like a toy I like playing with is and so with you know, you can make your yard a hobby instead of a chore. Then you'll never work a day in your life. Now, for a limited time, when you purchase a new pocket hose ballistic, you'll get a free 360 degree rotating pocket pivot and a free thumb drive nozzle. Just text law to 64,000. Again, that's law to 64,640. For your two free gifts with purchase text law to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply. The link, as always, is in the show notes.
- [09:03]
C
You know, I didn't think that we would ever see anyone as willing to turn the Department of Justice into an agency of Donald Trump's bidding the way we did with Pam Bundy. Well, Todd Blanch is saying hold my beer. And one of many reasons why that's the case is because this week the DOJ announced an unbelievable gobsmacking action. They created a $1.8 billion taxpayer slush fund for what to pay Donald Trump and his buddies for, you know, the horror that they had to go through by actually having the law upheld and being brought to justice. And that includes the folks who stormed The Capitol on January 6, 2021 in a deadly attack. Barb, tell us about this so called anti weaponization fund.
- [10:03]
A
Oh, Kim, how much time do you have? I will try to be succinct. Dear listeners, this is really stuck in my craw. Of all of the corrupt things Donald Trump has done, this might be the very worst. Here's why it's problematic. He legitimately was victimized by the irs. The IRS leaked his tax returns and he filed a lawsuit. That, that's okay. He files it under the Privacy act and the Internal Revenue act, which says you can't, you know, disclose people's tax returns. Okay, so far, so good. Here's where it gets problematic. It happened in 2019. There's a two year statute of limitations on this statute. So after 2021, he's done right, and that's when he's out of office. If he had filed it then, when he is not the president, maybe we've got a real case or controversy. But what happens is because he files it in 2026, long after the statute of limitations has run, the judge started asking questions and asked the parties to file a brief on whether any court has jurisdiction over this dispute. Because to be a case or controversy under the Constitution, you must have two distinct parties with adverse interests on each side of the case. And here you've got Donald Trump suing the executive branch under the unitary executive theory. He is the executive branch. And so he's suing the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department. Essentially, he's suing himself. Even he himself made that comment about he's suing himself and he's going to get a settlement. I don't know how it's going to work. And so the judge had invited some legal experts to weigh in and explain whether this is a real case. They said no, because there's no adversity here. The other things they pointed out is this statute of limitations problem. And they also said, you know what's odd and you know what kind of shows us that maybe there's not adversity here. DOJ hasn't raised the kind of defenses it ordinarily raises, like statute of limitations, which it would ordinarily raise, like sovereign immunity, which says the government can't sue itself. Like making the Trumps trace the harm to their damages. They asked for $10 billion. That's like Austin Powers, right? $10 billion. $10 billion without showing any harm. You know, like, really, has his reputation been harmed? Has he really lost money as a result of this? Does anybody think less of the Trumps because of this? Of course not. And so instead of making those arguments they routinely make, in most cases, they made none. And on two days before the briefs were due by the parties to this judge, we saw a couple things happen. One, Donald Trump voluntarily dismiss his case. That strips the court of any jurisdiction to look at it. Then the creation of this settlement, a deal between Trump and the Justice Department that says that in exchange for resolving his claims, they're going to set up this account for anyone who's been the victim of weaponization. Now, that's not how a steward of the Judgment Fund conducts themselves. At the Justice Department, you have access to this fund called the Judgment Fund, set aside by Congress to use your responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to make good faith settlements of claims out of court if it's in the best interest of your client, the United States of America. But they have to be tied to the claim they're resolving. So if you said, Donald Trump, you're entitled to, you know, X dollars for your Privacy act claim and X dollars for your Internal Revenue claim at a time when he wasn't president, that might make sense. Here. They're giving it to third parties, not because their tax returns were disclosed, but because they are potential victims of some other aspect of weaponization. And so essentially, we've set up this slush fund that is going to, number one, reward Trump's political cronies like January 6th insurrectionists and spread this false narrative that weaponization occurred. And then, Kim, I'll end here with the kicker. The next day we find out that this, as bad as that is, that's not all. It's like the Ronco knives, you know. But wait, there's more. The next day we see that the settlement has an addendum that says, in addition to all of this, the IRS agrees to forever agree not to investigate Donald Trump or audit him for any tax claim that currently exists.
- [14:28]
D
Ever.
- [14:29]
A
Forever.
- [14:30]
C
Forever.
- [14:30]
A
In all caps, forever. A new immunity audit. It's all done.
- [14:34]
C
A new immunity. You can say a new immunity. He loves immunity. My goodness. My goodness, Jill, is this thing even legal? Like, how can the DOJ just decide it's going to give away taxpayer money in settlement of this open ended, you know, invitation to anybody who is, you know, in Trump's MAGA world who thinks that they've been wronged by the government and just let that happen? How does make it make sense, Jill,
- [15:11]
D
make it make sense, Seriously. I know that's a rhetorical question, because you can't be serious about this question. I mean, this is like it used to be, if Trump's mouth is moving, he's lying. Now it's if Trump or Blanche is speaking, they are lying, but in addition, they're grifting and they're doing something illegal. Okay, so like Barb, it depends on how much time we have to discuss this. I'm going to limit myself to maybe five or six points about why it is not legal. First of all, and some of this Barb has alluded to, the government calls it a settlement, but a settlement requires that there be a case or controversy pending in a court and that you settle the case and the judge approves it. It requires judicial approval. They have to look at it and say this is related to the claims and it's a reasonable amount. Okay, so none of that happened. As Barb said, Trump had voluntarily dismissed his case. And I would point out that he did it because it was clear he was going to lose anyway on some statute of limitations, on the fact that there was no parties in conflict. He was on both sides of the case. And there were so many other reasons. The emoluments clause, separation of powers, just a lot of reasons why he would have lost. So there was nothing left to settle. And if there had been, it would have required a court to Approve it. And that didn't happen. Secondly, it's not a legal use of the DOJ settlement fund. There is a settlement fund that Congress created to settle cases and controversies, again, while they're pending in court. And after the judge looks at whether it's a fair settlement, this is not a case or controversy that's pending that could have been settled under the settlement fund. So that's another reason it's not legal. Third, the government claims, oh, there is a precedent for using money this way. And they cite a case called Keeps Eagle, which involved a, oh, more than a decade long litigation for racial discrimination by the Department of Agriculture against American Indian Native American farmers. And that case was settled while it was pending in court with the judge's approval. So it's really not a precedent. Part of the settlement did include paying third parties. And Barbara alluded to the fact that this is not going to him, it's going to third parties that he will select through his control. Total control of the process. Yeah, exactly. So Keeps Eagle is not a precedent. Fourth, how it's being run, this process, I mean, you have to address the process, is just horrific. It's going to be decided by five people, four appointed by Blanche and one appointed with consultation with Congress. But all five can be removed without, without cause by guess who, Donald Trump. So if they don't do exactly what he wants, it's also in terms of process, how could Blanche, who not only was his private lawyer but is now his acting Attorney general, be the one to create this? It has to have involved a special counsel. Fifth, there's concerns about the executive overreach, separation of powers, the creation of an unapproved spending program. And sixth, they buried the lead. And Barbara mentioned this, the non prosecution, non investigation addendum to the agreement. And I just want to say what a terrible strategic decision it was to do this in two separate parts. If you have bad news, as trial lawyers, we all know, get it all out at once, don't do it. And this happened in Watergate. The 18 and a half minute gap was announced almost a month after the first missing tapes were announced. So we have a hearing on the missing tapes and then they go, oh, whoops, we forgot to mention there's a third. And that just made it look even worse, as this does. Not hiding it. Exactly. It was horrible. So for all these reasons, no, it is, it's, it's not legal, it's not moral, it's not ethical, it is disgusting. It is. And Barb called it in one of her, her postings on social media. The grift fund. Do not call it an anti weaponization fund. Don't call it a settlement fund, because it's neither of those things. It is a grift.
