328: Upon Reflection

Summary

Sisters In Law – Episode 328: Upon Reflection

Release Date: August 8, 2026
Hosts: Jill Wine-Banks (A), Barb McQuade (B), Joyce Vance (C) (Kimberly Atkins Stohr is out this week)

---

Episode Overview

This episode features an all-star panel—Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuade, and Joyce Vance—diving into three major legal and political topics shaping current events:

1. The controversial dismissal of the “Reflecting Pool” case in D.C.,
2. The Justice Department’s motion to vacate Oath Keepers’ January 6th convictions, and
3. President Trump’s latest actions attempting to skirt the Supreme Court’s ruling on birthright citizenship.

The episode also opens with the hosts swapping practical writing advice, then concludes with listener Q&A on presidential immunity, contempt votes, and NATO. Throughout, the tone is sharp, witty, and candid—true to the Sisters’ spirit.

---

1. Kickoff & Writing Advice (00:10–04:55)

The episode opens on a lighter, personal note, with Jill seeking advice from Barb and Joyce about getting re-inspired to write, specifically for a young adult book.

Key Insights:

• Barb’s Writing Tips (01:11):
  • Write your first draft all the way through without getting stuck on wordsmithing. “Just write the book…the way you wanna write the book. It’s a draft. And then go back.” (B, 01:24)
  • Advice from Dahlia Lithwick: Start with paragraph two—get into the facts, circle back for your hook later.
• Joyce’s Approach (03:00):
  • Inspired by Ellie Honig: “Just write something every day... You can be on the subway and you pull out your iPhone and you can dictate a note when something percolates in your brain.” (C, 03:07)
  • Capture snippets whenever inspiration strikes.
• Jill’s Editorial Insight (04:18):
  • From her own editor: Reduce the book to three themes and only include stories that fit. “Figure out what the three themes of your book are, and if it fits the theme, you can tell the story. If not…out it goes.” (A, 04:22)

Memorable Moment:
Barb jokes about “dad jokes all day long,” teeing up the episode’s title (“Upon Reflection”) and later discussion.

---

2. The Reflecting Pool Case Dismissal (08:43–26:09)

Background (08:43):

• U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro dismissed all charges against David Hearn and others, who had been accused of vandalizing D.C.’s Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
• Jill introduces a political cartoon lampooning Trump’s obsession with the reflecting pool:
  • Quote: “Trump says, all I see is scum. And the aide says, well, it is a reflecting pool, sir.” (B, 09:05)

Legal Breakdown:

• Nature of the Prosecution:

  • Hearn initially charged with misdemeanor, later felony property destruction—over $1,000 jurisdictional threshold required, but “there was no way that they were going to be able to prove the thousand dollar amount.” (C, 10:54)
  • The indictment lacked detail—“a one sentence…he maliciously destroyed property valued at more than $1,000. Like that was it.” (B, 10:29)

• Prosecutorial Failure & Blame-Shifting:

  • Pirro’s motion to dismiss blames the Department of Interior for misleading her office about the cause of the damage.
  • Jill: “She was blaming the secretary…saying they didn’t tell us the truth. We were misled. So this seems to be a big thing in the Trump administration…They didn’t take the blame…” (A, 11:28)
  • Barb and Joyce stress that knowing the elements (causation and the dollar threshold) is “prosecution 101.”

• Causation & Grand Jury Shenanigans (13:16):

  • “You can’t be charged with murder if the person’s already dead.” (B, 12:29)
  • Joyce: “Their own witness said that the damage had been done before Hearn ever touched the water. Oops. No causation.” (C, 13:16)

• Possible Grand Jury Misconduct (14:16):

  • Norm Eisen raised fact that a witness changed their testimony after leaving and returning to grand jury room, suggesting coaching and “shady” behavior.

• Political Motivations and DOJ Independence (23:05):

  • Jeanine Pirro brought documents to the White House, reportedly to justify the dismissal to Trump.
  • Joyce: “There is a chain of command at the Justice Department…not a conversation about the substance of the case…” (C, 23:18)
  • "This whole idea…tells you two things. One, DOJ has completely lost its independence…But the second thing is…this is not an acting Attorney General…who stands up for his people." (C, 24:13)
  • Jill connects to other lawsuits: Suits as a “boomerang”—they result in public revelations more damaging to Trump.

• Consequences for Defendants (17:38):

  • Jill: “He might be able to get an apology…He certainly can get his record wiped clean.” (A, 18:40)
  • Recovery under the Hyde Amendment possible, but “the hurdles are so high…quite unlikely.”

Notable Quotes:

• “You know, as somebody who still works in the education sector, August always feels like the last Sunday of summer.” (B, 26:09) — transition to sponsor

Memorable Moment:
Joyce shares her daughter’s observation that the case has become a minor pop culture phenomenon: “Her Instagram feed is full of people getting algae, reflecting pond manicures…” (C, 67:39)

---

3. Oath Keepers & Proud Boys: DOJ Moves to Vacate Convictions (29:00–39:45)

Background (29:00):

• Trump commuted sentences for Proud Boys/Oathkeepers (but did not pardon) on Inauguration Day 2025; convictions still stood.
• Justice Department, in April, sought to vacate those convictions entirely—meaning expungement from record.

Legal and Political Analysis:

• Difference between Commutation and Vacatur:
  • Commutation = sentence ends, conviction remains.
  • Vacatur = everything wiped out, “as though they had never been indicted.” (C, 31:38)
• Why Vacate?:
  • DOJ action makes it easier for these individuals to avoid collateral consequences (e.g., loss of gun rights).
  • Barb: “A motion to vacate is essentially just as good as a pardon…it says that these charges were brought improperly…they don’t stand any longer on their records.” (B, 31:09)
• Trial Review:
  • Judge Mehta presided over strong cases, compelling evidence (communications, seditious planning), leading to quick convictions (Jill, 34:17)
  • Noted that Stuart Rhodes, Yale-educated lawyer, was “coordinating and leading the effort,” operating an armed “quick reaction force.” (C, 34:17)
• Judge Mehta’s Response (36:16):
  • “No, it wasn’t [routine]. And I think it’s really because Judge Mehta served as the trial judge and got to see all of this evidence…he was disgusted and horrified…” (B, 36:16)
  • DOJ’s motion gave no sufficient legal cause; Judge Mehta could not block the dismissal but laid down a strong opinion:
    • “This court strongly agrees, but that alone is not a valid basis to deny the motion…this judicial officer’s mere difference of opinion is of no moment.” (C, 39:45)
    • Final line: “Today’s epilogue…diminishes the gravity of that day, denigrates the work of prosecutors and law enforcement officers who secured these convictions and excuses criminal acts…that caused a centuries long pillar of our democracy…the peaceful transfer of…power to buckle.” (C, 41:42)

Notable Quotes:

• “This is just Donald Trump walking in and erasing these convictions cause he wants to and cause he can.” (B, 39:19)
• “He knew that if he had not ruled this way, he would have been reversed on appeal and that would have been the story. So instead he wrote an opinion that could become the story.” (C, 39:45)

---

4. Trump’s Executive Orders: End Run around SCOTUS on Birthright Citizenship (44:10–56:14)

Context (44:10):

• On June 30, SCOTUS in Trump v. Barbara upheld birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented or temporary visitors.
• Trump responded with two executive orders seeking to limit citizenship:
  1. Children born to “alien enemies, members of foreign terrorist organizations, or foreign lobbyists” ineligible.
  2. Denial of citizenship to children born to parents on fraudulent visas for “birth tourism.”

