Loading summary
Transcript100 lines
- [00:11]
A
Welcome back to Sisters in law with Barb McQuaid, Jill Wine Banks and me. Joyce Vance Kim will be back next week. We are going to miss her this week because there is an awful lot to cover. We'll be discussing Todd Blanche's confirmation hearing, the most recent ICE shooting, this one in Bideford, Maine, and, and also Donald Trump's speech Thursday night. Or as friend of the podcast and CEO of Fair Fight, Lauren Gro Wargo put it, Trump's late night infomercial for the SAVE Act. But before we get to the serious news, y', all, there is a pressing problem that I have to deal with in my life, and I need your help. Sunday is the World cup finals, the championship match between Argentina and Spain. And as much as I'm looking forward to it, I am so sad that the World cup is about to be over. You know, it felt like it was the best of us, the best of the United States, the best of us as individuals. And my question is, what are we gonna do for entertainment once soccer is done? Barb, what are you gonna do?
- [01:17]
B
Joyce. Joyce. Joyce. It's baseball season. Come on. We are just about to jump into the second half after the All Star break. Now's the time when the trade deadline comes up and teams have to decide if they're gonna buy or they're gonna sell, who gets hot. So I'm all. I'm all about baseball. Watch baseball every day. You can watch your team or any team all the time. You're a Dodgers fan, aren't you?
- [01:39]
A
I am, but, you know, it's just not the same as World Cup. Nobody's rowing. I mean, there's nobody.
- [01:45]
B
World cup has been fun. I. I agree with you. World cup has been very fun. I've enjoyed it.
- [01:48]
A
Jill, what are you going to do?
- [01:50]
C
So, you know, it's interesting because as you all know, I am not a huge sports watcher, but I've gotten into the World cup because it's the vibe all over. Every city I've been in during the World cup is just so amazing and how people are following it. I had my hair cut, and all of the hairdressers who are all men, could not turn off their iPads watching while they were cutting, which made me a little nervous, I have to say. But it was.
- [02:23]
A
You looked really good, though.
- [02:25]
B
You were an asymmetrical haircut.
- [02:27]
C
That's what I was sort of worried about. But Emilio did okay. Thank you, salon duo. And I guess what I will be doing is probably indoors because climate change has led to A smoke inhalation problem and the worst air quality ever in the history probably of America and certainly of Chicago. So I wanna go see Odyssey because.
- [02:52]
B
Oh, yeah, that's a good thing to do.
- [02:53]
C
Great reviews. So that's an indoor thing I can do pretty easily. And I'll have to entertain myself with that and some local theater. Cause Chicago has great small theater companies.
- [03:04]
A
Now you're making me want to come to Chicago and do that with you. Odyssey is definitely on my list.
- [03:09]
C
And Suffs is here right now. So if you didn't see it in New York, you should get to Chicago and see it.
- [03:14]
A
Sounds like a Chicago trip, huh? Yeah. You know, so my plan for dealing with the gap that the end of the World cup will leave in my life is I have been slowly taking up a new. I don't know if you can call it a sport and an outside pursuit. And I am learning to kayak. And bless my heart, I'm not the most coordinated person in the world, but I'm making progress and I'm really enjoying it. So I'm planning on spending the time I've been devoting to soccer out on the water. I think that's probably as good as I can do for now.
- [03:48]
C
Another reason to come to Chicago. Michael has a kayak. We own a kayak. So come and visit us.
- [03:55]
A
It's a date. Seriously? Can Michael and I go kayaking?
- [03:58]
C
Yes, you can.
- [03:59]
A
All right, game on.
- [04:09]
C
Summer is here and it's the season for entertaining. You want easy dinners, impressed guests, backyard meals, and cookware that can handle it all. So if you're going to upgrade anything this season, make it your kitchen. With hexclad's revolutionary cookware. The last thing you need is to be stuck inside scrubbing out of date burnt out pans at the sink. Make an upgrade that will take your cookware and your meals to the next level. If you've been hanging on to the old ones for far too long, as I was, do what I just did, give them to Goodwill and get your Hexclad. Because you deserve the best. Plus, having shiny new tools that liven up your kitchen makes the effort you put in much more enjoyable and more delicious too.
- [04:54]
A
Hexclad's beautiful design combines the performance of stainless steel with the convenience of non stick. So you get the best of both worlds without the drawbacks. We all know how fast non stick pans get scratched up and worn out, and stainless steel does great until it's time to clean up. Then it's a disaster. That's why you'll love how Hexclad's revolutionary features deliver on both performance and convenience. Not only are they oven safe to 900 degrees with stakewool handles, the heat control is unmatched, the searing is really spectacular, and cleanup is easy every time. Instead of scrubbing stuck on burnt on food, all it takes is a quick wipe down and a move to the dishwasher. Now you can actually relax and enjoy your culinary creations on a n nice summer night.
- [05:46]
B
Hexclad completely changed the way we cook. Once you make the switch, confidence in the kitchen comes naturally. And now that we've got a taste of them, all of our guests want a set. It's easy to see why Gordon Ramsay cooks with Hexclad at home and in his restaurants, and he's the toughest critic on the planet. Thanks to Hexclad's lifetime warranty, this truly is the last set of pans you'll ever need. It's no surprise that Hexclad has more than 1 million customers and more than 50,000 five star reviews, including ours. So whether you're hosting all summer long or just want to make everyday cooking feel easier, this is the upgrade your kitchen deserves. For a limited time, our listeners get 10% off with our exclusive link. Just head to hexclad.com sisters support our show and check them out at h e x C-L-A-Com sisters make sure to let them know that we sent you. The link is in our show. Notes.
