ComeyD of Errors

Joyce (00:10)
Welcome back to Hashtag Sisters-in-Law with Barb McQuade, Jill Mein Banks, and me, Joyce Vance. Kim is away, but she’ll be back soon. So some new orders from Hashtag Sisters-in-Law just in time for Christmas shopping. The hoodie is now available for you to order. It was designed by Kim. It has this sort of short and sassy look to it, and I am absolutely in love with mine.

So do not wait, go to politicon.com slash merch before they sell out and make sure you get one for you and maybe a couple of your besties. Here’s what we have planned for you in today’s show. It has been one of those weeks that’s overwhelming. It’s hard to figure out what the most important stories are. And so we’ve given a lot of thought to how we present this week’s news. What we have planned for you this week,

is a discussion of the Comey prosecution, which has just taken an utterly bizarre turn this week. And then second, we’ll talk about the Epstein files. Congress has now passed its bill, but what’s the legal basis for what’s going on? We wanted to do a deeper dive than what you may have heard elsewhere. And finally, we’ll talk about the issue of illegal orders being given by a president and what the United States Military Code of Justice

of sailors and soldiers in those situations, as well as the president’s reaction to allegations that some of what he’s doing may not be entirely above board. But before we get to the serious stuff, y’all, I just wanted to ask you, you know how there’s always a lot of ado at this time of the year about the return of pumpkin spice? And I like pumpkin spice. I don’t love it, but I like it. It does make me wonder though, what are the…flavors and traditions and events that say fall and the holiday season to y’all and what are you most looking forward

Barb (02:06)
Well, in my household, we’re all about the pie. So Thanksgiving is coming up and we’ll have our traditional pumpkin pie, which is fine, and apple pie, also fine. But I’ll tell you what really rocks, maybe this is a Michigan thing. There is this great four berry pie that comes out of Traverse City, Michigan. That is home of the cherry, it is the cherry capital of the world. So the secret fourth berry in their four berry pie,

They’ve got raspberry, ⁓ blueberry, blackberry, and the fourth berry is actually tart cherries. So I’m not sure a cherry counts as a berry. It’s a stone fruit, I believe. But it’s delicious. ⁓ Joyce, please. Have you met me? I don’t bake these pies, but I do eat them.

Joyce (02:56)
Bake them even at the holidays? Where do they come from?

Barb (02:59)
They come from the pie store, of course. But they’re quite delicious. So we will be ⁓ having many a four berry pie this Thanksgiving at our household.

Joyce (03:03)
Of I should have known.

This sounds amazing.

Jill (03:14)
And I am like you, I don’t actually, I’m maybe stronger than you Joyce. I don’t actually like pumpkin lattes or any of those flavors. And I don’t like pumpkin pie at all. I would never eat a pumpkin pie. But a friend of mine just made me a pumpkin chocolate cake bread, you know, like a banana bread, but it’s made with pumpkin and chocolate. And she gave me some of the leftover from Michael.

who gobbled it up. He totally loved it and I am going to try, she sent me the recipe, so I am going to try that and make that a tradition at Thanksgiving. I’m gonna surprise my host for Thanksgiving. Ellen, if you’re listening, don’t listen, stop. Sorry, I guess it won’t be a surprise. Anyway, I was gonna make one for her along with my Jell-O-Mold, which is my family favorite thing.

Joyce (04:12)
You know, that sounds really good. I’m not a traditionalist when it comes to holidays. The first year Bob and I were, can’t remember if we were engaged or if we’d gotten married, but I took a trifle to Thanksgiving. You know where you make cake and you eat cream? Well, Bob’s very Southern family, they were skeptics, right? I mean, they just sort of looked at it and nobody wanted to touch it. But I do like to experiment at the holidays. And I think

Jill (04:26)
I love trifle.

Joyce (04:40)
This year I’m gonna work on olive oil apple cakes and see if I can get that just right. You know, the experimentation is part of the fun, right? Cinnamon, cardamom, apples, that’s just sounding really comforting. Yeah. This year.

Barb (04:54)
That does sound good.

Jill (04:56)
So I want your recipe, but not for the olive oil apple. make some olive Olive oil I take is so good. no, no, no.

Joyce (05:01)
Olive oil cake?

Girl, I’m gonna make a believer of you. I’ll send you a slice. I’ll fed up.

Jill (05:08)
Okay, if you promise, I’ll taste it, I have a bias. But I love trifle and I have a recipe from one of my law school friends. So, you know, something that I got more than 50 years ago that is still my go-to, but I don’t bake the angel food cake that goes in it. I use store-bought and it’s delicious. It is so good and it’s so easy to make and it looks beautiful in a huge bowl with all the different layers. Fabulous.

Joyce (05:37)
Well, now that we’ve gone down this path, maybe our listeners will share some of their favorite Thanksgiving recipes with us. We’d love to see them, y’all. Send them on in.

Barb (05:46)
Please. Dessert category preferred.

Joyce (05:59)
As we move into our cold weather routines, it’s the perfect time to add more color to our lives. For some of us, that’s bringing out the decorative quilts, watching the leaves change, or customizing our looks with an autumn vibe with Thrive Cosmetics. After all, little rituals that mark the changing of the season feel good, and that includes updating your makeup look. Whether you’re going with a simple, just-got-to-get-out-the-door routine or festive fall glam,

Thrive Cosmetics is your go-to for completing any fall look. Every product is 100 % vegan, cruelty-free, and made with clean, skin-loving ingredients that work with your skin, not against it. And that means it’s always our go-to.

Jill (06:43)
You know, Joyce, it’s been my go-to for a long time. And I started with their Vegan Tubing Liquid Lash Extensions Mascara. And I still love that the best of all, but I love so many of their other products. Their skincare is great. So is their, what I call, eye shadow sticks. They’re fabulous. But the Tubing Mascara comes in six shades that last all day without clumping, smudging, or flaking.

There’s a reason it has over 40,000 five-star reviews. Your lashes will look extra long due to how it wraps around each lash from root to tip. And it’s super easy to remove. It slides right off with warm water without yanking out your natural lashes and without leaving that horrible black smudge under your eyes that takes super scrubbing to get off. Plus, it nourishing ingredients support longer, stronger, and healthier looking lashes over time.

As soon as I found out about it, I started using it. It’s the perfect way to make a big impression.

Barb (07:48)
And we also love that cause is in the name for a reason. Thrive not only defines luxury beauty with clean, skin-loving ingredients and uncompromising standards, but they give back too. Every time you use your favorite Thrive Cosmetics product, you’re doing more than enhancing your glow. You’re helping others shine too. With more than $150 million in product and cash donations to 600-plus giving partners, your purchase directly fuels real impact.

Imagine making a difference in things like education, the fight against cancer, stopping domestic abuse, and more with every purchase. That’s beauty with purpose. Don’t wait to complete your fall look. Go to thrivecosmetics.com slash sisters for an exclusive offer of 20 % off your first order. That’s Thrive Cosmetics, C-A-U-S-E-M-E-T-I-C-S dot com slash sisters. The link is in our show notes.

Well, the criminal prosecution of James Comey took a bizarre turn or two this week when we learned about a comedy of errors, or should I call it a Comey-D of errors? Okay, all right, too much. But it was some kind of errors. You may recall that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia had charged the former FBI director with lying to Congress.

when he testified in 2020 that he had not authorized anyone at the FBI to leak information to the press or something like that. The charge itself is kind of a mess, but I digress because that’s about the merits. This week, it was all about the procedural gaffes and some pretty stunning ones at that. So let’s dig into them, shall we? Let’s start with the most recent one, Joyce. We learned during a hearing on Wednesday that the full grand jury

never saw the final version of the indictment before voting on it. Though DOJ appears now to even be walking back that admission that Lindsay Halligan made in open court. So I’m not sure what the facts are anymore, but how can this happen? And what do you think is the likely consequence here? I mean, you’ve appeared before a grand jury. Has anything like this ever happened to either of you?

