Loading summary
Transcript104 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. Welcome back to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Jill Wine Banks, and me, Barb McQuaid. Kim's not here with us this week, but she'll be back soon and we already miss her. This week we'll be discussing Jim Comey's motions to 86 his indictment. You see what I did there?
- [00:27]
B
I love it.
- [00:28]
A
Todd Blanche's botched confirmation and President Donald Trump's latest setback to block mail in voting. But first, Jill, I gotta ask you, I hear you went to the Obama center for the first time. I'm dying to go. You brought me to its foundation a couple of years ago, but the whole thing's open. What's it like?
- [00:50]
B
Yeah, I mean, you and I saw sort of the mockup of what it was gonna be and overlooked the construction, and it's so much more amazing. It is both inspiring and depressing. I guess you could guess why it's depressing. It's depressing because it shows where we were and how far we have fallen. And every time you hear Obama's voice in the museum, part of it, it's what you can do. And every exhibit ends with, imagine your impact. It's really a truly inspiring thing. It shows a picture of Girl Scouts camping out on the White House lawn instead of the destruction that we're seeing now. It is really a beautiful campus, and it's hard to get tickets. I was lucky to have a friend who's a donor, so I was able to actually visit the museum. Now, it's so worth signing up for tickets. But I would say to anyone in Chicago, come and see the campus right now. The gardens are beautiful, the views are beautiful, and. And then I'm sure, because they've thought of every detail. When you come in the winter when you can get tickets, I think that you're going to see that they've thought of how it's going to look even in the winter. But it's beautiful right now. Do come and see it. The views from the top of the museum are spectacular. So it's just really an amazing thing how they've thought of every single detail. It's perfect. And of course, I now have an Obama center pin.
- [02:22]
A
Oh, nice. You know, I have a thing with presidential museums and libraries. I love to go. Whenever I travel, I look for a way to find one. Here in Michigan, we have two, even though we only have one president. From here, Gerald Ford has a museum in Grand Rapids and a library in Ann Arbor. So I've been to both of those, but I can't wait to get to the Obama Center. You know, it may not be for a little while because I know it's hard to get tickets, but I'm excited to see it. How about you, Joyce?
- [02:49]
C
You know, I cannot wait to get to go and see it. And Chicago is a great road trip from Birmingham. So Jill, just anytime you can score tickets, girl, you let me know and I'll be there. The Internet is still the wild west and it's full of stalkers, scammers and hackers. You know, you should protect yourself. But. But how? It's easier than you think. Here's what you do. Go to www.joindeleteme.comsisters and enter code sisters to get 20% off DeleteMe.
- [03:31]
B
DeleteMe 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 your personal data that's floating around on the Internet against you. Have you ever googled yourself and found your home address, phone number or the of a family member? It's unsettling and there's a lot worse out there. The good news is Deleteme can help.
- [03:57]
A
Deleteme does all the hard work to wipe your personal information from data broker websites and you can get an individual plan for a little more than $8 per month. Even if you're not a public figure in the Internet age, all of us are potential targets from 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 they can help keep you and your family safe too.
- [04:30]
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. That's www.joindeleteme dot com sisters codesisters. The link is in the show notes.
- [05:14]
B
There's been a lot of activity this week in the defense of James Comey's indictment for 8647. There's a motion to suppress evidence that was obtained by a warrant that may have had some seriously misleading information given to the magistrate who issued the warrant. There's a motion to dismiss because the case on its face doesn't state an actual threat. And to the extent that the there's words involved, it violates the First Amendment. And there's also one to dismiss it for vindictive and selective prosecution. And I think there's some really good evidence that's going to support that. So let's move right on. Joyce, I want to talk to you about the motion to dismiss for vindictive and selective prosecution, which I think is. Has a really incredible chance of succeeding, even though most of those kinds of motions usually fail. Do you agree with me and what do you think the strongest evidence that is in the motion? What do you think's gonna persuade the court?
- [06:24]
C
You know, I do agree with you. These are strong motions. 25 years at DOJ never saw one of these granted in any of our cases. But this administration is different and it conducts itself differently. And in this setting, here's what's so compell. DOJ indicts Jim Comey in the Eastern District of Virginia. The case gets dismissed. What do they do? They dig back and they indict a year old threat case. And the thesis of this case was that Comey, Jim Comey posed a real danger to Donald Trump and yet they waited for a year, they did nothing and then suddenly they indict him out of the blue. It just has absolutely no jury appeal. But what we're talking about here with selective inv. Predictive prosecution, that's an issue for the judge to decide pretrial. And Donald Trump has been unstinting in making out the case for Jim Comey's motion by being critical of him in public with that fabulous text message that became a post on Truth Social that he sent to Pam Bondi calling for Jim Comey's indictment. I mean, really, the proof for the success of the defense's motions in this case, it will come straight out of Donald Trump's own mouth.
- [07:44]
B
I love the 76 page appendix to the motion that lists hundreds, I didn't count them all, maybe even thousands of times that Donald Trump has dissed James Comey in negative ways. There are, and they also, in fairness, they say somewhere James Comey responded to those attacks, but it really is overwhelmingly negative from him, really showing that it is a selective prosecution and a vindictive prosecution.
- [08:15]
C
You know, Jill, there's a point we should make on selective prosecution, which is sort of this theory that Comey is treated differently from other people that are similarly situated. Jim Comey is not the only person to use the 86 sort of thing to express political distaste. People on both sides of the political equation have done that. And so the fact that Jim Comey and only Jim Comey is being singled out, especially after he went to great lengths to take his post down once there was the suggestion he could be calling for violence, and he very carefully said, I'm opposed to violence in any shape. Don't commit violence. That's why I've taken this down, even though I was making a political comment, First Amendment protected speech. So I think even on selective prosecution grounds, this motion is very likely to succeed.
- [09:06]
B
I know. I was shocked. I actually googled two things. One, I went on Amazon and put in 86, 44. 86, 46. And guess what? There's tons of merchandise for sale saying those things. One of them against Biden has blood dripping from it. But was that person indicted? No way. No way.
- [09:32]
C
So, okay, well, and here's another point that I haven't heard raised. You know, Jim Comey takes a picture of seashells in the sand. Somebody put those seashells in the sand. And you might think that maybe that person really was a threat to Donald Trump. If you believe this is a threat, there's been no effort to identify and track that person down. This was a public beach. It should have been pretty easy to do that. But I've not seen anything that suggests DOJ even made that effort. So, look, they didn't take this seriously, nor should a judge or a jury if it gets that far.