- [06:51]
C
This week, Southern District of Florida District Court Judge Kathleen Williams issued an opinion ruling that Trump's lawsuit against IRS was a collusion with the Department of Justice, and that the settlement wasn't a settlement and couldn't be called a settlement because there were no adversaries and therefore no case or controversy. The opinion set the background and tone for Acting Attorney General Blanche's confirmation hearing. Or at least it should, because in addition to all that, there was the presence of Epstein survivors and Liz Oyer, the fired DOJ pardon attorney. But let's talk about her decision first. I thought her decision was a good quick read and I'm putting a link to it in our show Notes. Everyone should be able to read it and understand has some great lines. My favorite screams divine justice and that Trump was hoisted on his own petard. I hope everyone understands the implications of that phrase. But here's what she wrote that I really loved. It was sort of saying, you know, you argued executive theory, you were totally in control of the executive branch in the Slaughter case, and now it's being used against them. She said, plaintiffs cannot argue before the Supreme Court that executive branch actors unquestionably exercise executive power and must therefore be controlled by the chief executive, as was argued in the slaughter. And then here argue that the parties are sufficiently adverse to establish an actual case or controversy. So, Barb, what was your favorite part of the opinion? Either its analytic point or some language that she used that was really great.
- [08:33]
A
Yeah.
- [08:34]
B
You know, one of the things I like best about this is that it was very straightforward. She didn't try to, you know, aim, hit the home run language. I always find it to be sort of over the top when people start quoting from the Bible and Shakespeare and all that sort of stuff. Or I can remember, you know, when people issued opinions against George W. Bush saying things like, there are no hereditary kings and all that kind of stuff. I think it diminishes the value of the logic. What I really liked best was that it was a very logical description of the events. You know, one of the things that she wrote was. I've got a screenshot of it, the part where she just goes through very matter of factly, right here are the facts. Donald Trump is the president. Number two, as the president, he is in charge of the Treasury Department and the irs. Three, that means they're the same party. And there is no adversity here. And she just very logically goes from one step to the other. Therefore, there is no adversity here and there's no actual lawsuit. And it appears that they were just trying to legitimize this illegitimate deal by using the courts as a pretext. And then I also like the fact that she referred to Todd Blanche's representations as, at best misleading and at worst, disingenuous.
- [10:02]
A
I thought that was ouch.
- [10:04]
C
Yeah, you are so right. It was calmly, quietly, and logically, so compelling. And I used to think that trial lawyers and appellate lawyers had to be really dramatic and out there. And I always felt inadequate because that's how the men I worked with were. And until I, much later in my career, worked with a former U.S. attorney, Tom Sullivan, who was a partner of mine at Jenner, who tried cases just like I did, just step by step, putting the facts together quietly and the end being so logically compelling. So I. I love that you made that point. And what about you, Joyce? What was your favorite?
- [10:45]
A
The whole opinion? No, I'll tell you what. I liked the fact that she ended her opinion with John Adams, and she used a caution, a warning from John Adams. She quoted him facts are stubborn things. And whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. We Thus, whatever may be the party's wishes, inclinations, or the dictates of their passion, they cannot alter the state of the facts or evade the rule of law. And that was a perfect quote, given the approach that Barb has outlined, that she took this very linear, factual approach. You know, she was not here for any of the nonsense that the Trump plaintiffs were spinning. And so she makes this really great statement to John Adams point and to Barb's point. And she says, after a review of the record and the party's statements, the court declines to adopt or accept the credulous exercise of divorcing President Trump's current job title. From an understanding of what happened here, and it's the most plain spoken common sense argument, because Trump just makes this argument that defies belief. Oh, I am suddenly private citizen Trump, and I deserve this treatment because of what happened to me. And she makes minceme out of that. I really enjoyed this opinion.
- [12:17]
C
Yeah. And she held them accountable for it. And that's why I said it's sort of background for what we're going to look at next, which is the Acting Attorney General Blanche's confirmation hearing. And she said in holding them accountable, that one attorney for the plaintiffs, which is Donald Trump, is referred to the Florida bar for whatever consideration, and another attorney can never be admitted to the courts of Florida on his own motion because he misused that power. And that they none of them can call this a settlement agreement because it isn't. And that Todd Blanche should have this order sent to the New York bar where he is a member. So there is accountability. So let's look at the hearings, and I want to start with sort of a high level overview of it. What do each of you think the biggest disqualifying factor for Blanche is? What has he done that you think is significant enough to hold him accountable and not confirm him?
- [13:30]
B
Well, from my perspective, I think it is his vision of the Justice Department as just one more executive branch department. He even said that he was asked at one point, you know, whether the Justice Department is independent of the president, and he said no. He said, it's just like every other cabinet agency. The president is in charge of the executive branch. And in the same way, it's his job to take care of the Justice Department. Now, that may be true under the vesting clause of the Constitution, which vests the executive power in the president of the United states. But Article 2 also says that the President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. And for that reason, since Watergate, there has been a series of norms in place to ensure that the Justice Department is independent from the politics of the White House. The cases are decided based on the fact and the law. Even William Barr insisted on that kind of independence as a condition of accepting the job of Attorney General during Donald Trump's first term. Todd Blanche does not see that. He thinks that the president can and should call the shots. And this is such an important point I want to make that I think is such an important point. And that is, just because you can do something under the law does not mean you should. Just because the President can direct the Justice Department does not mean that it is wise or just to do so. Instead, we have professionals at the Justice Department who are trained, who look at law and facts to try to apply the law in an evenhanded manner. And so if you listen to his questions, when he was asked, Senator Klobuchar asked things about, you know, can you enter an immigrant's home without a warrant? He said things like, we will follow the law. And when they said, are you going to continue to take away grant funding from crime prevention programs? He said, we will ensure appropriate funding. And it's frustrating when they don't follow up on these things. Well, it's his opinion of what's following the law or what's appropriate. This, remember, is the same guy who leads the Department of Justice and defended Donald Trump's executive orders to end birthright citizenship and to impose tariffs and to send the National Guard into American cities, and that the Presidential Records act is unconstitutional. So his view of what the law requires and what complies with the law is not consistent with what the Supreme Court has found. And so I think that that lack of independence is the vision from which all of these other harms flow.
- [16:04]
C
And, Joyce, what do you think was the worst?
- [16:07]
A
Yeah, I mean, it's so hard to say.
- [16:10]
C
Right.
