Loading summary
Transcript142 lines
- [00:11]
A
Welcome back to Sisters in law. With all four of us today, we have Barb McQuaid, Kimberly Atkinstore, Joyce Vance, and me, Jill Wine Banks. And we have some really great topics to discuss today. We are going to talk about why Barb is blanching at the hearings that are coming up next week. She's going to explain it all to you. And we have, unfortunately, another ice shooting. It's deja vu all over again. And then we have some ongoing election interference attempts, and we're going to talk about what's going on there. But before that, I want to talk to you about a picture I saw of Barb on social media. A very happy looking Barb was catching a ball. And. And I know you go to ballparks everywhere you go. What was that? Tell me about it.
- [01:04]
B
Oh, you mean this, this old thing?
- [01:06]
A
Oh, my gosh, look at that.
- [01:09]
B
Holy cow.
- [01:09]
C
She's not letting it out of her sight.
- [01:11]
B
I know. There's nothing that feels better, you know, than a baseball. You can grip it. You can do all the different grips. I was at the Tiger game last night in Detroit. Beautiful night. The Tigers are on a good winning streak. And. And I got a ball. Now, I will say it was not a batted ball, which is the real thing, right? Catching a home run ball, even a foul ball. This was a ball tossed into the crowd by the Tigers first base coach. You know, one of the great things about ball games is they do this now, like every half inning when the team comes off, you know, a player who's made the last out will toss it into the crowd. And this was the first base coach, he tossed it in and you know, it's coming right at me. And all I could think of is, don't blow it. This is coming right at me. And I grabbed it. It was mine, all mine. Luckily, I did not have to beat off any toddlers to get it. I did look around to see if there were any little kids around me to give it to, and there weren't. And I was gleeful, like, yeah, this is mine. And so this is mine.
- [02:05]
D
They're like, that boy is three. He's basically a grown man. That's right.
- [02:09]
B
Fend for yourself. You get all your life to catch foul balls when you're three. You know, I didn't have many years left, so this one's.
- [02:15]
C
I need to know the details. Did you have your mitt with you or did you catch it barehanded?
- [02:20]
B
Yeah, barehanded. You know, I often bring my mitt and I even thought about it. But you Know, nowadays they've got that screen all around, which is very wise, right, to make sure people aren't hit in the face with a foul ball. But back in the day, I used to bring my mitt because you might get up, you know, it might come in hot when you're sitting down the. We were sitting down the right field line, so that's always a possibility. But yep, it's. I've got it right here. It is my cherished possession and I will enjoy it very much.
- [02:48]
C
You know, I sat for decades at Chavez Ravine with my mitt just waiting for my moment, which sadly never came. So I'm going to live vicariously through you.
- [02:58]
B
Sis, Can I tell you a story about my. My oldest. We. He was maybe, you know, four years old and we went to a Tiger game and I said, bring your mitt. We're sitting down the third baseline. You never know, ball might come our way. Bring your mitt so you can catch the ball. And he did. In like every pitch. He had the ball, you know, right. His mitt right there ready to go. And then the game ends and like, okay, guys, time to go. And wait, wait, I didn't catch the ball. Isn't that so heartbreaking? Like, he really thought, like, he's getting a ball. So, you know, you gotta cherish those moments. It took a lot of years for this one.
- [03:29]
C
Are you gonna give him that one?
- [03:31]
B
Oh, God, no. This one's mine.
- [03:34]
A
Okay. I have something for your son. I got a little keychain with a baseball on it at the Chicago Snowballs game. So maybe he would settle for a keychain from the Snowballs.
- [03:47]
B
I don't know. It's gotta be legit. You gotta, you know, all day.
- [03:50]
A
Sorry, can't help.
- [03:52]
B
I've never caught a ball in the right place. You know, you don't find the ball, the ball finds you.
- [04:05]
D
Nothing is worse than that dry crepey feeling your skin gets when it's getting dehydrated by the sun day after day. It's uncomfortable and it doesn't look great either. We've all tried to avoid it with products that don't work and leave you greasy and feeling as if you need a shower. Then we discovered Osea's andaria algae seaweed infused body oil. It's now a lifesaver for me during the scorching D.C. summers. And I love that it's made for everyday relief with quick absorption and a non greasy feel. Plus, its delightful award winning formula has been clinically shown to instantly and visibly improve elasticity and deeply moisturize for a silky smooth full body glow. And it smells really good too.
- [04:53]
A
It does smell good, Kim. Andaria seaweed is the not so secret ingredient in Osea's best selling Andaria algae body oil. And I do love like you do its citrusy scent. It feels like you've escaped to a seaside orchard even when you're baking on the pavement of a bustling city. It's so much better than any other body oils we've ever tried. And the hydration makes the weather so much more bearable for your skin.
- [05:22]
C
The body oil also prevents visible signs of aging and gives a healthy look and useful glow to your skin thanks to the seaweed that forms the core of every Osea formula. I always put it on before I leave the house and the glow lasts pretty much all day. We also love the story behind Osea. Founded in Malibu, California in 1996, Osea is a mother daughter founded skin care brand, harnessing the power of seaweed and the healing wisdom of the ocean.
- [05:53]
B
Kim, did you say that you sometimes get a dry crepey feeling or a dry creepy feeling?
- [06:00]
D
I'm never creepy, but you know, I can get a little creepy when the air's too dry.
- [06:05]
B
Yeah, well, don't be creepy or creepy. For 30 years, Osea has stayed consistent with clean, clinically tested skin care from the sea. And you can see and feel the difference from just one use. It's no surprise that Osea's Andaria algae body oil is an Allure award winning bestseller. Osea's iconic award winning Andaria algae body oil is for skin that deserves more than lotion. And right now we have a special discount just for you. Get 10% off your first order sitewide with code sisters10@oseamalibu.com that's code sisters10@o s e a malibu.com the link is in our show notes. Well, did you sisters know that the word blanche has a lot of meanings? It's a cooking method. It is something that makes you blanch if that's something shocking to you. But literally it means to whiten, which is kind of ironic because it seems that that's what's happening these days to the Department of Justice. I know Joyce and I shared a photo recently of the Civil Rights Division and it does not look, you know, like a group photo in the great hall at the Justice Department.
- [07:30]
D
This does looks like a snowstorm, doesn't it?
- [07:32]
B
Like America, it is almost all white, mostly men in this photo. And it is such a far cry from what we used to see of representatives at the Civil Rights Division or throughout the Department of Justice. And so it seems that someone with the name Blanche as Trump's nominee for Attorney General is kind of the perfect metaphor for DOJ at this moment. And so, accordingly, Todd Blanche will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week for two days of confirmation hearings. Senators, if you're listening, we have some suggestions for you. Sisters. There are so many subject areas to choose from when it comes to Todd Blanche, because he's been serving as acting Attorney General ever since Trump fired Pam Bondi in April. So we do have a body of work to examine. But I think the thing that bothers me the most about Blanche is his vision for the Department of Justice, which, of course, since Watergate, has been independent from the partisan politics of the White House. So let's dig in there. Joyce, can you just sort of level set for our listeners? How is this DOJ independence supposed to work?
- [08:48]
C
Well, is it okay if I start by talking about how it's not supposed to work?
- [08:53]
B
Sure.
