Bad DOGE!

Jill (00:13)
Welcome back to #SistersInLaw with Kimberly Atkins Stohr ,Joyce Vance and me, Jill Wine-Banks. Barb McQuade will be back soon. We miss her today, but she’ll be back with us. We have some really great topics to talk about today. And I want to just list them before we take a little break and talk about something a little lighter. We’re going to talk today about Doge and FOIA.

two acronyms that I know you all will know about and are going to enjoy hearing about. Then we’re going to talk about East Potomac Park and another Vanity Project by Donald Trump. And about DOJ’s suing California. I also note they’re suing Evanston, my hometown, but we’re not going to get to that today. Before we talk about all those things, I want to ask both of you what is your favorite everyone?

Halloween costume and or costumes, you can name more than one. But tell me the ages you were when you wore them.

Kim (01:17)
Well, I I maybe you were thinking that I I would go back deep into my childhood, but I’m trying to remember how old I was when I wore this and I think the answer, is a double digit number that starts with a four. So I

Jill (01:33)
That’s okay.

Kim (01:35)
So so you know, OG sisters-in-law listeners will remember my late great dog Boogie. Yes. And the one wonderful thing about Boogie, quality that he had that Snickers does not have is patience with me in a lot of situations, including Halloween, where for many, many years I always made a costume that involved us both. and so I think my favorite, and definitely the one

That was the most crowd pleasing. Now Boogie was, he was like medium sized. He wasn’t a very big dog, but he was very scruffy. Like he looked, he kind of looked like a bear. Like he looked like, you know, he looked like a Muppet, you know. He looked like something that what’s his name? Henson made. Jim Henson made. And so he I always used to joke that he was, you know, part Cairn Terrier, part Westy, part Yorkshire, part Wookiee.

So one year I was Princess Leia and Boogie was Chewbacca. And let me tell you, let me tell you, I took him for a walk with me in my Leia costume and I made I took a belt and then I made this little pouch that, you know, to be that little pouch that was slung across that Chewbacca always had. We we never knew what was inside the pouch, but

Jill (02:49)
It had dog treats, right?

Kim (02:51)
No, it was well, it there was nothing in it. But we got plenty of dog treats for wearing it. Trust me. I took good care of Boogie. But just the reaction from everyone that we passed was so delightful. I’ll I’ll find a picture. But yeah, that was us.

Jill (03:05)
we gotta post that in our show notes.

Barb (03:08)
Remember the years that you guys did that. It was such a great idea.

Kim (03:11)
We

did a little once we were Dorothy and Toto, we were we were all kinds of things.

Barb (03:16)
Mm. you know, I am so sad that I don’t have kids to dress for Halloween this year. One of the one of the big joys of having four children was decades of getting to convince them to conform to the Halloween costume of my life. This year I would probably put my two little littlest ones as a Scaramucci and a Zuccaria going hand in hand down the street.

But you will understand why I’m so weirdly obsessive about Halloween costumes when I tell you about my two favorites. I don’t just have one. This is my mom who was a preschool teacher making me costumes. The first one, I’m four years old. I’ve just started piano classes and I am obsessed. My mom goes to one of the appliance stores and comes home with some big boxes and she turns me into a piano for Halloween.

She takes the box and she creates the shape of an upright piano, cuts a hole for my head, it goes over my head. I have armholes, my arms just sort of stick out like that. and then she meticulously paints it. And this was her level of detail. She did the keyboard out of what do you call it, like tongue depressors? Yes. And so she paints them the right colors, glues them on, and then for the sharp keys, she does separate ones to go on top. I mean, it was real. I love that.

Jill (04:39)
Yeah.

Barb (04:40)
But then my grandmother wanted a little bit of action. And so when I was seven or eight, I forget, they turned me into Marie Antoinette. And it was in the era when women wore those little, you know, like I don’t know, falls, like these things you stuck on your head, a little hair piece that like feefed you up a little bit. So my mom had this styrofoam headpiece and my grand you know, like just a head, right? Like a head not attached to a body that you would put a a wig on.