- [10:07]
B
Right. And Barb, what about you? Do you have a favorite piece of evidence of selective or vindictive prosecution that you read in these motions?
- [10:15]
A
You know, first, let's, let's just remind our listeners what those two things are and how they differ, because I think you hear people toss them out all the time as if they're synonymous and they're not. And keep in mind that Jim Comey filed these exact same motions when he was charged with perjury before Congress. And back then, I thought those defenses were unlikely to prevail. And in fact, the case got dismissed on different grounds before the judge was ever able to decide them. So as Joyce said, selective prosecution means that a person was identified for prosecution based on some improper basis. Sometimes it's race, sometimes it's political, but it's some non law enforcement objective and that other people who were similarly situated were not charged. And so, you know, in the first case, the perjury case, he said, well, I was selected. Lots of people lie before Congress and only I'm being singled out. It's really hard to find the set of comparables when it comes to false statements before Congress because every case is so different and people do get charged with that crime. So I thought he was not really going to be able to put forward that selective prosecution case there. It's a pretty high bar. Prosecutors get a lot of discretion. But here, as you folks say, and in the motion, Comey's lawyers cite something like 200,000 examples of 86, 45, 86, 46, 86, 47. To say people use this term all the time. And nobody has suggested that this meant a threat to kill the President. It meant a threat, you know, a political speech opposing that person, like we want to get rid of them, throw them out of office, vote them out. So I think for that reason, this case is very strong when it comes to selective prosecution because of all of the stuff you can find on Amazon selling, you know, shirts and hats and mugs and all kinds of things like that. So that's, I think, very strong evidence there. When it comes to vindictive prosecution, this is again, something very different. You have to show either an actual or implied animus against the person. And as you say, Jill, these 74 pages of, of statements on social media by Donald Trump talking about how much he hates Jim Comey, he's a dirty cop, we should, he should be charged all these kinds of things achieves that. But here's the part that makes it so difficult most of the time to be able to prevail on vindictive prosecution. It's not enough that the President hates me or that the cops hate me or that the prosecutor hates me. That's, that's part of it. That's a prerequisite. We've got that, I think. But the other part of it you have to show is that it, you were charged in retaliation for exercising a legal right in this case or a related case. And in the first case, I don't think Comey had that. He, he would say the, the legal right I was exercising was my general First Amendment right. But that's not the same case or a related case this time. However, what he says is because I won that first case, they went after me that in that first case and I won, I filed a motion to dismiss and I got dismissed. And only then did they scramble to put together this many months old case. This happened in May of 2025. He got indicted in the fall for something different. It wasn't until after that case got dismissed that all of a sudden, they charged me for something that happened over a year ago. If I'm such a dangerous threat to the President, how come they're waiting a year to charge me? And what he says is the vindictive part, the retaliation for exercising a legal right was his motion to dismiss his prior case. And it's the, oh, okay, wise guy, you got that? Disp. Dismissed. Now we're going to come after you for something else. So I think this time that history gives him a very strong leg to stand on for vindictive prosecution. So I think he could prevail on both of those legal theories as well as the other one, which is this just isn't a true threat. And so therefore, it doesn't even satisfy enough to get past a jury and ought to be dismissed on that basis.
- [14:21]
B
So let's quickly talk about not being a true threat. Joyce, what do you think about that motion? Right.
- [14:27]
C
This was the first of three motions that Comey's lawyers filed. And the two charges in the indictment against Jim Comey, they both hinge on the government being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the threat Comey made is a true threat, an actual threat. You know, normally that's the kind of question that's left up to a jury, but Comey's lawyers spend 40 pages arguing from case law that as a matter of law, the judge should rule that the allegations in the indictment don't rise to the level of being a true threat. It's a combination of the fact that this is political speech protected by the First Amendment and that no reasonable person, no reasonable juror could find that this is an actual threat of violence. It's so clearly hyperbole. This is a very interesting motion, and I'm looking forward to seeing what the court does with it. It's quite novel.
- [15:26]
B
Absolutely. And, Barb, let's talk about the third motion this week. It's really amazing what's happening. And analyze the evidence that was obtained, or that motion is seeking to bar use of any evidence obtained from a warrant in which, as our MIS and disinformation expert, you can talk about what the FBI agents said in an affidavit that was misleading to the judge who granted the subpoena.
- [15:54]
A
Yeah. So he's asking for what's called a Franks hearing. It comes from a case called Franks v. Delaware, which says that if you can make out a showing that an agent or the affiant, whoever it was, who swore out the affidavit in support of the search warrant, either intentionally or recklessly falsified information to establish probable cause, then the evidence should be suppressed. What you do is you. I think they call it blue line. You, like, cross out the false or misleading information, and you see if what's left, if there's still enough probable cause, then the search material can come in. And if not, then you say, well, the search warrant never would have been awarded in the first place. And they identify a number of statements that really strike me as very misleading. Now, one of the things, I think they overstate the law just a little bit here, and they start throwing in a lot of omissions.
- [16:46]
B
And.