- [08:55]
C
I mean, here's how it shouldn't work. The Attorney General of the United States should not be the president's personal criminal defense lawyer. And with Blanche, what's so awful? You know, you can envision maybe a president with a personal lawyer, maybe even a personal criminal defense lawyer, although Trump is unique in that regard. And then that lawyer, a highly experienced ethical practitioner, sets that role aside and becomes an independent Attorney general. And that's not what's happening with Todd Blanche. Far too often, it feels like he's still Donald Trump's personal lawyer. And even in some regards, especially with the Epstein stuff, Donald Trump's personal criminal lawyer. You know, prosecutors are supposed to indict cases when there is sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction and get it sustained on appeal. You've heard Barb and me say this over and over again. It's not about when a president wants to indict a case. Since Watergate, the Justice Department has resisted having any interaction with the White House on what cases get indicted and what cases don't get indicted, what big civil actions get brought and which ones the Department takes a pass on, because those decisions should be made based on the evidence. And the operational norm is that federal law enforcement and prosecutorial decisions are based on solely on the facts and the law, rather than the political interests or the personal preferences of the president. You know, many of y' all who follow me on Twitter will have seen this comment that really epitomizes this for me, because the first time President Obama met with his US Attorneys. It was very formal, I guess, Barb. We were in the. The now demolished East Wing.
- [10:43]
B
We were. Wow.
- [10:46]
C
I had, you know, I hadn't thought about that before. That's incredible. And so it was very formal, though. I mean, we were not socializing with the president. We were all on risers at a remove when he walked in with the White House counsel and he said to us, I appointed you, but you don't serve me. You serve the American people, and I expect you to act with independence and integrity. And I mean, for me, at least, it was sort of a religious experience. It was the charge that I was being given by the President of the United States about how to serve. And that stayed with me for eight years. That was how I tried to behave. So, you know, that's really how it worked post Watergate, even to some extent a narrow one during the first Trump administration. But now it's all gone.
- [11:36]
B
Yeah, I remember that moment well. In fact, it might be the first time I met you, Joyce, because you
- [11:41]
C
and I weren't on either side of him in the picture, weren't we?
- [11:44]
B
Well, you and I got to stand right next to President Obama. I think only because we were the two shortest, us shortest.
- [11:49]
C
We should put that in the show notes.
- [11:51]
B
I think that's how that happened. But just to emphasize that point about Trump's first administration, how even that administration followed these norms, William Barr wrote in his memoir, you know, what was it called? One damn thing after another. He said, it is the responsibility of the Attorney General to ensure that the department's enforcement actions are insulated from political interference and are based solely on the law, the facts, and the equal treatment of all individuals without regard to political or personal considerations. That is right out of the principles of federal prosecution that were promulgated after Watergate. And what Barr said is he accepted the role of Attorney General only on the condition that President Trump agreed to those terms and that he not interfere with Barr's independent decisions. And now here we are in Trump's second term. And, Kim, I just want to ask you, does it appear to you that in these few months that we've seen Todd Blanche at the helm, that Blanche has adhered to this vision?
- [12:57]
D
Yeah, it's wild when we long for the days of Jeff Sessions or Bill Barr, which, let's be clear, Bill Barr did not walk it like Etalk did he, you know, the Mueller report, just one example of many. He did not always walk in like he talk, but at the very end, when things really, the grits really hit the pan. He, he, he drew a line at insurrection, but. So we'll give him that. But, yeah, Todd Blanche has been Donald Trump's Roy Cohn. That's what he's wanted in the Justice Department. I thought he had that in Pam Bundy. But Todd Blanche came in and, and, you know, basically said, hold my beer. I mean, just look at what he's done. For example, with the Epstein files. There was a law passed by Congress requiring the DOJ to release the files, and it has taken litigation by our friend Katie Fang to force the release of the files. And in that, in a ruling in that case, a judge basically said that Todd Blanche has confessed to breaking that law. Let's not forget about his investigation into the Biden administration's prosecutions under the FACE Act. If you recall, the FACE act is a law that criminalizes anyone using threat or force or intimidation to interfere with people obtaining reproductive health care services. He, you know, mimicking what Donald Trump and others in his sphere, fear, has said, accused the Biden administration of unevenly prosecuting under the FACE act and targeting anti abortion folks. Now, here's the thing about the FACE Act. The people most likely to be charged under it are probably going to be anti abortion activists. Not a lot of pro choice activists go and block people's access or intimidate them or, or even pretend to be a patient and going inside these clinics. I mean, the FOL who were prosecuted under this did some really heinous stuff. But not only did Blanche put out this ridiculous report, he fired four prosecutors, career prosecutors who worked on these cases. That's just a drop in the bucket. There's also the targeted prosecutions of people on Trump's enemies list, his perceived enemies list. Everybody from John Brennan to Jim Comey to his attempting to waive the prospect of prosecution before Jerome Powell of the Fed. I mean, he has really, really done more to undermine the rule of law than any attorney general I can imagine in history.
- [15:52]
B
Yeah, that's, that's quite a list. And it's, and it only scratches the surface. You know, there's a great fact sheet put together by Justice Connection. This is this group of former Justice Department lawyers led by a lawyer named Stacey Young. Let's post that in our show notes because they have, they have collected the receipts, and it's a great list of all of the different things that create serious concern about Todd Blanche. Well, Jill, you were there at the founding of these principles of federal prosecution. It was after Watergate that caused this review of the Justice Department and how it operates. And so why did the Justice Department adopt these principles of independence after Watergate? What did you see during Watergate that shows the downside of allowing the President to call the shots at the Justice Department?
- [16:45]
A
So first, let me point out that these are only rules and norms. They aren't codified, so they're not really enforceable under law. But they have been, until recently, really obeyed. You and Joyce have talked often about how much they were obeyed. And so what happened during Watergate was there was a line crossed where the White House and the Department of Justice were virtually indistinguishable. John Dean, the counsel to the President, was in direct contact with Henry Peterson, who at the time was head of the Criminal Division. He had risen to that position without any political experience, which may have made him susceptible to not standing up when he knew he shouldn't be providing information. And I say this out of personal hurt because he was my first boss at the Department of Justice, and I was so disappointed at his behavior, as we discovered during Watergate, where he was keeping John Dean fully informed about the progress of the investigation. So what that meant was that the White House could cover up because it knew what it needed to cover up. It meant that they could get ahead of the evidence to rebut it, to cover it up. It was a total disaster. And it's sort of like what the Supreme Court has also, by the way, undone in terms of Watergate reforms, which was you can't contribute unlimited amounts of money because that leads to quid pro quo appearances, if not in reality. And now the Supreme Court has said, oh, yeah, those rules, never mind, everybody can give whatever they want. Freedom of speech. Baloney. That is not freedom of speech. But under these rules, there was limited authorized communications. There were topics that were limited that you could talk about. You could talk about sort of general policies. It's appropriate for the President to say, I'd like to focus on antitrust, or I don't want to focus on antitrust. But you can't say, I want you to prosecute Microsoft or whoever you're not liking that day. And the conversations are limited in who can have them. So the president, the vice president, the White House counsel. They can have conversations with only the very top people. The attorney general, the deputy attorney general. They can't go to the line prosecutors, they can't go to the head of the Criminal Division. They have to stay at the very, very top. And so you limit the topics. You limit who can call from the White House, you limit who can Take those calls at the Department of Justice. And the rules required a written memorandum of the conversations so that we knew and know going forward historically what's going on that lets us protect ourselves. And it was written up in like DOJ memorandum and White House guidance. But as I say, it has never been gone beyond that. It isn't codified. And so they're just ignoring it now. Totally and completely ignoring it and going about their own business.
- [20:05]
B
Yeah. And you know, one of the things that Todd Blanche has said is the American people should be happy that the president is running. Calling the shots is his phrase at the Justice Department, because that means he is requiring all his Cabinet secretaries to work hard. It isn't, you know, getting after them to work hard.
- [20:21]
C
That's the problem.
- [20:22]
B
It's directing them who to indict. That's the problem. Well, let's dig into some of those examples and about maybe what the Senate should focus on when they're questioning Todd Blanche next week. I imagine as Kim raised, the handling of the Epstein files will get some airtime. Joyce, what would you focus on there? You know, we talked about the redactions, the treatment of victims, the failure to prosecute abusers, that interview with Ghislaine Maxwell, her movement to a low security prison. How would you advise senators to address the Epstein situation?