My grandmother made this beautiful black silk taffeta gown with lace on it. It was stunningly gorgeous. I loved wearing it. It was like a long gown. I twirled around like a queen. And then they also made for me my chopped off head, which I carried along with me. So I come from a long line of devious women and I’m sorry, I’ll just apologize from to my daughter for the year that she went as misunderstood with the parent

Sash and everything. She always wanted to be a pageant girl. I wouldn’t let her be one. but I did let her go as misunderstood for Halloween one year.

Kim (05:48)
That’s so funny.

Jill (05:50)
I love that. And I now I have to mention more than one. When I was young, maybe like ten, I had the experience of a lifetime. I was dressed as a Spanish senorita with, you know, one of those combs in my hair and a mantilla lace thing hanging down. And I got to ride on what I truly believed was silver with Lone Ranger guiding silver.

And I really believed that it was the real Lone Ranger and Silver. I’m sure as an adult that it was not, but my father had arranged it for a playground he had created for the neighborhood, and it was just an experience of a lifetime. but then Kim, you reminded me of two things. One is my cousin who dressed his Wimer Runner as a Dalmatian for Halloween by putting a

White t shirt with black spots over his head. I mean that’s obviously one of my favorites. But then of course, Brisbe didn’t wear a costume and I dressed as a Dalmatian and I So I have a picture of me with that. Yes, I love that one. This year I think I’m going to wear I made does anybody remember a poodle skirt or know what a poodle skirt was?

Barb (07:14)
I remember like little fish.

Jill (07:16)
And I

Kim (07:17)
I wore them a lot when I was younger ’cause I was obsessed with Laverne.

Jill (07:20)
So that’s great. I now have a Dalmatian skirt. I made a felt cutout of a Dalmatian, put it on a plain felt skirt, and I think I’m gonna wear that this year for Halloween as

Barb (07:34)
There will be pictures, right? I mean like I knew pictures in the

Jill (07:38)
I will definitely s I can’t I’m sorry about the mantilla that I can’t go back to ten. and I wish I had pictures of the horse, but I will settle for the other two because I still have the Dalmatian costume and I can definitely definitely include that. In fact I have one of me looking at Brisbee and Brisbee going like who is this? And why are you looking at me like this? Which is almost as good. I don’t know if you saw I posted

A picture of a Halloween decoration of a huge r balloon type cat, black cat, and a black cat looks at it in one picture and in the next picture attacks it and deflates it. It it rivals anything that Barb McQuade has posted for her her neighbor’s Halloween decorations, which I think are the best Halloween decorations ever.

Barb (08:38)
As we go into the colder months, there’s nothing better than having a cozy fall bed to snuggle into when the weather changes. But when the heater is blasting or we get one of those late fall heat waves, you need sheets that are soft, breathable, and ridiculously comfortable. For that, you need to join us in getting the best sleep of your life under the soft embrace of Bolin Branch. The wrong sheets,

can be scratchy or even worse trap heat, which makes it impossible to get the rest you need when you’re tossing, turning, or kicking off the sheets. With Bowl and Branch, you get the experience of enjoying the cool side of the pillow, but everywhere.

Jill (09:18)
Their bedding options are breathable, lightweight, and designed so you can layer up for those colder nights without feeling trapped under a bunch of heavy, heat-holding bedding. It’s seriously like sleeping on a cloud because their 100% organic cotton sheets are woven specifically for airflow, not just softness. Synthetic cooling technology or chemically treated fabrics are a band-aid, not a solution. With Bolin Branch, the cooling is structural.

Because of how the cotton is woven, giving you a cozy fall and winter bed without getting overheated. Amazingly, ninety four percent of Boland branch customers say their sheets get softer with every wash, and I have to agree.