Legal Analysis:

• Order 1: Alien Enemies/Terrorists (45:26):

  • Joyce: “This clearly violates…Barbara and it clearly violates the 14th Amendment…This is politics. This is not policy.” (C, 45:46)
  • Press releases contain only “policy arguments,” not legal rationale (C, 46:58)
  • With enforcement pending court action, expects challenge and focus on who has standing to sue.
  • Only Congress can change, according to Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence—unclear if the Court would allow the President to do this by EO.

• Order 2: Birth Tourism (48:14):

  • Barb: “If someone is born here under Barbara, they are a US Citizen. Even if a pregnant person came…for the purpose of birth tourism…” (B, 49:20)
  • Biden-era regulation already permits denial of visas to pregnant applicants believed to be coming for “birth tourism.”
  • “He’s trying to take credit for stopping birth tourism…he directs federal agencies to do…nothing more than reflecting the current status quo.” (B, 49:40)

• Speculative National Security/Policy Justifications (53:59):

  • The orders try to invoke threats of Chinese and Russian birth tourism, but Barb and Jill are skeptical such policies are either necessary or constitutional.
  • Barb: “It seems speculative to me at best. But regardless of whether it’s good policy, it’s just not consistent with Barbara…”

Legal Prognosis

• Joyce expects rapid suits from civil rights orgs, state AGs: “I expect the civil rights groups...will get back into the mix as quickly as they can.” (C, 51:55)
• Any expansion of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language to include more than diplomats or invading soldiers “strikes me as one more effort to try to flex and show that the President is very serious about his anti-immigrant agenda. But…I think…will be defeated through legal challenges.” (B, 54:59)

Notable Quotes:

• “I bet you Stephen Miller was chortling to himself when he wrote that one.” (C, 45:39)
• “Exception so big you can drive a truck through it…Friends of Trump get the exception. Or maybe this will be another thing where we'll see…more corruption.” (C, 56:19)

---

5. Listener Questions (59:59–65:24)

Q1: Can Supreme Court’s Grant of Presidential Immunity be Overturned? (host: C)

• Joyce: It would take another prosecution of a former president to have the precedent challenged on appeal. “Appellate lawyers are sort of a breed unto themselves…what the next step is.” (C, 61:21)

Q2: Significance of Senate Committee Holding Dr. Fauci in Contempt? (host: B)

• Barb: Purely symbolic. Although Fauci accepted a pardon for prior actions, the Fifth Amendment still applies for future actions—“absolutely…Fauci has a well grounded fear of criminal prosecution for which he is entitled to invoke his Fifth Amendment right.” (B, 64:09)

Q3: Does activating NATO Article 5 require a Congressional vote? (host: A)

• Jill: Not for activation—treaty requires consensus of NATO members, but deploying US troops does require Congressional approval under the US Constitution.

---

6. Memorable Quotes & Moments

• “I'm all dad jokes all day long.” (B, 08:48)
• “Their own witness said that the damage had been done before Hearn ever touched the water. Oops. No causation.” (C, 13:16)
• “I mean, just endless. All good jokes. All good dad jokes.” (B, 16:48)
• On the impact of frivolous lawsuits: “You bring a lawsuit and then you get discovery…they ought to be thinking about…consequences of discovery.” (A, 24:54)
• On the Oath Keepers’ vacated convictions: “...this is just Donald Trump walking in and erasing these convictions cause he wants to and cause he can.” (B, 39:19)
• On the viral public reaction: “Algae, reflecting pond manicures…if this is resonating with the 20 something women, you never know what cases are going to grab the public's attention.” (C, 67:39)

---

7. Timestamps for Major Segments

• Writing Advice & Book Projects: 00:10–04:55
• Reflecting Pool Case: 08:43–26:09
• Oath Keepers/Proud Boys Conviction Vacatur: 29:00–39:45
• Trump’s Executive Orders on Citizenship/Birth Tourism: 44:10–56:14
• Q&A Segment: 59:59–65:24
• Reflecting Pool Pop Culture Note: 67:39

---

Conclusion

This episode exemplifies the “Sisters in Law” balance of in-depth legal talk, political context, and the kind of wry humor and practical wisdom that keep listeners coming back. The hosts break down convoluted legal maneuvers—like the politically fraught dismissal of the reflecting pool case and the erasure of January 6th convictions—while making clear the high stakes for the rule of law and American democracy. At the same time, they’re unafraid to call out political theater (“dad jokes” and all), share their expertise on real-world writing and advocacy, and speak directly to listeners’ questions.
Recommended for anyone seeking a sharp, accessible briefing on today’s legal crossroads.

Transcript

[A]

Welcome back to Sisters in Law. We are really excited to be here Today with Barb McQuaid and Joyce Vance, and me, Jill Wine Banks. Kim will be back next week and although we miss her now, we're looking forward to her being back next week. We have some great topics for you today. We're going to be talking about the dismissal of the Reflecting Pool case, the dismissal of the oath Keeper's indictments, two things that are really weird. And then we're going to talk about the attempted end run around scotus. But before we get to those serious topics, I took a class this week to help me get refocused on writing a young adult book. And after took the course, I thought, gosh, I should have just asked my sisters in law because you've both written books. So give me some advice on how you can sort of get yourself refocused and remotivated to get going. Barb, you want to start because you're on a current book tour.

[B]

Yeah. You know, I've picked up some really great tips from authors I've spoken to, and I'll just share a couple of them. One is make your first draft really your first draft. Too often authors get bogged down with wordsmithing. The first draft. And so chapter one, you go over it again and again and again and again, and you never really make it to chapter two. Like, just write the book. Write the book the way you wanna write the book. It's a draft. And then go back. Now that you know, like how it all comes together, you can go back and do the wordsmithing. I thought that was fantastic advice because it gets you just going and flowing and not worrying about, you know, every little thing along the way. And, you know, you'll do lots of drafts as you go through. You'll improve it better and better. And. And the second one, that was from John U. Bacon, a great local author in Michigan who's written some great books, including a wonderful book about the Edmund Fitzgerald called the Gales of November.

[C]

That's a great book. I love that one.

[A]

Yes, isn't it?

[B]

It's a great book. And that was his advice. And then this one from Dahlia Lithwick, which I really like. She says she does it when she writes pieces for Slate, but I think it also is very true for OP eds, which we all write, or chapters of a book. And that is start with paragraph two. You know, you're gonna start your chapter with an anecdot or a hook, a lead of some sort, and figure that out later, like Just jump in. You know, on Thursday, the Senate issue, or the Senate Homeland Security Committee voted to hold Dr. Fauci in consent. Right. Just the real factual stuff. And then write it, write it, write it. And then, you know, when you're done and you're pulling it all together, then you put the hook at the beginning and maybe wrap up the end to circle back to it. But you can get really bogged down with it, and you don't really know exactly the tone of the piece until you're done with it. So I thought that also was a really great piece of writing advice.

[A]

And, Joyce, what about you? That sounds like good advice from Barb.

[C]

It is great advice. And you know, Jill, I'm right there with you. I'm working on a couple of projects right now, and of course, I write my substack column almost every night. And the best. The single best piece of advice I got came from Ellie Honig, our friend who's a CNN legal analyst. Ellie told me, just write something every day, and it doesn't have to mean you're sitting down at your desk with a pen and paper. You know, formally writing, you can be on the subway and you pull out your iPhone and you can dictate a note when something percolates in your brain. And so I have really adopted that approach. I'm just writing little snippets all day long. My neighbor said something hilarious on the way to the gym the other morning. We were talking about a piece I'm writing about voting and what young women need to know. And she started laughing. She said, just tell them, don't be a trad wife. And I liked it so much that I took out my phone and sort of wrote it down. And I think it's going to be the ending for a piece that I'm working on. So there is always, you know, if. If you're a casual writer, if you're writing emails to friends, if they're important ideas you hope to express to folks in your circle, whether they're about politics or something more interesting, this notion of always being available for ideas to flow through you really works for me.