- [19:36]
C
Well, I'm kind of with my friend Ellie Mistahl, who wrote in the Nation that it's basically a reparations fund for white people.
- [19:44]
A
Yes, that is really slightly.
- [19:48]
C
It is what it is.
- [19:49]
A
Can you articulate that, Kim? Because I want our listeners to hear this argument. I think it's absolutely apt.
- [19:55]
C
I mean, look, for so long, there have been efforts in the United States to actually give reparations to the descendants of black enslaved people who literally built this nation. And those efforts have gone through. They picked up some speed, some steam in 2020 after the horrific murder of George Floyd. And what people would hear back in response to governments, local, state, federal. It's like, oh, well, how can. That's just, like, impractical. You can't do that. I mean, how can we create this fund and who can we give it to? And what would the process be? Would there be DNA testing to prove that you are actually a descendant? What. What is the legal precedent? Like, how do. Procedurally, you can't do. It just was something that they thought, oh, this is just impossible to even think about. Like, reparations can't make sense. Well, wait, when it comes to folks like Donald Trump's friends and associates and people who tried to, you know, stop the election from being counted after 2020, all of a sudden, poof, here's this fun, here's this plan, here's this document that says that it's legal, that's, you know, not. I mean, they can get that up and running in a quick minute when it's for the people who are in service through Donald Trump, none of which look like me, or very few of which look like me, Right? So it literally, when I read that, I'm like, this is for real. This. Not only is that a good descriptor of what it is, but it just belies every argument that you could make for an actual bit of justice to be carried out, because they've just shown you how easy it is to do it.
- [21:39]
A
Yeah, that's.
- [21:40]
D
And, Kim, I have to say, I just have to say that Evanston, the town I live in, has a reparations program going right now. So it is possible.
- [21:49]
C
But it took, Jill. It took.
- [21:51]
D
Well, it's a few hundred years.
- [21:54]
B
You know, the chef's kiss, Kim, to the point that you're making, too, is that when you talk about reparations for slaves. Well, everybody gets, or every thinking person gets, that slaves should be entitled to reparations, that their families who've experienced generational harms should be entitled to reparations. The notion that these guys who were, after all, convicted by juries of their peers, were pled guilty to committing crimes, are somehow entitled to reparations, you know, is just. I can't say what I want to say because Barb will get mad at me. So I'll just say it's keep it clean, please, crazy. And my fear is that sometimes we legitimize this stuff, as you guys were saying, right, by calling it a weaponization fund. We shouldn't call it that.
- [22:39]
D
No.
- [22:40]
B
The idea that there's actually something to offer these people compensatory damages for is just bunk. And I regret what a good job the Trump people seem to do of socializing these nutty ideas to appear to give them some weight and some heft. And so I think it's important for us to say there is nothing here that anyone should be entitled to get. This is Trump's way of paying off, of rewarding his allies, the January Sixers, and maybe even something worse, right? Maybe even paying them for future action. Nothing about this is normal or right.
- [23:20]
C
And the propaganda point that you make is so important because by saying that this thing existed and paying these awards, then that goes in the history books as if something was actually wrong. And a good piece this week in the Atlantic by Quinta Jurecic gets to that point. I highly recommend we'll drop in some notes, recommend reading that. So just want to wrap this up. We could literally do the whole show on this stuff, clearly. But I just want to wrap it up because with just a couple more points. One, Barb, is the fact that Todd Blanch appeared before the Senate this week and, you know, he was asked, unsurprisingly, about this little slush fund and give us your. Your review of his performance. Barb.
- [24:06]
A
Yeah, you know, he's. He's unapologetic. I mean, I suppose, you know, it's. It's sort of like Trump superpower. I have no shame. Like, I'm just going to defend this like it's normal. But he certainly got lots of questions from members of Congress, appropriately. So one of the questions he was asked is whether people who beat police officers and assaulted police officers are going to be able to recover from this fund. And, you know, he gave, no decisions have been made yet. And then he said later in an interview, people who hurt police Officers get paid all the time.
- [24:39]
C
Oh, my God.
- [24:40]
A
What? You know, I. I'm not sure I can think of an example, but again, just the effort to normalize that which is so abnormal. And, you know, you may recall Donald Trump in his first term said, where's my Roy Cohn? He was dissatisfied with Jeff Sessions, who, you know, for all his flaws at least seemed to focus on the rule of law. William Barr resigned rather than perpetuate these false claims of fraud. Pam Bondi even wouldn't move fast enough for Trump. But, you know, in. In Todd Blanche, it seems like Trump may finally have found his Roy Cohn. Roy Cohn, of course, was lawyer to the mob. He was Trump's lawyer when he fought racism charges against the Department of justice in the 1970s and was counsel to the McCarthy committee during the Red Scare. Who else would you want for your.