Kim (10:03)
Bowling branch has definitely changed the game. Your bed is your sanctuary. And ever since I put them on my bed, I have been so snug. It has really contributed to my Herkelderkle problem. Like I I really I know I need to get out of bed in the morning, but it’s made it even

Harder because they’re just so buttery soft right from the start and help you relax the moment you lie down and when you wake up you just feel like you’re on a cloud. I’ve become such a fan of their signature sheet set that I’m getting them for family, for gifts. I hope they’re not listening. they have such an incredible feel and the breathability and temperature regulation are really top notch. And I’m a 53-year-old woman, so I know a thing or two about temperature regulation.

Now I can’t even imagine ever going back, and you really need to experience their unmatched softness for yourself.

Jill (10:59)
And it’s not just cooling and softness, it’s the colors. I love picking out colors and they have amazing colors that will complement any room or style. And if you’re like me, you’ll have a lot of fun picking them out. While you’re shopping, need to check out their supportive pillows, cozy blankets, and luxurious comforters too. Upgrade your sleep with Bolin Branch. Get 15% off your first order plus free shipping.

at bowlandbranch dot com slash sisters with code sisters. That’s bowl and branch B O L L A N D branch dot com slash sisters. Code Sisters to unlock fifteen percent off. Exclusion supply and the link is in our show notes.

Kim (11:55)
Well, this week the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case and decide it before the end of its term involving Doge. Remember Joe Doge, it’s that now defunct government program that aimed to root out waste and inefficiencies, but didn’t seem to really do that. But did cost a lot of people their jobs and and led to a lot of former staffers making a lot of money. But that’s not what we’re talking about today.

We’re talking about that Supreme Court case. So, Jill, this stems from a Freedom of Information Act request that was made by an organization that we talk a lot about called Crew. Who are they and what are they looking for in this lawsuit? And what’s their legal argument for it?

Jill (12:43)
Crew is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. And God knows we need them badly. They are an amazing nonprofit. They were founded by our friend Norm Eisen and a litigation person, a former prosecutor, federal prosecutor, Melanie Sloan. And they are now headed by, by the way, Norm became the ethics advisor in the Obama administration.

and is a friend of all of ours and has done amazing work. But Crewe does amazing things. They do investigations, they bring lawsuits. They are a a general government watchdog who focuses on ethics and freedom of information. And so this lawsuit is right up their alley. They feel and I believe quite correctly that Doge not only didn’t succeed, but that

they are hiding some information that has led as Kim’s piece in the Boston Globe, which will definitely be in our show notes so you can all read it, shows, the people who worked for Doge are making a lot of money out of this, and we the people have a right to know. And so Freedom of Information Act, which I don’t think we’ve ever talked about, but which I think is really important, I’m on the board

Kim (14:07)
We’ve talked about it, but it’s been a while.

Barb (14:09)
It just got recently.

Kim (14:11)
Yeah, it’s been a while.

Jill (14:12)
I’m on the board of the Better Government Association, which does investigative reporting and brings cases about Freedom of Information Act and Open Meetings Act, which I think are really important. And I just recorded a podcast and I can’t tell you the results, but I had filed a FOIA request and I was unable to well, I filed it in connection with writing my memoir. I got it.

many years after the memoir was published, only a few years ago, but I never could read it ’cause they sent it to me on a s a disc that I had no way of playing. And I finally found a FOIA expert who revealed to me on air what was on the disc, what the FBI investigation or what the FBI information about me was. And I can’t they promised I promised them I wouldn’t talk about that until it was revealed on their podcast called Disclosure.

anyway, so in this lawsuit, Crewe is trying to get documents and information that the government is trying to conceal from them. And their argument the well, the real argument in the case is whether Doge is a government agency that is subject to the FOIA law, or whether it is a quote, advisor to the president and not subject to FOIA. So that’s the real issue at the

this point, but it isn’t the goal of the lawsuit. The the go they have to establish that it’s a government agency subject to FOIA. And that’s it’s been to the district court, it’s been to the appellate court, it’s been to the Supreme Court, it’s been sent back, it’s and now it’s back at the Supreme Court. Yeah. And it’s all on that issue.