[A]

And, you know, you remind me that the best advice that I got in writing the Watergate Girl was from my editor, Paul Golub at Macmillan Holt. And he said, you have so many great stories, but you can't tell them all. Figure out what the three themes of your book are, and if it fits the theme, you can tell the story. If not, I don't care how great it is. It's trash. Out it goes out. And it really did help me to reduce the book to a readable length instead of being, you know, this big a tome. So I thought that was great advice.

[C]

That is really good advice.

[A]

Yeah. I hope any of our listeners who have advice will send it to me Also, if you have sons, I want this book to be for boys and girls, young adult boys and girls, kids from like 8th grade to 12th grade. And it's easier for me as a woman to write for the girls in that category. But I would like your advice on what would be appealing to the young men in that category, especially when we talk about following non traditional careers and just overcoming your fears to do what you want to do. So send me your ideas please listeners. Thank you.

[B]

This episode is sponsored by Vinted. If you like your clothes, you keep them for years. It's nice to have a collection, but it grows and grows. Eventually you run out of space and have to make hard choices. I always drag my feet when it's time to clean out the closet, but it's worth it to refresh my wardrobe and declutter. I tend to wear the same things every day, but you know, some people do. I used to worry about feeling guilty about unworn clothes or being wasteful, but recently we discovered a great way to make sure your classic pieces get worn and enjoyed while making a little extra money as a side hustle, thanks to Vinted.

[C]

Well, unlike Barb, I'm the proverbial clothes horse. I love clothing, but I don't love fast food fashion. What I really like is to keep a few good pieces in my closet and then to supplement them with color or stuff like that. And secondhand shopping is just a natural for me. For one thing, it makes me feel really good. I was actually walking down the street the other day and a very young woman stopped me and said she liked my dress and asked where I'd bought it. And I explained to her that it was resale on Vinted and she was like yeah. And she gave me a high five. So it's fashion that you can feel good about. Vinted is a secondhand marketplace place app and it makes it really easy for everyday sellers like all of y' all and us to sell pre loved fashion and earn a little extra money. You know, you never get a good deal taking stuff to brick and mortar resale shops. You always walk away wondering why you bothered. You have to get everything in the car. Hope they accept it. So it's really nice to have an app that allows you to do everything Conveniently from home. It's quick, it's simple to get started. The young people love it, and the listing process is effortless.

[A]

If you have an overflowing closet, and I bet most of you listening do, or you just want to make a few extra dollars, we definitely recommend Vinted every time there's a massive seasonal sale. I love knowing that I'll have enough space for anything that catches my eye. And if I run out, I can just upload a few items to Vinted and add the proceeds to my shopping budget. You'll enjoy the money you earn, and there are no seller fees. Plus, the app is free to download, so it's the perfect option for anyone looking to free up space or start a small side hustle.

[B]

Listing them on Vinted is easy and fast. And once the item sells, Vinted creates the prepaid shipping label for you. It couldn't be more convenient. So give your clothes a second life with Vinted. Download the Vinted app for free to start selling with no seller fees, so you keep everything you earn. Plus, for a limited time, enjoy free shipping in the US On Vinted. I am sending that app to my daughter asap. The link is in our show notes. Well, upon further reflection, sisters, it appears.

[A]

Oh, no.

[B]

You see what I did there?

[C]

It appears dad jokes straight out of the box.

[B]

I am all dad jokes all day long.

[C]

You know that?

[B]

I am nothing but dad jokes. We're gonna talk about the reflecting pool case, but first, I wanted to ask you if you've seen this political cartoon. Suddenly my social media feeds are full of political cartoons. I must be, you know, liking them because I'm getting more and more. But there's some really good stuff on there. I saw one the other day where Donald Trump is, you know, standing, looking at the reflecting pool, you know, with the extra long tie, and he's standing next to some sort of aide or advisor. And. And Trump says, all I see is scum. And the aide says, well, it is a reflecting pool, sir. I thought that was pretty good.

[C]

That's nice.

[B]

Well, let's talk about this. Since our last episode, Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia, dismissed the case against David Hearn, as well as three others who were a little less known. David Hearn was charged with a felony. Three others were charged with misdemeanors of vandalism to the reflecting pool outside the Lincoln memorial in Washington, D.C. you know, first, Joyce, can you just remind our listeners about the charges that were filed against David Hearn?

[C]

Yeah, it's such A silly case. It's good to make this point. I think when Hearn was arrested, he was arrested on a misdemeanor charge. But ultimately, remember, the D.C. u.S. Attorney's office has authority to bring both federal charges, but also local D.C. charges. And so they charged him with one count of felony destruction of property in violation of the District of Columbia code. Wow, what an important case for a U.S. attorney's office to bring, even if it hadn't had all of the problems we ultimately learned about.

[B]

Yeah, you know, this charge was used against some of the January 6th defendants, you know, people who destroyed property at the United States Capitol. And I looked up the indictment because I wanted to see all the details in it and there were none. It was a one sentence, you know, honor about X date. He maliciously destroyed property valued at more than $1,000. Like that was it. There was no other detail.

[C]

I mean, you knew, you knew from the get go that there was no way that they were going to be able to prove the thousand dollar amount, which is jurisdictional. If you can't prove that at trial, your case gets dismissed.

[B]

Absolutely. It's an essential element. Well, so Jill, on Friday, last week, Jeanine Pirro files this 20 page motion to dismiss the case. You might think it is a mea culpa. You might think it is something where they confess error, but no. What was her basis for dismissing the case?

[A]

Well, it was partly the blame game. She was blaming the secretary of the Department of Interior, Bergen, saying they didn't tell us the truth. We were misled. So this seems to be a big thing in the Trump administration. You know, Donald Trump blames, well, Biden and Obama, but also any aide that he can think of as does Hegseth doesn't take the blame, he blames his deputy. Seems to be the way they go there. So she basically did go way beyond what was necessary to just dismiss the case and said we can't prove any evidence, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt that there was vandalism. In fact, it was shoddy construction and we just were misled into thinking otherwise. But now we have documents from the Department of the Interior that show that it was bad workmanship.

[B]

Yeah, you know, this is such a crock because, you know, you've got to know your elements before you go in to indict a case. And only now we've suddenly discovered new information that turns out we didn't have a case all along. Joyce, I wanna ask you about causation. You mentioned this. I know you teach first year criminal law and causation, an essential element that was clearly lacking in this case. I often tell students that you can't be charged with murder if the person's already dead. Right. Shooting a dead body might be a different crime. It might be, you know, mutilating a corpse, but it's not murder. You didn't cause the death. And I think the same is true here. So can you help explain what the element of causation is and what they would have had to prove here to indict this case?

[C]

Right. So you just actually used the example that I use when I teach first year criminal law. You have to be the cause, in fact, of the harm. So murder is the easiest way to teach this. And let's say that you're a sharpshooter. You're lying in wait to kill your target. You take aim, you squeeze the trigger. As you're squeezing the trigger, your target suddenly dies of a heart attack. He's just dead right there in the moment. And then once he's dead, the bullet hits. You can't be charged with murder, as you say, Barb, there are other crimes you can be charged with, but not murder, because you didn't cause the death. So here, Davey Hearn, the government would have had to have proven that he caused the damage to the reflecting pool. And of course, that became a little bit problematic once it came to light. Their own witness said that the damage had been done before Hearn ever touched the water. Oops. No causation.