- [25:34]
C
What company? What company? Todd, I hope you're really, really proud. So, Jill, there has been a lawsuit filed, and that is part of a greater pushback that even includes members of Congress of both parties. Jill, tell us about the lawsuit.
- [25:50]
D
It's fascinating. Two law enforcement officers, two police officers from the Capitol have filed a lawsuit. One is Dunn, who's now running for Congress, and the other is still a member of the police force. His name is Daniel Hodges. And they are claiming, and probably rightly so, that this endangers their lives, that they are subject to death threats right now, and that by paying off the people who beat and hurt them, they will be empowered. Those January 6th people will be rewarded for their past conduct and encouraged to engage in it again, and that that will hurt them. And they also argue, of course, that this whole process is illegal. And we've already talked about how right they are about why it's illegal. And I just want to read you a part of what Daniel Hodges has said, because it really, I think, sounds right. Why would you pay people who attack the police at the Capitol of the United States who tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power? Why would you pay people who wanted to assassinate the Vice president? You know, the list goes on and on. It doesn't make any sense. So I think that that's pretty much what should happen. And although I think they have standing, unlike taxpayers, who, since 19, I think it's 23, there was a case that said their interest is de minimis in stopping the misuse of taxpayer funds so taxpayers can't file. I personally think the best way to challenge this is for James Comey, who was a victim of weaponization, who is a Victim of weaponization. And remember, Blanche, for not saying January 6th, rioters can't claim. Said it's open to anyone who was a victim of weaponization. Okay, James Comey, file a claim. And when they deny it, as they clearly will, then you are definitely in a position to challenge the legality of this horrendous thing. So that's how I think it should end.
- [27:56]
C
I love that. I love that. Just to, Yeah, I, I, I really, you know, I really hope he does it. I hope he does. So just finally, one glimmer of hope is that there is bipartisan rejection of this idea. They're even trying to stop it with a bill. Who wants to talk a little bit about that, Joyce?
- [28:19]
B
I mean, I think part of the good news here, right, is that the Senate refused a vote in committee on the 2027 Trump proposed budget yesterday after hearing from the acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche. So I think his performance certainly didn't satisfy them. And we've heard Thom Tillis, the retiring senator from North Carolina, call the proposal stupid on stilts. I mean, the one. I don't mean to rain on the party, but I will say it's really disappointing to me to see only senators who are retiring or senators who have lost their primaries because Trump opposed them, and then suddenly they develop the courage to speak out against him. And we know because we hear Democratic senators and members of Congress saying that privately, these folks will reject what Trump is doing, but they won't do it publicly. And I think that we're in a moment where the country needs Republicans to have the courage of their convictions, because this whole problem could go away. You know, I mean, Congress, you guys, maybe, maybe this is something that we shouldn't have to say, but I'm going to say it anyhow. Congress still has the power of the Perth. And Congress, which created the judgment fund and allocated that money to DOJ to pay its legitimate debts, could very easily pass a quick law, put a rider on something that says, and by the way, none of the money that we've allocated to the judgment fund can be used for Trump's slush fund, and then it would be all over. So come on, folks, find a little bit of courage and do something right for a change.
- [30:01]
C
And a bill is already filed, so all you need is for these Republicans to put their money where their mouth is and go ahead and pass it. So, you know, call your lawmakers and tell them to do it.
- [30:21]
B
Summer is coming up, and no matter where you live, the days are getting hot and the nights are sleepless and sweaty. Sometimes the morning after a night like that. Yeah, your mileage may vary, Barb.
- [30:36]
A
Romance novel.
- [30:41]
D
Was that really you, Barb?
- [30:42]
B
Back to the topic at hand. Back to sheets. We're talking about what it's like between the sheets, Barb. You know, the morning after one of those sleepless, sweaty nights, you feel like an exhausted zombie in desperate need of a shower. And it can be miserable when you have a ton to do. None of us have time for those sleepless nights. You can curse the sun all day long, but it's so much better to take action by making sure your bedding is helping you sleep comfortably, not keeping you up. And that's why we wanted to tell you about the clean, cool and breathable sheets from bowl and Branch. We have just switched and we've been sleeping on them for three nights now. They're fabulous. My husband, who's very picky, approves. Best of all, right now, you can get 20% off your first order during the bowl and Branch Memorial Day sale.
- [31:37]
C
I feel like I need to cool down after that intro. You know I am the champion herculder, right? I love waking up and that's not the end of my time in bed. I like to read my emails and do work and everything before I leave the bed. And I can tell you that bowl and Branch has it all. Their summer bedding options are breathable, lightweight, and designed to keep you cool all night long. It's seriously like sleeping on a cloud, complete with soothing airflow. Thanks to their unique 100% organic cotton weave. Synthetic cooling technology or chemically treated fabrics are a band aid, not a solution. With Bolen Branch, the cooling is structural because of how it's woven. Amazingly, 94% of bull and Branch customers say their sheets get softer with every wash. And we can vouch. Barb and I love. You know, I always love 100% cotton because synthetic means plastics and all the nasty things that come with it.
- [32:48]
A
Yeah, these sheets are great. I used to think that sheets came in only two styles, regular and scratchy. I didn't know how wrong I was. Bowl and Branch has definitely changed the game. Ever since I put them on my bed, they have been so snug. You don't want to get up. You'll want to hurkle durkle. Just like Kim. They are buttery soft right from the start and they'll help you relax the moment you lie down. I've become such a fan of their signature sheet set that I'm getting them for the whole family. They have such an incredible feel and the breathability and temperature regulation are top notch. You know how like they just always feel cool. It's just a nice a nice feeling. It's all comfort, no crispiness. You need to experience their unmatched softness for yourself.
- [33:31]
D
That is so true Barb. And it's not just unmatched comfort, softness coolness. They have over two dozen amazing colors and I love playing with colors and their colors will complement any room or style. It's so much fun to pick them out for your family or as a gift. And now get 20% off your first order plus free shipping during the Memorial Day sale@bolandbranch.com Sisters with code sisters that's Bolenbranch B O L L a n d branch.com sisters use code sisters to get 20% off bolandbranch.com sisters code sisters exclusions apply. The link is also in our Show Notes.