- [16:10]
A
There are so many good choices, I think, though. And I wonder if Blanche didn't put a nail in his coffin. Maybe not enough nails to nail it shut, but certainly another nail with this botched meeting with the Epstein survivors yesterday. You know, he just flat out lied during his confirmation hearing when he said he couldn't meet with them because they were represented by counsel. That was not. Not true. And as soon as the threat was issued by one of the senators on the committee that he had to meet with them if he wanted that Senator. To vote for him. Well, lo and behold, late yesterday, Todd Blanche met with the survivors, but according to their reports of that meeting, he was patronizing, he was dismissive, he was not interested in hearing what they had to say. And he told them he couldn't talk to them, that they had to go back to the FBI. FBI. So we're like, what is it at this point? 20 years in, he's already said, there's nobody else I'm going to prosecute. He wildly backtracks on that in the hearing yesterday, saying, oh, if there's a good case, you know, we'll prosecute it. These women go in prepared to talk with him about the most difficult things that have ever happened in their personal lives, and he just essentially blows them off. He doesn't have time for them. He doesn't have respect for them. He is not fit to serve as the Attorney General of the United States.
- [17:37]
C
Yeah, I'm so glad you mentioned about that lie, because when he said it, I was like, screaming at the television. What is he talking about?
- [17:46]
A
Every former federal prosecutor in America was screaming at their television.
- [17:51]
C
I think that is so absurd. They're witnesses. Of course he can talk to them. And if he thought he needed the lawyers, all he had to do was say, bring your lawyers. They would have.
- [18:01]
B
This is.
- [18:01]
C
I know.
- [18:02]
A
Right? And. Right. I mean, it's like, it's. It's just ridiculous.
- [18:08]
C
I mean, there are so many things that are horrible that I'm not sure these hearings ever can get to meaningful information that will change the mind of any of the members who will vote or of people who take the time to watch it. But this one maybe should have. Although, let's talk about his demeanor, because unlike Pam Bondi the last time she testified, he did remain, I would say, calm, cool, and collected throughout. Maybe there was one time when he went, that's a really dumb question or something. But mostly he really was, like, answering the questions without answering them, of course. Is that how you felt about it? Did you think there was any way that information was going to come out that would change anyone's mind? Is this something we should stop pretending that hearings are necessary?
- [19:02]
A
Look, I think we should always have these hearings. For one thing, the Senate has advice and consent responsibilities. I think it's good to air these issues in the public, for the public to see. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and all that. And, you know, the Senate might still vote, probably will vote to confirm Todd Blanche. But we know, we see them. We understand what happened yesterday. And Blanche was Very skillful. You've got to give him that. He understood the assignment. The assignment was keep Donald Trump happy, but don't lose the vote of any of the senators on the committee because you need them to advance to a floor vote. And so he did that. And when it called for him to play loose and fast with the truth, he did that. You know, when it called for him to backtrack on older statements, he did that. He was skillful. But I don't mean that as a compliment now.
- [20:00]
B
I found it pretty slick, you know, in the way of a criminal defense attorney who's just trying to create reasonable doubt. As you say, fast and loose with the facts. You know, these things like I would comply with the law or we would assure all appropriate funding. You know, it's so frustrating when you watch these hearings that the members of Congress are so bad at asking follow up questions. It's like I've got 10 questions on my list and I have to get through all 10. My time limit and the time limits don't help, right? I mean, when we saw coordination in the January 6th hearings when they were investigating the attack and they were mostly aligned and cooperative and following up with each other, we didn't see this kind of gamesmanship. But instead, you know, we go back and forth, Democrats and Republicans and Republicans, throw them a bunch of softballs. Like one of them was, tell me your opinion of Lori Lightfoot. She likes criminals more than she likes police officers, doesn't she? You know, the former mayor of Chicago. What on earth does that have to do anything with Ty Blanche? And yet it gives him opportunity. Said, yes, she does. And we love police officers. It was such pandering. But, you know, with the Democrats, what I would love to see them do is to work more cooperatively through different topics rather than each of them. Try to get through 10 questions. Because if you're really listening and you know, some of them are really good. Former prosecutors. Amy Klobuchar is a former prosecutor. Sheldon Whitehouse, Senator Blumenthal, Adam Schiff, they're former prosecutors. And yet, you know, they ask these questions and when they get an answer like, I would follow the law or what would be appropriate? Well, ask the next question. And that. Does the law permit you to barge into the home of an immigrant without a warrant? Tell me, what authority is that? He never really had to answer that difficult question, but nonetheless. So I'd like to see the format change so that we can have real questions and maybe even delegate the questioning to a real trial lawyer so that we get Better questions, but a more cooperative approach. But I still think it's valuable for the American people to see how these hearings unfold, to see the demeanor of the candidate and to listen to their answers. Because what happens is sometimes members of the public write to their members of Congress. They send emails, they make calls, they send letters. And members of Congress are responsive to their constituents because those are their voters. There's a reason the Affordable Care act has never been rolled back, and that is because voters love it. And so when they start talking about it, they get letters and calls and emails. And that's the stuff that members of Congress respond to. So, dear listeners, if you heard something that offended you in the Blanche hearings, feel free to call your senator and let them know.
- [22:54]
C
I so agree with you. I really think the January 6th hearing was a model that they need to look at. It wasn't just that they coordinated, that they persisted, that they asked follow up questions. They had great presentations that had been prepared, they were really ready. And, and I did have a feeling that in this case the Democrats weren't coordinated and didn't follow up. And there were some good points made. And he did say, I'm his lawyer. I was his lawyer. There were all the big, yeah, that
- [23:31]
B
was a good moment.
- [23:32]
C
That was a good moment.
- [23:33]
B
Freudian slip.
- [23:34]
C
Yeah. But yeah, I think the Democrats could have done better. I'm still hoping that they were listening when one of the survivors was on msnow last night saying, I wish that he would also listen to us. You know, the hearing was terrible, but, you know, Tilla said that he would only vote if he met with us. Let him meet with us to talk about and let him hear from us directly how that meeting went because it was meaningless. It's not enough to say you have to do it. And he checks off the box, which is what they said he did. He was checking off a box. He wasn't listening. So I hope that he will listen and he will meet with those survivors as well.