- [21:00]
C
Well, Barb, in some ways that's really a question about how do you deal with the entire Trump administration? Because when everything is horrible, how do you focus on what the worst things truly are? I think that there are four questions that Blanch has to be confronted with. Really, there are a lot more. But I would focus on these four in no particular order. And you know something that I love, when we have professional staff involved in questioning, I don't think we'll see that here is that they relentlessly insist on getting answers.
- [21:35]
B
Yes. So important.
- [21:38]
C
If you're listening to Sisters in Law ahead of the confirmation hearing, be relentless and don't be afraid to pick up on a question asked by one of your colleagues if he ducked it before it comes to you. These are my four, Barb. First of all, the failure to prosecute the 10 co conspirators identified in the Southern District of New York memo. Maybe that's because they didn't have evidence on some or all of them. I'd like to hear his explanation. Certainly the failure to protect survivors in the documents dump. You know, there was one woman who was outed for the first time, said that she had to call her husband and let him know that they had not Discussed it. It's unacceptable for the Justice Department to fail to protect victims. That happened here. I would ask Blanche who was at fault. If he says anybody other than himself, shame on him. And by the same token, it's sort of the other side of the coin. Protecting predators and pedophiles by redacting their information in violation of the Transparency Act. How and why does that happen? And he's had months now that he's been aware that it happened. Why hasn't he fixed it? He has the unique ability to order that corrected. But here's the big one, the unforgivable one. Giving Ghislaine Maxwell special treatment because she protected Donald Trump. Do you remember how shocked we were when she made those statements? I never saw him do anything that was even vaguely unacceptable. And that's just contrary to some of the photographs we've seen and other evidence. And then this sudden movement of her, the transfer to a category of prison that she was not qualified to be transporting. I'll just say I spent a lot of time working with Bureau of Prison regs, and I understand that someone who is convicted and at the beginning of serving a sentence for child trafficking is not eligible to be in the low classification facility that she's in where she's training a service dog and getting good food and has nice clothes. It is utterly appalling. It happened on Todd Blanche's watch. He's the one who went and interviewed her. It's unforgivable. I hope the senators will at least shame him if the votes are there to make him the next Attorney General.
- [24:04]
B
Yeah, you raised such a good point. I think, about the questioning, you know, how refreshing it would be to have a staffer who's a prosecutor or a trial lawyer who knows how to cross examine because volunteer as tribute. We'll do it for free. That last point you raise about the movement of Ghislaine Maxwell from one prison to another, what he has said his answer has been to that question is, what are you talking about? She just went from one low security prison to another. That's technically true. But she went from a low security to a much lower security prison, more of a camp setting. And so he gives answers that are skillful.
- [24:39]
D
Right?
- [24:40]
B
Because they are perhaps technically correct but incredibly misleading. And I think you need to have someone there to follow up appropriately, to understand the context and to follow up. You know, it reminds me of the excellent cross examination we got from Kamala Harris when William Barr was testifying. And you have to listen to the answer because so often People will throw in one word that's false so that they can muddy the waters, and you really have to listen for that. So remember, it was like William Barr was answering something like, did the White House ever direct you to do X, Y or Z? And William Barr says, no, the White House never directed me to do X, Y, or Z. And Kamala Harris, you know, jumps in like, well, okay, did they imply that you should do something? Did you infer from them that you should do something? Right. Did they hint that you. You have to follow up on all that to make sure you thoroughly cover the territory, because otherwise they'll. They'll. They'll use some wiggle word and they'll see something that's literally true but is incredibly misleading. And I really hope that the senators are paying attention so that they do that kind of follow up that's so necessary.
- [25:46]
D
And there's actually precedent for having actual people other than the senators themselves questioned during the hearings.
- [25:54]
C
I love that so much. Actual people.
- [25:57]
D
The Kavanaugh.
- [25:58]
A
Yes.
- [25:59]
D
Right. People other than people who are just trying to find a sound bite to throw up on social media like our elected officials often do during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. That was for a much different reason. It was because the senators, in that sense, didn't have the chutzpah to question the person who credibly accused Brett Kavanaugh of horrific things. But it sets a precedent. You can actually bring in people whose job it is to ask insightful questions. Attorneys. And do that work. So that's a great point, Barb.
- [26:34]
B
Yeah. I think she was like a sexual assault prosecutor or something.
- [26:38]
D
Right. Who asked those questions.
- [26:39]
B
So you know how to. How to talk to victims and how
- [26:42]
D
to ask questions and, you know, the follow up. Yeah, yeah.
- [26:45]
B
Well, let's. Let's dig into that Face act case that you talked about, Kim. That one is really sticks in my craw. You may remember that it was shortly after Blanche became the acting Attorney General that he issues this report on the weaponization of the Face act and fired some of those prosecutors. In fact, one of them is a good friend of mine in Detroit who was a phenomenal prosecutor, an incredible person. She'd been in the office for more than 20 years without any questioning whatsoever. She was just told, you're out. No opportunity to defend herself. No opportunity to question why. And it appears to me that the sole reason is that they wanted to advance a narrative that the Biden administration was prosecuting people solely on the basis of their viewpoint and not on the basis of their conduct. What would you suggest that the senators focus on when questioning Blanche about this topic?
- [27:39]
D
I think that. I mean, that, I think, is the most important thing. I think that this was a pretext to try to purge the Justice Department of all but those who essentially vow their loyalty to Donald Trump. And that is such a dangerous thing to do to the Justice Department. I know sometimes I hear from people who say, well, if you were a lawyer and you're working for this Justice Department, you should quit that. I could not disagree with that more, because what would happen then? What would happen if there is a Justice Department full of only sycophants to Donald Trump? What happens if you or someone you love ends up on the other side of the voice in a civil or criminal action in a Justice Department like that? We have mentioned before the many cases in which the people within the Justice Department are still trying to keep the guardrails in place as much as they can and have prevented things from being a lot worse in there. These are the good guys. These are people with long careers who have worked diligently, who follow the facts and the law and take it and see where that leads them, as opposed to trying to use it to do Donald Trump's bidding. So I think that Todd Blanche's attempt to grant Trump's wish to purge the Justice Department and basically accuse the previous administration of weaponization so that they can turn around and do that very thing is just one of the worst violations of the rule of law.
- [29:22]
B
Yeah. You know, somebody has said this before. Every accusation is a confession. Are you familiar with this term in psychology about projection that, you know, like, who would have such a sinister view of the world that you could even imagine that they're weaponizing the Justice Department. Oh, somebody who thinks like that. Somebody who does weaponize the Justice Department. Well, we talked about the employees who were fired just for their work on Face act prosecutions, Jill. I also imagine we'll hear a good deal more about Blanche's statement to the conservative political action committee that he had cleaned house of any DOJ employee who worked on a case against Donald Trump or any of the defendants involved in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. It was about 200 people, and he proudly declared to applause that none of those people are any longer in the Justice Department. What questions might you suggest to the Senate about that topic, about his choices to fire career civil servants?