- [34:29]
C
When you combine being a podcaster, a lawyer, a professor, a journalist, or one of the 57 other jobs that Jill has or has had, keeping track of your schedule can get a little 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 you can make the most of your free time together. That's why we're so glad we got our households using the Skylight Calendar.
- [35:08]
B
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, not naming any names but that would be me for certain. 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 what they need to do.
- [35:56]
A
It gives you such peace of mind and the whole house runs smoothly. I sure wish we had this when our kids were younger. It would have made our household much easier to manage. One of my favorite things about it is how much easier it makes to see when we all have some time off that coincides. It makes it much easier for us to plan if we want to do a family gathering or a short getaway. It saves so much time compared to Juggling everyone's availability across multiple texts. You know, like, have we heard back from, you know, so and so yet? No, we haven't heard back. All right, you know, who's, why can't. Why haven't we been able to schedule this thing yet? You can see it all in one glance. You never realize how many important things used to slip through the cracks until you get everyone using Skylight.
- [36:42]
D
And your happiness is Skylight's happiness. So if in four months you are not 100% thrilled with your purchase, you can return it for a full refund, no questions asked. Families are better when they're working together. And right now, Skylight is offering our listeners to $30 off their 15 inch calendar 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 links are in our show. The Presidential Records act became law right after Richard Nixon tried to keep the public and the prosecutors from getting his presidential documents, including tapes. And it has been obeyed by every president, including Richard Nixon, since then. Wait until now. Now Donald Trump is trying to find a way to destroy emails and presidential documents, and he is doing something that I never thought would be possible. Kim, what's going on now? And why is the public, the Presidential Records act, important to everybody?
- [38:16]
C
He has another Todd Blanche special over at the Department of Justice. The Office of Legal Counsel issued a sweeping memorandum that declared, get this, that the Presidential Records act is unconstitutional. Now, maybe it's just me, but the last time I checked, even in our weakened governmental system, it is not the DOJ that declares things unconstitutional. It is the Supreme Court that does that. So I was interested to see what legal justification this OLC memo had, and I couldn't find it. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that the Presidential Records act is constitutional in a case that Jill knows a little bit something about involving President Nixon. So, I mean, this is. It's wild. It's crazy. I mean, if this is allowed to stand, it's on the substance of it. This would essentially create a steel wall around the White House in terms of Transpar would not know what is going on in any White House, what a president or those around him are doing, which is just horrifically dangerous and just raises every ethical issue that you could possibly imagine. That's how the Kremlin works, okay? That's not how the White House works. And even that, like for the DOJ to simply think it can, what are they doing. They are absolutely disregarding Supreme Court precedent in even issuing this order. So this is crazy.
- [40:04]
D
You know, what is past is prologue. But if you don't know the past, how do you plan for the future? How do you. I mean, it's for history's sake. We must have these documents so that we can evaluate what different places did. And so, Barbara, you know, Kim has said there really is no legal argument here. But what was the argument of the Office of Legal Counsel and what were. Well, what are the consequences? Let's just start with what the arguments were of olc.
- [40:35]
A
Yeah. So, you know, from time to time, various agencies of the federal government will ask the Justice Department for a legal opinion. It's usually when there's just an unknown answer. Right. Here's a question that has not been addressed by the Supreme Court. There's some gaps in the law. The government wants to act lawfully, and so they might ask OLC for an opinion and they'll write these opinions. You know, it's olc, for example, who has written that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.
- [41:04]
B
That's.
- [41:04]
A
That's who the Office of Legal Counsel is. And so the Office of Legal Counsel wrote to the President, you have asked us whether the Presidential Records act is legal. We conclude that it is not. And they base it on the separation of powers. What they say is that Congress, which passed the Presidential Records act, can't tell the President how to conduct himself while in office. Of course, we have three separate and co equal branches of government. They are due respect from each other so that they can operate and do their jobs. The executive branch, of course, is there to administer the law. But the idea that Congress cannot put any check whatsoever on the Executive is just contrary to the whole structure of our Constitution, which creates those three separate branches to serve as checks on each other. And as Kim just mentioned, the Supreme Court has already addressed this. The Office of Legal Counsel opinion says that Nixon case was wrong and that's not the role of the Office of Legal Counsel. They can look where there's an unanswered question, where there's a gap in the law. Maybe there's a brand new statute and there hasn't been any interpretation on it yet. That's all fair game for olc. But if the Supreme Court has spoken, they are the supreme law of the land. You would say there's binding case law on this. Nixon versus gsa. And it isn't that. This was, you know, a tangential issue in this case. This was the issue. Does the Presidential Records act violate the separation of powers. And Nixon vs. GSA said no. The General Service said no, it does not. Of course Congress has the power to do this. It has a compelling interest in retaining records of our nation's history and for the conduct of good government. It's a minor burden on the executive branch and this is absolutely constitutional.
- [43:01]
D
So, Joyce, sounds like a federal judge agrees with Barb. So a lawsuit was filed by a group of people who have a real interest in this, the American Oversight, the American Historical association, the Freedom of the Press foundation, and I think Citizen Crew, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. And they challenged the OLC opinion and the implementation from the White House Council of Rules and Regulations of. You can ignore from now on. You don't have to keep these things. Go ahead, forget about it. Yeah, forget about it.
- [43:36]
A
What a, what a pain to keep all those records.
- [43:39]
D
Well, and to have to tape together all the things that Donald Trump in Trump won, tore up. And by the way, in Trump 1, he followed this. He did not challenge this in Trump 1. It's only now after it was used against him in the purloining of documents to mar a lago.
- [43:54]
A
But anyway, that's a good word, purloin.
- [43:57]
D
So, Joyce, what did the court say? And this was a judge, by the way, appointed by W, not by a Democrat.