- [16:47]
A
And I think this is a common misunderstanding that, you know, the Brady Rule, which is that you have to disclose any information that is material and exonerating to the defense has to be produced. That's a trial, Right. Same with Giglio Material, that is impeachment information about a witness, a reason maybe this witness shouldn't be believed. And they come up with this, where they've got this person, one who is some social acquaintance of the Comeys, James Comey and his wife. And they talked to her, and she said something like, oh, yeah, I bet. I bet he knew, you know, based on his work as a mob prosecutor, he probably knew that 86 meant to kill in mob parlance. They talk a little bit about her background. You know, actually, I don't know if it's a she. They. Their background that this is a person who had lost their job and who had been in rehabilitation. And that was not mentioned in the affidavit, although DOJ policy requires the disclosure of these kinds of things in an affidavit. As a matter of good policy and as a matter of good ethics, the law does not require it. That is legally a trial. Right, but two things about that. One is there are some things that legally should have been included, and I'll talk about those in a second. But the other is, even if these things were not legally required, DOJ policy does require them. And I think they are demonstrating to the world that DOJ is not following its own policy in this case against Jim Comey. This is another shame on Todd Blanche. And this also shows that they are not operating on the up and up, and I think that's really important. They also allege this as an effort to get under the hood and see the grand jury material and say this is some evidence of misconduct, a crime before the grand jury, and we want to see what's in the grand jury materials. So I think it's relevant for that purpose. Although not legally required. Now, here, there is some things, though, that are legally required because if you deliberately mislead the court such that they are left with a false impression, that would be grounds for this Franks hearing and to delete those kinds of things. And there are a number of them. One is their big theory is that because Comey was a mob prosecutor at one point in his career, he must know that the term 86 means to kill, assassinate an individual. What's interesting is they. They ask Sammy the Bull Gravano who's. Who doesn't know Comey, who doesn't know anything about Comey. And they ask him. Even he at first says, I don't know. You know, you ought to ask John Gleason. He's a former prosecutor. He's super smart. Like, I guess so. I guess I've heard that before. And they, they quote that to say. To say that. But then they did a search in their own files of all these mob cases that the FBI has investigated over the decades, and they searched for the term 86 to see if it came up, and it didn't. And so when they say this is a mob term, if, if they know that it's not, and they did all of this searching, as I said, you know, this omission thing isn't usually relevant. But when it misleads the court like this, and to say this is a term that the mob uses for assassinations and their own research concluded that it didn't, that's kind of important. Same thing when they, Jim Comey actually did ask John Gleason, this former mob prosecutor who later became a judge and is now retired, and you know what he said? He said, when I was prosecuting mob cases in the 80s and 90s, I listened to thousands of hours of wiretaps and bugs, and you know what I never heard? I never heard 86, it would be stupid. They wouldn't use the term 86 because people know what 86 means. If you said, I'm going to go 86 that guy, people would say, oh, no, they're going to kill him. Instead, they used real code. So that if they said, you know, I'm going to do this piece of work, or, you know, they had certain kinds of phrases they would use that might mean to kill somebody. That was less obvious. So I think that one might be problematic getting back to that person. One, this person immediately, when asked, immediately said, oh, yeah, 86 means threatened. Jim Comey knows that 86 means threatened to kill. They didn't say it immediately. What they Actually said in the interview is my first thought was that it's when you say a menu item is out and we're gonna take it off the menu. And it was only after watching a television interview with Rudy Giuliani, who said, I think 86 means, you know, in mob speak, it means assassination. And she said, after I heard that a few days later, then I realized, oh, yeah, it could mean that as well. And so they said she immediately recognized it as something that Comey would say as a threat, and that just isn't true. So I think those kind of things are misrepresentations. So I think those are also bad. Two other things they put in there is they made it appear that Comey's lawyer and his wife had done some things that were suspicious, that were trying to sort of COVID up the crime for Comey, which, in fact, were much more innocuous than what they portray. For example, they say they asked his lawyer to for the photo, and the lawyer produced the photo. Now he produced a screenshot of it, but they never asked for the original. They just said they wanted the photo and the agent put in her affidavit. Based on my training and experience, this is a technique that is sometimes used to conceal metadata that might reveal the time, the date, and the location that the photo was taken. What? You know, like, there's no suggestion that that's what he did. There's no suggestion that he was asked for the original photo and substituted this one. There's no suggestion that there's any claim regarding the time, place, or location of the photo that would anyway be suspicious or incriminating. I mean, he posted the thing. That's all that matters. So I thought that was a little shady. And then they also said that they asked Mrs. Comey, Patrice Comey, Jim Comey's wife, and she had been Googling. She had done a Google search about this. And they say that she did do a Google search that revealed that 86 could have this mob connotation. But in fact, what she said is she did too, when the first time she looked at it, she concluded that it's this menu term. And he posts the thing, and then some neighbor yells out, like, hey, Comey just posted a threat. She Googles it again, and she digs a little deeper, and she sees the secondary term, that it could mean a threat. She tells him that, and he takes it down. And in the interview, she said both of these things, but in the affidavit, they only report the one about the threat. And so it suggests that she did this research and she told him what it meant and he posted it anyway, which just isn't true. And so it really feels like, you know, Joyce, I'm sure, and Jill, you too, you've been through this, where you're reviewing affidavits that agents have put forward, and you work really hard to make everything as scrupulously true so that you can get probable cause, so that you're being honorable, so as an officer of the court, you're not making misrepresentations.
- [23:36]
C
And.
- [23:36]
A
And so you can win this case
- [23:37]
C
and get affirmed on appeal, for that matter. Right.
- [23:39]
A
Like you're not doing yourself any favors to get the evidence. Although let me just raise this. If your goal, Joyce, is to get affirmed on appeal and to have a solid prosecution and a conviction at trial, then you do all of these things. But what if you have a different goal? What if your only goal is to humiliate and embarrass and put Jim Comey through the wringer? Even if you know these, all you care about is getting an indictment so that he has to hire a defense attorney and you can smear his good name. If that's your goal, then maybe you don't care about these other important things.
- [24:12]
C
Well, Professor McQuaid, I would say that that sounds like a rhetorical question.
- [24:17]
B
Absolutely. And I just want to say, as a former organized crime prosecutor, I never heard the term 86, but as a Watergate prosecutor, I heard one of the top aides to the President on a tape say, deep six that file. It's too incriminating. It was information from Howard Hunt's White House safe. And John Dean was ordered to deep Six it. And he said, what does that mean? And he was told, I want you to throw it over the bridge on your drive home to Virginia, Deep Six it into the river so that nobody can see it. That's where I heard deep Six. And I don't think that there's any evidence here that James Comey meant anything more than a joke, a humor political speech. This is a case that really deserves to be eliminated or 86th.
- [25:23]
A
There are things in life that you don't want to be transparent, like your clothes or your search history. That's a good one, huh? When it comes to your wireless bill, transparency is everything. That's why Mint Mobile's wireless plans have no gimmicks and no gotchas. Just high speed data and reliable coverage on the T Mobile 5G network. And right now, all plans are $15 per month, even unlimited.
- [25:51]
C
Mint Mobile took what's wrong with wireless? And made it right with Premium Wireless for 15 bucks a month. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network, and you can bring your current phone and your number. Choose from 3, 6 or 12 month plans and say goodbye to a monthly bill.
- [26:14]
B
It's the best deal out there. You can ditch overpriced wireless with Mint Mobile. It's easy. Sign up online and get three months of premium wireless service for $15 a month. The website is simple to navigate and you can get down to business in no time. Get your kids and other family members using it too. Like you, they have more important things to spend their money on.
- [26:37]
A
To get your new wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month, go to mintmobile.com sisters that's mintmobile.com sisters cut your wireless bill to $15 a month at mintmobile.com sisters that's it. There's no catch and the link is in the show Notes upfront payment of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for 12 months. Plan required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when the network is busy. Includes up to 20 gigabytes hotspot capable device required Availability, speed and coverage varies. See mintmobile.com.