[B]

Yeah. And did you also notice, Joyce, Norm Eisen, who is with Democracy Defenders, has filed lots of great lawsuits against the Trump administration. He has noted that the day before this dismissal, he filed a motion requesting that the court turn over and release all of the grand jury material. You know, even the colloquy between the prosecutor and the grand jury because of an irregularity he had noted, which is that a witness came in and testified that he did not know the value of the harm. As we said, you had to show that it was worth more than $1,000. He leaves the room for like, 20 minutes, and then he comes back and says the value of the harm was $1,000. Who coached him? Right. It looked really shady. And, you know, there may have been some concern. What was your reaction to that?

[C]

Yeah, I mean, about like yours. Right. We know that this is a U.S. attorney who, whatever her virtues as a Fox News host, understand the seriousness that's involved in being a federal prosecutor and specifically a United States attorney. And so she has sought to do the president's bidding Repeatedly. This was not a one off incident. I know everybody remembers the sandwich thrower case and the many bad Barb jokes that Barb made while that was ongoing. But, you know, dad, jokes aside, the reality is that as a U.S. attorney, you have an obligation to do right. And this is not a US Attorney who has caused people in her office involved in these cases that matter to her only client, the President of the United States. She has not really upheld the ethical bounds when it comes to Donald Trump. This was clearly a case that was important to Trump. He needed somebody to blame for his comic tragi. What's that word that I'm looking for? Comedy. You know, comedy. But also. Thank you. Tragic comedy incident where he claimed he was going to fix the reflecting pool and then made it worse. I mean, the whole thing.

[A]

Right.

[C]

Couldn't make this up if you were trying. And the fact that Jeanine Pirro was willing to go along and just indict somebody, indict anybody to make the President look good tells you all that you needed to know here. I thought Norm did a great job of turning it into a legal issue and recognizing that he had a basis for asking the court to turn over grand jury material. And I am 105% certain the court would have ordered that, which is likely why, as you're Suggesting, Barbara, the U.S. attorney's office turned around and dismissed the case. Yeah.

[B]

And you know, there were so many good sandwich guy puns at the time. Remember, he was called the hurl of sandwich. You can't indict a ham sandwich, but you can indict a salami sandwich. There's so many of those good jokes at the time. Don't bread on me. Some heroes are born, some are bred. I mean, just endless. All good jokes. All good dad jokes. Jill, what remedies might be available to David Hearn? You know, he appears to have been a victim of unfounded prosecution. Weaponized prosecution, dare I say. What's he gonna get? Is he gonna get one of these compensation fund gifts, like the million dollars Michael Flynn has received or Carter Page, or the estate of Ashley Babbitt?

[A]

Oh, such a silly question. No, he's not. Of course not. He is also a victim of the system, not just of this particularly wrongful indictment. Really, what happens is he can claim financial damages. He also can claim for attorney's fees. He can certainly ask, and probably successfully, for a record clearance. You know, his record should not show that he was ever indicted. He might ask for some civil rights accountability, but the hurdles are so high to get any of those things that it's quite unlikely. The United States has sovereign immunity, and prosecutors basically have absolute immunity from personal liability. So the financial damages are going to be a little hard to get, but attorney's fees he can get. There's a thing called the Hyde Amendment, not the Hyde Amendment that has to do with abortion, but. But this one allows recovery of attorneys fees in federal criminal charge cases. And so possibly that's the case. But there's hurdles within that because you have to have not just show that it was a wrongful indictment, as clearly the admission of Piros in the motion to dismiss makes clear. But it has to be vexatious, frivolous, or conducted in bad faith. And I'm not sure that they can establish bad faith when the indictment was based on wrongful information, which might mean there's a case against the Department of the Interior rather than the Department of Justice. It has to be filed under the Hyde amendment within 30 days of the actual dismissal. So they better get going on that. And the person doing the suing has to have. I have no idea what David Hearn's finances are, but you have to have less than $2 million net worth in order to be part of that. You might be able to file a suit against the government or some agency rather than against Jeanine Pirro or whoever signed the indictment. There's a little more leeway on that. The Federal Torts Claim act, maybe as something for malicious prosecution, false arrest or abusive process. Again, those are very specific, detailed things that I'm not sure. Biven's actions probably not going to work here. So I think his best bet is that he might be able to get an apology. And there's, you know, that's worth it. He certainly can get his record wiped clean. And it's not, not just limited to him. There were six other people arrested, three of whom were charged with misdemeanors. And some of those claim. One claims that he lost several jobs because of having been arrested. Another claims that she had some serious damages. So they might be able to get something more than just wiping the record clean. And I hope that they will pursue this because it's one way to hold the government accountable and to possibly make prosecutors investigate before they indict. That's what was wrong here, was they really went ahead and just took easy access. They didn't see any tape recordings. There were no cameras. There was evidence to the contrary. We know that they knew that it was turning green with algae. And barb to your comedy thing. I personally liked a Protest poster that said, forget the reflecting. Forget the reflecting pool. Algae get the scum out of the White House.

[B]

Yeah, that's good. You know, the thing you say, though, Jill, is what makes me think that this was an improper prosecution. I don't buy it. That it's the Interior Department that is all to blame here by failing to provide information earlier that this, that there was this problem in refinishing the pool. When you're a prosecutor, you are supposed to be able to prove each and every element certainly have to establish probable cause to get an indicted. But the principles of federal prosecution say you must have evidence sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial. That means guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And so you gotta shore up that causation issue of more than $1,000 before you present the case to a grand jury. And so, you know, to me, I think indicting this case was either really shoddy or deliberate bad act by the prosecutors in the U.S. attorney's office. Well, I wanna ask you one last question. Did you see that Jan Pirro schlept over to the White House with box? She had like a big briefcase and on wheels and a big box of documents, reportedly to discuss the case with Trump. And Interior Secretary Doug Burgum was there too to explain her decision. Trump said she folded like an umbrella and she choked. But after that, she shows up. You know, Jeanine Pirro should not be taken lightly. She says, oh, don't you say, talk to me like that. I'm coming over and I'm gonna show you my receipts. What did you both make of that? And what does it say about the independence of the Department of Justice and U.S. attorney's offices that you feel the need to go over and show the President your receipts?

[C]

Well, look, this should have never happened, right, Barb? Can you imagine? I mean, I can't even imagine a world in which Barack Obama criticizes a decision I make in one of my

[B]

cases and says, come to the White House with your box.

[C]

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Barack was having a bad day and he did that. Would I take my briefcase up and go talk with him about my case? Absolutely not. There is a chain of command at the Justice Department, and it goes through the Attorney General. And he or the one person on his or her staff who is designated to have conversations with folks in the White House. Those are the people that talk to the White House to the extent conversation is necessary. And sometimes it is like I can remember a situation where timing of an indictment needed to turn on when Michelle Obama was going to be back from some foreign travel where there was an appropriate conversation, but not a conversation about the substance of the case and whether it should be indicted or whether it should be dismissed. And so this whole idea that a US Attorney would walk in with her briefcase and lay out her evidence and justify her decision to the president tells you two things. One, DOJ has completely lost its independence. It's an institution that's astray. But the second thing is that this is not an acting Attorney General Todd Blanch, who stands up for his people. And it's not like that's a surprise. Right. We've already watched him stand by while his friends in the Southern District of New York have been fired or forced to leave. But the fact that he's not there with the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia when she's either summoned to or volunteers to go to the White House, that just is next level dysfunction at doj.