Joyce (10:23)
This has never happened to anyone. This is just utterly gross incompetence at work, right? I mean, we can try to make sense out of the nonsense and y’all please chime in and help because this is so crazy. It’s a little bit difficult to wrap your mind around. ⁓ But you know, because using a grand jury is required to indict by the Constitution.

there are some very precise rules around indictments and grand juries. And one is that the grand jury has to be shown the indictment and hear the evidence to support it and vote to return that indictment before a prosecution can be commenced. And so the problem here happened because an insurance lawyer with no experience in protecting a defendant’s rights, which is a big part of a prosecutor’s job, even though prosecutors are the ones trying to convict.

The problem here is that the insurance lawyer handled the indictment. And what it looks like happened is that grand jurors voted to indict on two of the three presented charges. And instead of doing what you’re supposed to do in that situation and going back across the street, drafting a new indictment, providing it to the grand jurors, letting them vote on it, the timeline and the testimony from Trump’s US attorney, Lindsay Halligan herself,

suggests that she got an updated indictment and just gave it to the court without going back to the grand jury. The timeline suggests that everything happened just in minutes after she learned that the grand jury had not voted to accept all three charges. And look, these things take time. So her original story, the one she told in court under oath that said that the full grand jury did not see the new indictment, that makes sense. And as the magistrate judge

pointed out in his opinion where he had first seemed to stumble upon the conclusion that this was what had happened. He just said, we’re an uncharted waters. mean, this just done happened. So ⁓ the government did file a pleading yesterday suggesting the grand jury had voted on the new indictment. But as you said, Barb, it’s super unclear. They rely on questioning of the grand jury foreman. And it looks to me like that individual is saying that they saw the new indictment, that they

Personally did I don’t know that they met the entire grand jury and if in fact that turns out to be the case The government is in a whole bunch of trouble. I think it’s interesting that by you know Messing around with this they’ve now opened up a legitimate line of inquiry that may involve the court bringing all of the grand jurors in to ask them about what happened which is utterly unprecedented I’ve seen people saying well, can’t you just look at the transcript?

But grand jury transcripts don’t include the vote itself. I mean, I think this is frankly a defense lawyer’s dream, bringing in grand jurors to talk about all of this. And as I have said in the past, in the matchup of Lindsay Halligan versus Barb’s and my former colleague, Fitzgerald, ⁓ the very experienced former US attorney in Chicago, who has now been joined by one of the best appellate lawyers in the country, Michael Drebben,

I think Lindsay Halligan is in a little bit of trouble here.

Barb (13:50)
Yeah, you know, ⁓ just a couple of things. First is, it seems like in my wildest dreams, on my wildest law school hypothetical exam, you know, when you write law school exams for students, you try to come up with like wild, crazy scenarios and see if students can spot the issues. In my wildest imagination, like I couldn’t come up with these hypotheticals. just too far away. But, you know,

Joyce (14:15)
Absolutely not, ⁓

Barb (14:20)
doesn’t it strike you as this is perhaps the consequence when you send an insurance lawyer into the grand jury who said like Jill and Joyce tell me like I’m sure like me you guys got training. I went to the NAC the National Advocacy Center for a week long course and grand jury practice. I was not permitted to appear before the grand jury until I observed maybe three or four people presenting a case to the grand jury. ⁓

partnered with some people before I presented my own case and only then was I allowed to present a case before the grand jury. And even then, you know, they were simple one count cases, not cases against the former FBI director on the eve of the expiration of the statute of limitations. I mean, is your experience similar to mine?

Jill (15:06)
Absolutely. And we have to remember that Lindsay Halligan was appointed four days before she appeared before this grand jury. She has no criminal experience at all, none. And the lawyers in her office would not even go into the grand jury room with her because they believed this was an unjustified case. The US attorney designee before her was ousted because

He said, I will not bring this case, it is not justified. And so that’s why we are in this horrible circumstance. Training is essential. Of course, no one goes into a grand jury on their fourth day in the office. You have to have some training, you have to observe. I had mentors who were fantastic that I could rely on, that I knew what to do when it came my time.

to question witnesses and to present an indictment. And we have to also praise the magistrate judge here because he spotted the timing in the transcript that he got saying, there isn’t enough time between the rejection of the first indictment you presented and you’re coming before me in court for you to have redrafted the indictment, presented it to the grand jury, instructed them

left them to discuss the indictment and vote on it. There couldn’t have been enough time. So what’s going on here? And that’s what led to the revelation. Well, the former of the grand jury saw the new one and he and one other juror saw it. That is not what the constitution says about felonies. And this is a multiple count felony indictment. So it required a grand jury to consider the evidence.

This was just completely wrong for her to have done it in this manner. And there should be consequences to it ⁓ because she was the only one in the room.

Barb (17:14)
All right, I want to say two things about that. One is, I’ve been trying to come up with the right metaphor for this. Tell me if you guys have any ones that are better. I’m saying it’s, here’s my latest one. It’s like sending the Spanish teacher in to teach the math class. She may very well be a very good Spanish teacher, but she doesn’t know anything about math. And so when she walks in, she doesn’t know how to teach math. Does that make sense? You got a better one? got a better one?

Jill (17:35)
Yes?

Joyce (17:37)
What

if Halligan was good at either one of those things?

Barb (17:40)
⁓ She can’t even speak Spanish as far as we know. I see. Okay. So that’s my metaphor. ⁓ Let me know if you come up with any better ones. I always like a good metaphor. Here’s the other thing though. I think that as bad as this is, it’s probably not fatal to the case. Other things may be. So hold on and we’ll get there. But there’s this principle that you can amend an indictment as to form, but not as to substance. And so if you squint,

I think what you can see here, the argument is the grand jury did vote on these two identical counts, even though they never saw this particular document. And since you could amend a document, you can redact it, you can drop counts that this is equivalent to an amendment as to form and not as to substance. What do you think? You think it survives this exposure of a gaffe?

Joyce (18:35)
Yeah, I think it does. I mean, I think you have laid it out just exactly right. And the problem for the government is they may survive, you know, by the… of their teeth here. But the problem is it makes them look bad. And because there will be more inquiry and perhaps more evidence about this deficient procedure comes to light, it will make the other very strong motions that the government has, including the ones for vindictive and selective prosecution.

Barb (18:45)
Okay.

Joyce (19:03)
just look that much better. mean, every place the government steps in this case, there’s a landmine going off because this is a revenge prosecution, not predicated on fact, not predicated by law. And so when you dig deep, you start to see where all the fault lines are.

Barb (19:21)
Yeah. And you know, why did she not do it the right way? As you said, Joyce, and I’ve had this happen, maybe you find a typo in the indictment or something, you go back to your office, you fix it, you bring back the new version, 23 copies, you let the whole grand jury see it, and they vote on that document. This occurs at like 4.30 in the afternoon on a Thursday. The statute of limitations is going to run the following Monday. Most grand juries don’t sit on Fridays and Mondays. My guess is they say, we’re getting ready to go home. We’re out of here at five o’clock.

She can’t beat the clock. She’s got to get this thing filed today while the grand jury is still here before that statute of limitations expires. So in a rush to get it done, she says, good enough, the foreperson will just sign it. And she doesn’t even know better that this is a problem.