- [30:29]
A
That statement was one of the worst things I have ever heard said out loud. I mean, we all sort of saw it happening. But for him to, like, proudly boast of it and go on to say, and Kash Patel's doing the same thing at the FBI. Any agent who worked on any cases, who did their assigned, tasked, they were told to go and investigate certain things, and they did it, and they got fired for being involved in looking at and uncovering crimes. I would ask first of all about his knowledge of the Civil Service act, because these lawyers are civil servants and they're getting fired without any due process. As you said, your friend just sort of like, you're gone. That's it. No reason, no cause. Oh, no cause. Wait, didn't the Supreme Court say you don't need cause to fire people if you're in the executive branch? Yeah, they did. I guess. I'd also ask about, there are a couple of lawsuits by FBI agents, and I would certainly ask about what he's going to do in defending those cases. But also, if they had refused to do their assigned work at the time, or if they now refuse to do work because they thought that what it was was going to get them fired in a new administration, how would he handle that? I'd like to know. You know, he wants them not to have done their job, and he's firing them for having done it. So, okay, what would he do if they refused now and then? Of course, you know, we've sort of talked about this. His loyalty to his former client continues. His ethical responsibilities don't go away. There are certain things under the code of conduct for lawyers that continue for a former client, and he seems to be doing everything he can not to recuse himself in cases where to me, there are sort of clear conflicts of interest. You know, what's he going to do about E. Jean Carroll? That's something that he was, you know, his client is the defendant and is being ordered to pay. What about, you know, Ghislaine Maxwell, who he's protecting because she protected his former client? What about all the unsupportable claims that he is allowing to be filed in the name of the Department of Justice because it's what Donald Trump wants, including sometimes filing lawsuits that sound like Donald Trump wrote them in his odd capitalization and his weird wording. I mean, it's just. It's ridiculous. So I just think he has to stop acting like he is continuing to be Donald Trump's personal lawyer and start acting like what the rules require, which is that he represents us, the people of the United States. He does not represent Donald Trump. And I think it's time for him to say, that's my former client. I don't represent him. And I do want to bring the interests of the people of the United States forward. So I would push him on all of those ethical responsibilities and his wrongdoing to date.
- [33:41]
C
Yeah.
- [33:41]
B
I'm glad you raised the ethics concerns because 101 former judges have filed a grievance against him in New York, where he is licensed, saying that he has violated a number of ethics, you know, rules of professional conduct because of his conflicts of interest representing both Donald Trump and the Department of Justice, that he's got divided loyalties. You know, think about that slush fund that he negotiated between Donald Trump and his government. So that, you know, that's an example. But many, many others. There are more than 30 former federal judges appointed by president, by presidents of both parties who have filed an amicus brief with the court in Florida saying that that slush fund was a fraud on the court. And there are more than 1200 former DOJ employees who have submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee urging them to reject Blanche's nomination.
- [34:31]
A
Yes.
- [34:32]
B
So they've got work to do, and I hope they take it seriously. And they're not just a rubber stamp for Donald Trump because this is a very important job. And Todd Blanche does not seem to understand the importance of the independence of the Justice Department. And if he is unable to vow that he will support the independence of the Justice Department, I think that his nomination needs to be soundly rejected.
- [34:57]
A
And full disclosure, I am one of the attorneys who signed the former Department of Justice letter saying, don't confirm this unqualified person. Foreign. The best summer pieces are the ones you end up wearing on repeat. They're comfortable, versatile, and somehow right for almost every occasion. That's why we love Quince. They make elevated essentials using premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, and washable silk without the traditional retail markup.
- [35:36]
B
You know, I just got one of those washable silk stretch blouses, and they're just the best. There's so many great things at quint's. There's the 100% European linen pants, dresses and tops. These are the pieces you will reach for all season long. They're lightweight, they're effortless to style, and they start at just $32. Their denim is soft and comfortable, and their organic cotton sweaters are perfect for layering when the evening cools down. Then Quince's beautiful 14 karat gold jewelry adds a subtle finishing touch. With simple hoops or delicate chains, they make even the most effortless outfit feel intentional. Best of all, Everything at Quint's is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands because they work directly with ethical factories to cut out the middlemen. That means you're paying for exceptional quality, not brand markup.
- [36:31]
D
Yeah, I have to co sign about the washable silk blouses. They're really nice and one thing I love about them is that they pack very well. They don't come out crinkled and stuff. So when I travel a lot for work, they're the perfect thing to throw in the suitcase. And I also really love the linens. I'm in a pair of quince linen pants right now. It feels great for summertime when it gets humid. They're really, really good. And now that summer, the ultimate workout motivation is new activewear like the Micro Rip Stop Mid Rise Hike Short from Quint's. But Quint's is so much more than just apparel. They offer elevated essentials for your home, from bedding and bath to kitchen essentials and furniture. We just got a quilt for our bed and it's absolutely beautiful.
- [37:20]
C
Kim, I'm still thinking about that really cute purse that you had. I'm tempted to get the same one. We'll just have to make sure we don't take it to the same event.
- [37:29]
B
Oh, I. If one of you has more money than the other and you do, a little switcheroo could be a good thing. Do you ever see that movie what's Up Doc? Where they switch the suitcases? I always love that.
- [37:39]
C
That could be me and Kim because the purse was so cute.
- [37:43]
D
Be like, why is there. Why is there yarn in my purse?
- [37:47]
C
Y' all make your summer wardrobe feel easier. Go to quints.com sisters for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. And now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com sisters for free shipping and 365 day returns. Again, quince.com sisters the link is in our show notes.
- [38:22]
D
I love seafood and I hate going to the grocery store. And one reason is, you know, when it comes to seafood, you're never actually sure where it comes from or what it has in it or whether it's sustainable or even worse. You never know how long it's been sitting out on display. I always worry about that. We need a provider we can trust, which is why we wanted to tell you about Wild Alaskan Company. They offer the best way to get wild caught. High quality seafood delivered to your door on your schedule. Trust us, you have not tasted fish this good.
- [38:57]
B
We always recommend them and it's wonderful to know our listeners, friends and family are all getting the best. Each Wild Alaskan box comes with individually portioned vacuum sealed filets that are easy to prep and great for any meal whether it's quick or elevated. All their fish is quick frozen fresh from Alaskan waters, which helps lock in its freshness, texture, flavor and key nutrients like omega 3s. Better yet, there are no GMOs, antibiotics or other additives to their catch, which means it's fish you can trust.
- [39:32]
A
It's absolutely true and as you guys know, I just came back from Alaska where I saw firsthand the importance of fishing in Alaska and how not only important it is to their economy, but to their pride as a state. And so like us, you're going to love how every order supports sustainable harvesting practices and Alaskan fishermen whose history is tied to the region and its practice practices. Plus, becoming a member means your deliveries are flexible and at your own pace. I love the Pacific Halibut for a tasty treat that's low in fat, high in protein and rich in omega 3s. It's a delicious white fish that turns a savory looking bright white when you cook it and it's perfect with just a sear or a grill. But if you really feel like cooking up a storm, you can always be adventurous and you can try it in tacos or curry.
- [40:30]
C
Wild Alaskan company is so confident that their fish is the best that they offer a 100% satisfaction and money back guarantee. So you can try your first box risk free. Go to wildalaskan.com sisters for $35 off your first order of Premium Wild Caught Seafood. That's wildalaskan.com Sisters for $35 off your first order. Thanks to Wild Alaskan Company for sponsoring this episode. The link is in our show Notes. So today we have to talk about a story. I mean, legal cases are legal cases. As lawyers we're used to divorcing ourselves from the facts and in a sense being a little bit cold hearted so we can analyze them. I find that to be utterly impossible in this situation because on Tuesday a Mexican immigrant in Houston, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, was fatally shot by an ICE agent who was trying to arrest him during a traffic stop. According to ice, he was here without legal immigration status and ICE claimed he refused to comply with officers, weaponized his vehicle, hit an ICE van and tried to hit an aged the problem is we've seen that film before and as soon as I started saying this, my Immediate reaction was, show me the body cam video or it didn't happen like that. Turns out that was a pretty good reaction. Jill, how did these immediate disclaimers and the story that ICE put out, how did that hold up over the next 48 hours?