[A]

Joyce is completely correct on that. And it is more of proof of how badly things are backfiring on bringing lawsuits. Aside from the fact that this leads to the very public revelation that Donald Trump was lying repeatedly about the cause and that people, human beings, are suffering by having been indicted in this case, either for felony or misdemeanor, it's the same thing as, you know, you bring a lawsuit and then you get discovery. And so now we have evidence that Donald Trump was money laundering and that that's why Chase bank terminated his accounts, not because they were mad at him about January 6th. So he brings these lawsuits and he opens himself up and doesn't realize how stupid it is. They ought to be thinking about not just proving the case before they indict, but the consequences of discovery. The discovery has led to so many interesting revelations about internal FBI communications and, you know, saying, well, we shouldn't be bringing this case. It's really wrong. So I just think it just shows a more aside from the dysfunction at doj, dysfunction in this entire administration.

[B]

Yeah. And you know, how shameful that we had prosecutors willing to bring a case without being able to prove that causation element just to indulge this lie by President Trump that the problem with the reflecting pool was vandalism and not his own incompetence. You know, as somebody who still works in the education sector, August always feels like the last Sunday of summer. As soon as the calendar turns to August, I have to start working on my syllabus and all of those kinds of things. But it's also the perfect time to hit reset before the autumn rush. For us, that means starting with a wardrobe refresh with Quint's Quince proves you don't need a crowded closet to look incredible, you just need the right pieces. Best of all, everything at Quint's is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands because they work directly with ethical factories to cut out the middleme. That means you're paying for quality, not brand markup.

[A]

They have something for everyone and we love that. Quince specializes in effortless high quality essentials like ultra soft organic cotton and premium Mongolian cashmere sweaters. They're beautifully tailored, built to last and transition seamlessly from morning meetings to dinner. Quince also has premium stretch denim starting at just $50 with the perfect fit, structure and weight you'd expect from a luxury designer brand.

[C]

I recommend Quince's washable stretch silk blouse. In fact, look, I'm wearing it right now. The material feels amazing and the style is perfect for relaxing at home, enjoying the sun on vacation or taking care of business. It really is one of those versatile pieces of clothing. There's nothing better for looking your best. And while it's still nice outside, the ultimate workout motivation is new activewear like the Micro Rip Stop mid rise hike shorts from Quinn. But Quint's is also a lot more than just apparel. I've been getting into the other aspects of Quint's lately. They bring their same everyday elevation to everything they offer, from hotel quality bedding, it's fabulous and bath stuff to kitchen staples essentials and thoughtfully designed furniture.

[B]

Upgrade your everyday Download the quince app for app exclusive offers or go to quince.com sisters get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available in Canada and the UK too. That's Q U I N C E.com sisters the link is in the show notes.

[C]

Donald Trump pardoned Most of the January 6th offenders the day he took office. But for one group, the Insurrectionists, both Oathkeepers and Proud Boys, there were no pardons. Even Trump could not get away with that back on January 20th of 2025. Instead, he commuted their sentences to time served. They were eligible for release, but the convictions stood. Even then, it was appalling. But there was worse to come. Barbara Back in April, the Justice Department filed a motion to vacate the defendant's convictions and to remand the case back to the trial judge so that the government could move to dismiss with prejudice. Can you explain all of that in English and help us understand why the defendants would have cared about this after they were already out of prison.

[B]

Yeah. So, you know, these were the worst of the worst. These are the people who were convicted of seditious conspiracy for trying to use brute force to destroy the peaceful transfer of presidential power. And so when Donald Trump issued pardons for like, 1,500 defendants, even he said, eh, this might be a bridge too far. I'm just gonna commute their sentences. I don't wanna pardon them. There would have been probably some very significant baggage that would have come with that. So instead, he just commuted the sentences, showing that even he recognized that they were of a different character than some of the other people who showed up on January 6. But then the Justice Department is trying to really do the same thing through this motion to vacate the judgment. So Trump doesn't have the blood on his hands politically. This is now the Justice Department, because these people could be, perhaps still have convictions on their records. There could be additional charges brought for related crimes. And so they want this record clean. And so with this filing this motion to dismiss. And dismiss, dismiss with prejudice means it cannot be brought again. So simply moving to dismiss without prejudice would mean that even if there were dismissal today, perhaps in the next administration with a new president, if they were within the five year statute of limitations, which is probably not going to be the case for 2021, that would be 2026, probably not going to happen anyway, that it can't be brought again. They can't renew these charges. And so even though they're out of prison, they want their records clean. So a motion to vacate is essentially just as good as a pardon. It says that these charges were brought improperly or whatever reason, and they don't stand any longer on their records.

[C]

Yeah, I mean, in some ways it's actually better than a pardon. Right. Because it wipes out the charges. It's as though they had never been indicted. And it's an incredible gift, you know. So something showed up in my Instagram feed this morning from an account called the Democratic Coalition, and it says, more pardoned J6ers have been rearrested than the number of fraudulent ballots cast in US elections in the past 20 years. Wow, that's a moment. But, you know, these are the worst of the worst, as you say, the insurrectionists. So, Jill, the case goes back to Judge Mehta in the District of Columbia. He was the trial judge. And can you just give us a refresher on the issues at trial and how it ended up, and maybe talk a little bit about Stuart Rhodes, one of the key defendants who is sentenced, by the way, to 18 years in federal prison.

[A]

Right. And before I do that, I want to just also add, I'll bet they also want to not have a felony conviction because felons can't buy guns. And so I bet they want to

[C]

buy more guns some places.

[A]

Right.

[C]

There's certain kinds of licenses to work. I mean, there are all sorts of collateral consequences.

[A]

Yeah. So Judge Mehta tried this case, and so he was obviously the one who would have to decide whether to vacate the case or not. Stuart Rhodes is actually a lawyer. He wasn't on the grounds of the Capitol on the day of January 6th, but he was coordinating and leading the effort. He was ahead of the Oath Keepers and is largely responsible for what they did on that day. During the trial, there was not any defense that I saw of any note. They were convicted readily. So basically the end is Joyce. There was very strong, convincing evidence. There was a quick conviction of every single Oath keeper who was charged. And these are the ones who were charged with serious felonies and sentences mentioned. Stewart Rhodes got 18 years and was serving his time when his sentence was commuted and he was a free man the next day. So inauguration came and he was out ready to do it again. The evidence was so clear, the communications were intercepted. We saw the text messages saying, let's go get them and be prepared. It was really compelling reading.

[C]

You know, something that stands out to me from that trial is the fact that the Yale educated lawyer, Right, Stuart Rhodes, is the guy who's actually advocating for violence. He actually creates an armed, I think it was called the quick reaction force. And they're over in Virginia where it's legal to possess guns. But he's, you know, sort of exhorting everybody to be prepared for the violence ahead. It's unbelievable to me that Donald Trump commutes those sentences, let alone that the Justice Department has now asked that they be vacated. And I think we live in this moment where, you know, to paraphrase, was it Karl Rove who said, flood the zone with S H I T?

[B]

I think it was Steve Bannon.