Joyce (20:05)
You know, you’re more generous than I am on that one, Barb. I mean, I hear your point. I think that there may have been a promise made to the guy in the White House, right? Because this is the Eastern District of Virginia, and they can run their grand jury on a Friday and a Monday if they want to. So she had a little bit of breathing space here. She could have even come in Tuesday morning and done it first thing. I think she didn’t want, I mean, you know, it’s the end of the day. There’s no reason to rush it unless you’ve really got to get it done that exact day.

And so I wonder what may come to light, what communications we may learn about as this continues. I will be keeping lots of popcorn on hand. Watch this.

Barb (20:44)
Well, let’s unpack some of the other gaffes in this case. Earlier in the week, a magistrate judge issued an opinion regarding some discovery motions and took the extraordinary step of releasing to the defense the full grand jury transcript. First, Jill, can you explain what a magistrate judge is? And then I want to ask you a question about the judge’s finding with regard to Lindsay Halligan.

and what she said in the grand jury room where she appears to have misstated the law in a couple of egregious ways. But first, what’s up, Hedge, a straight judge?

Jill (21:18)
Good question. A magistrate judge is a federal judicial officer, but not under Article 3, as most federal judges are, which deals with the judicial branch. A magistrate judge is appointed by the other judges in his district, his or her district, and is serving therefore under the Article 1, not under Article 3. And his or her powers are limited.

Magister judges handle preliminary matters, not final substantive decisions. So they handle pretrial motions, they handle arraignments, they handle ⁓ warrants, search warrants. They can try minor offenses, misdemeanors in criminal cases, and if the parties agree, they can try a civil case, but generally not dispositive issues.

like whether this indictment will be dismissed because of the misconduct. ⁓ And they ⁓ serve for a limited term, four years if they’re part-time, eight years if they’re full-time, and they don’t have life tenure. So that’s what they do. And in this case, the magistrate judge was very astute and caught these errors of timing in the transcript that led to some of these disclosures. Do you want me go on to your other question?

Barb (22:43)
mean, just a reminder listeners what it was. Yeah, so the great description of what a so these are full-fledged judges. They’re very qualified. In fact, in some ways, I probably shouldn’t say this out loud. I find many of the magistrate judges to actually sometimes be better than some of the district court judges because district court judges are selected, are political appointees. Some are coincidentally outstanding, some less so, but the magistrate judges are really chosen on the merits. And so they end up really being quite good.

Jill (23:01)
Yeah.

Barb (23:11)
And they end up having to do a lot of the heavy lifting and the more tedious work. So we’ve got this magistrate judge. ⁓ And the judge ⁓ makes these findings, Jill, about what Lindsay Halligan said when she was stating the law for the members of the grand jury. Yeah, there you go. Tell us about that.

Jill (23:28)
the law.

Okay, well she did definitely misstate the law in ways that anyone who watches Law and Order actually knows better than she did. She kind of put the burden of proof on the defendant. Well, we all know the burden of proof is on the government. She misrepresented the Fifth Amendment saying that he was going to have to testify and put forward, which of course he doesn’t have to, the government has to prove its case. She also suggested

Don’t worry about if you think there’s not enough evidence here because we have much more. We have more good evidence. And so don’t worry about it, which is of course not how it works. The grand jury gets to see the evidence that is sufficient. It doesn’t have to see all of the evidence you have. Sometimes there may be a reason for withholding some of the evidence or that you find evidence after indictment that you use at trial. But you can’t say to the jury, hey,

I got some more stuff going. Don’t worry about it. If you don’t like this, I got some hidden away from you. ⁓

Joyce (24:34)
Jill, can I just interrupt you just to say, it’s hard to explain how not normal this is. I was like literally reading the judge’s order, like banging on my desk, just like so, I mean, we see a lot of weird, crazy stuff, right? And so it’s hard to explain when something is beyond average, not normal with this administration. This is just like some really crazy stuff going on here. Yeah.

Jill (25:01)
It is beyond ⁓ any experience. Now, I’ve never had a grand jury vote against an indictment I presented, so I’ve never had this situation. But it’s beyond anything you could possibly imagine. so, Barb, your metaphor is good, but it really doesn’t capture how serious this is. And it is serious.

Barb (25:25)
Yeah, you know, the prosecutor is in the grand jury room with, as Joyce said, not just a responsibility to represent their client, the United States, but to act as the legal advisor to the grand jury. And so they have a responsibility to state the law correctly. And this was not just a misstatement of law. was a really prejudicial misstatement of law, in my view. But the blunders do not end there. In fact, how many did the magistrate judge find? Was it 11?

Joyce (25:54)
1265? mean, what on earth?

Barb (25:58)
Joyce, you had a good column earlier this week in your civil discourse sub stack newsletter about some potential violations that the magistrate judge found about the Fourth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as attorney-client privilege based on some ⁓ messages, text messages that were used in the grand jury to get this indictment. Can you explain how the FBI appears to have botched the search and the privilege issue?

Joyce (26:27)
Yeah, you know, this really does take some explanation because what prosecutors wanted to do was they wanted to use evidence from an old investigation, a 2019-2020 look at Director Comey’s friend Dan Richmond, who was under investigation for leaking to the press after Trump fired Comey. And the allegations included theft of government property and mishandling classified information.

And the Justice Department executed some search warrants, got some evidence that way. And then during Trump’s first administration, apparently determined no crime had been committed and they did not indict anyone. So fast forward, it’s 2025, Lindsay Halligan, this might, it’s timelines unclear. This may predate by a few days her actually coming to the office. But at some point, either when or shortly before she shows up in this new investigation,

they start going back through that old evidence. And before they indict the case, an FBI agent comes to the realization that some of it is protected by the attorney-client privilege because Richmond was Comey’s lawyer. And so the agent brings that to the attention of the FBI general counsel, the FBI’s top lawyer, and also to the case agent, the agent who ends up going in front of the grand jury and being the

only witness who testifies when they indict the case. And the FBI and DOJ prosecutors were slow to deal with this. So that agent actually goes into the grand jury. And that means that because that agent had been reviewing evidence that was potentially stuff that violated attorney-client privilege that they shouldn’t have been looking at, that may have tainted the entirety of the grand jury proceedings.

You know, there are really clear procedures for preventing investigations from being tainted by constitutional violations because things like this happen with some regularity and this crew just didn’t follow them until much later. In fact, it’s ironically because they finally did ask the judge to let them use what’s called a filter team to review the evidence. All of this comes to light. So that’s one problem.

But it also looks like that original search warrant back in 2019, and more importantly, the seizure of evidence under it, exceeded what the judge had authorized in the warrant. So that’s just a clear cut Fourth Amendment violation. And it would have been easy to fix that because normally in a case like this, you get a new search warrant, right? It’s five years down the road. You don’t rely on the old search warrant, but this crew didn’t.

And this is actually an entirely different defendant facing different charges. So that old warrant, that old search warrant really is constitutionally invalid. And that means that the validity of all of the seized evidence and the government’s ability to use it could be in question. But there are larger questions here of whether or not the government violated the Fourth Amendment in such sustained fashion.

that the judge needs to impose a drastic remedy, like, for instance, dismissing the case with prejudice.

Barb (29:45)
Yeah, you know, this comedy of errors or comity of errors is where we’re now all calling it. That’s what I heard. I everyone’s calling it the comity of errors. The comity of errors. ⁓ reminds me of a concept that I researched in my book, The Fix, about, you know, corrupting government. ⁓ One of the things that happens in authoritarian regimes is people get picked for high level jobs.

Joyce (29:53)
It’s the comedy of errors,

Barb (30:13)
not because of their skill or experience or expertise, but because of their willingness to do the bidding of the boss without question. And it seems like this is what you get when you choose people for jobs, not because of their skills, but because they’re willing to do whatever it takes for the boss. So, I mean, the idea of not getting another warrant, of not using a filter team, I mean, these are just unheard of. The botches before the grand jury, all of these things are

They’d be laughable if they weren’t so serious.