- [42:19]
A
So, as you said, that's probably a rhetorical question because it didn't hold up at all. First of all, there is no body cam imagery. At least that's what we're being told. And we're being told it's because ICE didn't have enough money to buy all its field agents body cams, and that these agents didn't have them, and that they're blaming this on the shutdown of the government, which did not affect the funding of ice, which had more than ample money and should have had body cams. But, okay, so there isn't. But there is other video. There is enough video, and there are three witnesses who were in the car when Lorenzo was shot and killed. So we have a lot of evidence from video that does not in any way sustain the claim that he was trying to evade them or that he rammed his car. It looks like they. They pinned him in and cut him off and then jumped out of their car and through the passenger side. His brother was sitting next to him in the passenger seat, shot him just without any warning, without any request that he step out, without anything. And then he sort of. Even though he had been shot and eventually died, he was able to stop the car and put it into park. But we now have testimony from the three people in the car through a lawyer who saw them in detention, and they have all said it didn't happen at all like that. What happened was he jumped out of the car and started shooting without any warning, without anything. And, you know, Joyce, it's like Yogi Berra says. It's deja vu all over again. We've seen this claim in the Renee Goode. We've seen it with Alex Preddy. Not the car, but the weaponization of the car with Renee Goode. And the evidence is 100% clear in that case, that that isn't what happened. So there's no reason, as Barb has mentioned, there's no longer, you know, a acceptance of what the government says the way it used to be, where we sort of believed what they said. I'm more inclined to believe the other accounts than this projected account of this is what happened. It's what happens every time they use the car to weaponize and to go after us. So I would say the evidence is pretty strong that it didn't happen the way they're claiming and that this is murder.
- [44:59]
C
It's worth noting that the three men who are in the car, one of them is the victim's brother. They're not being held together in immigration detention. They're being held separately. And that matters because it means they had no opportunity to bring their stories in line. And the fact that they're all saying the same thing. I agree with you. Jill is pretty compelling evidence of truthfulness.
- [45:24]
A
And could I just add one other thing? Because let's focus on who Lorenzo was. He's been in this country for 35 years. He has no criminal history other than being here without documentation. He has raised three children. His sons have gone to college. He had a job which allowed him to pay for them to go to college. He had employees. The three people in the car were employees of his. So he was a successful businessman. This is the kind of person you want to be in our country. This is not someone you want to murder for. And by the way, it's also important to note, he isn't the person that they were looking for. He is not the target that they were looking for. It's an unfortunate, horrible situation that should have never happened.
- [46:14]
C
No, you're right. He absolutely is an argument for having a pathway to citizenship. But nonetheless, that's not the view this administration takes. And, Barb, the facts that Jill's reciting include the fact that an agent is shooting into a moving vehicle, or at least a vehicle with a driver and passengers in it. We hear he has to stop the car after he's shot. That's contrary to ICE policy, as I understand it. So can you talk a little bit about the circumstances of the shooting and give us your sense of whether, even if the facts were, as ICE claimed, which doesn't seem to be the case, whether this is how law enforcement is supposed to behave in a situation like this.
- [47:00]
B
Yeah. So this comes down to, you know, the Supreme Court doctrine that says that firing a gun should only be done when there is a reasonable belief that the subject pose an imminent threat of death or serious physical harm to either the officer or the public, and no reasonable alternative exists. So it's really only as a last resort that somebody is able to. An ICE agent or any other law enforcement agent can fire a weapon at a car. I know sometimes people ask me, like, well, can't they just shoot out the tires to try to stop him? No, that's incredibly dangerous.
- [47:41]
D
Yeah.
- [47:41]
B
And, you know, think about what the offense is here. They believe that he is undocumented and unlawfully in the country. Okay, fair enough. And they try to pull them over also. Fair enough. They. They're entitled to do that. And I think that Mr. Arroyo acted improperly by not stopping. It appears, even if you look at the statements of the other men who were in the vehicle, he tried to get away, not the way we would want a motorist to behave, but that doesn't suddenly give license to the agents to fire a gun into the vehicle. And so one of these policies is if it's reasonably necessary to protect the life of the public or an officer. So what they say is that he weaponized the vehicle and was using it to try to ram the ICE vehicle or. And to kill an ICE officer. As Jill said, it's just not consistent with the video that we've seen or the statements. Now, you know, we've all been through these issues where you have to wait for the facts to come out to see what actually happened, what decisions were made, and other kinds of things. But I think the idea that they fired their gun in this car, even if you look at their own statement, it just doesn't match up with the evidence that we've seen from this video that is consistent with the statements of the men. And that is they begin to get chased, they try to get away, they do a U turn, and then ICE vehicles pull up alongside them, and that's when the shots are fired. And so it's certainly worthy of further investigation, but it just doesn't seem to be to rise to that level where there is any reason to believe, let alone a reasonable reason, to believe, that the lives of the ICE agents were at risk. It seems more like they didn't like the idea that he was trying to get away.
- [49:41]
C
You know, in this case, it appears to me from. From footage that I've seen of the scene, that the ICE vehicle is unmarked. And so this is a guy, a worker, with lots of expensive equipment in his vehicle. He doesn't know that these are law enforcement officers. I'm not so sure that he's even at fault for trying to get away. So, as you say, it's really important to let the facts come out before everybody makes conclusions. In a case like this, there are a lot of facts left for us to learn. But, Kim, one fact that seems to be undisputed is that Mr. Araujo was here without legal immigration status. And there are folks all over social media predictably saying that that makes his case different from Renee Goode and Alex Pretty. Do you Have a response to that?
- [50:33]
D
I do. And I second what you said about we don't know all the facts about this. We don't even know if these agents had reasonable suspicion to pull them over in the first place. Probably do because of that horrible shadow docket ruling that authorized Kavanaugh stops just for people who seem to be Hispanic. That gives them that. But that's still something that would have to be worked out to know if this was even a proper stop. But to those who believe that this is different based on the immigration status, it's not. So first of all, there's the constitutional answer, and then there's also the answer in terms of humanity. Constitutionally, everyone, everyone enjoys what I call the protections under the liberty statute. Right? When your liberty is at stake, there are certain protections, certain amendments that protect you in that the fourth, fifth and sixth Amendment, which require that a stop be under reasonable suspicion. Put certain limits on that. Put certain limits on seizures that prevent someone from being punished without proper due process. Which basically means if you're an extrajudicial, killing is not the way the Constitution works. Right. That someone should be able to answer to whatever they're suspected of being charged with. That's for everybody. Your citizenship is. No, it does not factor into that at all. But one reason I think we are seeing this reaction from people is because from the very beginning, from the president on down, even before he was president, when he was just a candidate, he made it a practice of dehumanizing immigrants that he didn't like. He called them rapists. He called them murderers. He said they come from s whole countries. He wanted a complete and total shutdown of people coming into the country based on their religion. He treated these people as if they were not human, as if they were animals. At times he actually used that word. So that is the reason why it's so that people don't see people who are here in the country without authorization the same way. Even though they are members of your community and of your churches and have businesses and are employers and help the tax base of your towns and cities and help farmers be able to make. Make ends meet and succeed, they treat them as if they are something else. And this is something this country has always done since its founding. Right. So I would have people keep both of those things in mind as we talk about the law. But the reason that we have the law is because of we can't trust people to always act in their best nature. And so when these people are dehumanized because these people are Dehumanized is exactly why you have to adhere to the Constitution, to the letter.
- [53:42]
C
And all of this violence, Kim, it's happening against the backdrop of this constant push for more arrests, more deportations of people who are in the country without legal status. You know, almost every day there are stories about arrests with violence involved. I'm sure everyone saw the video this week of ice cracking the guy's head into a. I mean, like, literally so painful to watch, so appalling that these aren't Justice Department prosecutions and that they're in many ways ignored by the President of the United States. But something legally interesting that's happening around this is that these people are going into immigration detention. And that mass detention policy, where people are held essentially without a hearing, is likely going before the Supreme Court next term. In fact, since we started taping today, my phone is blowing up on one of the appellate text loops that I'm on because the fifth Circuit has just agreed to hear yet another case on bonk. But maybe as our Supreme Court expert, you can talk a little bit, give us a preview of what to expect from the Supreme Court next term on this idea that the government can take people into immigration detention and not give them due process in a hearing.