- [27:20]
B
Summer is here and it's a great time for entertaining, but you're going to 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, do what I just did. Give them to Goodwill and get 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.
- [28:06]
C
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 stay cool handles, the heat control is unmatched. The searing, it's 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 nice summer night.
- [28:58]
A
Hexaclad completely changed the way we cook. Once you make the switch, confidence in the kitchen comes naturally. I could use that. And now that we've gotten a taste of them, all my guests want a set. Did I get a taste of my guests? I digress. 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 is truly the last set of pans you'll ever need.
- [29:25]
B
It's no surprise that hexclad has over 1 million customers and over 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 also in our show notes.
- [30:15]
C
Well, here we are. It's Saturday morning. Todd Blanche was supposed to be the Senate confirmed Attorney General of the United States by now or close. Getting on track to get there because on Thursday he was supposed to have his vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the vote that would have sent his nomination to the floor if it had been successful. But as we all know by now, that did not happen. So let's start by talking about the environment on Capitol Hill. Why did Blanche not get a vote? Jill Barb, what was your sense of what we saw happen this past week?
- [30:52]
B
I think we saw facts starting to matter and that we have some Republican senators who are ready to say this is not a person who's qualified. And we have had many episodes of Sisters in Law discuss why he's not qualified. So it's not necessary to repeat it. But here you have a situation that's made worse today, which is the President issuing statements on truth social. And at a Cabinet meeting, he actually was like defending Blanche in ways first he says, I'm going to call off the thing until you two senators are out of the Senate because you're not running for reelection. And then he went, no, we're going to try and push through because this man should be the Attorney General. I think we're in a seriously weird political situation with an unqualified candidate.
- [31:48]
C
Weird is the best characterization I've heard. I mean, we've got two senators, Republicans, who aren't coming back to the Senate because of Donald Trump, both on the committee. Thom Tillis, who is not a lawyer, John Cornyn, who is. And they balk, at least initially, for different reasons. Tillis seemed to want. Want to see Blanche meet with the Epstein survivors, and he did that after Tillis made that demand. It was a very perfunctory check the box meeting. The survivors came out and complained about it, but it looked like Tillis might have been mollified. Cornyn's objection seemed a little bit more meatier. He was really concerned about the slush fund and the immunity deal that Trump got in the Florida case where he had sued the irs. Barb, what was your ass? What did you think was the real reason this vote Thursday morning didn't come off?
- [32:41]
A
Yeah, I think there's a couple things going on, but I think you're right. It's about. About Cornyn. And what they want is actually quite modest. And it's amazing to me that Trump won't roll it back. And it appears, based on some social media posts, that it's not Blanche, it's Trump who doesn't wanna walk back this deal. So remember the deal, which was a purported settlement of Trump's totally bogus claim that he's entitled to 10 billion do billion for the leak of his tax returns, that was wrong. A person was criminally prosecuted for that. But the idea that he suffered harm to his reputation in the amount of $10 billion, I mean, this is what people in the defamation field would refer to as somebody who is judgment proof. Right? I mean, the guy couldn't have a worse reputation. He said, you know, cheated on his wives, and he's been bankrupt umpteen times and all that. And yet, you know, the disclosure of his tax returns has harmed his reputation. But remember, there are two aspects to it. One was what has been referred to as the slush fund, which is a compensation fund for people who claim to have been victimized by Trump's or by President Biden's Department of Justice. And when asked, are you talking about the people who assaulted police officers at the U.S. capitol? The answer is yes. Those Are the people that he's talking about that he wants to be able to compensate? Reward.
- [34:03]
C
I think the word we're looking for is he wants to reward his supporters,
- [34:07]
A
reward his supporters, and also advance the false narrative that he won the 2020 election. And these were just great patriots who are seeking to undo some grave injustice. And so there's that part of it. And just on Friday, Trump posted online that these, you know, these poor victims deserve to be compensated. So he is not backing down from that, even though Blanche said he would. Cornyn wanted it in writing, and they've refused. They won't put it right because they don't want to give it up. The second part of this, which in my opinion is maybe even more egregious, is this absolute gift to Donald Trump that says, we are going to immunize you from any audits or civil claims against you for any tax return you have filed up until this point forever. And that includes you, Donald Trump, your two adult sons and your businesses, and any associated individuals. There are experts who opine that the value of Trump's unpaid taxes is $100 million, plus interest and penalties. This is taxpayer money that he's just getting as a gift, which is what I think he really wants. And so, again, what Cornyn is asking for is a very modest request I want you to put in writing. He said that we're going to eliminate this idea of associated individuals. I don't know who that is. Trump Sons, his business. Oh, I'm okay with that. What? I'm okay with that. I want to make it clear that it's only for past tax returns and nothing in the future. And I want to make it clear it pertains only to the IRS and not any other agency, and they won't even put that in writing. I mean, I think the whole thing stinks, but all they want is that, and they won't do it. And so, to me, this is Trump. You know, this is what Trump. You know, part of the reason Blanche is in the job in the first place is to give Trump this windfall and to reward his supporters and a couple members of Congress. Now, they're lame ducks. Shame on the other member senators who aren't standing up to him. But at least we've got these two who are asking for these very modest things. And I think it really shows Trump's true colors that he won't give it.
- [36:17]
C
Yeah, I mean, I couldn't agree with you more. You know, Trump absolutely has. Has persistently declined to talk about the settlement agreement. That, in essence, immunizes him not just from repaying back taxes, but at least as I read it, from any investigation, any sort of hint of criminal prosecution. Because, remember, paying taxes, that's not a presidential act. That's a personal one, a private one. And I think that's the part of this that's important to Trump. But what I thought was just really disgusting is the only word that I can put to it, was Thom Tillis tweeting about this and sort of vouching for Todd Blanche. Like, we had all these conversations with Todd Blanche, but some bad advisor to Donald Trump was the one who kept us from pulling off this meaningful agreement. And you're just sitting there thinking, oh, Senator Tillis, you know, you tried so hard to show a little bit of spine here, and now you're ruining it. And that's the reality here. This is an embarrassment, I think, for Republicans who are on this committee. Will Blanche ever get a vote? You know, who knows? I mean, Barb Trump talked about withdrawing Blanche's name from consideration until he came back Friday morning and seemed to suggest that he would push it. Let's say that Blanche doesn't get a confirmation hearing and he sticks around as the actor. Would he be able to do that? Could he stay in place and what would that signal?
- [37:51]
A
He can, and I'm happy to answer that. But, Jill, did you want to add one point about what we were just talking about?