- [44:04]
B
Yeah. So, you know, if more federal judges and maybe to be more appointed justices would agree with Barb, the world would be a better place. Oh, yes, but Judge John Bates clearly does agree with Barb and he has adopted the McQuaid rule here and said that the Trump administration cannot unilaterally exempt itself from the Presidential Records Act. I mean, it has to get this, follow the law. So Judge Bates wrote that the 1978 statute, that's how long the PRA has been around, that it's likely constitutional. He issued an emergency injunction that forces top White House staff to comply with the law. And he had this interesting comment about legislative intent. He said, he wrote, congress has validly determined that, that this act helps to maintain that trust, the people's trust in government, by shining some light on the activities of the President and his aides. But his ruling excluded Trump and The vice president, J.D. vance, from its directive because district judges have been directed by higher courts to avoid, quote, micromanaging Presidents day to day operations regarding records preservation. It doesn't go as far, I suspect, as Judge Bates would have liked to, but the reality is his order will have that effect because it forces other top officials who frequently exchange text messages or emails with Trump or Vance to preserve them. So it'll have the same effect as forcing them to do it, too. And something I appreciated about his order is that it identifies some of the people he expects to comply with it by name, including Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Stephen Miller. So as a great thing to call
- [45:56]
A
them out by name, because couldn't you just.
- [45:57]
B
I really, really appreciated that part of his order.
- [46:00]
A
Clearly, it doesn't apply to me.
- [46:02]
B
You know, as a practical matter, he has done everything that the plaintiffs wanted him to do. The real question is going to be what happens on appeal. This is setting up another one of those unitary executive battles, and the Supreme Court has weighed in heavily in favor of the unitary executive. I'm just going to weigh in with a rare note of optimism. I'm not out on the ledge on this one. I am optimistic that the courts will require the White House to preserve the historical record for future generations to study and for all Americans to have access to.
- [46:37]
D
So, Kim, you're usually on the limb on the ledge, rather, with Joyce, so I want to ask you whether you're worried, as I am, that his order doesn't go into effect until May 26th. What's going to happen between today and May 26th is he's going to eat Donald.
- [46:57]
A
Donald Goodman's.
- [46:57]
D
That's the question. I mean, seriously, that toilet's going to be so stuffed up, I can't even imagine. I'm sorry, but so where are the
- [47:07]
B
White House fireplaces when you need them? Right.
- [47:10]
C
Jill, don't give him ideas. Not that you have.
- [47:12]
A
He doesn't need that.
- [47:14]
D
I wish I could take credit for giving them ideas, but they're so far ahead of all of us. So what do you think, Kim?
- [47:21]
C
So if the question is, can he just destroy documents with abandon until the 26th, I guess. But would that be legal? I would say no. There is already an order. Yes, the order doesn't go into effect on May 26, but he is fully on notice. And so once it goes into effect, it will not be a defense to say, oh, well, I had this free week before this actually went into effect. If he is shown, and if it is proven that he has mishandled, you know, and purposely destroyed documents under the Presidential Records act, he would be subject to the penalties under. Under their wit. So I. I don't think it would not be wise, Mr. Blanche, if you're advising the President to do that, it would likely just land him in more hot water, and that's probably the last thing he needs right now, and, you
- [48:20]
D
know, Barbara's right, the recipients of his exchanges, or, you know, the person who sent it to him still has to maintain it. But, you know, in addition to the President and vice President being left off the list, so was nara, which is now the National Archives. And they don't know whether they can release past presidents. Clinton's documents are up for release now, and they're not sure whether they can release things. The archivist is excluded, the Justice Department is excluded, and the Attorney general. And honestly, I don't know. I can't explain that.
- [49:00]
B
I don't know.
- [49:00]
D
If one of you wants to take a chance and describe why the exclusions.
- [49:06]
A
I can, if you want.
- [49:08]
D
Yeah, I do.
- [49:10]
A
Right at the outset of the opinion, the court says that the plaintiffs have not shown that there's been any injury suffered by those departments. So in other words, they seem to be complying with the Presidential Records Act. It's just the White House that asked
- [49:22]
D
for this legal opinion, but his White House counsel issued regulations that say no one in the executive branch has to do this. So if they follow that, well.
- [49:33]
A
So right now, it's just a preliminary injunction.
- [49:36]
D
Yeah. I just think it leaves too much vagueness for an administration that shows itself to be prone to doing insane, crazy stuff. And, you know, it's sort of like a subpoena, though once a subpoena is issued, if you destroy the documents while the subpoena is pending, you are destroying subpoenaed records and it's illegal, as opposed to if you think a subpoena is coming and you destroy them. So, like, from the day that Alexander Butterfield said there are tapes until the less than a week later when we issued a subpoena. Donald. Donald Trump. Well, yeah, Donald Trump, too, but Richard Nixon could have destroyed those tapes and it wouldn't have been a violation of a subpoena. So it just. I'm. I mean, I guess, although I'm usually Pollyanna in the Trump administration, I am not. I am always seeing the last possible things.
- [50:32]
A
But, Jill, just to put a fine point on what you say, you're absolutely right, because this OLC opinion was issued in April and the injunction just came this week. So they've had, like, six weeks to clean house if they want to flush the toilets, if they wanted to.
- [50:56]
D
Deleteme makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are common enough to make everyone vulnerable. With so many threats out there, you need someone in your corner. And Deleteme does all the hard work of wiping you and your family's personal information from data broker websites.
- [51:19]
C
It's not just a passive service. Deleteme sends you regular personalized privacy reports showing what info they found, where they found it, and what they have removed. Once you see how much is out there, you'll be so glad you signed up. I really am amazed every time I see one of the privacy reports. And I'm really, really glad that I'm covered under Delete me. But they don't stop there. Delete Me isn't just a one time service. It's always working for you. By constantly monitoring and removing the personal information you don't want on the Internet. Consider it like your personal warrior, protecting your data autonomy and privacy.
- [51:58]
A
Even if you're not a public figure in the Internet age, all of us are potential targets for malicious actors, blackmailers and worse. Especially if you have minors or children in your family. Delete me is a must. Once we got started with them, the peace of mind was such a relief. I trust them to protect me, my sisters and my loved ones. And I know that they can help you keep your family safe too.
- [52:22]
B
Don't wait. Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Deleteme now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your Delete Me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com sisters and use the promo code Sisters at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to JoinDeleteMe.com sisters and enter the code Sisters at checkout. In case you didn't get it, that's joindeleteme.com sisters code sisters. And the link really is in the show notes too. Delete me is great. So head on over and check it out. So y', all, this has been a truly crazy week. I mean, I feel like every week is a little bit crazy. But this week, even while we have been taping the show, stories continue to drop. The indictment against Kumara Brago Garcia was dismissed midway through the show. But there's right, I mean crazy on. On vindiction charges. It was, we all thought it was. It's good to find out that we were right. But there's one topic that sort of got covered and then passed over. And I think it's important enough that we need to take it up. So we'll close out this week on Cuba and the Ral Castro indictment. Kim, can you start by explaining the indictment? Who are the defendants? What are they charged with? Where is the case being Prosecuted all of the basics.
