315: The People Vs. Todd Blanche

Summary

Podcast Summary: #SistersInLaw, Episode 315 – "The People Vs. Todd Blanche"

Date: June 24, 2026
Panelists: Jill Wine-Banks, Joyce Vance
Theme: Legal and constitutional analysis of current events and listener Q&A, with a focus on the Trump "IRS slush fund" case, the Epstein files lawsuit against Todd Blanche, passport security, the War Powers Act, posthumous prosecution, and vice-presidential succession.

---

Episode Overview

In this “Sisters Sidebar” episode, panelists Joyce Vance and Jill Wine-Banks answer listener questions on hot-button legal and governmental issues, offering expert analysis on the intricacies of the Trump IRS settlement controversy, lawsuits against Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche regarding the Epstein files, security of passport renewals in a climate of distrust, the War Powers Act as it relates to Iran, the possibility of prosecuting someone posthumously, and the swift process of presidential succession. The episode is marked by sharp legal insights, relatable anecdotes, and the show’s signature wit.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Trump “IRS Get Out of Jail Free” Card – Legal Challenge

[00:42 – 05:24]

• Listener KJ from Colorado asks about the validity of Trump’s IRS “slush fund” settlement, questioning its enforceability due to lack of a true adversary and settlement.
• Joyce Vance breaks down the issue, noting:
  • The Constitution requires a “controversy” (opposing parties) for a federal case. If there’s no legitimate adversary, there’s no real case, settlement, or valid addendum.
  • Trump’s acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, signed a settlement acting as a “get out of jail free” card—potentially covering Trump and his family’s IRS liabilities and investigations up to $100 million.
  • A bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges asked the Southern District of Miami to challenge what they call a “fraud on the court.”
  • Judge Williams is considering Rule 11 sanctions for potential frivolity. There’s tension between the federal government (or, effectively, Trump) and the court over whether external parties (the judges) can participate in the suit.
  • The situation is now ripe for a decision.
• Notable quote:

  “That settlement, of course, is that get out of jail free card... almost a pardon.”
  — Joyce Vance [01:49]

• Memorable moment:
  Joyce notes the “offensive” tone of the government’s briefing, which may influence the judge’s approach:

  “Even as... an offended litigant... you still use a tone of respect and professionalism. And this brief really does not entertain that kind of a tone.”
  — Joyce Vance [03:26]

2. Passport Renewal Security under Trump

[05:24 – 06:52]

• Listener Chris from Salt Lake City is wary about renewing their passport under the current administration.
• Jill Wine-Banks advises:
  • You’ll only get Trump’s face on your passport if you request it (jokingly).
  • Renew early (at least 8 weeks in advance), preferably online; using an expediter is an option for urgent renewals.
  • Online applications are safe—Trump’s face won’t appear.
  • Passports must be valid for 3–6 months after travel.
• Notable quote:

  “My biggest fear was that I would get one with Donald Trump's face on it. But... unless you request that, you don't get his face on it...”
  — Jill Wine-Banks [05:30]

3. Can Crimes Be Prosecuted Posthumously?

[06:52 – 08:10]

• Listener Jonathan asks if the deceased can be prosecuted for crimes.
• Joyce Vance explains:
  • Dead individuals cannot be prosecuted; ongoing prosecutions must be promptly dismissed.
  • Even convictions are vacated if a defendant dies during an appeal—a reflection of due process rights.
  • The only minor exception: deceased may be unindicted co-conspirators, referenced for context but not charged.
• Notable quote:

  “You can't prosecute someone who's dead... prosecutors are required to immediately move to dismiss the prosecution itself.”
  — Joyce Vance [06:58]

4. The War Powers Act and Congressional Authority over Iran

[15:37 – 17:52]

• Listener Jeff from Portland, OR queries why Congress must vote to stop the Iran war given the War Powers Act’s restrictions.
• Jill Wine-Banks explains:
  • The War Powers Act requires the President to withdraw troops after 60 days unless Congress expressly authorizes continued involvement. A 30-day extension is possible.
  • Congress’s “power of the purse” is also relevant—they can defund unauthorized military action.
  • If Congress does nothing, the law requires withdrawal.
  • If Congress passes a resolution to stop the war, the president could theoretically veto, but the issue is complicated and unresolved.
  • The current deadlock is a result of Congress failing to act as a meaningful check.
• Notable quote:

  “If they do nothing, then it's all over. It would require withdrawal.”
  — Jill Wine-Banks [16:53]

5. Lawsuits Against Todd Blanche Over the Epstein Files

[17:52 – 21:56]

• Listener Carolyn (Los Angeles): Is journalist Katie Fang really the only person suing over the Epstein files? Why can’t the public or organizations sue?
• Joyce Vance details:
  • Standing is the core issue; taxpayer lawsuits rarely succeed—plaintiffs must show proximate harm.
  • Katie Fang’s angle is that noncompliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act impedes her ability to do her job as a journalist.
  • The suit targets specific DOJ failings: illegal redactions, withholding documents (including those implicating Trump), ignoring non-English records, and failing to publish required redaction logs.
  • Survivors may influence public opinion but face similar standing issues in court.
  • If successful, this case could set precedent for holding government officials accountable for transparency law violations.
• Notable quote:

  “Katie is alleging that because Blanche has failed to comply with the Epstein Transparency act, it's impossible for her to do her job as a journalist. And I think that's a very clever way to try to thread the needle.”
  — Joyce Vance [18:39] “It's pretty fascinating how journalists have figured out that this happened. You can actually go back and look at the documents and track what's missing.”
  — Joyce Vance [19:32]

6. Presidential Succession Timing

[21:56 – 23:03]

• Listener Tanya from Baltimore: How quickly is the VP sworn in if the president resigns, and who’s in charge?
• Jill Wine-Banks recounts:
  • Oath is administered instantly upon resignation, death, or removal—there’s no gap in executive authority.
  • Gerald Ford was sworn in by Chief Justice Burger the moment Nixon’s resignation became effective.
  • LBJ was sworn in by Judge Sarah Hughes aboard Air Force One minutes after JFK’s assassination.
• Notable quote:

  “When a president resigns or is ousted... the vice president is sworn in instantaneously.”
  — Jill Wine-Banks [21:57]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Quote | Speaker | Timestamp | |-------|---------|-----------| | “That settlement... is that get out of jail free card... almost a pardon.” | Joyce Vance | 01:49 | | “My biggest fear was that I would get one with Donald Trump's face on it. But... unless you request that, you don't get his face on it...” | Jill Wine-Banks | 05:30 | | “You can't prosecute someone who’s dead... prosecutors are required to immediately move to dismiss the prosecution itself.” | Joyce Vance | 06:58 | | “If they do nothing, then it’s all over. It would require withdrawal.” | Jill Wine-Banks | 16:53 | | “Katie is alleging that because Blanche has failed to comply with the Epstein Transparency act, it’s impossible for her to do her job as a journalist.” | Joyce Vance | 18:39 | | “When a president resigns or is ousted... the vice president is sworn in instantaneously.” | Jill Wine-Banks | 21:57 |

---

Important Timestamps

• Trump IRS Settlement Controversy: [00:42 – 05:24]
• Passport Security: [05:24 – 06:52]
• Posthumous Prosecution: [06:52 – 08:10]
• War Powers Act/Iran: [15:37 – 17:52]
• Epstein Files Lawsuit: [17:52 – 21:56]
• Presidential Succession: [21:56 – 23:03]

---

Tone & Style

• Language: Engaged, collegial, and direct—balancing legal jargon with layperson accessibility.
• Tone: Humorous, earnest, and slightly irreverent; panelists infuse personal anecdotes and wit, grounding complex legal analysis in everyday realities.

---

Takeaways

• Complex legal controversies often hinge on technicalities such as standing and the adversarial nature of litigation, with real consequences for accountability.
• Even as legal experts, panelists express both professional skepticism and humor in navigating governmental trust.
• Journalistic lawsuits (like Katie Fang’s) show creative lawyering in the face of government secrecy—watch this space.
• The mechanics of constitutional law—on war powers, succession, and due process—remain essential (and contentious) to current events and public oversight.