- [24:27]
A
Summer is here, and no matter where you live, the days are hot and the nights are stuffy and sleepless. The next morning you feel like an exhausted zombie in desperate need of a shower. It's miserable and none of us has time for it. You can curse the sun all day long, but it's better to take action by making sure your bedding is helping you sleep comfortably, not keeping you up. The wrong sheets will trap heat, which is why we wanted to tell you about Bolen Branch. It's like the cool side of the pillow, but everywhere. And you know, if I'm saying that from Alabama, I mean it.
- [25:03]
C
Their summer bedding options are breathable, lightweight, and designed to keep you cool all night long. It's seriously like sleeping on a cloud. Because their 100% organic cotton sheets are woven specifically for airflow, not just softness, although they are also soft. Synthetic cooling technology or chemically treated fabrics are a band aid, not a solution. With Bolen Branch, the cooling is structural because of how the cotton is woven. Amazingly, 94% of Bolen branch customers say their sheets get softer with every wash, and we have to agree.
- [25:41]
B
I used to think that sheets came in only two, regular and scratchy. I didn't know how wrong I was. Bowl and branch has definitely changed the game. Ever since I put them on my bed, I've been so snug, I haven't wanted to get up. They're buttery soft right from the start and help you relax the moment you lie down. I've become such a fan of their signature sheet set that I'm getting them for the whole family. They have such an incredible feel, and the breathability and the temperature regulation are top notch. You need to experience their unmatched softness for yourself.
- [26:13]
C
You know, anybody who sees me knows that I love color. It's really important to me. And Bolen Branch has over two dozen amazing colors that will complement any room or style. And it's so much fun to pick them out while you're shopping. You need to check out their supportive pillows, cozy blankets, and luxurious comforters, too. You know, because of climate change, we all need to sleep cooler this summer. So get yourself some Bolen branch. Get 15% off your first order, plus free shipping at bolandbranch.com sisters with code sisters. That's Boland Branch. B O l l a n-branch.com sisters code sisters to unlock 15% off bolandbranch.com sisters code sisters exclusions apply. The link is in our show notes.
- [27:15]
A
So cats. We get to talk about cats. You guys. I have not sent you the video. Barb, I think you've seen it. We had a bobcat walk through our backyard this morning.
- [27:27]
C
I'm so jealous.
- [27:28]
A
Which was super exciting. My husband's reaction was, let's go get a big Amazon box and put it out and see if he'll stay there. But I'm a little bit more practical. And I thought, well, maybe if we offer him good food, he'll decide to stick around. And, you know, when it comes to good food, we are talking about smalls. I don't know if it would work on the bobcat, it makes my cats really happy. We love cats and those of us who have them cannot say enough great things about Smalls. You know, for the longest time I thought that the cat kibble in the grocery store was the way to go. But the ingredients are mostly filler corn stuff you can barely pronounce. And I just knew that my cats deserved better. Now that I've made the switch to Smalls, they have a lot more energy. Their fur feels softer and more luxurious too. So if you're a cat parent, there's no better time to try Smalls for yourself than right now.
- [28:28]
C
Smalls Fresh cat food is protein packed recipes made with preservative free 100% human grade ingredients that you'd find in your your fridge and it gets conveniently delivered right to your door. In addition to Joyce, they have so many outstanding reviews. One that stood out to me said that Smalls has been the best decision I have made for my cat. He absolutely loves this food. His coat is shiny and he licks the bowl clean. High quality products, no artificial fillers or byproducts. We love Smalls.
- [29:03]
A
I'm not surprised. Cats use protein as their main energy source and more protein means more fuel and sustained energy. Small's fresh, gently cooked, preservative free cat food gives them high protein and improved hydration for strong bones and toned muscles. Plus a balanced diet leads to less shedding, fewer hairballs and more silky shine. Even better, lots of the nutrients in Small's food are digestible, so less junk comes out the other end. That means less cat related odors and that's something we can all get behind.
- [29:38]
B
The team at Smalls is so confident your cat will love their product that you can try it risk free. That means they will refund you if your cat won't eat their food. So stop serving your little carnivore a bowl of processed shortcuts for a limited time. Because you are a Sisters in Law listener. You can get 60% off your first order plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com sisters one last time. That's 60% off your first order plus free shipping and free treats for life when you head to smalls.com sisters. The link is in our show notes. Well, last week we discussed the ice shooting of an immigrant in Houston and sadly we have another to discuss this one in Maine. And before we get to Maine, I just want to acknowledge that as we've been recording, we've become aware of two Other incidents? There was an incident in an airport in Las Vegas where two plainclothes ICE agents tackled a man and then when they realized they were being videotaped, ran away. And an issue in a detention center, an ICE detention center in Aurora, Colorado, where an ICE employee at the detention facility is now in custody for shooting a protester. So we'll share more with those as more information becomes available. But let's talk about this shooting in Maine which is so disturbing. Joyce, I think it's important for people to hear about this and I know you spend some time in Maine. Can you give us a brief rundown on the victim and this shooting?
- [31:22]
A
Yeah. So this is an ICE agent shoots and kills a man again in a vehicle. These stories are all starting to sound familiar. Last Monday morning in Biddeford, Maine, which is, you know, in the same neck of the woods as Kennebunkport, sort of close to the coast. The man is a 25 year old Colombian immigrant. He was married, he had a three year old daughter. Juan Guerrero, who was a resident of Biddeford, was living and working legally in the United States. But that didn't matter. The agents shot into the vehicle. We will say it again, that is a violation of ICE policy. And they dragged his body out. If you've seen the footage, the way that they treat him is just utterly shameful. You know, something that struck me about this one, Barb, was immediately afterwards I was waiting for ICE to issue their usual statement denying culpability and claiming that the victim was at fault. And the facts in this one are so bad that they didn't even do that this time.
- [32:27]
B
Well, Jill, sort of. Right. I mean, I issued a statement that the officers discharged their weapons at the moving vehicle because it took them a while.
- [32:35]
C
Right.
- [32:35]
A
We didn't get that usual immediate thing. Yeah, okay.
- [32:39]
B
Took a little while to come up with the story. They said they feared for public safety, which is why they thought it was necessary to fire their guns at this moving vehicle. Can you just share with us, explain the legal standard for shooting at suspects. You know, in the movies you see the bad guy trying to break, break into a building and they start shooting at him, you know, stop, police, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. What does the law actually say about when police officers make sure.