- [54:02]
C
This is really, really wild. So federal prosecutors on Wednesday unsealed an indictment that was secured back in April against former Cuban leader Raul Castro and five others who are identified as Cuban fighter pilots in connection with the Cuban military's fatal downing of two planes 30 years ago. Now, keep in mind that Raul Castro is now 94 years old. He was the president of Cuba from 2008 to 2018 and the head of the country's Communist Party from 2011 to 2021. But they were indicted April 23 in federal court in Miami on account of conspiracy to kill US Nationals, four counts of murder and two counts of destruction of an air of aircrafts. And a judge granted prosecutors request to unseal that indictment this Wednesday.
- [55:09]
B
You know, not to make light of the. The lives that were lost here. Right. Because, I mean, it was tragic death of people, including American citizens. But as you say, this happened a long time ago. I mean, if Trump felt strongly about this case, he had four years, his first time in office, to indict the case, and Castro would have been that much younger, and the case would have been that much stronger. And this indictment comes down and there's this incredible press conference. I mean, did you guys see the press conference? I never did a press conference like this when I indicted a case. They've got community members from the Cuban American community out there applauding, and it really looked like a political rally to me, not a indictment. Right?
- [55:54]
C
It did. It did. It had Dear Leader vibes.
- [55:57]
B
I mean, Barb, I gotta ask you, is this indictment for real? You know, Kim's talked about the fact that Castro is old, he is in Cuba. Does this case ever actually get prosecuted, or is this just for show, as Kim says, the Dear Leader cult.
- [56:13]
A
Yeah. You know, in any other administration, I would give them the benefit of the doubt. You know, there's this thing that's called the presumption of regularity, that the Justice Department acts in the best interests of the public in the United States and its interests. And, you know, this is a murder case. It goes back, as you said, to 1996. Originally charged against some individuals in 2003. And so we've had several administrations since 2003. Right. That was the Bush administration. Then we had the Obama administration. We had Trump won, we had the Biden administration. Nobody thought to charge Raul Castro until now. He's not even the current leader of Cuba. He hasn't been in power since 2021. But certainly the Castro name has a lot of notorious symbolism, I think, because of Fidel Castro. And certainly there have been all kinds of, you know, human rights abuses and communism and other things not to like about this regime. But number one, I don't see how he ever gets in a court in the United States. I guess they could go Nicholas Maduro on him and go down and capture him with the military if they wanted to do that, but it seemed they didn't do that. There's no extradition treaty, so he's not going to get turned over from Cuba. So it's hard to imagine he will actually ever see a day in court. Even if he were to come, there'd be years worth of litigation and defenses. And at the age of 94, it's hard to imagine he will actually be brought to trial, convicted and sentenced to prison. So you have to ask yourself, then, what are they doing here? And in light of the comments that we've heard, you know, after Venezuela, President Trump saying, I'm thinking about Cuba next. And it really feels more like a political tool than it does like a use of bringing offenders to justice. Now, I said, in an ordinary administration, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. Right. Americans who were murdered abroad is a serious crime.
- [58:20]
C
Yes.
- [58:20]
A
And we should bring those offenders to justice. But, you know, one tell about this indictment I thought is there is no quotation of evidence. Most of the time, when you have one of these speaking indictments, you'll see in a text message dated such and such, somebody wrote, quote, you know, the informant CI12 said that Raul Castro gave this order. It doesn't say that. It's just this, like, passive narrative that these are all the things that happen without documenting the source. You know, like, if you read good journalism, every fact is attributed to a source. If you read good, you know, research, scholarship, you will see a footnote that goes with everything. I mean, typically there has to be a piece of evidence to go with every factual assertion in an indictment. And we don't see reference to any of that evidence. So it does make me wonder about the legitimacy of this indictment.
- [59:15]
B
Yeah, I mean, sometimes there are these, we would call it name and shame, right? These indictments where you've got a foreign national you can't access. So like the Russia hacker cases, we were never going to be able to do anything, so we exposed the facts. The point that you're making about this indictment being pretty slim. There have been cases where the government, our government has indicted Chinese industrial espionage. Folks, naming and shaming here, you know, the idea of naming and shaming a 94 year old man when you can't. He's at the top of the chain of command, sure enough. But there's no linkage to him giving the orders. It seems weird. So, Jill, let me ask you to put your DOD hat back on for a minute and talk with us about the military tea leaves. I mean, Barb raises the specter of Venezuela. This looks a lot like that where we did a smash and grab after we indicted another country's political leader. But it's also sort of a weird dynamic because the conduct Castro is accused of, it looks an awful lot like what this administration has been doing to fishing boats. Right. They allege that the boats have drug runners attacking the United States. They attack and kill people. That's sort of a weird dynamic here. And now there's news that there's a U.S. carrier headed toward Cuba. Can you, as Kim loves to say, just make it all make sense? This feels like a lot.
- [60:41]
D
You know, it's so interesting because let's pause on what you said about this looking like what Donald Trump is doing to fishing boats coming out of Venezuela and in that area. And, you know, we have often talked about a lot of what Donald Trump does is projection from what he is doing. And let's just not ignore the fact that without any evidence to support the claims that these fishing boats are carrying drugs, not a single shred of evidence. And in fact, when they actually captured two of the people on the boat, they ended up sending them back to their home countries rather than bringing them here. And I know that it's because they had no evidence on which to try them. So rather than fishing. Exactly. And there were no drugs found in the water after they were picked up. So to me, this is really sort of the answer Right. There is. This is ridiculous. It is saying, well, they shot down our planes that were flying over their territory, and so. And these were military planes. There's no question about that. So at least there is some country linkage to a military action. But predicting what's going to happen is a little harder because, you know, Trump always chickens out. And so we don't know for sure. The fact that the Nimitz carrier is now in the Caribbean has been brought. It was supposed to be retired this year, but it's now been extended for another year. And it's. First of all, I want to just say, if you've never been on an aircraft carrier, you can't imagine the size. They carry 6,000 troops. And on an aircraft carrier, about half of that is sailors who will man the ship. And run it and keep it going. The other half are airmen and maintenance workers who will fly planes off of it to do whatever, you know, whether it's dropping bombs or landing to seize a 94 year old Castro, I don't know. But that's 6,000 people. And it's not the only military presence near Cuba. It is now. Right. It's not in Cuban waters as I understand it. It's in the Caribbean, but it's not. It's in international waters, but it's not there for nothing. You don't send 6,000 troops to Cuba unless you're planning to do something. And as you've noted, Donald Trump has said, oh, I'm thinking Cuba, I'm thinking Greenland. So apparently Cuba is next.