Kim (15:57)
Well, Joyce, I wanted to just pin down on that. So the the crew lawsuit is Freedom of Information Act. They put out this request for all kinds of information about the inner workings of Doge. And it’s important to remember Doge had access to Americans information in an untold but really, really dramatic and and shocking.

way. They were seeking inform they were in the IRS, they were in the Social Security Administration seeking information about people through H A the Department of Homeland Security. They had information through I like they had every they had the ability to access information about crucial things about every American from who we are, where we were born, what kind of health care we’re getting, everything. And so this crew lawsuit was like

We need information about what they actually did. They were in there, they were very obtuse, and we don’t even know what they did. And so Joyce, as Jill said, this lawsuit really hinges on one real question, which is what is Doge? Which sounds like a simple question, but it’s pretty complicated, right?

Barb (17:08)
Yeah, I mean it really is. As Jill was saying, you know, this will ultimately, the lawsuit will ultimately be about whether Doge was a federal agency which would make it subject to the Freedom of Information Act, or whether it was just an advisory body that was assisting the president. And that of course is what the government will argue here. They’ll say it was part of the executive office of the president.

It existed just to advise and assist Trump, not to exercise any kind of independent governmental authority. But under Supreme Court precedent, presidential advisors are generally exempt from FOIA. So that’s the whole gambit here, right? Unless they’re they exercise substantial authority independently of the president. They’re FOIA proof. And so the government maintains that Doge could recommend policies, coordinate with agencies.

And influence decisions without becoming an agency itself. It’s the most Donald Trump-like thing ever. And you know, the issue that the Supreme Court has been asked to hear is actually narrower than that ultimate issue in the case. They’re thinking about whether Crew can obtain discovery to determine Doge’s status. So that’s what this part of the lawsuit is about.

a and that makes it a very interesting sort of an issue. It’s purely procedural. Can discovery go ahead? But that question will have enormous implications once it’s decided.

Kim (18:36)
It really will. I mean, we’re we’re gonna talk about this in in another issue that we’re discussing in this podcast. But when you’re an agency, there are rules and regulations that you have to follow and you are subject to things like Freedom of Information Act. But if the government can basically say, no, no, this was a commission of the president, then not only does it exempt you from FOIA, it means that they can possibly make claims of executive privilege, which is what was brought up in this that

What Doge did was privileged and therefore it can’t be I mean, can you imagine if any president can just have someone come in and just set up somebody that is completely unaccountable to the people? And that’s why, even though this is a procedural issue, I think it’s so important. So Jill, the lower court sided with crew twice. So the first time, the the lower court basically said, turn over this.

Turn over this evidence. Yes, crew can can access this evidence. They can do this discovery turn it over. And the Supreme Court on its emergency shadow docket said, yeah, let’s remand that back. And lower court, you really need to clarify exactly what they can seek and and limit this a little bit. Lower court was just like, nope, we said what we said. And they ruled again in favor of crew. And now the Supreme Court is taking up this issue. Jill, what does that?

say to you because I think for some people they’re like, Great, the Supreme Court is gonna make this rule, but Crew was on the winning side below. So is that I don’t know, if you’re into transparency, is that good news or bad?

Jill (20:09)
Well, I’m very much into transparency and it anything that gets to this Supreme Court causes me concern, as it should everybody, because precedent doesn’t seem to matter so much anymore. So of course I’m worried. And I I think we can learn a lot from even who the defendants listed are. the the the name of

What we call the Department of Government Efficiency, Doge, which I mean, if you’re a department, you’re a department, and if we look at their activities, I think everyone here would say they exercised independent judgment and took action. They are an department. But they are calling themselves the US Doge Service and the US Doge Temporary Organization. and so

Does that not sound like they’re trying to play to this argument that Trump is making as they you just were advisors to me? And he’s also, by the way, making claims of executive privilege, which would have the same effect as not being subject to FOIA would be, well, if I’m claiming executive privilege, as to any communications he had about the Kennedy Center. So there’s this whole secrecy thing going on. And it’s very concerning to all

anyone who should be worried about what’s happening in our government. And if it’s true for Doge, what does that mean for all other FOIA requests and our need to know? and also he’s arguing the the Presidential Records Act, I don’t have to comply with that. It’s unconstitutional. It’s a limit on me. And so there’s all this stuff going on that leads to a pattern that

I’m not sure the Supreme Court is gonna stop.