Joyce (30:44)
Well, any one of them, right? Just one of them on its own. We’re talking about multitudes of stupid errors.

Barb (30:51)
Yeah, it really is. These are all just, what do they call it? Unforced errors, as they say in tennis. There’s also a pending motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that the US attorney, Lindsay Halligan, was improperly appointed and the judge has promised a decision before Thanksgiving. He could put her out of her misery and just say, you’re done. ⁓ What are your bets as to whether the Comey family has a nice Thanksgiving with this case dismissed?

Jill (31:18)
You know, this is not the only pending motion to dismiss a US attorney, but this one is different because it puts in jeopardy any indictment that she got, including this one. I don’t know if she did any others and did so much damage in those. And that’s because she is the only member of that office who was in the grand jury room and the only one who signed the document. So if she is improperly appointed and taken out of

her misery, as you put it, Barb, then the indictment goes with her. So I think here it’s clear that she was improperly appointed and that it could lead to a dismissal. ⁓ Although I will also note there is a rule that allows when a dismissal of an indictment is because of a procedural error as opposed to substantive, that you get six months after even if, as here, the statute of limitations has run.

So it could be reindited, but honestly, maybe they’ve learned something and they would go, this is such a bad case, let’s just forget it. We’re gonna lose it on the merits in addition.

Barb (32:28)
You can always just blame a radical leftist lunatic left-wing Democrat judge, right?

Joyce (32:33)
I mean, it’s like, Barb, you call this a comedy of errors. It could also just be straight up lemony snicket, a series of unfortunate events, right? I mean, this whole notion that the judge was improperly appointed, I’m not frankly quite sure where this comes out. A number of judges are considering this and have thought that the Justice Department erred. Maybe the Supreme Court will stick its thumb on the scales in Trump’s favor again.

But in my view, no matter how this one comes out, there’s plenty of evidence that surfaces about why and how Trump put insurance lawyer Lindsay Halligan into the role of United States attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. And what it’s going to end up doing is making the motion to dismiss with prejudice because it’s a vindictive prosecution airtight.

I think these motions all sort of interlock and wrap around each other. And that vindictive prosecution motion, the motion that never gets granted in any case, right? Because the burden is so high for a defendant, it looks really good here.

Jill (33:43)
And it is proof of weaponization of the Department of Justice. It is for all of us who really took pride in being part of the Department of Justice and going to court and saying, behalf of the United States, this is an egregious error.

Barb (33:59)
Why don’t we leave it there? I have been on the record saying I don’t think this amounts to the classic definition of ⁓ vindictive prosecution, which is a term of art. But if it’s not, maybe it will create a new doctrine, the doctrine of a comedy of errors.

Jill (34:15)
⁓

A new legal principle.

Barb (34:19)
Yeah, there we go.

Joyce (34:26)
you

One of the best parts of the holidays is sharing gifts and memories. Looking back on the great times you’ve had with your loved ones in the past and looking forward to the times to come is truly incredible. Luckily, we have the perfect gift to celebrate, remember, and display those memories. It’s called an Aura Frame. You’ll find it in every Sisters-in-Law household, and it allows you to relive your favorite holiday moments every day.

Jill (34:57)
You know, it’s not just one in every one of our homes because doesn’t everybody need one in different rooms? You know, it’s one thing to have it in the kitchen where it can remind you of happy memories. This may be TMI, but one of my best friends, I know, well, just tell me whether we have to bleep this. One of my friends has it in her bathroom facing her toilet so that she can enjoy her moments

there.

Barb (35:27)
It

stinks for right, Jill.

Joyce (35:31)
Way too

Jill (35:33)
Whether you get one for your home or more, or for a beloved friend or family member, one of the most exciting things about the gift is picking out the photos that go on it. Since it’s a digital picture frame, you can load in as many memories as you want. Better yet, it’s super easy to set up, no matter how unskilled you are at digital stuff. Just download the Aura app and connect it to Wi-Fi, and from there, you can put

in an unlimited number of photos or videos. Plus, you can change what it shows whenever you feel like it. Do it anytime you want. For me, it’s the adventures that Michael and I have shared together. And let me tell you, some of them are so mind blowing. Guests who look at them always wonder where we have been. I especially love our pictures from all of our animal safaris and the great wildlife photographs, but maybe

Borneo and New Guinea are my real favorites, where we traveled downriver in native boats and stayed in longhouses with villages that most people never see. Love all of those photos.

Joyce (36:46)
That sounds amazing, Jill. You know, my tastes are a little bit more pedestrian, and just looking back at our photos and videos from the past is one of my family’s favorite holiday traditions. And our AuraFrames make it easy. Especially if you have kids, AuraFrames make a great gift to keep you connected. And you can personalize it by adding a message for the recipient before it arrives.

Barb (37:10)
Yeah, this has been one of my favorite gifts. I have given aura frames to many family members, including my father-in-law and my mother, who just love them. They really enjoy looking at the pictures. I load it for them so they don’t have to do anything. They just have to plug it in when they get it home. The other thing I like to do is alternate the photos every month. So I’ve got pictures mostly of our kids when they were young. So right now we’ve been seeing a lot of good Thanksgiving pictures of the kids when they were young. They’re hilarious. And so they brighten my day every time I see them.

For a limited time, you can visit AuraFrames.com and get $45 off Aura’s best-selling Carver Mat Frames, named number one by Wirecutter, by using promo code SISTERS at checkout. That’s A-U-R-A-FRAMES.COM promo code SISTERS. This exclusive Black Friday Cyber Monday deal is their best of the year. So order now before it ends. Support the show by mentioning us at checkout.

Terms and conditions apply. The link is in our show notes.

Well, this episode of Sisters in Law is brought to you by Wild Grain. If you haven’t heard, Wild Grain is the first bake from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, seasonal pastries, and fresh pastas. Plus, all items conveniently bake in 25 minutes or less. And unlike many store-bought options, Wild Grain uses simple ingredients you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process.

that can be easier on your belly and richer in nutrients and antioxidants.

Jill (38:53)
The quality of this is amazing and the fragrance when you’re baking it is just amazing. My husband was cooking some ⁓ chapatta bread yesterday and I could smell it when I was working in the living room and it drew me right into the kitchen. I couldn’t wait to taste it. And we all love that Wild Grain’s boxes are fully customizable and they’re constantly adding seasonal and limited time products for you to enjoy.

In addition to their classic box, they now feature a gluten-free box and a plant-based box, and I just noticed on my most recent order, a protein box too. It’s amazing how fast wild grain goes from the box to our table. Michael and I really enjoy the breads and the pastas and of course the pastries, chocolate filled croissants. We need Kim to say that word, but okay, I’ll do it my way.

My guests always enjoy whatever I’m serving and they’re impressed and surprised when I say it’s baked from frozen, not homemade. They often end up subscribing since it’s perfect for delicious meals, snacks, or for quick food prep.

Joyce (40:03)
You know, having wild grain delivered is convenient, but I’m just going to say as a self-described bakery snob, we live in this neighborhood that’s full of really, really great bakeries. I have been so won over by wild grain, and I always keep plenty of it on hand in my freezer for those moments when I want to pop something in the oven, let it spend 20 minutes there coming to life and issuing delicious smells, and then be able to sit down and have a really wonderful snack.

You know, when life gets busy, I love watching the color and the flavors come alive. The pumpkin cinnamon biscuits are a great example. Just watching them heat up is a real pleasure. The aroma that comes from the oven is incredible. And there’s so much more to enjoy. You’ll love the Tarrin Cher cranberry pecan rolls. The Parmesan herb biscuits make just an ordinary dinner very special. And then there are the apple pie bites. So just make sure you get enough to share.