[C]

Steve Bannon, thank you. Why did I think Karl Rove, man, that was a senior moment there. So Bannon says that, and we see how much benefit Trump derives from that approach. There's so much bad stuff going on that you can never focus on it in a normal way world. The idea that DOJ would vacate the indictment, the conviction for a man who advocated for people to gather their guns and be prepared to overthrow the government of the United States, wow, that blows my mind. Coming, you know, from the party that used to bill itself as the party of law enforcement. But here we find ourselves, Barb. This pretty routine request gets made to Judge Mehta. You know, there are occasions where prosecutors have to dismiss cases. I can recall it happening in my office. We had a witness that went south on us. She was afraid to take the witness stand and say what she had told us previously. She had not, for whatever reason, been locked down in grand jury. It was clear we couldn't prove our case. We went to the judge and just said, look, we're sorry, but we need to dismiss. And the judge granted that pretty routinely without much inquiry into our request. So how did that work out here? Was that the same thing, Barb?

[B]

No, it wasn't. And I think it's really because Judge Meadow served as the trial judge and got to see all of this evidence. Right. This case took weeks to present in trial, so he was there every day and he saw just how egregious this was. I mean, can you imagine a crime against the United States any more serious than trying to use violence to prevent the peaceful transfer of presidential power? I mean, that's just goes after the essence of our country. And so I think he was disgusted and horrified that the Justice Department would try to do this. So we, too, Joyce, had that experience from time to time. Maybe the defendant died, a witness died. There was a suppression motion that suppressed some of the key evidence. We would file a motion, it'd be about a paragraph long, that would say the government moves to dismiss the case because, you know, we no longer have sufficient evidence to prove the case or the defendant has died, whatever it is. And the government here did the same thing where they just said that dismissal is in the public interest is what they wrote in their motion. And Judge Mehta said, no, no, no, no, no, no. I'm going to need a little more than that, because I don't believe that dismissal is in the public interest here. So, Justice Department, you're just going to have to explain this to me. Now. Ultimately, the judge does not have the power under our constitutional separation of powers system to force a prosecutor to go forward with a case if the prosecution says they want to dismiss it. This case is a little different because the prosecutions have already happened. It's really kind of already over. But typically, if the prosecutor wants to dismiss a case, the court is going to grant it. The main reason you need leave from the court, that is permission from the court to dismiss an indictment, is to prevent a Defendant from being jerked around where say I indict Jill on Monday and then I dismiss the indictment on Tuesday, and then Wednesday I indict her again. Just kinda mess around with her and I keep going back and forth, she's on, she's off, she's on, she's off. That is very difficult for a person who has to hire a lawyer and defend themselves. So they want to avoid that kind of scenario. And that's not what was going on here. But Judge Mehta said, I'm gonna need a little more detail before you do this. And so they do provide this detail. And then Judge Mehta writes a lengthy opinion on all of this where he really just dismisses all of the government's reasons as, you know, just utter nonsense. He says, you know, they have not noted that the evidence was insufficient in any way. There's no legal insufficiency, there's no confession of prosecutorial misconduct. There's no denial of a defendant's rights. There's no error that resulted in a wrongful conviction. So I'm not really seeing any interest of justice here at all. I don't see this argument that it's important to effectuate the president's proclamation. I mean, the president himself drew a distinction between the defendants that got pardons and these defendants and that the public has already had their interests vindicated through their. Even if this is vacated because of the publicity they already had. And the judge says, oh, that's nonsense. They're not being held accountable. Ultimately, he said, the court lacks the authority to make them go forward with their case. But let's not pretend this is anything other than what it is. This is just Donald Trump walking in and erasing these convictions cuz he wants to and cause he can.

[C]

I mean, I think the judge did something so subtle and so nuanced and you yet so important here, right? Because he understood the law and he read the room. He knew that if he had not ruled this way, he would have been reversed on appeal and that would have been the story. So instead he wrote an opinion that could become the story. And he explains why he has to rule the way he does. He wrote in the opinion. Ultimately though, this judicial officer's mere difference of opinion. That's what you were describing, Barb. His belief that when the government gave its reasons that they were un bs. But he, he writes, this judicial officer's mere difference of opinion is of no moment. Courts lack the authority to deny a prosecutor's Rule 48 motion to discharge to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution's exercise of its charging authority. So that's the separation of power's argument. But, he writes, this court strongly agrees, but that alone is not a valid basis to deny the motion. And then he has this closing paragraph I think is the historic part. He writes, this is the last of the prosecution seeking to hold accountable those responsible for the events of January 6th. That book is now closed. Today's epilogue diminishes the gravity of that day, denigrates the work of prosecutors and law enforcement officers who secured these convictions and excuses criminal acts that caused a centuries long pillar of our democracy, the peaceful transfer of power, of presidential power to buckle. Those, I think are the words that will resound long after this case and this administration is done and gone with. Nothing is worse than that dry crepey feeling your skin can get when it's being dehydrated by the sun day after day. It's 95 plus degrees here. I mean, this has been one of those weeks and it's uncomfortable. It doesn't look great either. We've all tried to avoid that feeling with products that don't work and that leave you greasy and wishing you had a shower. But then here at Sisters in Law we discovered Osea's Hyaluronic Body Serum. It's now a lifesaver for me during the scorching summers and I love that it's made for relief with quick absorption and a non greasy feel. Plus its delightful award winning formula has been clinically shown to deeply moisturize for a silky smooth full body glow.

[A]

Osea's Hyaluronic Body Serum rescues dry skin with instantly smooth and supple skin and it's been clinically shown to deliver instant 24 hour hydration and boost hydration by 161% after just one use. It's cooling, refreshing, white and powerfully hydrating with aloe that helps deliver an immediate boost of hydration.

[C]

The Hyaluronic Body Serum also prevents visible signs of aging and gives a healthy looking and youthful glow to your skin thanks to the seaweed that forms the core of every OSEA formula. I always put it on before I leave the house and the glow really does last all day. You know, we also love the story behind Osea. Founded in Malibu, California in 1996, Osea is a mother daughter founded skincare brand harnessing the power of Seaweed and the Healing Wisdom of the Ocean.

[B]

Wow, that's poetic. The Healing Wisdom of the Ocean. When I hear Malibu, all I think of is Malibu Barbie. For 30 years, Osea has stayed consistent with clean clinically tested skin care from the sea. And you can see and feel the difference from just one use. Osea's Hyaluronic Body Serum is multi layered hyaluronic powered hydration for the entire body. And right now we have a special discount just for you. Get 10% off your first order site wide with code [e-mail] that's code sisters10@o s e-malibu.com the link is in our show Notes.

[A]

On June 30, the very last day of the October 25 term of the Supreme Court, the court decided Trump versus Barbara, holding that the Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship to children born in the United States of parents who are unlawfully or temporarily here. Seems pretty clear to me. Me it was a big loss for Donald Trump. So he took action this week. On Thursday, he issued two new executive orders trying to end run that decision. He's trying to evade what I think is the clear meaning of the Supreme Court decision. And I want to turn to you, Joyce, and say, okay, the first order says children born in the US Would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if born to, quote, alien enemies, members of foreign terrorist organizations or foreign lobbyists. So first of all, he doesn't define those terms, which I think is a problem. How does this first executive order not violate the language of Barbara, the children born in the US Even to those unlawfully here or temporarily present, how is that not part of what was covered in that decision?