- [33:08]
C
Totally different. And ICE policy itself, I mean, specifically says you can't shoot at a car. You can't even try to shoot out the tires. It poses a danger to public safety if you do that. Obviously if you shoot a car tires out, it's going to lose Control and swerve and could kill people while it's out of control. So under Department of Homeland Security policy, public safety is not, not, I emphasize, not a legitimate reason for ICE to shoot at a moving vehicle. But they keep saying that that's why they did it was, oh, the car is being weaponized. It's being used to harm the agents. The agents are supposed to get out of the way of any car. Stepping in front of it is considered a deliberate, you know, bad thing to do. You aren't supposed to do it. They're only allowed to use deadly force if they have an objectively reasonable belief that the driver poses an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the agent or others. Of course, in all of these recent cases where they're saying they did it because the car was being weaponized, and that hasn't been the case at all, and the rules are strict, federal guidelines prohibit this. So I don't know how they think they can get away with constantly saying that the reason that they're doing this is for public safety or because the agent feared for his own life. There was no self defense in this case. They're supposed to de. Escalate, not escalate. And they're actually causing more danger than anybody in a car. And they do it without even thinking about whether this is the person they're looking for or finding out whether, as in this case, the person was here legally working legally. It's just, it's a total violation of the rules of the law, the Department of Homeland Security and in general, the rules of when lawful use of deadly force can happen. It can't in these cases.
- [35:20]
B
Yeah, you know, they might say, well, otherwise he would have gotten away. Well, that's okay, because there's no death penalty for being unlawfully in the country, which turns out he wasn't anyway. You know, you get the license number and you call, you know, you call on your little radio there and some other police officer can pull him over, you know, in the next block. So as you say, only if there is this objectively reasonable observation that this person poses a threat to the life of either the officer or the public, only then are they supposed to use deadly force. So, you know, I think what we're seeing, in my opinion, is the consequences of very aggressive hiring of ICE agents without the kind of training they're supposed to get, the kind of background checks they're supposed to have. And it's no surprise that we are having all of these incidents with a poorly trained, hyper aggressive group of ICE agents. Joyce, this is just as we said last week. You asked me this question last week, and I'm going to turn it back to you. Once again, we see that it is not the FBI, but ICE's own Office of Inspector General that is investigating the shooting. What is your reaction to that assignment?
- [36:40]
A
The inspector General works for Donald Trump. Todd Blanche said it best. Right. He said they all work for Donald Trump in the executive branch. He can direct their work, per the Supreme Court. So I don't know ICE's inspector general, and he or she may be a decent person trying to do their best, but the reality is that this administration considers it to be the role of this president to tell executive branch employees what they can and can't do and to threaten to fire them if they don't play along. That means it will be extremely difficult for the public to have confidence in this report. I've actually started to think that we're at the point where there needs to be a special counsel to investigate all of these ICE shooting cases.
- [37:26]
B
Well, and you know, the state absolutely has the authority to do this. I can remember a time when I was U.S. attorney, we had an ICE shooting in an individual's home during arrest. He was a member of a task force, and he was trying to arrest somebody, and his story was that the individual came at him and so he had to shoot him. The Wayne county prosecutor, the fabulous Kim Worthy, investigated that case very thoroughly, and she ultimately concluded that there was not a violation of law. And she did a fabulous press conference where she showed slides of forensic evidence and information that she used to reach her conclusion. And we deferred to her and let her go first because we thought that the state had an interest in the murder of one of its residents. And so we then looked at it from a different perspective with different statutes. Obviously, she was looking at state law. We looked at federal law. We ultimately reached the same conclusion. But I think it provided the kind of transparency and independence that's really important in a case like this.
- [38:33]
A
Of course, that only works if the federal government is willing to give state prosecutors the evidence. And we saw how that played out in Minneapolis for Mary Moriarty, who only just now is getting some of the evidence in the Renee Goode and Alex Preddy shootings. You know, the Maine State Police have a policy of investigating every homicide, I think, outside of the Portland area, which is their major city. And so normally this is a case that they would investigate. I suspect that they will try to investigate it. The question what kind of access they'll get to the evidence. Maybe Susan Collins will clutch her pearls a little bit and ask ICE to release it.
- [39:13]
B
Yeah, well, Jill, to Joyce's point that, you know, Trump is the boss of all of these people, and so he's calling the shots, and no one is using asserting any sort of independence here. So right after the shooting, in light of these two shootings into vehicles, ICE announced it would stop or at least pause it's vehicle stops. You know, these are these Kavanaugh stops where if you just look brown, I get to pull you over. And it's these vehicle stops that have led to these shootings. And so I said, we're gonna put a pause on these for now to, you know, look into our policy. But very quickly, President Trump criticizes them, and they quickly reverse themselves and say, oh, no, no, no, we're back in the business of vehicle stops. Does this suggest that ICE is operating according to best law enforcement standards or just Trump's bar?
- [40:07]
C
I guess. I guess that's a rhetorical question because it answers itself. Of course that's what it is. The right thing to do was to put a pause. They said they were going to do retraining so that the agents would know what's appropriate and what's not. That makes a lot of sense given the number of traffic stops that have led to death. And there's another one. We talked about fleeing in the the last question. There was also an immigrant who was fleeing arrest and ended up killed by a truck that hit him. So there's obvious danger in this, and it does take some retraining to make the agents realize what the dangers to the public are, and that, you know, it's sort of like the death penalty. You can't undo it if you find out it was wrong. And even though they found out in all these cases that none of the people were illegal immigrants, et cetera, or criminals, it's too late. They're dead. Nothing can be done about it. So while it's true that a traffic stop is a lawful means, the consequences have been deadly and training would be appropriate. And Donald Trump's control is totally. And so they did change solely to please Donald Trump.
- [41:28]
B
Yeah, I mean, that is what happens when you follow Todd Blanche's logic that the President gets to call the shots. We've got everything being done for political reasons as opposed to the professional, expert opinions of the people who are in these jobs for their judgment. Instead, they are all just instruments of the president's political agenda.