We promise you’ll never have to call everyone when the food is ready because they will come running. Delicious smells will come out of your kitchen. When you want to treat your family, wild grain is perfect for the holiday season.

Barb (41:11)
Yeah, I’ve been saving some of those chocolate croissants. I can’t say it as well as Kim. But I’ve been saving it for when my family gets home for the holidays, because they really like them and they’re delicious. For a limited time, Wild Grain is offering our listeners $30 off your first box, plus free croissants, sorry Kim, in every box when you go to wildgrain.com slash sisters to start your subscription. You heard me, free croissants in every box.

and $30 off your first box when you go to wildgrain.com slash sisters. That’s wildgrain.com slash sisters, or you can use the promo code sisters at checkout. The link is in our show notes.

Joyce (42:00)
Well, Epstein. I’m sure just about everyone is up to speed on what’s happening. After Donald Trump’s abrupt about face, both houses of Congress passed the Epstein Files Bill. We all get the politics. But today, my sisters and I wanted to dig a little bit deeper and talk about the law behind all of this. So Jill, let’s start with the basics. Congress has passed a bill calling for release of the files. What’s the legal basis for doing that?

Jill (42:30)
This is such an interesting question because of course the legal basis is they have the right to pass legislation that’s in the public interest and they’re doing it. In my mind, they shouldn’t have needed the Epstein Transparency Act because the Freedom of Information Act allows them to get this. Their inherent powers of oversight and the right to subpoena documents as part of their investigation into whether they should pass new laws.

whether laws are being violated that already exist, all gave them the basis for getting the documents. So we shouldn’t have needed this law, but we have the law and that’s fine. So basically they have the right to pass the legislation as long as it doesn’t violate anything in the US Constitution. And the exceptions are something we need to discuss separately in what is in the law and whether that would have been

Joyce (43:21)
I think.

Jill (43:28)
necessary or whether it’s already covered by existing rules.

Joyce (43:32)
Well, let’s do that. mean, Barb, in the wake of directing Pam Bondi to open a new Epstein investigation, there’s been speculation DOJ will decline to release documents or at least do a limited release. What would their legal basis be for doing that? And would that be something extraordinary? We’ve been talking about these very unusual sorts of legal developments we’ve seen. Or is that something that’s more consistent with the typical practice? ⁓

Barb (43:58)
Yeah,

so as Jill mentioned, very unusual legislation that gets passed to release the Epstein Files Transparency Act does include an exception that says the attorney general may withhold from disclosure any material that could jeopardize an ongoing investigation. Now, of course, many months ago, she said, it’s over. I’ve looked at the file. There’s no there, there. There’s nothing that needs to be released. But then all of a sudden, last week, she says,

guess what, I’m reopening the investigation and we’re going to look at some Democrats. ⁓ So that strikes me as one, a valid legal basis to prevent disclosure, but call me a little dubious when she already said there was no case to investigate and suddenly now that we’re on the brink of this release, she says, yeah, there is some investigation because now that gives her a basis.

to deem certain documents relevant, prevent their disclosure, and perhaps to even say if there are any documents relating to President Trump, and she has already said that there are, she could simply deem them relevant to this investigation and prevent their disclosure.

Jill (45:16)
Could I just say I have a slightly different view, which is that it was a mistake to order an investigation of Democrats only because clearly information about them would be protected as part of an ongoing investigation. But since Donald Trump is not under investigation, then any information about him should be releasable.

Barb (45:37)
You

know they’re gonna come up with some crazy thing like it’s pretty material

Jill (45:43)
I know they will. I’m just saying that in a normal world, this was a really self-inflicted wound. It was stupid to do what they did. And of course, they couldn’t possibly order an investigation of him. That would have been, you know, they’re loyalists. They can’t do that. But I’m just saying it was a mistake. And I think that ⁓ we should see the stuff that mentions Trump. And we know from the FBI’s

investigation that there are lots and lots and lots of references to Donald Trump.

Joyce (46:18)
You know, I totally agree with you. I wrote about that in my newsletter as soon as I started thinking through the implications of this scheme. And although some of this is legal, getting DOJ to turn over documents Congress has asked for, this is where it intersects back with the politics. And I think Democrats, if they’re smart, they will hammer this home. Donald Trump is not under investigation. He has said only Democrats. know, Epstein is a Democrat problem is what Trump said.

There’s no reason to not turn over the rest of this and they may lose the legal war, but when the PR war, which when it comes to the Epstein files seems to be where a lot of the important action is happening. Although I have to say that there’s a part of me that’s a little bit disgusted by where this issue is because I always remember this is about girls who were victims and women who became survivors.

And I feel like so much of this is no longer centered on them and their really legitimate demand for justice. instead it’s somehow like everything else becomes about Donald Trump, which really annoys me. ⁓ mean, Barb, what do you think about this? Is there a legitimate basis for doing the new investigation?

Barb (47:31)
I mean, not that we’ve seen. Of course, we can’t see what Pam Bondi has seen. ⁓ I don’t think she has earned any benefit of the doubt based on some of the things she’s done in the past. Ordinarily, to open an investigation requires something called predication. That means an allegation or a fact to suggest a crime was committed. So if she’s got some document to suggest that there is somebody who committed a crime, then I suppose so. But there’s nothing in the public record to suggest there is. And I think her own

statement is contradicted by her prior statement where she said, there’s nothing else here, folks. So only upon the eve of this disclosure does she make this announcement, which strikes me as just sort of suspicious that this is cover so that she can withhold certain documents. You know what comes to mind? Remember when ⁓ we saw the testimony of Evan Corcoran, a former lawyer for Donald Trump, when he was discussing the Mar-a-Lago documents and the testimony was

He asked me if we could remove some of the documents from the boxes before returning them, and he made a plucking motion. I imagine him saying to Bondi, can’t we remove some of these documents and making that plucking motion. that unlike Evan Corker who said, no dice, maybe this time he’s got his Roy Cohn who’s willing to go along with that.

Joyce (48:51)
You know, I asked Bondi about this on Twitter when she had announced her new investigation and I tweeted at her, well, since we’re now making prosecutive decisions on Twitter, you know, maybe you can share with us what’s changed since you closed this investigation and go figure. She never got back to me.

Barb (49:10)
⁓ not yet, joey

Jill (49:12)
Her answer in the press was, well, information. New information. I mean, the stumbling nature.

Joyce (49:21)
It was crazy, right?

Jill (49:23)
so offensive that she could not even speak. And of course there’s no new information. They’ve had everything, they’ve reviewed everything. She said in no uncertain terms, we’re closing this, there is nothing there, there’s nothing more to pursue. And now all of a sudden Donald Trump says, go after the Democrats, and she’s opening a new investigation. There is no predicate for this. I think it is completely ridiculous and should be dropped.

Joyce (49:49)
Let’s just say for the sake of speculation that DOJ does find some new charges that they can bring against the defendants. Would they be able to bring them? Is there some sort of a barrier? We talk a lot about statutes of limitation.

Jill (50:02)
There isn’t one for sex trafficking, so that would allow them even at this late date to pursue it. And wouldn’t it be wonderful if the survivors, who I hope will move on to thriving, ⁓ if they got accountability and justice by having an actual serious look at this. ⁓ So yes, I mean, they could proceed if there is something new.

that indicates there are facts that show a violation of law.