- [54:58]
D
Yeah, this is really interesting. And already, not just the fifth Circuit, they had a panel that ruled against the Trump administration's claim that they have the right to detain people indefinitely without bond. But also two other circuits, the 6th and the 10th, have also ruled against the administration already on this issue. These are not liberal. This is not the First Circuit or the ninth Circuit. These are circuits that are fairly, if not very conservative by reputation. And they are casting doubt on. This argument that the Trump administration is making is basically that these people, under an interpretation, a misinterpretation, in my view, of a law from the 90s in immigration law, that they should be treated as applicants for admission, and as such, they can be detained indefinitely until a determination about their status can be evaluated. No, all of these courts have held that that does not trump the Constitution. And their right, which was even affirmed by the US Supreme Court in that shadow docket case involving Trump's attempt to spirit away people to seek out in the middle of the night that they said, no, no, you can't do it unless they are given a meaningful opportunity to make their case before a court. They have to only do that in a habeas action, which limits the ability to do it. They can only bring those habeas, habeas actions where they're being Detained also, another limitation makes it hard to find attorneys logistically more difficult to do that, but they have to be given that right. So I think even if it goes to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department has already asked the Supreme Court to take it up next term. If they do take it up, it would be really hard for the Supreme Court in just a matter of months to go against their own shadow docket ruling that a hearing is necessary.
- [57:01]
C
This might not be a fair question, so feel free to push back. But do you think that the court will push back and not, there's that case, there's another one that challenges the limits directly. Do you think that they'll actually hear one of these cases and make the point, or do you think that they'll try to duck and either not take the case or take it and do one of these improvidently granted rulings?
- [57:25]
D
Joyce, Honestly, they shouldn't take it because there's no circuit split. But unless a circuit court rules, yeah, the Trump administration has the right to do that and there's a split, then they should absolutely take it, and they should make clear that the Trump administration is wrong. If all of the circuit courts agree, they should just deny it. And that in itself is saying to the Trump administration, you've gone too far. Back off.
- [57:49]
C
Yeah, well, here comes the Fifth Circuit en banc. I'm not holding my breath for them to rule at odds with the administration. Barb, from appellate law to criminal investigations, as a prosecutor, and more importantly, maybe in your supervisory role As a U.S. attorney, how would a normal Justice Department respond to incidents like the one involving Mr. Araujo? What would you have asked your office to do if this death occurred with these circumstances in your district?
- [58:21]
B
Yeah, you know, there's a whole protocol for all of this. You would immediately contact the Civil Rights Division. You would expect to be working with the FBI and not the ICE Inspector general. You know, the ICE Inspector general looks at sort of misconduct within the agency, not criminal prosecution. And so you would expect the FBI to be involved here. There might be state interest in this. Sometimes in my state, the state police would be very interested in a federal shooting like this. And so you would work cooperatively to make sure you're sharing all of the evidence. The agents themselves would probably be suspended on administrative suspension with pay, pending the investigation. But you would want to gather all of the evidence. You would want to look at all of the video evidence. For example, I know Jill talked about the fact that they didn't have body cams on, but we've already Seen a video that came from elsewhere. You know, so often in today's world, we've got cameras all over the place or bystanders take videos. So you'd want to see all of that. You would want to get statements from all of the witnesses involved, including eyewitnesses who might not have skin in the game. Right. I mean, the individuals involved in who are in the car certainly have an agenda. The agents themselves have an agenda. But are there any bystanders who don't have an agenda? So you'd want to gather all of that information, do a fulsome investigation, and then decide whether this is a case that is prosecutable or not. And it's a really high standard when something is prosecutable. I mean, you essentially have to show that agents did not act out of panic or fear or just a dumb mistake or poor training, that they deliberately engaged in this deprivation of someone's civil rights by willfully shooting them. But you made. You might have that here if you just said, oh, wise guy's gonna try to get away from us, we'll teach him a lesson. That's the kind of thing that could arise to that level. It's sort of like what we saw with the George Floyd murder, where there was a finding that the officer had deliberately knelt on his neck to kind of show him who's boss. So that's the kind of investigation you would expect to be done, not simply relying on ICE inspector general's office to do the investigation, because, you know, they've perhaps got an incentive here to clear their own.
- [60:45]
C
And the one thing I can guarantee would not be happening in either one of our districts is that we would not have the FBI investigating the victims. I mean, it's incredible to me that that's the bureau's role. Yeah.
- [61:07]
B
Did you know that Fast Growing Trees is America's largest and most trusted online nursery with thousands of trees and plants and more than 2 million happy customers? They have all the plants your yard or home needs, including fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs, and houseplants, all grown with care and guaranteed to arrive healthy. It's like your local nursery, but anywhere you live with 1600 plus varieties of trees and plants, that's more than you'll find anywhere else. You know, I got some lilac shrubs last year, and even I haven't been able to kill them. They look great. In fact, I'm thinking about getting. I love flowering, you know, shrubs and things. What else, dear listeners, should I get from my yard? You know, I live in the Midwest In Michigan. I know like rhododendron are nice. Azaleas are nice. They have them all.
- [61:59]
D
Hydrangea.
- [62:00]
B
Hydrangea, that's a good one. So let me know listeners, what you think would look good in my yard that I can't kill and I'll order some up from Fast Growing trees.
- [62:09]
D
Yeah, we got some boxwoods a couple years ago and they just look more beautiful every year. But whatever you're looking for, Fast Growing Trees helps you find options that actually work for your climate, space and lifestyle, making it easy to get your dream yard. Just click order and get healthy, thriving plants delivered to your door Ready to grow. We were so happy to learn about their 30 Day Alive and thrive guarantee that promises your plants arrive happy, healthy and ready to enjoy. There's no green thumb required, just quality plants you can count on. Plus they have ongoing support from trained world class plant experts available seven days a week by email, chat or phone call to help you plan your landscape, choose the right plants and learn how to care for them every step of the way.
- [62:59]
A
So I must have been copying you, Kim, because I bought a lot of the box with them. It's really a terrific shrub. But I also got some hydrangeas, Barb, and if I can do it in the Midwest, so can you. And they are big, big white blossoms and they last a long time. So highly recommend them. But you know, in addition to all the stuff I've put outside from them, you can even grow lemon, avocado, olive or fig trees indoors, along with a wide variety of houseplants that are prepared with care and hand selected to thrive in your home. Order online and get your plants delivered to your door in just a few days. And looking, by the way, exactly like the picture on the Fast Growing Trees website. That's something you can't always say about things you buy online. But these really look just like what you see. It's so much better than wandering around a store hoping you can pick a plant that will last and making a mess in your car to get it home. It's a great way to invest in your home and Fast Growing Trees is ready to help you with the essentials.
- [64:08]
C
Barb, I'm going to ditto the recommendation for the hydrangeas. They're in front of my house right now and they're so gorgeous. Just being out in your yard surrounded by plants, it's such a mental health boost. You know, I love to garden, but I never knew who I could trust for mail order plants. And with the Alive and thrive guarantee, it just gives you peace of mind. So we're always adding a little something in our yard. And you know, we have chickens. Chickens like to eat a lot of plants, but one thing that they won't eat is rosemary. And so I've actually put in, I sort of did a little bit of rearranging of beds over the winter and I'm planting new rosemary hedges. They're going to look great. And fast growing trees is a much more affordable way to bring your space to life than using an expensive landscaper. So right now they have great deals on spring planting essentials, up to half off on select plants. Listeners to our show get 20% off their first purchase when using the Code Sisters at checkout that's an additional 20% off. Better plants and better growing at fastgrowingtrees.com using the code sisters at checkout one last time. Fastgrowingtrees.com code sisters now it's the perfect time to plant. Let's grow together. Use Sisters to save today. The offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. The link is in our show notes. So go ahead and get yourself some fabulous new plants this year here.
- [65:51]
D
Well, to say that once again the administration is taking action to try to put a thumb on the scale of the midterm elections and beyond is essentially a story that is dog bites man at this point. With apologies to Snickers, but the administration is at it again in so many ways and I wanted to at least touch base on some of the things that they are doing and some of the ways they're being stopped. For example, Jill, there was a subpoena that the DOJ tried to issue against election officials in Georgia, but it was quashed. Can you tell us a little bit about that and what that tells you?