[C]

Decision look, this clearly violates Barbara and it clearly violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is politics. This is not policy. And you know that the minute you see the title of this executive order, by the way, it's called continuing to protect the meaning and value of American citizenship. I bet you Stephen Miller was chortling to himself when he wrote that one. This is not something that will withstand judicial scrutiny. And I think the only real question here is who has standing to sue and how long will it take pro democracy lawyers to get into court and invalidate this because it is just clearly in violation of the law. There's by the way, a caveat here. You guys recall when Barbara was decided the birthright citizenship case, Brett Kavanaugh was a member of the majority that that said that Trump's efforts with a sharpie pen right to rewrite birthright citizenship wouldn't fly. But he said I would take an amendment from Congress. And the question might be whether Justice Kavanaugh believes Trump can do it via executive order. I hope he meant what he said when he wrote that it would take an act of Congress. But because one never knows, we will have to keep a watchful eye on all of that.

[A]

This. So what arguments was the White House making that could have overcome what seems an obvious violation of the Constitution? And, Barbara?

[C]

Well, look, we'll find out when the case goes to court, right? All that we get alongside of the executive order, we get a press release. It's called a fact sheet, but it's really not a fact sheet. Right. This is just an effort to make policy arguments, and they are not legal arguments. We, we won't find out what the legal arguments the government is going to make until it goes to court. And, you know, part of this that really, I think, sickens me is they've said that this is the policy, and they will begin to enforce it. And they will enforce it unless and until some judge enters an injunction. And then the White House will play the same game that the Trump White House always plays. They'll appeal that injunction. They'll get to the United States Supreme Court on the shadow docket, and they'll try to get the court to let them deprive people of birthright citizenship until the case can be heard by arguing that deference is owed to the actions of the unitary executive. So I am dug in for another sickening display of Trump's effort to exercise more power than the Constitution affords the president. And I'm hopeful that the Supreme Court will draw the line. Line. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

[A]

So, Barb, the second order said children of people who fraudulently request a visa for tourism for the purpose of giving birth in the US Would not become citizens. So if a child is born to parents who have no legal documents, as was the case in Barbara and SCOTUS says they get birthright citizens, how can it not violate the 14th amendment? If you were here on a legitimate visa, you came as a tourist. What's going on? How will we know if someone came for that purpose? And how would we prove that a visitor was here only to give birth? What's going on?

[B]

Yeah, actually, this one, if you read it, what it says is it directs some of the federal agencies to deny visas to people who want to come to the country when they have reason to believe that the person is traveling for the purpose of engaging in. What do they call it? Birth tourism.

[A]

Right.

[B]

What's interesting about it, they're not saying that you don't get to be a citizen. So if somebody is born Here, under the Barber case, they're a US Citizen. Even if a pregnant person came to the United States and had a baby in the United States, even if they came for the purpose of, of so called birth tourism, as they call it. I mean, this was Donald Trump's rant. I think it's a politically popular one that people come to. They use that phrase, anchor babies. People come to the United States solely for the purpose of having a baby so that that baby can become a United States citizen. It is already a federal regulation that federal State Department officials can deny visas for people on the basis of pregnancy because they will likely have a child in the United States. And that regulation was begun under the administration of, wait for it, Joe Biden in January 24th of 2020. So they're really only restating the law as it already exists. But I think Trump is trying to take credit for stopping birth tourism. Look at what I'm doing. I'm a big hero. But what he directs federal agencies to do is nothing more than reflecting the current status quo. If someone is born here under Barbara, they are a citizen. But federal officials can deny visas for people if they believe that the person who's coming is so far along in their pregnancy that they plan to come simply for the purpose of having a baby and then returning to their country so that the person can become their baby, can become a US Citizen.

[A]

Although I will point out, while I'm not much of a sports following person, one of the stars of the soccer team.

[B]

Yes, yes.

[A]

Qualified to play for us because he was accidentally born in the US because his mother was here legitimately and unexpectedly had the baby here. So it sometimes works to our advantage.

[B]

And you know what's interesting about that? It was actually the scenario in reverse. They were here for some period of time. They actually lived in England. And when it was time for her to go home, she wanted to go home to have the baby. The airline said, you're too pregnant to get on the flight. We don't want you to go into labor on the flight. You can't go. And so she had the baby here, and as a result, he became a US Citizen.

[A]

What an irony. What an irony. So, Joyce, what do you see as the future of these orders? Do you think that we'll be able to stop implementation? Barb said he's going to go ahead and do it. You think someone's going to find standing to bring a suit in time to stop it?

[C]

You know, I do. I think that the civil rights groups that we're used to Seeing litigate these issues will get back into the mix as quickly as they can. I would expect folks like the ACLU and maybe some of the other groups that have taken on a really hefty role in pushing back against Trump's immigration nonsense will yet again spring into action here. We may see states attorneys general who have become a real force in bringing litigation against this administration. Blue states attorneys general, for the most part, sometimes the cases are bipartisan, but I think we. Well, I suspect that there will be a very quick look to see where they're standing. One thing about these executive orders, they weren't really widely anticipated. I didn't hear a lot of chatter before they were released suggesting that they might be coming. So I think the administration was a little bit stealthy in order to require the lawyers to be reactive rather than prepared. But these are some very fine lawyers, and I don't expect it'll take them too long.

[A]

So, you know, Joyce mentioned anchor babies and that the accusation is that China and Russia are the biggest violators of birth tourism and that people are coming here so that their children will get welfare benefits and be able to vote. Uh, and, you know, they're, as I said, blaming the Chinese and the Russians. And I know Chinese have a history of planning out way far farther out than any Americans do. But really, is this something that you would do? I want to have a baby here. So 21 years from now, or 18 years from now, my child can vote in an American election. Is there any risk to national security about Barb that would justify this or any other reason to make these categories not eligible for citizenship?

[B]

It seems speculative to me at best. But regardless of whether it's good policy, it's just not consistent with Barbara, what the court said there is that the only carve out is this language subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And they said that included people who were diplomats in the country. And the new order expands that definition of who's a diplomat to include people who are employees at embassies and others, or if they were members of invading armies. So if, you know, an invading army lands on the shores of the United States and does battle, and during that time, some member of the invading army gives birth to a child, that child would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They want to extend this now to members of terrorist groups. That might be very good policy, but I don't think it matches the rule, nor would we want it to, because think about what that means if you're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, that means you're immune.

[A]

Right.

[B]

We give diplomatic immunity to people who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That means these people with terrorist ties cannot be charged with a crime. And I don't think we want that to be the case. So it strikes me as one more effort to try to flex and show that the President is very serious about his anti immigrant agenda. But I think ultimately it either doesn't change the status quo or it will be defeated through legal challenges.

[A]

Although it does seem that there is a right to deny a visa for certain categories in advance and so. Sure. And even to deny people at the airport entry when something is discovered that would make them ineligible. You know, speakers have been denied because the government says, oh, you're going to say bad things about our country, we're not going to let you in.

[B]

Just like Trump's travel ban, right? Exactly. Countries with majority Muslim populations. The President has a lot of leeway to deny visas.

[A]

So do you think that he could just create a rule that says we're not granting visas to pregnant people and we're not granting visa? We already have. Exactly. So why did he do this? Just for political reasons?

[B]

Yeah, I think so. To it really does look like support.

[C]

And you know something interesting, in the birth tourism executive order, there's an exception. And it's an exception so big that you can drive a truck through it. Right. You can let anybody in. If there's like a national security need, I view that as almost sort of a money making proposition. Right. Friends of Trump get the exception. Or maybe this will be another thing where we'll see, you know, justice for sale, more corruption.

[A]

We've all had the experience where we've bought something without thinking, just on impulse. Sometimes it works out, but sometimes it's a disaster. Like when you buy a razor on a whim. So many of the options out there aren't designed for women and the stores are filled with cheap, flimsy ones that wobble or feel like they're about to snap in half in your hand. From rashes to things I won't name. For Barb's sake, the consequences can be brutal.