- [37:56]
B
Oh, it goes back to your comments about the slush fund, which is that 1 in 16 of those who would get money have been convicted of new crimes. So you're talking about people who have already been convicted of crimes getting pardoned and then getting money and actually committing more crimes. So it's just. It's an offensive bad thing.
- [38:20]
A
They're all just good martyrs and patriots. Jill, I don't know why you don't understand that.
- [38:26]
B
I don't understand.
- [38:26]
A
Well, back to Joyce's question about what
- [38:28]
C
happened to Tarb acting. Todd Blanche forever.
- [38:31]
A
Yeah, Yeah, I think so. And you and I have discussed this before Joyce. He could. I think so. I think that under the succession rules that say if you have been Senate confirmed for a different position, you can serve as an acting. And so I think because he was confirmed as Deputy Attorney General, you know, last year, I think he can continue to serve. And so it could be that all we have is an acting. It could be that he nominates somebody
- [38:59]
C
else later on down the road.
- [39:01]
A
But, you know, there have been some, like, well, so what? He's acting. That's. That's as good as anything. I think it's not. I think that when you are an acting official, it essentially stamps you as a temporary person, as a placeholder. And I think within your organization, you are not seen as the person who has the authority to lead. I think that people inside can think of you as a political tourist and they're just gonna wait you out. We're gonna, you know, oh, Blanche is in charge. He says he wants to do some big new initiative. Yeah, I'm not, you know, let's slow walk it. He'll be gone in six months. We don't really have to do this. I also think it can be difficult when you're going head to head with other agency heads. So, you know, imagine a cabinet situation where the Attorney General wants one thing and the Secretary of Defense wants something else. Secretary of War Pete Hagseth. And you know, one is Senate confirmed and another is not. There is just more heft, more political clout for the person who has that Senate confirmation. They will not be easily dismissed. And so I think it does matter, not legally, but very much politically in terms of leadership within your organization and with regard to other cabinet level agencies.
- [40:15]
C
Yeah, I mean, it really does make sense. And do you feel like if Blanche went up for a vote and wasn't confirmed, would that hamper his status even more?
- [40:26]
A
Oh, yeah, I think so. If he went up, he got rejected and then Trump wanted to keep him on his acting. Oh, yeah, I think even less so.
- [40:34]
B
Right.
- [40:34]
A
Because now I think the public also lacks confidence in him if he couldn't even get confirmed by the Republican led Senate. I think so. So I think a reject. I think they'd rather withdraw him from consideration than put him up and see him get rejected. So I think the reason he didn't get a vote is, you know, not because they, they were busy that day. It's because he was gonna lose if he, you know, if they put the vote up on Thursday, he was gonna lose that vote. And I think they realized that that's very damaging politically.
- [41:06]
C
So, Jill, with that vote off the table, Blanche had another duty that he had to perform on Thursday. Judge Emmett Sullivan had ordered him to turn over the unredacted versions of certain documents from the Epstein files, along with proof that the reasons the government gave for redacting them in the first place complied with the Epstein Transparency Files Act. This is in the case that Katie Fang had filed against Todd Blanche. You know, there had been speculation that the government might not turn those documents over. Katie and I were on Substack live together that morning. And we felt pretty certain that DOJ would come forward with something. It would be such a flagrant violation of the court order not to. And in fact, they did. DOJ turned stuff over. What do you make of the judge's very unusual request of Blanche and of what the government in fact gave him to take a look at.
- [42:00]
B
So first let's point out that with 12 minutes to spare, because there was a 3 o' clock deadline and at 2:28 the document was filed in compliance. And it's an interesting filing. It basically says that of the 10 documents that you have requested, an explanation for almost everybody that is redacted is a victim, is represented by a lawyer who has certified that this is a victim and they want them treated as a victim. Two are law enforcement personnel and one is an AUSA. Now, I'm not exactly sure why law enforcement and AUSAs need to be protected and redacted, but they did offer at least some explanation. This is obviously proof that courts no longer have any confidence in the Department of Justice. The reason for this is, is that they can't trust anything. The presumption of regularity, which normally goes, which all of us were lucky enough to have had when we went to court, that there was an assumption that we were telling the truth and that we would not mislead the court. We wouldn't have by omission or by deliberate misstatement. But here we've had so many examples of the government not to doing that that courts now are saying, we need you to prove what you're saying. And now we'll have to see because of course we don't see what the judge saw. It was not redacted in the document that was handed hand delivered to the judge. He will have to look at it and he will have to determine whether he believes that the names that were left off either in the two an email that says to and from and the recipient and the sender are redacted. He'll have to determine whether in fact those are actually victims and whether or not there is a reason to redact the name of law enforcement personnel or the ausa. And that's what we'll have to wait for is how he determines it. But it is a sad state of affairs that this was even necessary. And it was necessary.
- [44:16]
C
You know, Blanche had a bad week, but I can't say he didn't deserve it on all fronts. I think he sort of, this was the find out part for him. But none of this is certain. As you say, we don't know what the judge will decide. After having seen this, we don't know if the Senate might resuscitate his nomination. So stay tuned, y'.
- [44:35]
B
All.
- [44:45]
A
Do you remember what it was like to wake up with no stiffness or aches and pains after an active day? Me either.
- [44:51]
C
No, definitely not.
- [44:55]
A
Ancient history. As we get older, we all get a little less flexible, a little less agile, a little more prone to injury, but a little more witty. Don't we all? That doesn't mean, however, that we have to like it. And that's why we are obsessed with the LifePro Waver vibration plate. At first we thought they were a little goofy and we weren't sure it would be effective for recovery, but the idea of lying on it for massage after exercising was too hard to resist. Now we're all in.
- [45:27]
B
You know, it's not just for a recovery after working out. It's for improving your balance. That's what my research showed. And balance is so crucial as you age, because otherwise you fall. And that can be really serious. And these days, bad posture and muscle tightness are almost universal. We need to move. And with the LifePro waver, your whole body is vibrating, so your muscles are constantly forced to activate and contract without needing to think about it. That movement supports blood flow and helps with recovery, muscle activation, lymphatic drainage, soreness and stiffness. It really feels great. After a session, you feel much looser and relaxed, and getting up the next day is so much easier. It's the perfect way to get you moving in the mornings. And I feel so much more mobile, energized and recovered when I use it after exercise.