---

For more or to submit your own question, visit #SistersInLaw or send audio questions as encouraged by the hosts!

Transcript

[Jill Wine Banks]

Welcome to this episode of Sister sidebar with Joyce Vance and me, Jill Wine Banks. This is the show that is a spin off from Sisters in Law, where we answer your questions. So if you have a question for us, please email [e-mail] or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. But don't just type your questions. We love to hear your voices and it's important and that's why we want to hear them. So you can email us a voice memo using one of your notes apps and we might play it on the show. Let's get started.

[KJ from Colorado (Caller)]

Hi, it's KJ From Colorado. This question is about the slush fund. And Donald brought a case against the irs. And because there was no true adversary, there can be no case. And because there can be no case, there can be no settlement. And because there was no settlement, there can be no addendum to the settlement. So it seems to me that the IRS get out of jail free forever card is null and void. Your thoughts?

[Joyce Vance]

Okay, so this is such a great question. Thank you so much for asking it like this, K.J. i'm sort of wondering if you're a law student because you make all the important steps here, right? Donald Trump sues the irs, but it's not adversarial. And we all know because we've talked about it in the past, that the Constitution requires that there actually be a controversy against parties with opposing interests before a court can consider a lawsuit. And you say since that's not the case, there can be no settlement. And because there's no settlement, and here's the most important part, I think the part of this whole situation that is sticking in all of our craws, you say no settlement, and that means there can be no addendum to the settlement. And that settlement, of course, is that get out of jail free card. I called it an almost a pardon that Donald Trump gets his acting Attorney General, Todd Blanch to sign just before Todd Blanch, coincidentally enough, is nominated to be the permanent attorney general. And that's this sort of forgiveness for Trump, his family, his businesses, from any sort of investigation by the irs, arguably even by other agenc misconduct that they knew about as of the date of the settlement. And it also acts as a forgiveness from Trump paying any back tax liability, which some news sources have reported could be as much as $100 million. So nothing to sneeze at. I think your argument is a really interesting one. And apparently so does a federal judge in the Southern District of Miami. That's where this lawsuit was originally filed. And Donald Trump applied for permission to have that lawsuit dismissed. And the argument that his lawyers made, and look, it's a correct argument, is that a plaintiff can dismiss a lawsuit that that plaintiff has brought without leave of court before the defendant answers. And that's what happened in this case. So it looked like it was regrettable, but on the up and up when it happened, then 35 former federal judges, a bipartisan group intervenes, and they say to the judge, look, you do not have to be a part of what, in essence is a fraud on the court, this settlement here. And they asked the judge to reopen her consideration of the case, even though she had dismissed it, pointing to a couple of rules that arguably permit that to happen. And the judge, in her order, she ordered the parties to brief this request. She points to an additional rule, Rule 11, which allows the court to sanction frivolous lawsuits or frivolous motions. And so now we're in the middle of a briefing schedule, and the government filed this brief. And the tone is just really sort of offensive, to be honest. The tone is sort of like, judge, you can't do anything. And how dare you even consider it. And look, even as, you know, an offended litigant, when you think that the court has done something that's really wrong, you still use a tone of respect and professionalism. And this brief really does not entertain that kind of a tone. So I'm going to be interested to see how Judge Williams ends up ruling on this request. The response by the judges who have filed in this case, and by the way, the government, I shouldn't say the government. It's really Donald Trump as an individual, although, of course, we all know that that, in essence now is the government. But Donald Trump is arguing that these judges aren't entitled to file a brief or be a party to the lawsuit. So that's something that the judge will have to consider, too. But their response was due right before we taped this episode of Sisters sidebar. And now the whole situation is ripe for the judge to issue a decision. And we'll get an answer to your question in that way. Well, Jill, that takes us to a question for you from Chris in Salt Lake City, Utah. Chris says, what's the safest way to renew our passports? I don't trust the administration.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I love this question, Chris, because I recently had to renew my passport. And my biggest fear was that I would get one with Donald Trump's face on it. But let me first of all assure you that unless you request that you don't get his face on it so you don't have to worry about that aspect. The only advice I would have for you is while I don't trust the administration about much, I do think that they will renew passports as required. And the best advice I have is do it in plenty of time. And keep in mind when you look at your passport that for many things it has to be valid for at least three or six months after your trip to be able to be used. So make sure that you renew it way before it expires and allow at least eight weeks for the process to take place. I used an expediter because I wanted to make sure I had my passport in time for a trip I was planning and they did a great job and got me the passport really quickly just doing it online. So that's what I recommend. And by the way, online you never get Donald Trump's picture, so it's only if you're there in person and request it. And there's another question for you, Joyce from Jonathan Are crimes ever prosecuted posthumously? Why or why not?