- [42:01]
C
The Internet is still the Wild west, and it's Full of stalkers, scammers and hackers. You know, you should protect yourself. But how? It's easier than you think. Here's what you do. Go to www.joindeleteme.com sisters and enter the code sisters to get 20% off. Delete me.
- [42:23]
A
Delete Me removes your personal information that's being sold online, which is why you really need to get it. In the age of AI, we're all especially vulnerable to scammers using our personal data that's floating around on the Internet against us. Have you ever googled yourself and found your home address, phone number, or the name of a family member? It's unsettling and there's a lot worse out there. The good news is Deleteme can help.
- [42:49]
B
Delete Me does all the hard work to wipe your personal information from data broker websites and you can get an individual plan for a little over $8 per month. Even if you're not a public figure in the Internet age, all of us are potential targets for malicious actors, blackmailers, and worse. Especially if you have kids in your family. Delete Me is a must. Once we got started with them, the peace of mind was such a relief. I trust them to protect me, my sisters and my loved ones. And I know that they can help keep you and your family safe too.
- [43:22]
C
Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Deleteme now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your delete me plan when you go to JoinDeleteMe.com sisters and use promo code Sisters at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to www.joindeleteme.com sisters and enter code sisters at checkout. Once again, that's www.joindeleteme dot com sisters code sisters. The link is in our show notes.
- [44:07]
A
Well, Thursday night, Donald Trump spoke to the country. You know, I had volunteered to take one for the team and I know so many of you did not watch Donald Trump so you could read write up of it in civil discourse. But I've gotta say it was, as Lauren Groh Wargo said, just a late night infomercial for the SAVE act and it really did not come off with any particular force. Before we dig into the details of the speech and the reason for it, which is really the only reason it's worth discussing. Barb, I wanted to start with a baseline of knowledge that you have a lot of expertise in because you wrote the book on disinformation. Can you start by reminding us what misinformation and disinformation are and what the difference is for those who may have forgotten.
- [44:58]
B
Yes. So misinformation is when we are misinformed, we obtain some information, we think it's true, and we share that information with others. It's innocent, it can still be damaging, but it is unwitting. We hear something, we believe it. Disinformation, on the other hand, is a deliberate falsehood or cherry picking of information. Information warfare in an effort to advance some agenda. Could be a political agenda, it could be a fraud agenda, it could be a nihilistic agenda, but that's what disinformation is.
- [45:36]
A
And give us your assessment. Which one of those did we hear in Donald's speech last night? Or was it some of both?
- [45:43]
B
Yeah, maybe a little of both. But I think I don't give him the good faith of thinking this is misinformation. I think he knows very well that this is false information and that he is churning and feeding and stoking these beliefs that our election system is unfair. And I think he is trying to lay the groundwork for what he knows is going to be a disastrous midterm election. And so he needs to do a couple of things. One is stop mail in voting, because we know that 1 in 4 Democrats and 1 in 5 Republicans vote by mail. And so if he can stop that, he may be able to get an upper hand on voting and be able to call out a few Democratic voters. So that could actually inure to his benefit. But the other thing I think he wants to do is to just sow doubt in the fairness of our elections, even if we do continue to have vote by mail. He wants to be able to say, I told you it would be rigged. And now that we see the outcome, we know it is rigged. Some of the things he talked about last night too, also blur the distinction between a couple of different kinds of election tampering. One is interference, and that is actually hacking into a system in an effort to change the outcome of a vote. The other is influence an election influence campaign, which is what we've seen Russia and China and other countries do where they try to put propaganda on social media and get people to believe good or bad things about candidates in an effort to sway their vote. And we've seen that since at least 2016. And he focused solely on China, which did oppose Donald Trump, but he did not mention anything about Russia, which has worked really hard to favor Donald Trump in some of these campaigns. So I worry about the cherry picking he's doing. I worry about the intelligence community and their role in all of this. Remember, Tulsi Gabbard showed up at the scene of that search in Fulton County, Georgia. That is not the place for the intelligence director. And then during his confirmation hearing, Jay Clayton refused to answer the question of who won the 2020 election. So I'm very worried about, just as we said, as Trump controls everybody in the executive branch, I am worried that he is going to use some of the levers he has power over now to either try to interfere with the election or at least influence people's views of whether it was fair.
- [48:21]
A
Yeah. So Jill Barb has done something sort of deft here as she discusses Trump's speech without discussing much about the claims he made. You and I were texting about this this morning. I think it's really a mistake to repeat all of Trump's lies. We've seen him do this before. When he repeats his lies enough, they sort of take on a little bit of a patina truth over time. And so sometimes the best thing to do is to dismiss what he's done without digging down into the specifics. And I'm wondering if you agree with that, because in this case, he made so many specific false claims. But if you do agree, how do we combat the disinformation that he spreads without going through it line by line?
- [49:08]
C
So let me first say you said it was sort of like an infomercial for the SAVE Act. Infomercial would suggest that there was information and facts. And since it was not, I would say it was a propaganda piece. It was an advertisement for his point of view. But it certainly wasn't information that anyone should rely on for passing the lack. But I do think that's what it was. He was trying to say, this is why we need it. And, and you know, Jen Psaki, who was on during this, said we debated long and hard here at msnow as to whether we should broadcast this live. And because we know it'll be false, but we can't pretend it's not happening. And so MsNow did have a substantial portion of it. And one of the things that shocked me was how short it was. I mean, he's known for going, going off script and going on and on and on, and he really, it was what, 24 minutes and 50 seconds? So he stayed under 25 minutes, which is really surprising to me. I think that it's really hard. I watch it and I go, this is such a lie, such a lie. And I know that the people watching Ms. Now are all thinking they know that it's not true. But it's also being broadcast on other networks where people may have a different bias. And I think that what we need to do is not show it live. It has to be somehow delayed so that as words are coming out of his mouth, the truth is superimposed over it. And that isn't that hard to do because everything he says is a lie. And you can flash on the screen something about it being false, but having commentary after it's said, it's too late. People have heard it. They don't have to listen to the commentary. So I do think we have to do something that changes how we broadcast what the President is saying and why it's dangerous. And Barb has pointed out a lot of the things that were deliberate disinformation. And, you know, it's not a crime to lie to the public. Look, it's a crime to lie under oath. But, you know, you can say all you want in campaigning or using the bully pulpit that the President gets. And so it's. I think this is a serious problem for us.