- [46:22]
A
That's why pro athletes and sports teams have been relying on vibration therapy for years to get them ready to go day after day. Studies have shown that vibration therapy consistently helps reduce soreness up to 72 hours after workouts. And the best part is that you can make the LifePro waver as intense as you want. Go all out with squats, calf raises, stretches, and the resistance bands. Or if you don't quite feel up to it, you can always just stand on it, sit on it, or use it at your desk and still enjoy its effects. I saw a great video of Jill Wine Banks using her vibration plates that I hope one day she will share with all of us.
- [47:02]
C
So, look, I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on television, but I do like how using the vibration plate makes me feel. I've been standing on it in the morning, sort of doing what Jill describes just to wake up drinking my coffee, reading a little bit of news on my phone and getting that vibration in. And, you know, a lot of the cheaper vibration plates online, they look sort of flimsy or a little bit gimmicky. But with LifePro, the waver is stable, powerful and premium. And some of the higher settings, they're crazy. I've been slowly edging up. I've made it up to about a seven. And it really does get you going. It's no surprise that LifePro is America's number one vibration plate brand and that it has over 2.5 million users. The company even offers a lifetime warranty and risk free 30 day returns. So, you know, they stand behind their products. And for a limited time, our listeners can get $20 off the waiver vibration plate, plus free shipping with code sistersifeprofitness.com that's lifeprofitness.com and use code sisters for $20 off. After you purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and let them know we sent you. And also send us pictures. Maybe if you send pictures, Jill will share hers. The link is in the show notes. I'm totally in love with mine, by the way. No kidding. I have a whole little routine I got off of Instagram. I'm very sold on it.
- [48:37]
B
Oh, send that to me.
- [48:38]
C
I will.
- [48:49]
A
Well, your balance will be in the mail. Or will they? For some, the answer may be no if President Donald Trump gets his way. He's trying to enforce an executive order to limit mail in voting, but courts keep getting in the way. First, Joyce, can you tell us about the executive order that Trump has been unable to enforce so far? I mean, what would it do? How would it work? What does he want to see?
- [49:14]
C
So this is the executive order we've talked about a lot. It's executive order number 14, 399.
- [49:21]
A
And look at Jaylah showing off with the number. Nice.
- [49:24]
C
You know, every once in a while, the girl still has it, right. It's the former appellate lawyer in me wanting to hook it to the actual document. But it matters here because the title of that executive order, it's really a piece of work. It's called Ensuring Citizenship, Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections. And the conceit behind the executive order is that the federal government has some role to play in administering our elections, which is absolutely not true. The Constitution preserves all of that power to the states, and Trump is trying to claim more power. That's the through line here. So there are three provisions in the executive order that are relevant for purposes of the appeal that's underway. Section 2A is Trump's instruction to federal agencies to consider whether to and how to create lists of voting age eligible citizens in each state and then to send those lists of to the state. And that's a big deal, right? That's, in essence, the federal government telling the states who can vote. Now, in their argument, some of the states, including my state, Alabama, that have sort of picked up Trump's mantle and have also filed a motion in the Supreme Court, they're arguing, well, it's up to the state to decide whether or not to use them. But of course, Trump is trying to interdict that by imposing restrictions on the Postal Service. And the punchline to all of this, this is, we don't know exactly what it's going to look like until right before the elections are upon us. Because the Trump administration, the lawyers behind this, they're not stupid. They understand if they do the bad thing too far in advance of the election, the lawyers will go into court and the courts will stop it. So the bad thing, that won't happen until right when we are on top of the election. That's why we need to know what's in the executive order and what the potential is. So that's the first provision. Then there's section 2B. It directs the attorney general to prioritize investigation and prosecution of state and local officials or anyone else involved in administering elections. People that issue federal ballots in elections. In other words, if you're an election worker and if the administration doesn't like someone that you issue a ballot to, they're going to prosecute you. And we've just spent some time talking about Jim Comey and how it's possible to engage in a baseless, meritless prosecution. This is clearly an effort to intimidate election workers. Finally, there's section 3B. That's the direction to the Postal Service to engage in rulemaking on potential reforms that are designed to, quote, in Donald Trump's words, strengthen the security of mail in voting. But that's not at all what it's designed to do. It's actually designed to give the Postal Service control of who puts ballots in the mail, who gets ballots. And so, to Barb's point, this could hamper traditional mail in voting. It could hamper absentee voting, where those ballots are sent in the mail. There's no end to the mischief that can be done. And it's not like this is happening on a clean slate with a president who's shown a long term interest in protecting elections and people's rights to vote. This is a president who's wanting to make sure that ballots that he disagrees with don't get counted. So the context provides the substance to this executive order that explains how truly dangerous it is. Yeah.
- [53:04]
A
And you got to keep in mind, there has just never been any evidence that noncitizens are voting in any numbers other than onesies or twosies. And they get caught and they get prosecuted. There is no evidence there's been fraud that has changed the outcome of any election. William Barr resigned over it because he refused to go along with Trump's false claims that there was fraud in the 2020 presidential election. And so the idea that they're putting up these obstacles is based on a pretext. And you ask yourselves, well, why would he want to stop mail in voting? And the answer, I think, is twofold. One Is it is 1 in 4 Democrats and 1 in 5 Republicans vote by mail. So if you stop vote by mail, you are going to disparately impact Democratic voters. And so maybe you knock out some people who would otherwise be voting for your opponent. But I also think it gives Trump something to point to by creating this suspicion around mail in voting that there is fraud. And so that if he ever loses an election, he has already laid the groundwork like, well, you see, it was all, all fraud because they allow this mail in voting. So we've seen some states file lawsuits against the Trump administration for that executive order. They've all won because they are saying that, number one, the Justice Department is requesting voting rules, including a lot of information that has nothing to do with voting, like dates of birth and driver's license numbers and other kinds of things that concern them, that they're building some kind of a database that they're not entitled to. But also this idea that it's the states that administer elections and there's no reason for the federal government to have this information and that they're going to use it in an unlawful way to direct the postal service not to send a ballot to people that they don't like. So we just saw, you know, a federal court in Massachusetts rule once again in favor of the plaintiffs and against Trump and Jill. Now we see Trump trying to appeal to a higher court directly to the Supreme Court. Tell us what you think about that.
- [55:17]
B
Well, of course, none of us trust the Supreme Court. We can't predict adequately what might happen. But, yes, a judge in Boston said, I'm not going to allow the enforcement of this executive order until we have full litigation of it. A judge in Washington said, and it's too early to put an injunction on this because the rules haven't been implemented, so we can't assume that they're going to be illegal. The case in Massachusetts went to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the ban on enforcement. So that's the one that he's taking to the Supreme Court saying, oh, you have to let me do this, because otherwise we're going to have a horrible time. And. And the arguments made seem to me. I'm trying to think of a nice word, I guess, frivolous at best. Anybody want to submit a.