Kim (22:08)
Yeah, I think the fact that they took it up is a really big indication that they want to rule in a way different than the lower court did. And that would be a shame. Especially, I mean, to your point, Jill, this would blow open just another way in which the government can circumvent the laws and standards and and procedures that are in place that are meant to keep government agencies accountable. If they can just say, no, it’s not an agency, it’s just this thing I thought up that

can operate completely opaquely. And as you point out, that Washington Post piece this week, I I led my newsletter with that for those who subscribe. These doge staffers went off to make really lucrative careers for themselves and get government contracts and other government licensing. And you know what? My neighborhood here in DC is has been transformed by the number of federal employees who lost their jobs under Doge.

And had to sell their ho homes and move elsewhere. So the I mean, the real impact of this is real, right, Joyce? The stakes are so high. what are the risks of this Scotus ruling? Talk more about that.

Barb (23:21)
Yeah, I mean the stakes are high because the Supreme Court’s ruling could determine how easily a president gets to shield the activities of people that are exercising significant governmental power from public scrutiny can go. I mean, this is this is, you know, in the hands of someone who’s trying to be very opaque about his activities. This sort of a ruling that you and Jill have been anticipating, a bad one from the Supreme Court.

Could be incredibly damaging because the central danger that we’re looking at is an administration that could characterize an entity like Doge as merely advising the president and then claim that its activities are pre prevented from disclosure. And look, I mean, you know, it was what, about a year and a half ago that we lived through the worst of Doge.

But I’m sure that y’all can remember it like I can. Remember when USAID stopped providing services and people who were depending on them died in third world countries? Remember when Americans lost their jobs, lost their remember people that couldn’t figure out how to get their social security because they had been declared dead somehow in this process. They couldn’t get themselves reinstated. The notion that the president can shield that is

utterly ridiculous. You know, this this sort of damage, it makes me concerned, as Jill was saying, about how else it might be used. Could you, for instance, use this to shield a private individual who’s negotiating peace in one of your wars, but at the same time doing business deals for himself, not naming any names, but hey Jared Kushner, I mean maybe this is an effort to shield all of that sort of money making grift

stuff that we’re seeing going on. And look, for the Supreme Court to play along with it, I think would signify that there’s a majority on the Supreme Court that’s super interested in advancing the unitary executive, this all-powerful presidency. But the fact that they’re doing it in the context of a president who’s openly engaging in corruption could be extraordinarily damaging, even with just two years left on the clock.

Jill (25:34)
So let me just add that when you mentioned Jared Kushner crew has actually brought a suit to say he cannot function as an envoy because he hasn’t been vetted. of course, vetting is a little weak at the White House these days. but I also want to point out how very scary this is because on the second remand, it had also gone to the Court of Appeals, and the district court has narrowed the discovery of

To only those documents that are relevant to showing whether or not Doge was an agency or not. And so it’s definitely something that FOIA should allow because you can’t argue that it’s not a government agency unless you determine through documents whether it is or isn’t. So it’s really a very, very unhappy circumstance, and I’m very glad that there is a crew to take this on.

Barb (26:31)
Well, you’ve convinced me, Jill, if the Supreme Court rules any other way than in favor of discovery, they’re gonna hear from us about it.