- [51:43]
A
Yeah. And I mean, given that. Right. It's clear that Trump's goal here was to create a new narrative of fraud that is yet again, false so that he can use it to interfere in the 2026 election and presumably the 2028 election. So as you look ahead at that scenario, and that really, for me, was the takeaway from last night, it's no more. We think Trump might try to interfere. Trump is full on, flat out moving towards interference. What are we gonna do about that? And what are you the most concerned about?
- [52:19]
C
Well, let me start by saying what I'm not concerned about. I'm not concerned that the 2020 election will ever be proven to be anything other than free, fair and accurate. It's been tested in court after court after court, by media, by. There's just absolutely no evidence. And I'm not worried that there was anything in what he said last night that is new or that supports his point of view. There was not. There is no new intelligence that he suddenly has declassified that shows something contrary to it being true.
- [52:55]
A
True.
- [52:56]
C
But that doesn't mean I'm not worried. I'm worried about plenty of things and I'm concerned about. And I want to read something that was from his speech he said. Well, it's not what he said so much as he was repackaging long debunked claims about the midterms. It's irresponsible, it's actively harmful. But he said something about the fact that he was doing this so that he could take quick action to get to it. He wasn't doing it to make people distrust the election. He was doing it so he could solve the problem. That's what scares me, is that he is going to use this fake narrative to say, oh, I have to declare an emergency. He was creating distrust so that he could act. And, and there are some actions he could take, like, you know, declare an emergency. And remember, he has the army and it's under Hexseth, who's now testing military members for testosterone. I mean, it is laughable, but how
- [54:03]
B
long did it take to be an intelligence analyst?
- [54:06]
C
I mean, okay, oh my gosh, you know, will he seize the ballots again? Will he put troops at the polls, which is clearly illegal and wrong? Will he continue to suppress the vote by scaring voters or by getting someone to pass the SAVE act because he says that this is happening? Will he revoke? And remember, he said this last night and it's not getting a lot of attention that the licenses of ABC and NBC should be revoked because they did not play his speech live. I mean, that would leave us with CBS under his control, under Bari Weiss, under Ellison, who are his lackeys. Where will that put information that voters get? So I am plenty worried. I don't mean to make light of it.
- [55:03]
B
Nothing's more important than our health, which means monitoring what's in our environment and what gets into our bodies. So after learning about the microplastics in many household items, items, we're mindful about what we bring into our homes, including the cleaning products we use every day. They aren't good for us, our pets or the environment. That's why we wanted to tell you about Blueland.
- [55:25]
C
Blueland makes dish, laundry and other household cleaning products designed to reduce single use plastic. And all of their cleaning tablets are 100% plastic free and microplastic free. They are independently tested to perform alongside major brands. And the formulas are made without dyes, parabens or harsh chemicals. I love not having to choose between the safe option and what actually gets my house clean. And you will too. Like us. They believe that hardworking cleaning products can be the norm, not the exception, so that you can do better for your family and the planet. At the same time, it feels great
- [56:07]
A
knowing that I'm incorporating sustainable practices into everyday activities. I'm always amazed by how well the laundry tablets work. And they've proven time and time again they'll lift the toughest stains, whether it's from grass food or whatever the dogs manage to drag in. Not only is their microplastic free formula made with plant and mineral based cleaning ingredients, it's hypoallergenic and safe for sensitive skin. And Blueland's products are really convenient. Just drop a pre measured mess free tablet into your machine and wash as usual without the bulky plastic jug. They even have a line of tablets for your dishwasher and toilets too.
- [56:47]
B
Best of all, Blueland is a certified B Corp and Leaping Bunny Cruelty Free certified. Their formulas are EPA Safer Choice certified and many products have also earned Cradle to Cradle's Gold Material Health Certificate. Put it all together and it's easy to see why their products are trusted by more than 1 million homes, including our make the switch today get 15% off your first order by going to blueland.com sisters that's 15% off your first order at blueland.com sisters the link is in the show Notes.
- [57:32]
A
So now we're at the part of our show where we take your questions. It's always our favorite part of the week. It's a lot of fun for us. If you've got a question, please email email sistersinlawolitikon.com or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. There is no need to be shy. No question is stupid. We get great questions from our listeners and you guys always make us think. And now if we don't have a chance to get to your question during the show, we'll try to get to it during our Wednesday news show Sisters sidebar, where we exclusively take your question. So keep them coming. This week. We've got some great questions. Let me start Barb with one for you from Vicki in Chicago. She asks, please help me understand how the impasse over opening the new bridge between Canada and Detroit can be resolved. As I understand it, the bridge was largely funded by Canada in cooperation with the state of Michigan. The scheduled opening had to be delayed due to one of Trump's east edicts. Who or what has the authority to settle this matter and how bummed out are you personally? This is me adding to the question that this bridge isn't open yet.
- [58:48]
B
Yeah, this is really appalling. I think it is a microcosm of the Trump administration and how he rules. Like a mob boss, he looks for places where he can inflict pain and use leverage to achieve power. And this is exactly one of those situations. In 2012, the United States and Canada entered into an agreement to build this bridge to be named the Gordie Howe Bridge. Gordie Howe was a legendary hockey player who played in Detroit and was born in Ontario. Both sides loved the name and the bridge was built. The reason the bridge was necessary is that there is already a span in Detroit to Windsor called the Ambassador Bridge. It is the busiest international border crossing in North America. Tons of trucks go past there every day, and there are backups. And it costs commerce because of the delays on the bridge. So a decision was made through the two countries that a new span was necessary to alleviate the traffic from the Ambassador Bridge so that we could improve the flow of commerce between the two countries. An interesting little tidbit is that the Ambassador Bridge is privately owned. That seems insane, I know, but it's owned by a family called Maroon. Matthew Maroon is the head of the company that owns it, and they have fought to block the opening of the Gordie Howe Bridge every step of the way. It was scheduled to open earlier this year, and it was stopped. Donald Trump has said it's because we didn't get a good enough deal from Canada, and I want a better deal. Let me tell you how good this deal is. This deal is so good that the United States made Canada pay for it. It sounds like Donald Trump talking about the wall with Mexico. Canada literally paid for it over $4 billion, but they agreed to do it because the need was so great. We're too cheap. And the idea was that they would get to recoup those $4 billion through tolls. It'll take a long time to collect $4 billion worth of tolls, but that was the deal. But Trump says Nanco. In the meantime, in March, guess who made a $1 million contribution to a Trump PAC?