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, so this is interesting. I love these inside baseball legal questions and there's a pretty succinct answer to this one. You can't prosecute someone who's dead. In fact, if you've got a prosecution that's in play and your defendant dies during the prosecution, prosecutors are required to immediately move to dismiss the prosecution itself. And even if someone has been convicted, if they die while the case is on appeal, then they get their conviction vacated. You know, this is all part of the strong presumption in our system that people have to have every opportunity, opportunity to defend themselves against criminal charges before they can stand convicted. And so you just don't see and won't see this happen. Really the only exception that I can think of, Jonathan, is just if you're sort of looking for the Jeopardy trivia answer here would be you might have someone as an unindicted co conspirator who's no longer alive and you could talk about their conduct, but you really can't charge someone and you've got to dismiss a case once somebody has deceased.

[Jill Wine Banks]

After a meal or when everyone is together, being able to sit and tell their stories or hear them in his own words is something you'll cherish forever. It's something I wish I had had when my dad was still here and my grandfather because I would write so many questions. And of course back then I probably wouldn't have known to ask these. And now I so regret that I can't ask these questions about their life, about my grandfather coming from Lithuania to America. There's just so many questions I wish I had asked.

[Joyce Vance]

Sentimental gifts that bring family together are the most special thing in the world on Father's Day. All too often, Father's Day gifts are about one moment or end up in a drawer. Storyworth is a gift that keeps on giving for years and even generations to come. By giving your dad a year long experience. And at the end your family will have a book full of stories he'd probably never think to tell on his own. Each week Storyworth sends him a question about his life. Then he responds however he 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.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I love this so much because it's not only a gift for your dad, it's a gift for you because you get to listen to these stories as well. And Storyworth meets your father wherever he is so he can focus on the joy of remembering and reflecting. You can even help pick the questions, choose from pre written ones, write your own or let Storyworth create personalized questions based on his life. It's such a great way to strengthen your relationship with him and have something special to share with your kids. You get each story as he tells it, and after a year, Storyworth completes everything. His words, his photos, his life into a beautiful hardcover book. Everybody get this so that you can think about these questions and get them answered.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, I feel the same way. I'm actually going to get my husband to do this because you know, getting him to tell stories can be a little bit like pulling teeth sometimes. And I think having this as a prompt is something where maybe he'll preserve for our kids some stories that they might not have heard otherwise. You know, families have used Storyworth to create over a million books. They have more than 50,000 5 star reviews and folks agree this will be a treasure that your family will love. So, you know, I used to love hearing stories from family members about what growing up was like. And it's why I love the question about what fascinated your dad as a child. These questions we don't always think to ask. It's whimsical, it's touching, and it can connect family to a part of your father or anyone else's life that came before we were in it. Even as adults, we sometimes forget that our dads were children too. And it's fun to draw comparisons to what life was like across generations. And it's never a bad thing to remind the younger members of the family that there was a time when people actually didn't spend time in front of screens.

[Jill Wine Banks]

No, that can't be true. But also new this year is Storyworth's unlimited plan. Buy it once and you can give Storyworth memories to friends and family all year. Plus, it comes with all their newest features and multiple full color book copies. So this year, give Dad a gift that captures who he really is before the stories get harder to remember. Father's day is Sunday, June 21st. Order right now and save up to $20 at StoryWorth.com sisters save up to $20 at storyworth.com sisters again storyworth.com sisters or look for the link in our show. Joyce We've talked before about why Oneskin really stands out as a skincare company. It's not hype or just fancy packaging. It's real science. The founding team are longevity researchers who asked a deceptively simple question. If many visible signs of aging like wrinkles, fine lines and loss of elasticity are driven by so called zombie cells, what if you could actually reduce those cells to slow the aging process down instead of, instead of just covering it up?