[B]

Thank you, Jill.

[A]

Thank you. You're welcome, Barb. We're sensitive to you.

[C]

Thank you.

[A]

Add in the pink tax prices and it can be hard to find your perfect shape shave. That's why we're glad we found Flamingo. They understand that your self care routine should be a soothing ritual, not a chore. And their razors reflect that. As soon as we tried one, we were impressed at how smooth the shave was from the first stroke. It's a dance, not a battle, and the feeling lasts for days. Best of all, your skin stays flawless thanks to stable and precise blades made from high quality material.

[C]

Flamingo's founders realized most women's razors were just shrunken and dyed versions of the men's, so they took their expertise to deliver the ultimate shaving solution for women. The result is high performance, self care tools that actually look and feel good in your hands, and a starter set that includes everything that you'll need. I picked Lilac, but they come in a lot of different stylish colors and whether it's time for a serious shave or just little details, details. Flamingo can handle it all.

[A]

The starter set comes with Flamingo's original razor, complete with five sharp blades and a 360 degree comfort system to help protect skin from irritation, a flexible hinge to hug any curve, and a weighted ergonomic handle made with up to 35% recycled plastic. You also get a facial dermaplane razor that sweeps away peach fuzz and exfoliates the skin for easy skin care and makeup application, a foaming shave gel that adds a pillowy cushion between your skin and the razor for a never felt this smooth shave and a shower holder. And it's all only $7 with free shipping and a risk free 100% money back guarantee that I know you'll never use because you're going to love it.

[B]

Get premium performance, thoughtful design and a fair price price For a limited time, our listeners can get the Flamingo starter set for only $7 at shopflamingo.com Sisters this set includes the Flamingo Original Razor 15 blade cartridge, a 1 ounce foaming shave gel and a shower holder. Just head to shopflamingo.com sisters to claim this offer and after you purchase they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you you. The link is in the show Notes.

[A]

Now it's time for our very favorite part of the show which is answering your questions. And you always send us really good questions. This week was not an exception and we'll get to those. But first I want to remind you that if you have a question for us, please email sistersinlawoliticon.com or tag us on social media using SistersInLaw. If we don't get to your questions during the show, we often answer them on our social media so please follow us there so that you can see if we answered your questions there. This week. I Want to also remind you that we do another show called sisterssidebar where we answer questions you send into that show. So you have two choices. Send us emails here or at Sisters sidebar, but Both go to sistersinlawoliticon.com this week, I want to ask you, Joyce. The very first question comes from Diane Sullivan, realty on Threads. She asked, is there a way to have President full immunity overturned?

[C]

Oh, Diane, this is such a great question. It makes my appellate lawyer nerdy heart go pitter. Pat. Um, you know, and it, it does.

[B]

Don't encourage her, Diane.

[C]

I mean, really, it is. Appellate lawyers are sort of a breed unto themselves, not always loved by trial lawyers because we're thinking about what the next step is. And that's really what the question you're asking is about. I mean, for one thing, it, it's a little bit obscure situation that you would have to have for presidential immunity to be challenged. Would be another president or former president, more likely former gets indicted and he asserts the immunity from United States versus Trump, and then that issue goes up. You know, originally when that decision came down, what we had anticipated, it would go back to the district court. Jack Smith would say, okay, here's my prosecution. Here's what it's going to look like when I'm only charging Trump with things that aren't official acts, and we're ready to go. And of course, Trump's reelection intervened, but if it had not, there would have been a second appeal and there would have been an opportunity not for the court to reverse immunity because it had just issued that opinion, but really to define it and most importantly, to draw lines about the scope. I had always believed that the logical line was there was a difference between the conduct committed by President Trump, which the court said was immune, and candidate Trump or private citizen Trump. And that was where the Supreme Court would land. But of course, we were denied that opportunity. We don't know when or if we will get it in the future. It's still, I think, a very interesting theoretical question for nerdy types like me.

[A]

Our next question comes from Vanessa in California. And Barb, I want you to tell Vanessa what is the significance of the contempt vote against Dr. Fauci.

[B]

This is a great question. We talked about Dr. Fauci a little bit on Sister sidebar earlier this week. But then, of course, after that happened, the Senate Homeland Security Committee voted along party lines to hold him in contempt for invoking his fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. And they said he was obstructing their investigation by Failing to answer questions about the origins of the COVID 19 vaccine because he invoked the fifth even though he had a pardon from criminal prosecution from President Joe Biden. The fallacy of that argument, and they all know it, I mean, Josh Hawley is a lawyer. He even cites a Supreme Court case that stands for the proposition that if you have a pardon is retroactive and goes back to things that happened before that date, but you can still be charged with a crime going forward. And if so, if there is a reasonable fear of prosecution going forward, you have a right to invoke your fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. You know, look at Jim Comey, look at Jack Smith. These are people who have been either referred for prosecution or charged with lying before Congress. Baselessly. Absolutely. Fauci has a well grounded fear of criminal prosecution for which he is entitled to invoke his fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. So I don't think this is gonna go anywhere. It seems to me largely symbolic. If they wanted to advance it within the Senate, they would need the full Senate to vote on this. That means they would need 60 votes to be filibuster proof. That's not happening. The Justice Department could take it up on its own and charge him with the crime of committing contempt of Congress. We saw that happen to Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro who simply failed to show up for their hearing. But Fauci did it, right? He showed up, he went question by question asserting his fifth Amendment right against self incrimin. And so I think he's clear if what they really wanted was answers to the questions, they could get it. They would have to immunize him, which is saying, we will not use your statements against you in future criminal prosecutions. But they don't want to do that. They just want to paint him as the villain. And that's why they've held him in contempt, in my humble opinion.

[A]

And the last question for today comes from Alex in London. He does the activation of NATO's Article 5 require a vote of conduct? Congress? And I thought that was a really interesting question. No, the activation of Article 5 does not require it. It just requires a consensus among NATO members. But there is a different part that needs Congress and that is to actually send troops to support a NATO Article 5 action. Because under our Constitution, that's who has the power. Congress has the power to send troops, not the President. So that would require a congressional action, the treaty itself. Article 5 of the treaty does not require it. But our Constitution requires before we actually commit troops that there be a vote of Congress. But the problem is our Congress is letting the President send troops here hither and beyond without their action. So maybe it won't matter. Thank you for listening to Sisters in law with Barb McQuaid and Joyce Vance and me, Jill Wine Banks. If you enjoyed the podcast, please rate the show and send it on to a friend. Be sure to follow SistersinLaw on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts, and that way you'll never miss another episode. Join us every Saturday as we break down the hottest legal developments of the week and then catch our companion podcast, SistersSideBar, where we answer your questions every single Wednesday. Plus, please shop for our merchandise on SistersInLaw for totes t shirts. Everything that you could want is there. Go to SistersinLaw podcast. Please also check out our advertisers who make us able to do this podcast this week. Vinted Quince, Osea Malibu and Flamingo. See you next week for another episode of Sisters in Law.

[C]

So y'. All. You know when I think I realized that this reflecting pool case had some legs with the public was when my daughter came into my bedroom really excited one night and she's showing me her Instagram account and her Instagram feed is full of people getting algae, reflecting pond manicures, they're all getting these shiny blue green fingernails. And I thought, man, if this is resonating with the 20 something women, you never know what cases are going to grab the public's attention. And early on, the reflecting pool case, you know, who cared? But I think it's going to actually have legs.