- [66:35]
A
Oh, man, it's more of the same again. Yogi Berra is going to get quoted a lot. Deja vu all over again. You know, Sandwich man. No, nothing happens there. Other subpoenas have been quashed. This one was quashed by a Trump appointed judge who said, what are you doing here? That can't possibly be a criminal case. The statute of limitations ran a long time ago. You can't investigate.
- [67:03]
D
Yeah, this is about 2020, right.
- [67:05]
A
You can't investigate the 2020 election in 2026. It's, it's over. Go away, stop it. So he pretty much it's a big loss for them, but it's a real comeuppance that they very much deserve. And so it was the right thing to do. And I'm glad that the judge quashed it. There's not going to be anything that's going to be prosecuted. What it's clear is going on here is they're trying to, to influence and affect and put the thumb on the scale of the upcoming midterms. They're trying to show, oh, don't trust the elections. But, you know, we've had so much investigation. There's never been any election investigated more than 2020. And that goes back to the hanging chads in Florida, which was investigated a lot, but nothing like this. For years and years, every conspiracy theory has been debunked and they won't give up. And why? It's because Donald Trump can't give up that he actually lost. And he wants to make sure that he can make the argument that the next election can't be trusted either because he's going to lose the midterm.
- [68:19]
D
Yeah, I agree with you. I think it's both to cast mistrust in the upcoming election and in elections after that. But I think it's also just his ego that he just can't stand the idea of he lost an election. Well, guess what? He did. Barb, that is not all. Harmeet Dhillon at DOJ is threatening to send monitors to our hometown of Detroit and sent the Secretary of State of Michigan a warning against committing crimes. You know, that, that sort of sounds to me like, you know, you gotta Lisa election department there be a shame.
- [68:58]
B
It really does, doesn't it? The don't commit any crimes now, really, you have to be told that. You really have to wonder what the motivation is there. So you've asked about two things. I'll talk about both of them. So sending monitors to Detroit, I think they're also going to send them to Lansing and East Lansing. It's nothing new. Every election in our district, we would have election monitors. We'd get a heads up that they're going to come out and be in a particular place. But the places they were usually went were places that had history of violations of federal law, which is the Voting Rights act, based on discrimination. So what they might look for. I remember one.
- [69:41]
D
Remember that.
- [69:42]
B
Yeah. Remember that, for example, violations of the Americans with Disabilities act by failing to have mobility access to some of the polling places. There were no ramps at some polling places in Flint, Michigan, and that was remedied. You know, most often these things are human error or ignorance of just, you know, people like, oh, gosh, sorry, we didn't really think about that. But it gets Remedied, like they bring in a ramp and the problem is solved, or they don't have sufficient interpreters on site, or there have been places where there has been concern about race discrimination. So that's the way it's been done in the past. This time around, the concern is about ballot security. And so I worry that instead what they're going to try to do is to challenge whether people are US Citizens and can prove their citizenship. And of course, if you don't have a passport with you, that might be difficult to do. So I do worry about what they're up to here, not because that this is a, an improper use of the power, but that they may have some improper motives. And then the second thing is the one I'm actually even more worried about, which is sending a letter to the Secretary of State warning her about committing crimes. She said it says, you know, if you allow anybody who is not a citizen to vote, that's voter fraud. And you, Secretary of State, or anybody in your office or who work at the polls can be prosecuted criminally. I'd be more worried perhaps if we didn't have such a great Secretary of State. Jocelyn Benson, who's now running for governor in our state, has been our Secretary of State now for almost eight years, is an election law expert. She's a former law professor and she knows election law, so she's not violating any election laws. She's not going to go out there and, like, help non citizens vote. Number one, she knows better. And number two, why would she do that? But I think this is their to advance this false narrative that this is something that happens. And so you have to issue this warning because otherwise it'll happen. And, you know, the Trump administration is on the job to protect our voting rights against all of these undocumented immigrants who are otherwise rigging elections. So I do worry about this upcoming election and what they might try in light of what we saw in 2020. And so I think we are wise to be on alert to some of these efforts as they start to reveal themselves.
- [72:07]
D
Yeah, Joyce. And Michigan isn't the only state that's feeling pressure. The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department is now sending other states warnings about criminal penalties for election fraud. And Trump is even trying to deny anti terrorism funding to states if they don't turn over voter roll data. What does voting Joyce, have to do with anti terrorism funding?
- [72:36]
C
Yeah, absolutely. Smack right. I mean, this is just a cheap effort at intimidation. My favorite response when they originally tried to get voter rolls out of the States was Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who coined the phrase that Trump should go jump in the Gulf of Maine. I think that that's the response that's warranted here. Don't be afraid, don't be intimidated. Don't try to negotiate with the bully. Just say forget it, because the law is on your side here. And courts that have looked at these sorts of efforts to withhold congressionally mandated funding have not ruled in favor of the administration. So I think the important thing here is to understand that this is an effort to intimidate state officials. And because there are some threats about permitting people who aren't citizens to vote, I think it's fairly interpreted as an effort to intimidate poll workers. Right. Our fellow citizens who volunteer to run elections. I hope everyone will be fearless. I think that there will be plenty of lawyers out there to protect anyone who faces a challenge. But the reality is, what this demonstrates is that Donald Trump is absolutely terrified of letting the voters wishes prevail in November. He's doing everything he can do to intercept legitimate votes, to keep the people from speaking. And that's the takeaway here.
- [74:06]
D
Yeah. And he is not taking no for an answer. Even when it's not working, even when courts are trying to block him, he is using every lever at his disposal. We talked last week about the slaughter decision by the U.S. supreme Court that basically allows him to fire people on independent agencies. Well, guess who he fired. Everybody on the Election Assistance Commission, which is an independent group that is supposed to help with election integrity. Just put all of this together. What do you think the ultimate outcome of all of this is? Do you think that he will get enough to cast dispersions on the midterm elections regardless of the outcome? Do you think that, that this intimidation can actually help him move the lever to try to keep the people he doesn't want to vote from voting?
- [75:04]
C
I mean, it almost doesn't matter, right? He's going to try to intimidate and use this fake narrative no matter what. And firing the every remaining member of the EAC looks to me like an effort to re key that agency so that it can be used to perpetrate myths about voter fraud come this November. He's going to do it. We should accept that. We should be prepared for it. Something that we can all do is start reminding our friends and neighbors what happened in 2020 and saying that this is more of the same from Donald Trump and he should step aside and just let the voters speak. Everyone wants to curl up in a comfy bed so having the perfect mattress for your sleep habits is a must. Great sleep is critical to success and there's nothing better for sleep than a Helix mattress. I first heard about Helix when they asked to sponsor our show, but as y' all have heard us say, we are very selective here at Sisters in Law and we wanted to try the mattresses out. I took Helix's quiz to tailor my mattress to my sleep style and I got matched with the Helix Midnight mattress. I've been getting the best sleep of my life ever since it arrived. Tossing and turning is a thing of the past. My whole family has the Helix mattress that fits their sleep style too, and everyone loved finding their ultimate fit.
- [76:36]
B
And Joyce isn't the only one. Helix is the most awarded mattress brand by reviewers like Forbes and Wired. They have more than 20 different models and you'll love how they combine memory foam and individually wrapped steel coils for the optimal blend of softness and support. There are even enhanced cooling features to keep you from getting too warm during the summer nights.
- [76:58]
D
Helix has been a part of my sister's sleep habit for over two years. Making the switch is such an upgrade. Since then we've heard so many stories of people seeing amazing improvements in the quality of their sleep on their wearable devices thanks to their Helix mattresses. Add that to free US shipping with seamless delivery that comes directly to your door, a quick and easy setup and no fuss trial policy and Helix is an easy choice.