- [63:26]
B
And
- [63:29]
D
I can't say whether he's going to grab him or invade, you know, or intimidate or just intimidate. He did say, in answer to a question about intimidation, that he didn't deny it, but he sort of said, well, you know, Cuba's a terrible place. Of course, it's partly a terrible place because we've put in a blockade and they have no gas and oil, so they have no electricity. They aren't getting food. It was already in trouble. I have been lucky enough to visit Cuba twice and I've been subject to power outages. And I've seen the markets that are available to people with American dollars. And for those people who can only use Cuban money, it is not great.
- [64:16]
C
They have two different. Well, you can't use. It's illegal to use American dollars there, but they have Cuban money for tourists that's more valuable than the Cuban money for residents. They ration their food.
- [64:28]
D
I mean, it's unbelievable, it's amazing. But anyway, I can't predict what Donald Trump is going to do in terms of military action.
- [64:36]
B
Yeah, that's fair enough.
- [64:37]
A
I mean, I think this is probably very popular with Cuban Americans and understandably so.
- [64:42]
D
Right.
- [64:42]
A
I mean, for decades there have been strained relations with Cuba. People are not able to visit relatives or visit their homeland. People fled, you know, refugees who are here would like to be reunited with loved ones. But for all of those voters who thought that regime change was over in the Trump administration because he's been all about regime change.
- [65:04]
B
Well, you know, Donald Trump loves a good distraction and he certainly could use a few right now. He's got problems in the polls and elsewhere. So maybe that's what this is all about. But I think it's helpful to make sure that we stay and pay attention to this one, There's a lot of stuff that could go wrong here.
- [65:31]
A
The pace of life just keeps getting faster 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. Then you have to find the time to plan a meal, buy the meal, cook the meal 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. Eating healthy isn't a willpower problem, it's a setup problem. Or it was until we found Factor.
- [66:04]
D
You know, I actually love cooking, but Factor changes all of that and with factories you can join us in hitting your nutrition goals without the planning, grocery runs or cooking. It's easy because Factor has meals built around your goals, 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 Ginger Teriyaki Salmon with forbidden rice and Sesame Green beans of Talking about it makes me think I can't make it through the show without stopping for it. But 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.
- [66:57]
B
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 that you can 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 175plus ingredients so there is no artificial colors, no artificial sweeteners, no high fructose corn syrup and no refined seed oils. Just nutrient dense food.
- [67:38]
C
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.
- [68:49]
A
Well, now comes the part of the show that is our absolute favorite, the part where we answer your questions. If you have a question for us, please email sisters in law politicon.com or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. If we don't get to your question during the show, we will try to answer it during our new show, Sisters sidebar every Wednesday. Well, our first question comes to us from EMR, who asks would D.C. having state laws and a court system allow it to prosecute for state crimes within its jurisdiction? And do you support statehood? Kim, you're living in D.C. what do you think about that?
- [69:30]
C
Well, I have opinions on this, emr. The answer is yeah, DC Needs to be a state. So I'll answer your last question first. I fully support D.C. statehood. And you know who else does? About 80% of residents here in Washington, D.C. support statehood. I do it for a lot of reasons. I'd love representation in Congress. That would be nice, you know, for all the taxes that we pay. But to your point, yes. So the way that our systems work, we do have what are the sort of the equivalent of state laws here in the District. The District has laws and it does have a court system, but it's kind of bifurcated for the most part. We have a district attorney general, for example, who acts as kind of equivalent to state attorneys general, except the the things that can be prosecuted are only misdemeanors and some other kind of ordinances. When you get to felonies, that has to be prosecuted BY the federal U.S. attorney, who is Jeanine Pirro. There is no other way to do that. So, yeah, I think that it would be much more representative to have someone who was in charge here who can prosecute all of that. And you don't have to worry about who is the head of the administration federally in a certain presidential term to wonder just how your laws are going to be prosecuted. That's a big problem. There are also other problems in that Congress really has, in a large way, its foot on the neck of Washington, D.C. i will give you an example. There is a bill pending right now from a Republican in Pennsylvania who wants to nix all of the traffic cams in the city. There is a rumor that it's in part because members of Congress don't like getting tickets when they fly through the streets here and endanger folks like me who are just, you know, going out of our front doors. And so some Republican in Pennsylvania wants to be in control of traffic safety here in D.C. that is outrageous. So, yes, D.C. statehood now.
- [71:38]
A
All right. That was a good stump speech, by the way. It sounded to me like you said misdemeanor instead of misdemeanor. Is that a little feminism protest there thrown in?
- [71:48]
C
No, I think that's just how I say it.
- [71:49]
A
Ms. Demeanor. I like it.
- [71:50]
C
Misdemeanor.
- [71:51]
A
I'm gonna pick that up.
- [71:52]
C
That's what I always say. Oh, I never, you know, I never noticed that before.
- [71:56]
D
I like it.
- [71:57]
A
I'm gonna start putting that in my lexicon. That might even be my new name. Ms. Demeter.
- [72:02]
C
Misdemeanor.
- [72:06]
A
Our next question comes to us from Kimball, who asks what, if any, are the implications of writing in something other than a person's name on a ballot, particularly when someone is running unopposed? That's interesting, Joyce. Do you know the answer? Can I vote for. Can I write in Mickey Mouse or something like that?
- [72:27]
B
You know, this question is really intriguing. I mean, can you vote for, you know, for instance, a rock instead of Alabama gubernatorial candidate Tommy Tuberville?
- [72:37]
A
Might be smarter.