Summer is over, which means that we’re back at home. And there’s a lot to do in the kitchen. There are weeknight dinners, school lunches, meal prep, cozy nights in, last-minute guests. All of that means that fall is when you really start noticing whether your cookware is making life easier or harder. It’s the perfect reason to finally make some needed upgrades with cookware that can keep up with all of it. So if you’re planning on leveling up this season,

Start with your kitchen by getting Hex Clad’s revolutionary cookware. The last thing you need to be is stuck inside scrubbing out-of-date burnt-out pans at the sink. Make an upgrade that will take your cookware and your meals to the next level. If you’ve been hanging on to the old ones for far too long, you guys, I am so guilty of that, you need to do what I just did. Give all the old stuff to Goodwill and get Hex clad.

I cooked one time with one pot and it convinced me that I and you also deserve the best. Plus having shiny new tools that liven up your kitchen makes the effort you put into it so much more enjoyable and really more delicious too. I love to cook. I’m enjoying it so much more now that I’ve switched over to Hex Clad.

Kim (28:05)
Yeah, HexClad’s beautiful design combines the performance of stainless steel with the convenience of nonsticks. You really get the best of both worlds, which I really love. we all know how fast nonstick pans can get scratched up and worn out, and frankly, I am always worried about, you know, w what’s in that nonstick coating and whether it’s good for me. And stainless steel does great until it’s time to clean up.

And then you were soaking and you’re scrubbing and it’s just it makes you not even want to use the dishes at all. That’s why you’ll love how Hex Clad’s revolutionary features deliver on both performance and convenience. Not only are they oven safe, Ken Vouch just made a dish that I started on the stove and then you know you sear it and then you put it in the oven, it came out beautifully, but they are also oven safe up.

At 900 degrees. I don’t know whose oven goes that high, but if yours does, it’ll be safe. 900. I think mine goes up to 550 or something like that. Anyway, you know you’re safe with your with your oven because it’ll be fine. And the heat control is unmatched. And that handles stay cool. The searing is spectacular and the cleanup is so easy every time. All it takes is a quick wipe.

And into the dishwasher, I recommend doing that, rinsing it while it’s still a little warm. And the food really comes right off, and you pop it in the dishwasher, you’re good. That’s when I realized these were the pans that I’d be reaching for every night. And you don’t even have to baby them, they’re metal utensil safe. So if you’re ready for a full cookware refresh, Hexclads 12-piece set is the ultimate all-in-one upgrade with three versatile pans, two saucepans, and a family size stock.

pot, each with its own lid. You’ll have every tool you need for weeknight dinners or hosting a special event or meal prep or mastering any recipe. They also have their six piece set, which is perfect if you want the essentials without overhauling your entire kitchen at once. I think I know what I’m I think I know what I’m buying for all my Christmas gifts. Like that seems like that seems like it.

Jill (30:19)
Seems like a great idea. I gave one friend some already for a birthday gift. And it’s easy to see why we all love it and why Gordon Ramsey cooks with Hexclad at home and in his restaurants. And he’s a very tough critic, one of the toughest on the planet. Thanks to Hexclad’s lifetime warranty, this is truly the last set of pans you’ll need. It’s no surprise that Hexklad has over one million customers and over 50,000 five-star reviews.

Including ours, getting back into the fall routine is already enough. Don’t let cooking and cleanup add even more to your plate. For a limited time, our listeners get 10% off with our exclusive link. Just head to hexclad.com slash sisters. Support our show and check them out at h excla d’om slash sisters. Make sure to let them know we sent you. The link is in our show notes.

Kim (31:28)
When you’re active or just running around all day, you need structure and support you can count on. And for us, that includes Honey Love. From sports bras to shapewear and more, they put comfort style and support first. They know that we don’t all have time to switch our outfits throughout the day, so their sports models are designed for anything from a hard workout to running errands or just lounging around the house. We’ve all experienced when things fit too tightly.

But at Honey Love, they make sure everything maximizes comfort while moving with you. Luckily, we found options that work with our bodies and fit perfectly in all the right places from our favorite independent female founded brand called Honey Love.