- [61:01]
A
The Maroons.
- [61:02]
B
Matthew Maroon. And so he is using this as a profit center for himself by delaying the opening of this bridge. It was supposed to. The ribbon was supposed to be cut about a month ago. Still hasn't been. It's still just sitting there. And now there is talk that later this month it actually will open after some renegotiation. You know what the renegotiation is? That the United States and Canada are going to split the tolls, the net tolls. So after Canada recoups its $4 billion, then we're going to split the tolls. That was the deal all along. And so all we have instead is this delay. How much did that profit or reward the Maroon family? I don't know, but I think that's what's going on. But your question, Vicki, to get back to it, is how does he have the authority to do this? Actually, he does because he is the head of the Department of Homeland Security and there's certainly security issues with regard to an international bridge. He is the head of the Department of Commerce, and this deals with commerce coming in and out of the country. And he is the head of the Department of Transportation, which is also involved in all of the construction of this bridge. So the president can hold it up. They usually don't because we've got an agreement with Canada that says, here's the deal, it was negotiated 14 years ago. And nonetheless, he's done what he does with tariffs, with treaties, with trade deals, and that is not honor American America's agreements.
- [62:21]
A
Well, at this point, my husband, who is a huge Looney Tunes fan, would be saying, what a maroon. So I'll say it for him. Our next question comes from Parkin in Ridgeway, South Carolina. Parkin writes in, and this is the question Jill mentioned. Cameras in the courtroom are needed, except obviously for grand juries. To me, since we can no longer ascribe good faith or the presumption of regularity to grand juries, I am not so sure those hearings should not be televised. Also, at a minimum, there has to be major reform. What do you think? Well, Parkin, it's a very insightful question because we have seen a lot of grand jury abuse recently. But I would lay the problems not at the feet of the grand juries, but rather at the feet of the Justice Department. And so so the reason grand jury hearings are secret is because of the law. Congress has passed a law that makes them secret, that can't be undone without a change. And personally, I would support keeping those proceedings secret. It's done for a lot of good reasons. During an investigation, you don't want the folks that you're investigating to get a heads up and get a jump start. You don't want them to destroy evidence. You don't want them to threaten witnesses. By the same token, if you're investigating someone in the case doesn't pan out, you don't want to drag someone's good name through the mud. And you don't want witnesses to be unwilling to testify or to alter their testimony because it's being publicized. So lots of really good reasons for grand jury secrecy. But to alleviate your concern, let me say this. And this is something that judges used to almost never do, but we're seeing them do it with some regularity. Even though grand jury proceedings are secret, a transcript is made. There's a court reporter in there with the grand jury, and he or she is transcribing everything. And judges are giving the defense access to those transcripts. So, for instance, that's how Jim Comey began to make out his vindictive prosecution defense in his first prosecution. And I think we'll see more and more of this. It's necessary, it's well warranted. It meets the concern that you express about the way grand jury proceedings, proceedings are being conducted without opening up these other abuses that would concern me as a prosecutor. So apologies for being in disagreement with you, but that's my honest answer to your question. Jill, our last question is for you. It comes from Jaylen in Illinois. This has, like, really been Illinois day for Sisters in Law questions. Jaylen says, looking ahead to the 2026 election, what do voters need to know about poll workers? Can they ask for my documentation? Can they compel me to show id? Can they legally interact with the voters or only observe? What's the deal?
- [65:32]
C
So that's a great question. It's important for poll workers, it's important for voters. And the answer depends on what state you're in, because at least, least right now, states control elections, not the federal government. So it varies from state to state and depends on what the state allows. But in general, you cannot ask for what the state doesn't require. So no poll worker can say, I want to see your passport. That isn't required. I don't believe in any state right now, not legally, anyway. It certainly isn't. And because you're from Illinois, Yay, Illinois for all of these good questions. It certainly you cannot be asked in Illinois for any voter id. You cannot be in any way intimidated. But poll workers, of course, can interact with you and in fact, can even help someone who needs help voting. But because poll workers are from both parties, if there is an interaction that isn't public, it has to be of. In front, front of people from both sides of the aisle. So there has to be a Republican and a Democrat and they can challenge your right to vote. That's something that you need to know. And again, if that happens, it has to be done publicly. They have to state a reason, and they have to offer you a provisional vote so that you do get to vote and then you get to resolve whatever the challenge is. The challenge challenge cannot be some ridiculous thing. I didn't like the color of your skin, which is maybe something, Joyce, that people in your state face. But it's an important position. I think that this question goes to how important it is and that you need to have all those positions filled so that things can be done. If only Republicans should show up as poll watchers, they're in control. So every district needs to have volunteers serve in that capacity from both parties.
- [67:47]
A
Well, that's all we've got time for. Thank you so much for listening to Sisters in law with Barb McQuaid, Jill Wine Banks and me, Joyce Vance. If you enjoyed the podcast, please rate the show and send it to. And be sure to follow SistersinLaw on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen so you'll never miss an episode. Join us every Saturday as we break down the biggest legal developments of the week. Then catch our companion podcast, SistersSideBar every Wednesday, where we answer your legal questions. You can shop for Sisters in Law totes and other goods goodies at Politicon and follow us on Instagram @SistersInLaw podcast. And check out the special offers in this episode. Show notes from our sponsors Hexclad, Bolen, Branch, Smalls, Deleteme, and Blueland. See you next week, Sisters in Law.
- [68:47]
C
Oh, it's me, right?
- [68:50]
A
It's you, darlin's.
- [68:55]
C
I was waiting for Joyce to do the introduction, but she already did that. Okay, end of my stupid pumpernickel.