[Joyce Vance]

You know, that research led to OS1. That's One Skin's proprietary peptide. And peptides are in the news a lot these days. OS1 is the first ingredient proven to switch off those damaged senescent cells, actually slowing skin aging directly at the source. And it really does work. I'm addicted to these products. I absolutely love them. I like the fact that this is serious science and that it fits easily into my existing routine. And you know, every time I use One Skin, which is frequently, I'm giving my skin a clear signal to repair damaged cells, support collagen, and strengthen my skin barrier.

[Jill Wine Banks]

And it's something that you can use whenever you get dried out. I use it all the time on planes or when the air conditioning is blasting. I use OneSkin's OS One Face topical supplement to fight back against dryness. It's the perfect supplement for making your skin look fresh and keeping it ready for anything the day throws at you. And now that it's summer, One Skin Space SPF is the perfect way to defend against sun damage. It's got those same skincare benefits from the OSO1 peptide while also giving you mineral SPF protection from sun exposure. Plus, it feels great to apply and I start my day looking and feeling fresh.

[Joyce Vance]

This isn't just our experience, although our experience is really good. OneSkin's results are backed by four peer reviewed clinical studies, over 10,000 five star reviews, and recognition by Bloomberg as a leader in skin longevity. You really don't need a complicated routine to get healthier, younger looking skin. You just need one skin. Born from over a decade of longevity research, OneSkin's OS1 peptide is proven to target the visible signs of aging, helping you unlock your healthiest skin now and as you age. And you know if you're like me, if you've got a product and you have to like screw the top off and put it down and it's complicated, you're less likely to use it. But OS1 has these great countertop delivery systems. I just hit the pump on the body lotion. It couldn't be any easier. For a limited time, try OneSkin with 15% off using code Sisters at Oneskin Co Sisters. It's a little bit unusual of a of a website that's 15% off. OneSkin Co with Code Sisters after you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. The link is also in our show notes. So Jill, there's an audio question for you from Jeff.

[Jeff Wooldridge (Caller)]

Hi Sisters in law. My name is Jeff Wooldridge from Portland, Oregon and I'm wondering why the Congress needs to vote to stop the Iran war when the War Powers act requires an affirmative action by Congress to continue the war beyond a timeframe that seems to have come and gone. Would such a vote be subject to a veto by the President? Thanks. Love the show.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Great question Jeff. And you're right, the War powers Resolution of 1973, which is the War Powers act, is a federal law designed to check the US President's power to commit the country to an armed conflict without Congressional consent. It establishes a system of checks and balances that is part of our basic fundamentals of the Constitution to ensure both the executive and legislative branches participate in decisions involving waging war. And it requires that the President consult Congress before introducing our troops into hostilities and to report to Congress within 48 hours of such actions. Once forces are deployed, the president has only 60 days to withdraw them unless Congress declares war, authorizes the action, or grants a 30 day extension. And so it's a question of Congress can also force a withdrawal by a concurrent resolution. So I like your idea. If Congress does nothing, which is what the law says, they have to do something or else he has to withdraw troops. If they do nothing, then it's all over. It would require withdrawal. The power of the purse could also be used because they could refuse to give the huge amounts that are being spent to pursue this war in Iran. And I'm hoping that they will do nothing. If they do something, if they do pass this war resolutions thing, not authorizing the continuation, then maybe he could veto it. But if it's only a resolution, maybe not. So we'll have to see what happens. But so far, Congress is dead in the water. The Republicans have stopped it being a meaningful check and balance on presidential elections. Powers. Joyce, there's a great question for you from Carolyn.

[Joyce Vance]

Hi, sisters. This is Carolyn in Los Angeles. Is Katie Feng really the only one who is suing Todd Blanche over the Epstein files? I don't understand. Could the American people sue him? Why are no organizations suing him? What am I missing?

[Jeff Wooldridge (Caller)]

Thank you very much.