Jill (32:11)
With other brands, it seems like there’s always something poking you or needing adjusting. If we didn’t know better, we would think that the only way to get shape and support is with sharpened wires and couch sized padding. Luckily, you don’t have to put up with it. You can look fashionable and get form and function without all that. With the CrossFlex Activity Bra, you can get the athletic fit you need with something suitable for all day wear.

It has wireless support using cloudless bonding, which means there’s no poking, digging, or pressure points. And it gives you real shape and separation like many of us who find ourselves reaching for a sports bra on a daily basis because of the support and coverage, but want something that’s actually comfortable and designed for all day wear. The CrossFlex activity is the solution we’ve been searching for. It’s like nothing we’ve ever tried.

And like us, you’ll find yourself finding new excuses to wear it every week.

Kim (33:12)
Even if you’re a longtime Honey Love fan like us, they’re always releasing exciting new pieces you’ll want to add to your collection. Recently, they launched the new crossover contour bra, which features their best-selling wireless crossover design with a beautiful contoured shape and built-in molded light foam pads for when you start to need extra structure or support. It’s not about changing your body, it’s about sculpting it in a way that matches the occasion and actually feels good.

And Honey Love delivers at every stage.

Barb (33:43)
Honey Love has so many other things to offer. They’ve built a full line of tanks, bodysuits, shapewear, and foundational items featuring supportive structure, smoothing fabrics, and premium finishes made for any occasion. As you get more experienced, comfort isn’t a luxury. It’s a requirement. You really need to check them out. Treat yourself to the most advanced bras and shapeware on the market.

Use our exclusive link to save 20% off honeylove.com slash sisters. That’s honeylove.com slash sisters. You know, every time I read this ad, I realize there’s something else I want to buy from Honey Love. It’s a little bit addictive once you get started. But once you go to their site, when you check out, they’ll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them that we sent you. Experience the new standard in comfort and support with Honey Love.

You’ll find the link in our show notes.

Jill (34:50)
I debated what subject I wanted to ask you guys questions about. There were so many possibilities, the Department of Justice suing my hometown. There was, of course, a question of DOJ being sued or suing California. They were being sued by FBI agents who got wrongfully fired, of course. But I decided that there’s another Trump vanity project that was personal to me that I really cared about.

And that is his destruction of a golf course that is a public golf course that’s affordable for normal people and that he wants to transform. And he has been cutting down trees. Over 500 trees have already been destroyed, some of which were destroyed after a court order that they could not cut down trees. So, Kim, let’s find out who are the plaintiffs in this case and what is their complaint.

And what relief are they asking for?

Kim (35:52)
Yeah, this is something that has been a a lot on the minds of the people here in DC as well and should be on the minds of the American public. It’s a lawsuit by bought by the DC Preservation League and also a DC resident over the East Potomac Golf Course here in Washington, D.C. Now you may ask why should people care about the East Potomac Golf Course here in Washington, D.C. Well, as Jill pointed out, it is a historic golf course that has offered

programs. First of all, it’s open to the public. So whether you are a longtime golfer, you belong to country clubs and all of that, and you just like to play on this space, or whether you are a child from a DC community that may be under funded and and under resourced, but you always, you know, Tiger Woods was your hero and you want to be able to find a way to learn how to chip golf balls and and

Perfect or swing and find a program that’s affordable to you to go learn how to do that. This is what that golf course has provided as a service to people in the greater Washington, D.C. area for a very, very long time. Well, recently, Trees started getting cut down on this because Donald Trump announced he wants to make this golf course a place where he can invite a big

tournaments to come play, redo it sort of in the vein of one of his golf resorts, and open this golf course up to be used by different people, including very well-funded, deep-pocketed, wealthy people, and invite expensive tournaments and things like that into the detriment of the availability of that golf course. That’s one of the things the president is focusing his time on. And recently, a

The construction gates went up and trees started coming down at an alarming rate, which caused the Preservation League, an organization, nonprofit organization that’s meant to preserve historic sites here in DC, and a resident to bring this suit, alleging a number of things. So what they are alleging is that the Trump administration is essentially violating the Administrative Procedure Act. We have talked about that a lot.