- [56:13]
A
Frivolous is a good word.
- [56:14]
C
Frivolous is nice.
- [56:15]
B
Yeah, Frivolous. It's sort of interesting because you have. Let me just read you some of what they've said. So the Solicitor General for the US John Sauer, says, well, Trump's order is just general policy guidance. It doesn't directly dictate that the states have to run the elections in any certain way, which is, of course, exactly not true. The injunction is indefensible because the agencies are still deliberating over how this goes to this timelinessness, how to implement the order. Yet the district court preemptively decided that whatever the agencies may choose to do will necessarily be unlawful. And I just want to point out that the answer to this motion is not due until August 3rd. So think about this in terms of what would be necessary and how ridiculous this is. It's less than three months before the actual election day, and obviously even less before early voting begins. So logistically, how would it be possible for rules to be put in place for a list to be created, sent to the states? And there's a lot of details that we don't have to mention, but things like how the envelope has to have a tracking number on it and what it has to look like and what the Post office is supposed to do. So to me, this is, you know, ultimately, it's ridiculous, it's difficult. You know, SCOTUS is unpredictable, as Kim, if she were here, would certainly be saying. But they might actually say, go along with this Washington judge's idea that it's too early and say, well, we can't decide it, and that would create complete chaos. I think it would be something that could seriously interfere with our election, which is, of course, in my view, exactly what the administration is trying to do. Because there's no legitimate reason, as you said, Barb, there's just almost no, no evidence of foreigners of Non citizens voting or a fraud in any election, despite the following, that this happened right after his speech in which he went into election fraud claims without any evidence that there is election fraud.
- [58:35]
A
Yeah, I, you know, I challenge any of our listeners or invite any of our listeners. If you have any doubts about the integrity of our elections, go work as a poll worker. Poll workers will tell you that the system has so many checks, so many comparisons. You've got to compare the signature, you've got to compare the barcode, that there's just no way for there to be any sort of widespread fraud. You know, once in a while, maybe there's a human error, but the system is designed to prevent any kind of impropriety. And in fact, when Donald Trump filed his lawsuits, what was it? He. He lost 61 out of 62 lawsuits. And the one that he won was on some procedural basis, not anything substantive. It's because there's no fraud out there. And, you know, if there's evidence of it, bring it on. And, you know, we want our elections to be fair and accurate, of course, but he's really just undermining our democracy in our elections by making this stuff up.
- [59:33]
C
You know, there's a really good example that surfaced this week, and it proves your point, Barb, about when fraud occurs, it gets captured. What happened was there was a glitch in the system in New Jersey where people who weren't eligible to register were being registered using online forms. Not intentional on their part. It appeared to them that they were eligible. They took advantage of that. Some of them even voted. And you know what happened? New Jersey caught it. Those votes did not influence the outcome of the election. And Mickey Sherrill, the new governor, made that public this week in an exercise in transparency, even though the problem happen and was fixed a couple of years ago. So, look, we're human. Things do happen. But the reality is that when errors happen, they get caught, they get fixed, and they do not impact the outcome of elections. For Donald Trump to pretend otherwise is just shameful because it's clearly an effort to make sure we have less confidence in our elections, when, in fact, these rare exceptions prove the rule that we do conduct free and fair elections.
- [60:49]
B
Now that summer is here, we're all more active and spending more time outdoors, which means we need our outfits to meet the demands of the moment. But every year, it seems like it's harder to find shapewear and foundational garments that don't shave, stab, or suffocate you. You, comfort, style and support are a must. And the last thing you want to do is keep readjusting your fit when you have things to do and places to go. Luckily, we found options that work with your body and fit perfectly in all the right places from our favorite independent female founded brand called HoneyLove. Their founder Betsy leads a team of women who bring their talent and experience to design every product with your body and needs in mind and the results are incredible.
- [61:36]
C
With other brands it seems like there's always something poking you or something that needs adjusting. If you didn't know better, you'd think that the only way to get shape and support is with sharpened wires and couch sized padding. I bet JD Vance would love that. Luckily you don't have to put up with it. You can look fashionable and get form and function without all of that stuff. Right now we can't get enough of honeylove's cloud embrace. It's soft, breathable and incredibly comfortable, but still supportive enough to replace your old underwires. I've even been wearing it in my barre class and it's still comfortable. It feels so great to wear that from the moment you put it on. You won't think about it again all day.
- [62:17]
B
Even if you're a longtime Honey Love fan like us, they are always releasing exciting new pieces you'll want to add to your collection and I love how everything stays in place and moves with your you. Recently they launched the new Crossover Contour Bra which features their best selling wireless crossover design with a beautiful contoured shape and built in molded light foam pads for when you start to need extra structure or support. It's not about changing your body, it's about supporting it in a way that matches the occasion and actually feels good. And boy does it feel comfortable. And honeylove delivers at every stage.
- [62:54]
A
Honeylove has so many other things to offer. They've built a full line of tanks, bodysuits, shapewear and foundational items featuring supportive structure, smoothing fabrics and premium finishes made for any occasion. As you get more experience, comfort isn't a luxury, it's a requirement. You need to check them out. Treat yourself to the most advanced undergarments and shapewear on the market. Use our exclusive link to save 20% off honeylove@honeylove.com that's honeylove.com sisters. After you check out, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you experience the new standard in comfort and support with Honey Love. The link is in the show Notes. Well, now comes the part of the show that's our absolute favorite, the part where we answer your questions. If you have a question, please email us@sistersinlawoliticon.com or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. If we don't get to your question during the show, we'll try to answer it during our new show, Sisters Sidebar. Every Wednesday. Our first question comes to us from Jerry in Fairbanks, Alaska, and Jerry asks, since Trump's been using Truth Social to make official announcements such as firing Bondi, is it legal for him to now try to restrict early access to those who pay for it? Jill, what do you think about that question?
- [64:33]
B
I was very happy about that question. It's not clear because of course, it hasn't happened, so there's no actual ruling on it. But I would predict, based on the decision of a friend in law school classmate Judge Naomi Rhys Buchwald, that the answer is he can't do that because he is using his social media as a official communications channel. And she ruled in another case that you could not bar people from making comments in it. You can mute them. You know, you don't have to listen to people who you don't like. You can mute them, but you can't bar them from your site and you can't stop them from making comments. You just don't have to listen to them. So I think her logic was extremely on point and would lead to me saying, yeah, you can't also say you can only have access if you pay for it. So I think that that would be an abuse of his powers.