[Joyce Vance]

Hey, Carolyn, thanks for the question and thanks for sending it in on audio. We really love it when y' all send us audio questions. And I want to encourage as many of you as comfortable doing that to do it because it makes this really extra fun and special for us, too. So I love this question. Many of you know that Katie Fang and I are very close friends in real life. But, you know, Katie did not tell me before she filed this lawsuit that it was coming. And so I had to call her up and say, girl, what are you doing, you know, suing the acting attorney general. What's this lawsuit about? And I was really intrigued by her answer. This is a case where she's suing Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, the nominee to be the permanent guy for failing to follow the terms of the Epstein Files Transparency act that Congress passed. And you know, the real problem that so many of these lawsuits challenging the administration have stumbled into is the standing question, who has the standing to sue the administration? There's a longstanding doctrine that makes it very difficult to bring taxpayer lawsuits. You actually have to find somebody who's proximate to the harm to sue. And so Katie is alleging that because Blanche has failed to comply with the Epstein Transparency act, it's impossible for her to do her job as a journalist. And I think that's a very clever way to try to thread the needle. We don't know yet if she'll be successful or not, but the lawsuit is in the works. And it has five specific violations that she alleges. She says that Blanche and the Justice Department allowed improper redactions where they illegally redacted the names of perpetrators, including potential co conspirators. She alleges that they withheld materials that they improperly concealed documents, specifically including records that would implicate Trump. And it's pretty fascinating how journalists have figured out that this happened. You can actually go back and look at the documents and track what's missing. And in a couple of places, there are key tranches of documents that have not been disclosed. There's also an issue with ignoring foreign language materials, declining to review or process those foreign language documents, which the law does not permit the Justice Department to do. They have failed to publish redaction logs. And that's something that's legally mandated. You have to give a redaction roadmap. You have to publish it in the Federal Register. DOJ did not do that here. And so she argues that there's journalistic harm that she can't do her job as a journalist. She can't investigate, she can't report on matters of public interest. And I think that this is a super interesting lawsuit, definitely one to watch because it's the first, you know, you ask, is it the only one? Well, there are other efforts, and certainly the survivors are trying to impact the court of public opinion while the lawyers work in court. But this case is a unique effort to hold the Justice Department and Blanche personally responsible for failure to comply with the act that Congress passed. You know, a bipartisan, a Republican led Congress, not fooling around, said, disclose the Epstein files. And this Justice Department has not complied. So, Jill, last question for this episode is for you from Tanya in Baltimore, Maryland. Tanya says if the president resigns, how long does it take for the vice president to be sworn in? Who is in charge of that process?

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, I have some personal experience with this question. When a president resigns or is ousted for another reason or dies in office or is assassinated, the vice president is sworn in instantaneously. As soon as Richard Nixon announced his resignation would be effective at noon, on the stroke of noon, Gerald Ford was sworn in by Chief Justice Warren Burger, which who, by the way, I always thought Justice Berger looked exactly like a chief justice of the Supreme Court should look with his suave white hair. And he just looked great. I didn't agree with a lot of his stuff, but that doesn't matter anyway. He swore in Ford on the stroke of noon. U.S. district Judge Sarah Hughes swore in LBJ on the plane immediately upon the death of JFK. She, by the way, is the only woman to have had the honor of swearing in a president. So good for lbj.

[Joyce Vance]

Well, thank you for listening to Sisters sidebar with Jill Winebanks and Joyce Vance. Keep sending in your questions. We need more of them for next week's show. And if you send us your question in a voice memo, we'll try to play your question during our next episode before we answer it. Follow Sister sidebar and hashtag Sisters in Law wherever you listen. And please give us a a five star review. It really helps others find the show. Show some love to this week's sponsors, Storyworth and Oneskin. Our links to them are in the show notes. Your support for them is essential because they make this podcast possible. Don't forget to pick up Sisters in Law merch and other [e-mail] merch I am really enjoying my my Hoodie sweatshirt now that it's beach weather. And we'll see you every week on Wednesdays and Saturdays for new episodes of Sisters in Law and Sisters Sidewalk. Did you all hear me yell at poor Bob? Bob just wants his flamethrower.