- [72:38]
B
Might. Might be tempting. Right. It might feel like a good protest move. You know, I think obviously that vote won't count, and it won't have any impact, although it might make you feel really good. My concern is whether it might have an effect on the ballot itself. And because every state has different sort of rules for counting ballots, I'm just gonna say that my inclination is it's not worth the risk. But, you know, write in candidacies in general, if you're willing to name a person. Although, you know, I do. Like, I probably shouldn't tell this, but I will say that my husband Bob and I, for a while, when there wasn't a candidate we liked, we would sometimes vote in our big Maine coon cat, Harry, and vote for Harry. So sort of to the point of the question, but I. I think that writing in a name can actually be a deal, because if enough people write in the name of another person, then the unopposed candidate is not going to win with, you know, 100% of the ballots cast for them. They're gonna maybe win with a much lower percent. And I think that that's where write in candidacies can be meaningful. And, you know, sometimes it really matters. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkow, who not infrequently votes with the Democrats. She made history by winning an election without being on the Alaska ballot. Voters had to write her name in a blank space under the official candidates in 2010, it was the first time a write in candidate had won since. Great trivia piece here. Strom Thurmond won in the 1954 election in South Carolina. But you know, having Lisa Murkowski there instead of the Sarah Palin endorsed candidate is really something that in some ways has protected the country. So I understand that the question in some ways is a glib one, but I think it gets at a more serious truth about the many ways that we can be creative and ensure that our right to vote matters.
- [74:48]
C
Yeah. And I also want to point out, especially on more local level, like here in D.C. we have ranked choice voting. So if you write in somebody, it actually can really matter. If you know, not even a huge percentage of people do it, but a fairly small percentage of people do it, it can make a difference.
- [75:05]
A
All right, our last question comes to us from Ann in San Diego, California. Ann asks, the Southern Poverty Law center has filed a motion to release the grand jury transcript arguing that the grand jury was misled into issuing the indictment. How likely is the SPLC to succeed? And if it is shown that the grand jury was misled, what are the ramifications? Jill, what do you think about that?
- [75:33]
D
I love the question and I'll answer the two parts of it and then explain a little bit. I think it's quite likely to succeed because unlike some of the other things we've discussed today, it alleges that facts that show that there was probably a misleading of the grand jury. So I think it is likely to succeed and that's a good thing. I also think that the result could be the dismissal of the indictment. That's one of the possibilities in terms of what could happen if the grand jury transcript is released and proves that there was misleading of the grand jury. They did this under Rule 6e, which provides for grand jury secrecy. And you know, as prosecutors, we know how important the secrecy is because people testify at great risk to themselves oftentimes in a grand jury and want the protection of knowing that their testimony will be kept secret, at least until they are called to be a trial witness. But there are exceptions to that. In Watergate, we used an exception to provide the House Judiciary Committee with evidence so that they could proceed to pass impeachment articles much more quickly than if they had to reinvent the investigation we had already done. This one is done under a slightly different proceeding which says that the defendant can request disclosure upon a showing. And this is what it says, that grounds may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury. And here they have made a pretty compelling argument about why the rule of regularity that we've often mentioned is no longer available to the department. That they have done so many things wrong in this case, but in other cases as well, that they should not be entitled to that presumption. And so that's why I think it could end up being granted. They can get the grand jury transcript, which they would get if there was ever a trial. They would. And anybody from there testifies, they'd get to see that testimony in preparation for trial. But I think in this case, it would really be unfair to make them go to trial and defend themselves against a totally ridiculous charge where, as they point out, the Department of Justice is trying to eliminate tactics that they themselves use and that have long been used to capture and prosecute and eliminate the Ku Klux Klan.
- [78:14]
B
You know, let me just add one caveat to that. This case was brought in the middle District of Alabama, where every active judge, including the trial judge hearing the case, is a Republican appointee. And it's a very young court. These aren't, in most cases, judges who've been around for decades. But that's not to say that they can't stand up and do the right thing. I think it's just worth noting sometimes judges have ambitions to go on to higher courts, and that can enter their calculation. You know, Jill, the question that you chose is such an interesting one to me because as a prosecutor, you know that although defendants will ultimately see if they testify at trial, the transcripts of. Of the testimony of witnesses, what's much more protected, and I guess this is inside baseball, but what's much more protected is when the prosecutor is acting in their role as the legal advisor to the grand jury, and they explain the law to them. And I think that here, that's where if misconduct occurred or if the grand jury was inappropriately advised, that's where it's likely going to be, especially focusing on these fraud claims and how that law was explained. So this is going to be be awfully interesting as it develops. I'm just concerned that a judge may not order the transcripts turned over. Judges have a lot of discretion in that area.
- [79:47]
D
It's scary because of the court's makeup, as you're pointing out, but I think the rule is pretty clear. And at least maybe at the appellate level, there will be some recognition of the harm that the Southern Poverty Law center will encounter if this goes any further. And I think, you know, and they did, by the way, to your point, say if we can't get everything we're asking for, we should at least get the part about the prosecutor advising the grand jury. And so they're aware of the fact that they may not get everything, but that they could get where it is Pretty likely they they point out that the indictment doesn't even include all the elements of the crime, like intent. And, you know, again, another element to showing that the the prosecution is not entitled to the presumption of regularity.
- [80:48]
A
Well, thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Kimberly Atkins, Door, Jill Wine Banks, Joyce Van and me, Barb McQuaid. Don't forget to pick up SistersinLawmerch and other goodies@politicon.com merch and make sure you check out our new companion podcast, Sisters Sidebar on Wednesdays. Please show some love to this week's sponsors, Pocket Hose bowl and Branch Skylight Calendar, Delete Me and Factor. The links are in the show. Notes Notes. Please support them because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode. Sisters in Law. Are you still eating that chocolate joint?
- [81:32]
B
It like it's sticking. It won't go away. Sorry.
- [81:36]
A
I feel very sorry for you.
- [81:37]
B
Chocolate Pumpernick.
- [81:38]
A
You're a victim. You're a victim of chocolate.
- [81:40]
B
A victim of circumstance.
- [81:42]
D
I think instead of pumpkin, we now say chocolate place.
- [81:47]
C
With Vrbal's last minute deals, you can save over $50 on your spring getaway. So whether it's a mountain escape with friends, a family week at the beach, or sightseeing in a new city, there's still time to get great discounts. Book your next day now. Average savings $72 select homes only.