- [77:25]
A
With Helix you can rest easy with their seamless returns and exchanges. Their Happy with Helix guarantee offers a risk free customer first experience with a 120 night sleep trial and a limited lifetime warranty to ensure you're completely satisfied. So don't wait. Snuggle up on an incredible mattress this summer and beyond. Take advantage of their TBC prime sale and go to helixsleep.com sisters for 20% off site wide, 25% off Luxe mattresses and 30% off Elite mattresses. That's helixsleep.com sisters for twenty percent off site wide, 25% off luxe mattresses and 30% off elite mattresses. Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you again helixsleep.com sisters and the link is also in our show notes. And now it's time for our favorite part of the show. Yes, you know it. Your questions. We love your questions. You are smart and wonderful and ask really challenging questions and if you have a question and it doesn't get answered here, follow us on our social media because we sometimes answer additional questions there. But if you have a question for us coming forward, you can email us@sistersinlawoliticon.com or tag us on social media. And that's the way that we can answer your questions this week. We have some really good questions. And the first question this week is for you, Joyce, and it comes from Lillian in Portland, Maine, and she wants to know, she says accusations are likely going to derail Platner's candidacy. Well, yeah, they actually have. You were ahead of your game here. None seem to have been proven. Assuming they aren't true, does he have a legal defense or case?
- [79:36]
C
Well, Lillian, this is a little bit of a moving target. We are taping Friday afternoon at 4:30pm Eastern Time. And although Platner has announced he's getting out of the race, he has not signed the paperwork yet. And there's some suggestion that he's being very pigheaded about it. You know, you make a fair point which says that the accusations against him have not been proven. But this is not a criminal case. It's not a proceeding in criminal court. This is a question of whether or not someone can be a candidate on the Democratic Party's ballot. And it was very clear that Platner had lost the support of the party. The most serious allegations come from a woman who says he raped her. And she made those allegations contemporaneously long before he ever got into politics. She told her boyfriend, she told a treating physician. So lots of circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness there. But the only issue for Platner right now, it's not a legal defense or a case setting. It's just whether he stays on the ballot or not. And if he doesn't file his paperwork this afternoon, I would expect Mainers to forcibly remove him from the ballot. People in Maine are outraged by his conduct. And very interestingly, by the same token, they've made it clear that they don't want outsiders dictating to them what to do. You know, Mainer, after Mainer has been interviewed, we've heard some of their officials go on television or speak in papers and say, let us handle our own business, which hopefully is what will happen here.
- [81:23]
A
And our next question comes from Addison and Barb. The question is, is the Trump classified documents case dead or not?
- [81:34]
B
Yeah, I guess I would say that case is dormant, not dead, as is the election interference case. Both of those cases were alive when Donald Trump was elected president again in 2024. And it was for that reason that Jack Smith filed motions to dismiss them. The election interference case was in the District Court. He filed a motion to dismiss. And the classified documents case was on appeal because Judge Eileen Cannon had found that the special counsel regulations were unconstitutional. And so that case was on appeal, and he filed a motion to dismiss that case as well. But he did so in both cases without prejudice, and that is how they were dismissed. And the reason he gave in his dismissals was because of the view of the Department of Justice that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. And so that's why those cases were dismissed. There was never any decision on the merits. And the phrase without prejudice means that the cases can be brought again. And so if in 2029, when Donald Trump is no longer president, we have a new Department of Justice, it is possible that they could move to reinstate those cases. And in fact, I would suggest that they do. There could be an argument that the statute of limitations has passed by the time a new indictment might be filed, new charges might be filed. But I would argue that if a sitting president cannot be prosecuted, then the statute of limitations should be told during the time the president is in office. So these four years would not count on the clock. So I think they could be risen from the dead, resurrected from the dead, and continued. And in my view, that kind of accountability is very important. You know, I probably bring a prosecutor's view about accountability, but it is not so much about retribution for the past as it is about deterrence and public safety for the future. Because if President Trump is allowed to get away with the very serious crimes he committed, then I think there will be no deterrence for the next president who comes along and tries to do something just as bad or maybe worse.
- [83:54]
A
Thank you, Barb. If we learned anything from Watergate, it's that prosecutions should proceed and that maybe Donald Trump wouldn't have done what he did if he knew that he could have been prosecuted because Nixon had been. Anyway, our final question for today comes from Laurie in Western Nebraska. Kim. Laurie says all the military activities that President Trump has initiated, including sinking the boats in the Caribbean, and is there a potential that he could be charged by the international court?
- [84:30]
D
This is a great question. So there are international courts like the International Criminal Court. There are also ad hoc tribunals, legal, international tribunals that do have the power to investigate violations of international law, things like war crimes or human rights violations organizations, but they only have the authority to do things like issue subpoenas to world leaders if the country is a member of those organizations. And the United States is not a member of the icc, has never been and is not a member of any other tribunal as well. Sadly, there's a reason for this. It was out of fear that the United States could have, over the course of our 200 year history, faced charges based on some things that we've did, not only during wartime, but also treatment of indigenous people. There was also that little thing called the transatlantic slave trade. So there are a lot of things that the United States could have been found internationally criminally liable for and it has made the decision never to join those organizations. So as far as the things that the Trump administration does, that is not a place where accountability will be had.
- [85:58]
A
Thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Barb McQuaid, Kimberly Atkinstore and me, Jill Wine Banks. If you enjoyed the podcast, please rate the show and recommend it to a friend. And be sure to follow SistersinLaw on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to your podcasts so that you never miss an episode. And of course, join us every Saturday for this show as we break down the hottest news in the legal area. And also our sister podcast, Sisters Sidebar, which releases every Wednesday, where we answer your legal questions. And you can shop for Sisters in law merch@politicon.com merch and follow us at our Sisters in Law Podcast podcast. And check out the special offers in this episode's show. Notes from our sponsors who we want you to support. Osea Malibu Quince, Wild Alaskan Company, Fast Growing Trees and Helix. See you next week with another show, Sisters in Law.
- [87:17]
C
So y', all, I have befriended the crows after trying for months, but now they're right outside the window when I'm talking, which is a little bit intimidating.
- [87:27]
B
Hitchcock, the birds.
- [87:28]
C
It's not Hitchcock. It's just like they're so sweet, you guys. You just don't know. I've put so much effort into getting them to befriend me, and I learned that the key was leftovers. I've been feeding them like leftover lentils and leftover vegetables, vegetable stew and that's working. The peanuts.
- [87:46]
B
You want to attract crows.
- [87:48]
A
Why do you want them?
- [87:50]
C
Because I, I heard that if they like you, they'll hang out with you and they'll bring you shiny things and they'll take the shiny things that you give them. And it just seemed really neat.
- [88:00]
D
A girl tried to fly away with Snickers blanket from our our porch War on the crowd to pick up the coral blanket.
- [88:09]
C
It.
- [88:09]
D
It didn't get very far. But yeah, I don't know if I
- [88:12]
B
want to feed them.
- [88:13]
C
I mean, you got to be careful because I really have been doing research about crows and I read that if they don't like you, it's not just personal. They'll teach their babies not to like you, too. So you're gonna have to find something to, you know, some square of blanket to give them as a sacrifice.
- [88:31]
A
They're very pretty, but they are very loud and very big. I. I don't know that I want to be friends with.
- [88:38]
C
The ones outside my window are large and loud.
- [88:41]
B
A murder of murder.
- [88:44]
D
It's a murder.
- [88:51]
C
All new drinks are now at McDonald's
- [88:54]
D
with refreshers like the strawberry watermelon refresher
- [88:57]
B
and the mango pineapple refresher with popping boba.
- [89:01]
D
To crafted sodas like the sprite berry
- [89:04]
B
blast with berry flavors and cold foam.
- [89:08]
D
Who knew ice cold drinks could be so fire six? All new drinks are here now at McDonald's.
- [89:18]
B
Refreshers contain caffeine.