Joyce (50:36)
Yeah, know, Barb, ultimately we know Trump will protect Trump. That’s just a whole, you know, raison d’etre. I’m no Kim, I can’t speak French, but hopefully y’all know what I’m saying. Is there a legal mechanism that will still make it possible for Trump to be held accountable or at least for the truth about his relationship with Epstein to emerge? Or do you think that the survivors will ultimately not get the justice that they deserve?

Barb (51:04)
You know, it’s hard to imagine a mechanism for getting this information. ⁓ I suppose if somebody wanted to push it, if ultimately a new attorney general in the next administration were to say, we’ve now closed every criminal investigation, therefore there’s no longer any reason to withhold any of the documents that were previously withheld by Attorney General Bondi for the purpose of protecting an ongoing investigation.

And therefore, here’s all the rest of it. So I suppose that could happen, but I don’t think it’s going to happen until at least 2029 when he’s out of office and we have a new attorney general.

Jill (51:46)
you

you

The holidays are here and your kitchen needs to be up to the challenge. From friends giving to baking parties or the big family feast, this is the season for gatherings, celebrating and the best part for feasting. It can be a challenge, but nothing makes it easier, quicker or more fun than cookware that’s up for anything. Enter Hexclad, the cookware that is as serious about performance as you are about making sure you can make something for everyone.

and makes cleanup so easy.

Barb (52:26)
Hexclad’s technology is incredible. Let’s just say this isn’t your grandma’s nonstick. Hexclad pans give you that perfect sear, crazy durability, and easy cleanup, which is something that is high on my list, without needing to baby your cookware. Their offerings combine stainless steel strength, toxin-free nonstick convenience, and a style that looks amazing sitting on your stovetop. Something to keep in mind now that it’s the gifting season.

Their sets are the kind of present that actually gets used. The six piece is perfect for anyone who wants the essentials covered, while the 12 piece unlocks endless holiday meals and beyond. They perform flawlessly and come with a lifetime warranty. So they’re the gift that literally keeps on giving. Plus, if you leave them on the stove top, they look great. So you won’t want to keep them in the cupboard.

Joyce (53:18)
You know, I would love to have a set in my kitchen, but I don’t because my oldest son ran off with mine when he got his first condo and I only get to use them when I’m at his house. I’m really hoping somebody will send me a set for Christmas because hex clad is really great. As soon as Robert started using them, even he and he’s sort of a lackluster cook, he was excited and he really liked them. He’s never bringing them back. So.

Although I’m happy to cook with them at his house, I still need a set of my own. The quality is really amazing and the unique design makes cleanup a cinch. You can join us in celebrating the delicious meals of the holiday season by embracing your inner chef and adding hex clad to your cooking arsenal.

Jill (54:04)
You know, you do definitely need a set of them because they do look great. I can’t believe that I like leaving them out for people to see and love the cleanup. It just wipes away with no problem. And their shapes are great. They have all kinds of shapes. They have a walk that’s not really a walk, but has the high sides. They have a long flat one. Great stuff. And whether you’re hosting the big feast, surprising someone with the ultimate gift, or finally treating yourself hex clad,

as you covered this holiday season. For a limited time, our listeners get 10 % off at hexclad.com slash sisters. Just head to hexclad, H-E-X-C-L-A-D.com slash sisters. Save by going there and let them know we sent you. Make this the season of stress-free, joy-filled cooking with Hexclad. The link is also in our show notes.

We’ve talked in another episode about the questionable legality of blowing up boats in international waters on an assertion without any proof that the boat is carrying drugs and narco-terrorists. Over 80 civilians have been killed. That’s as the government admits. Under the law and past practice, the Coast Guard would stop a suspected drug boat, board it, search it, seize any contraband that it finds, if any.

and then arrest those on board, present evidence to a grand jury, get an indictment, and then go to trial. If the trial jury returns a guilty verdict, the defendant would then be sentenced to jail, not to execution because drug offenses in America are not subject to capital punishment. So, Barb, on this fact pattern, on what basis is the Trump administration claiming that their attacks on boats are legal under US and international laws?

Barb (56:11)
Well, we don’t know exactly because there is a super secret memo that apparently lays this all out that the public hasn’t seen. apparently the Trump administration has told members of Congress that President Trump has determined that the United States is in an armed conflict. That’s a term of art under ⁓ the law of war and that we’re in this armed conflict with drug cartel members from Venezuela. ⁓

the administration earlier this year designated some of these drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. But that alone does not give the president the authority to use lethal strikes. stay with me here now. President Trump has also argued the reason this is an armed conflict is that drugs from this region create a risk of death to American citizens because of overdose deaths. Therefore,

Transporting these drugs into the United States is an attack on the United States. And what President Trump has said in his comments is this all about fentanyl. Of course, fentanyl doesn’t come from Venezuela. That tends to come from Mexico or China. Most of what is coming in from Venezuela is cocaine, which although is certainly an illegal drug and is a dangerous drug, is far less lethal than fentanyl. Now, some problems with this. ⁓

The idea of an armed conflict. ⁓ When ⁓ President Obama, for example, ordered the attack on Osama bin Laden, he did that under this authority to say that because Osama bin Laden had attacked the United States and there was a risk that he would attack again, that we could go kill him and eliminate this threat of armed conflict against the United States. Same when he ordered a drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki.

In both of those cases, he got lawyers from the Pentagon to prepare detailed analyses of the legality of those strikes. Here, ⁓ again, we haven’t seen this memo that apparently does justify this, but even John Yoo, who was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel during the George W. Bush administration, who authored the torture memos after 9-11, has said he thinks this is illegal. He said automakers make cars that end up

causing people to die. And we don’t use lethal strikes against ⁓ auto factories, right? We have laws. People can file civil lawsuits under tort law and collect. In the same way, this is a legal issue. It is not a military issue. And so ⁓ even though the Trump administration has tried to make these claims, the legality of it is highly questionable.

Jill (59:02)
Joyce, why don’t you talk a little more about defining armed conflict and giving some examples?

Joyce (59:08)
Yeah, you know, in the CFRs, the Code of Federal Regulations, which are sort of like regulations as opposed to laws, there’s an interesting definition. I was reading about this trying to figure out what qualified, and they define an armed conflict as a prolonged period of sustained combat involving members of the armed forces against a foreign belligerent, which can be a nation state or some other actor like a terrorist group.

And they gave definitions or they gave examples that I thought were illustrative. They said World War I and II, the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, those are armed conflict. But they then said that more limited military actions did not qualify, including the incursion into Lebanon in 1958, the peacekeeping force there in 1983 and 1984, incursions into the Dominican Republic in 65.

Libya in 86, and the intervention in Grenada in 1983. So I think smart people will have to make all of this make sense. But as you say, Barb, it’s sort of tough to see supposed narco terrorists, because there’s never been proof offered, who usually acquire weapons to protect their drugs, not to attack our country. It’s sort of hard to fit them into that framework and call this an armed conflict.

Jill (1:00:32)
That sure is true. And the UCMJ, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, says that a military troop has to follow all lawful orders. But it also says they must not follow an unlawful order, something that ⁓ six members of Congress have made a video to inform our troops about. But the troops are trained in that, so they really should know it.

⁓ And the reports are that the JAG for Southcom said that the conduct wasn’t legal. The admiral in charge of the Southern Command, which is the organization that is in charge of these strikes, ⁓ has resigned early, retired early, with many people being suspicious that it’s related to his belief that this is not legal conduct. But as Barb has said, the OLC has written a secret memo that says,

it’s okay that killing civilians pursuant to this suspicion that they’re narco terrorists is a lawful order. So what is a soldier to do? What is an unlawful order and how does a soldier, sailor, Marine or Air Force member on active duty now know which orders to follow and whether it’s a lawful order or an unlawful order?