- [65:33]
A
All right, our next question comes to us from Jim, who asks, how do the sisters feel about Jack Smith for the office of Attorney General in the next administration? Joyce, what do you think?
- [65:44]
C
I'll speak for this sister, and maybe y' all will weigh in, too. Look, I, I venerate Jack Smith's service. You know, he was a great public servant and did a great job. My feeling about the next Attorney General is it should be someone with very high level experience in the Justice Department. And sometimes we conflate all prosecutors with all levels of experience. But what we really need, I mean, I think the dream, frankly, would be a retread. It would be someone who has previously served as Attorney General or as the Deputy Attorney General, Attorney General. And would come in because DOJ is going to need a real boost to be revitalized in the next Democratic administration. And so not naming any names, but Barbs and my former boss, Eric Holder would certainly be a breath of fresh air if he came back someone who knows how things should run. And by the same token, if we get to the point, beyond a caretaker Attorney general, I think it will be important to have someone who's not perceived as having a political bias so they can restore confidence in the Justice Department. But at the same time, it has to be someone who's unafraid to do the right thing. And a real issue I think, that Democrats have frequently had in the past is they negotiate with themselves. Right? We can't actually do everything that we want to do because people might criticize us. Well, guess what, folks? They're going to criticize you no matter what you do. So why not just do the right thing? And that means a strong, qualified attorney general who can restore doj, who can revitalize the mission. And look, I think the underlying question here is do Donald Trump and other people in his administration get prosecuted? And the answer to that question has to be if they violated the law, if there are reasons to investigate, they will be investigated. If there's evidence, they will be prosecuted. They won't be targeted. No one will go after them for political reasons. There won't be a revenge docket. But people who break the law must be held accountable. The next attorney general has to be able to do that and has to be able to explain to the American people what she's doing.
- [68:07]
A
I like your pronoun.
- [68:10]
C
You're sort of my candidate, McQuaid.
- [68:14]
B
That'd be a good. Either of you would be good ones. And I agree with your second point, Joyce, that it has to be somebody who does not appear political. I don't agree with your first point. And both of those answers come from my experience post Watergate, where Edward Levy was named the Attorney General. He, to my knowledge, had no background at the Department of Justice. He was president of the University of Chicago. He was a legal scholar. He was non political. And he was brought in to bring back some moral compass to the department and to make it appear to the public to, again, be non political. So I would say the non political point is really important. And we want no one who is associated with past prosecutions that would appear political, but I don't think necessarily that you have to have been the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General or the Solicitor General. I'm not saying those aren't good qualifications, but I don't think they're essential to it.
- [69:21]
C
You know, it's an interesting point and it's a fair one, Jill. The reason that I think that is I feel like it needs to be somebody who understands what a functional DOJ should look like and how it should operate. But, you know, you could have a deputy attorney general with that sort of credentialing and have an attorney general who's a highly regarded person out of academia. So I'm happy to adopt your first.
- [69:48]
A
May I add this, I think Edward Levy might have been a great choice at the end of Watergate. I think Edward Levy reminds me a lot of Merrick Garland. And I think Merrick Garland tried to do what Edward Levy had done, which is I just wanna restore public confidence. I wanna make it apolitical. And I think he tried to do that, but I think he was the wrong person at that moment. And I think what we need at the next moment is somebody who is maybe not a household name, but somebody who spent a lot of time in the trenches at the Department of Justice, who's tried hard cases, who is unafraid to bring the hard case against Donald Trump or other people who need to be prosecuted. And so I think just a scholarly background, a judicial background with a focus on restoring trust is not enough. I think we need somebody who does have integrity, but also so is not afraid to charge a significant case and take their lumps if that happens. All right. Well, lots of good thoughts there. Let me ask our last question, which comes from Eric in Lake Ridge, Virginia, who asks, when the Democrats retake Congress, can't they simply repeal the big, beautiful bill? Interesting question, Eric. And I think the answer is yes. That's because, remember, the second Senate has the filibuster for most matters. So that means, in effect, they really need to get 60 votes to pass legislation, because any senator can filibuster now. They even have a silent filibuster. You don't actually have to stand up and read the phone book. You can just, you know, sort of say, I'm filibustering. And to invoke cloture, which ends the debate and says, let's call for a vote, you need 60 votes. So in some ways, you can't advance legislation without 60. But there are some exceptions to that. We now no longer have the filibuster, for example, for judicial nominations or nominations to other positions. It also is true with budget reconciliation. So when you start maneuvering around the budget because it's important to pass a budget, they don't have the filibuster anymore. So I think the next Congress can undo the big, beautiful bill. Now, maybe not every aspect of it, but certainly things like, you know, removing benefits for SNAP recipients and cutting funding for rural hospitals and some of those kinds of things I think we could see go away. So make sure you vote, ladies and gentlemen. Well, thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Jill Wine Banks and me, Barb McQuaid. If you enjoyed this podcast, please rate the show and send it to a friend. And be sure to follow Sisters in Law on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts so that you never miss an episode. Join us every Saturday as we break down the biggest legal developments of the week and then catch our companion podcast, Sisters sidebar every Wednesday, where we answer your legal questions. Shop for Sisters in Law totes and other goodies at Politicon and follow us on Instagram at Sisters in Law Podcast. And check out the special offers in this week's episode. Notes from our sponsors, Deleteme, Mint Mobile, hexclad, Life, Pro Vibration Plates, and Honey Love. See you next week with another episode. Sisters in Law.
- [73:17]
B
How many presidential libraries have you been to besides? I've been to the two in Michigan.
- [73:21]
A
Eight or nine, I think. Yeah, I think eight or nine.
- [73:24]
B
Have you been to the Johnson? Johnson was is a terrific library.
- [73:28]
A
Great one.
- [73:28]
C
Yeah.
- [73:28]
B
Kennedy is great.
- [73:29]
A
One of my favorite with the phones.
- [73:30]
C
Clinton is really great. I love Clinton. It's the first energy conscious one.
- [73:35]
B
I haven't been to Clinton. Somebody said that it's worth going. There's so much to see about the civil rights movement in the area, not just his. Yeah, Arkansas maybe.
- [73:46]
A
Oh yeah, the high school. High school is just right there down. It's like a mile or two away, right?
- [73:53]
B
Yeah.
- [73:53]
A
That's very cool.