Barb (1:01:55)
Yeah, this is difficult. You know, we have these ⁓ JAG officers, but of course, ⁓ the ones who are objecting to this are getting fired. There is this idea that ⁓ members of the military are required to follow lawful orders. That suggests that they are required to resist unlawful orders. in fact, you know, that was the defense that was thrown out there in the Nuremberg trials with the Nazi war crimes.

where people said, hey, I was just following orders. But when they were so clearly illegal, know, torturing and ⁓ killing civilians in gas chambers, ⁓ there was no defense in those cases. I think what’s a little trickier here is that we’ve got lawyers in the Trump administration who are writing CYA memos saying, no, this is all lawful. And so I think it puts a military member in a difficult position to

know whether this is legal. If it’s clearly illegal, that’s one thing. But I think that it may be murky enough that it may be difficult for a member of the military to say, whoa, this is clearly unlawful and I’m not going to obey this order.

Jill (1:03:10)
It is putting the military in a very tough position. They don’t have immunity. Donald Trump does. So they could be tried for murder of civilians. ⁓ And they aren’t able to get the kind of answers because as you point out, well, the TJAGs, the top general in charge of each of the JAG ⁓ Corps officers in each of the services have been fired. And the…

person at Southcom, the jag to the commander of Southcom, ⁓ was ignored when he said it was, or at least reportedly said that this wasn’t legal. So it does leave soldiers in a very, very tough position. And Joyce, let’s talk about the six Democrats who made a video basically quoting the law. ⁓ And they have been led to be accused of sedition and to be suggested that they be

hung, ⁓ and the threat of death is really terrible. And I think some of them have added security as a result. ⁓ And it was all based on actual facts of what the law is. So it’s not sedition, even though Donald Trump called it that. Why is it not sedition?

Joyce (1:04:30)
Yeah, this was an exercise of First Amendment rights by elected officials and calling them traitors is so far off the rails that it would be laughable if it wasn’t serious. You know, these are former members of the military and the intelligence community and they’re reminding their colleagues that they don’t have to follow illegal orders, which in fact they have a duty not to do. ⁓ So I wrote about this last night in my newsletter, Civil Discourse. ⁓

possibly after enjoying a nice IPA with my husband and a few less filters engaged than I would normally have. But if you don’t mind, just want to read a little.

Barb (1:05:08)
Are

you drunk, sub stacking? Is that what you’re confessing to?

Joyce (1:05:10)
I mean, no, I had like about a quarter of an IPA.

Barb (1:05:14)
⁓ yeah, that puts you on the floor.

Joyce (1:05:17)
Yeah, that’s about it when you’re my size. But I mean, I do feel strongly about this. And so I just thought I would share it here too for what it’s worth. ⁓

Jill (1:05:27)
And

let’s point out that you are totally sober as you say this.

Joyce (1:05:30)
Allegedly.

Now, I wrote, the point is this, even if these members of Congress had done something traitorous, which they absolutely didn’t, even if they’d clearly broken the law, which they didn’t, the president doesn’t get to impose punishment. That’s up to the courts. And he certainly doesn’t get to impose the death penalty. That happens in countries like North Korea, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Barb (1:05:32)
Come on.

Joyce (1:05:58)
In many American homes, discussion of politics has become verboten. Whatever the value of sacrificing discussion to keep the peace, this news from today is not politics, and it should be discussed at kitchen tables and Thanksgiving dinner tables across our country. Every American should understand both this news and what it means, that the President of the United States, who has killed people abroad,

is now asserting the desire to see elected representatives in this country killed. That the president who stood alongside the Saudi crown prince who suborned the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, offended the murderer, not the victim. And then I just concluded that we can no longer afford to permit those around us to bury their heads in the sand and pretend this isn’t happening.

Barb (1:06:35)
Justin.

Joyce (1:06:47)
It’s real, it’s risky, and given that this president’s words have all too frequently become actions once they’re spoken to his followers, we need to understand that this is country, not politics, and we need to be talking about it.

Barb (1:07:03)
Yep. Those are some really remarkable things. Strong words, Joyce. Well put.

Jill (1:07:07)
I really hope that people will be discussing this, especially with those who tend to listen to Fox News and obey whatever MAGA says because you are completely correct, Joyce. ⁓ And, Barb, let me take this one step further, which is we hear a lot about a land invasion possibly taking place. A lot of military is now poised off the coast of Venezuela.

our largest aircraft carrier named after a favorite Michigander of yours, know, Donald. The Gerald Ford. Gerald Ford is there. And is a land invasion better or worse? Is congressional approval required for a land invasion? And is this like the invasion of Panama, which was done to arrest an indicted president or dictator, Noriega?

⁓ who was in fact eventually arrested, tried, and convicted. So what do think, Barb?

Barb (1:08:12)
Of course, the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. That is the power of Congress. The president does have the ability to take military action without prior approval of Congress, but only when there is a national emergency based on an attack on the country or on American military forces. That hasn’t happened. And so these strikes are…

acts of aggression. I suppose they’re appropriate for a Defense Department now known as the Department of War. But you raised a good point. We did this quite similarly without a declaration from Congress, without an ⁓ aggressive attack on us when the US invaded Panama to seize Manuel Noriega and put him on trial in Miami for drug trafficking.

may be the same as occurring here with the leader of Venezuela, Maduro. ⁓ He is not somebody that the Trump administration looks upon favorably. He has been, you know, he is associated with, we’ll just leave it at that, ⁓ narco, ⁓ terrorism, drug trafficking, and other things that are dangerous to human life. I think the Trump administration would like him out of power. ⁓ you know, we usually play defense. We don’t play offense, at least not overtly. ⁓

I do love it that he’s declared that they’re going to engage in covert action, but he made the announcement publicly. Can it still be covert when you announce it publicly?

Jill (1:09:46)
Yeah, and you know, we need to point out Maduro was indicted in the US. So it would be the same thing if the attack, like in Panama, was a very narrow, limited attack. There was no invasion of Panama for any purpose other than surrounding the embassy in which Noriega had taken refuge. And the way that they got him out was partly by playing

horrible loud music 24 hours a day, which was driving everyone crazy. ⁓ The general who led that, let’s call it invasion, led that action to get Noriega into US custody for a trial was a friend of mine from my service in the Pentagon. And there was no wild shooting, there was no killing of civilians, no one died.

This was just a way to bring someone to justice in America. If Maduro was treated in the same way, that’s one thing. But this doesn’t sound like it with the ⁓ power that is being ⁓ surrounding Venezuela with the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier there. That’s not what is being planned. And so I am very much afraid that this is an actof aggression and war that would put us in the category with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

After a long work day in the winter cold, my favorite part of the night is finally winding down and getting cozy. Lately, I can’t end my day without my Lola blanket. I’m obsessed with the feel of it. The moment you feel one with your own hands, you’ll understand why. And so will your pets. Not only does the ivory fawn style seem to math brisbees coloring perfectly, it’s so luxurious that they’re incredibly soft

and they make your space feel warmer and put together. There’s no pilling or shedding, just pure comfort. We’ve all seen Lola online and exploding all over Instagram, but actually discovering it for yourself is the best thing you can do. Right here on Sisters-in-Law, tell them we sent you.

Barb (1:12:15)
You know, these Lola blankets really are the best. My friend Marissa bought one and she liked it so much she bought a second one for her dog to enjoy. ⁓ blankets are crafted with luxury vegan faux fur and a signature four-way stretch that somehow makes them both plush and light at the same time. They’re machine washable, double hemmed for durability, and even after countless washes, they look brand new. Do you guys know that phrase, it’s Scandinavian, it’s like…or something like that. How do you say it?

Joyce (1:12:46)
I say Higgy, I don’t know if that’s right, but it means comfort. It’s that whole notion of just cocooning into comfort.

Barb (1:12:52)
Yeah, well, you also say insurance, so I’m not sure I’m gonna take my pronunciation from you. But it’s that whole idea of like cozy, warm. I think of Lola blanket as being like the perfect cozy warm as you ease into winter time. And so they make the ultimate gift. I can’t wait to surprise family and friends with them for the holidays. There’s a wow factor that makes them really special. There’s a reason they are called the number one blanket in the world. Lola’s are always a hit.

and they get used and loved right away. With more than 10,000 five-star reviews, the love for Lola is real. And the story behind it makes it even more special. Lola was founded by two brothers inspired by their mom, who found comfort in her favorite blanket while living with breast cancer. Their mission is to bring life-changing softness to others, and it’s woven into every stitch.

Joyce (1:13:45)
You know, they really are fantastic. I’ve got a Lola blanket on our bed and I sleep under it every night. I’m just that taken with it. Lolas are a fantastic addition to any home. So treat yourself or someone you love. Give the gift of softness this holiday season with Lola blankets. And for a limited time, our listeners are getting a huge 40 % off their entire order at lolablankets.com by using code SISTERS at checkout.

So you can head there, I will be right with you, because I’m buying some more as Christmas presents. Go to lolablankets.com and use code SISTERS for 40 % off. After you make your purchase, they’ll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Look for the link in our show notes.

Well, now it’s time for our favorite part of the show, where we get to answer our listeners’ questions. And this has been one of those weeks that has provoked some great questions for us to pick from. If you’ve got a question for next week, please email us at sistersinlawatpoliticon.com or tag us on social media using hashtag SistersInLaw. And if we don’t get to your questions during the show, keep an eye on our social media feeds during the week, because we’ll answer as many of your questions there as we can. But here we go. Jill, you’ve got a question from Anne, and this is a fascinating question that’s tailor-made for you. Anne says, is the Epstein debacle similar to Watergate? If so, in what way?

Barb (1:15:29)
I’m guess that Jill can compare anything to Watergate. So just watch her go. Go. I’m gonna guess the answer is yes.

Jill (1:15:35)
Okay, I love this question. Thank you, Anne, for asking it. And the answer is that it is similar and it’s also dissimilar. So let’s first look at what are some of the similarities. Well, both involve cover-ups. They both use the power of the government and also in Watergate, they use the excess campaign money that was laying around in the days before Citizens United, but after

Watergate, there were laws passed that have been undone by Citizens United. And in both, there were loyalists involved that carried out the cover-up. Watergate, the Attorney General, went to jail. So we have to ask, Pam Vondee go to jail for her part in this cover-up? And the cover-up was using the levers of government in both cases, and both involved the president and his top aides.

But there are a lot of significant differences. Watergate, there was no legitimate argument for withholding the tapes. But as we’ve discussed in today’s episode, there is some argument that grand jury ⁓ transcripts and grand jury evidence should be withheld to protect the process of grand jury secrecy. So there is an argument about that. In Watergate, we were able to get court permission

to release them for a judicial proceeding. And there is an argument that the investigation by Congress is a proceeding that would justify releasing grand jury testimony to them. ⁓ But, ⁓ and I think I’ve already mentioned this, that I think Bondi messed up by saying that she would be investigating only Democrats because I think that that means that the stuff that isn’t involving an ongoing investigation can be released, which is

Donald Trump. And in Watergate, the survival of our democracy was never, never something I worried about. Whereas now I worry about the end of the rule of law and I worry about the immunity that the president didn’t have in Watergate that he does have now and the consequences of that. And I also want to point out the underlying crime that was getting covered up in Watergate was a burglary at the DNC, a silly nonsense thing.

that led to nothing. Whereas here, we’re covering up pedophilia. We’re covering up a very serious case. And I have to point out, Megyn Kelly said, oh, it wasn’t really pedophilia because he was only interested in like 15-year-olds, not five-year-olds. Well, I’m sorry, but to me, a 15-year-old is still too young to have consent. So I think we need to keep in mind not just the similarities and how serious this is, but even more serious than Watergate.

and that we need to do whatever we can to end this nightmare.

Joyce (1:18:40)
Well, our next question comes from Tom in Monterey Park, California. And I wanted to take this question because this is actually my hometown. It’s where I grew up. So thank you for the question, Tom. ⁓ They ask, since Jelaine Maxwell has been transferred to a low-security federal facility and is reportedly receiving concierge-type treatment, is it possible for her to be transferred back once a new administration takes office?

And look, I think that this is a really fascinating question. We know that Maxwell is filing a petition asking for either commutation of her sentence or a straight up ⁓ pardon. And of course, if she’s out of prison, if Donald Trump gives her relief, then she will be beyond the reach of the prison system. But because she was transferred to this low security facility in violation of all the classification rules for a convicted sex offender,

just beginning to serve a sentence, there’s every reason to believe that a review and a reclassification would be appropriate and that Maxwell could be restored to the appropriate level of facility if there were a new administration or quite frankly, if the attorney general and or the director of the Bureau of Prisons were interested in doing their jobs in this administration. I mean, the treatment that she’s getting, right?

We know that sex offenders don’t get to treat the prison warden as their personal concierge. And yet there’s reporting that that’s what’s going on here. This is just such an affront again to the survivors and something that’s so offensive that I hope it’ll be possible to redress it. But of course, Donald Trump, for as long as he’s president, has an absolute pardon power and he could pardon her on the way out the door at the end of his term in order to protect himself.

Hey, Barb, the question for you comes from Simon. Simon asks, will recently pardoned co-conspirators still be held to account with state charges? And I assume that that’s a reference to the slate of fake electors and the state cases in that regard, that’s those cases that still exist.

Barb (1:20:54)
Yes, indeed, Simon. So the president’s pardon power is limited to federal offenses. What’s interesting is none of the fake electors had been charged with a federal offense, but they could have been. And so he gave them sort of a peremptory ⁓ pardon to not just the orchestrators of the fake electors schemes, but some of the individuals who signed these slates of electors. But that does no good in the states where they have been charged.

And there are pending cases in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin. There was a case in Michigan. It was recently dismissed. The court found that the statute did not cover the conduct. But keep in mind that everything’s a little different in each of these individual states. The law will be slightly different in individual states. And the factual scenarios were slightly different. In some of the states, people, think, were genuinely duped.

into thinking that these were sort of provisional ballots in case Donald Trump won some of his legal disputes. In others, ⁓ I’m not sure that’s the case. so depending on what the law is, what they were charged with, and ⁓ what the facts are in those cases, there’s no reason to think that they will not go forward just because they were pardoned in the federal system by the president.

Joyce (1:22:11)
Well that’s all we have time for today. Thank you for listening to Hashtag Sisters-in-Law with Jill Winebanks, Barb McQuade, and me, Joyce Vance. Follow Hashtag Sisters-in-Law wherever you listen and please give us a five-star review. It really helps others find the show. Show some love to this week’s sponsors, Thrive Cosmetics, Aura Frames, Wild Grain, Hex Cloud, and Lola Blanket. The links are in the show notes.

Please support them because they make our podcast possible. See you next week with another episode, hashtag Sisters-in-Law.

Barb (1:22:49)
Jill, did you hear about the AI research somebody is doing so that you can talk to your dog?

Jill (1:22:55)
What do mean? already do. I’m waiting for him to answer me. ⁓ And he’s developed a new bark. It is a special bark to say, I’m sitting here, why are you not paying attention to me? And I swear it’s a different bark, because he doesn’t move around as much as he used to because of his legs, but he’s doing good. He’s doing good.

Joyce (1:22:56)
They’re working on logistics. ⁓