Federal agencies are able to do a lot of things. They can, but they have to follow procedures. They have to follow procedures that that cover things like publicly announcing what their proposed plan is, giving the public a chance to respond to it, getting the proper permitting and stuff for it, and showing what the environmental impact is, and also not acting in a way that is arbitrary or capricious.

Or that is an abuse of discretion. And what the lawsuit basically alleges is that the Trump administration trampled on all of these rules. And there are lot of federal laws that this lawsuit said it failed with rules that were failed to be followed. Laws under the National Environmental Policy Act, which involves how you plan something that is an environment. I mean, this is a beautiful big green space right in the middle of Washington.

DC. And obviously you would spec that there are rules about how you go about transforming that. It also alleges that they violated the National Historic Preservation Act and also the National Park Service Organic Act, because in the course of doing this construction, they’ve dumped a bunch of stuff on the site. I mean, it it really looks terrible. So what I essentially think that this is and why this case is so important to people outside of DC.

Is that they seem to be following the ballroom rule, which is you if you go in and start construction on something that Trump wants to do and you get far enough along on that construction, you move faster than the courts can, you reach a point where, okay, well, at this point so much is done. I mean, the ballroom project is so far along, there’s no litigation that’s going to stop it at this point. And I think that’s what they were trying to do with this golf course. They wanted to be able to invite their big buddies in and have these big, you know,

plans, sort of the same way, what he did with the reflecting pool. He just kinda went in and destroyed it before anybody could stop him. I think that’s what he was trying to do here. And the courts are trying, with all of their might and with lawsuits like this to try to stop them. The judge, the lower course judge, I’m sure, as you will point out, was furious about this, but they’re trying to move faster than the law. And that’s something that this administration should not be allowed to do.

Jill (40:29)
So Joyce, let’s talk about what the district court judge said and how irate the words were, and justifiably so.

Barb (40:42)
Yeah, she had ruled before the tree cutting happened, that the government had to give her thirty days worth of notice. Both she and the plaintiffs, before they could do anything, she told them that they could continue to do routine maintenance. And so you know where this is headed, right? The government claimed that cutting down four hundred plus trees was just routine maintenance that they were carrying out.

It did not go well. I will say I did not get to listen to the hearing in real time because I had to do something else, but I had asked my husband to listen into it, something that I’d actually never done before, weirdly enough. And so I go upstairs when I’m done with my hearing, and Bob is listening to it, and he’s just cackling. And I I’m like, Well, how’s it going, honey? And he goes, She’s one pissed off judge.

and that when I listened to it later I learned was a very accurate description. And it meant a lot to me coming from Bob, who is a retired judge. His reputation on the bench was that he was super easygoing and laid back and he would work with you until you crossed him. And when you crossed him you had better look out. And I think that’s what happened here. These people took advantage of the judge’s good faith. She had said all along that she believed them.

you know, thought she could trust them to do right. And then they proved that she she could not and they she let loose on them. So there’s now an injunction in place. They cannot do any more tree cutting. But you know, I fear that you’re right, Kim, and that their approach here is might makes right. And what they’ll do is they’ll find some exception that they can hang their hook on and go back to tree cutting. We’re already hearing that there’s some intention on their part.

To keep implementing this 2019 plan that they reference. And look, I am no landscape architect, but part of what the government is saying here is that this was originally a link style course wide open, but it became a park course covered in trees. We’re just going back to the original intent. And there was a decision in 2019 to to do this. The problem is that in the intervening six years, nothing has happened.

And it was only when Donald Trump started talking about it that they went in and cut the trees down. And that seems to have been the too much for this judge who makes the point, you know, this is happening mysteriously at the same time that Donald Trump starts talking about it. So don’t tell me you’re just executing the plan. You’re doing what the President of the United States wants done.

Kim (43:21)
And that’s what’s kind of infuriating about it, Joyce, because I actually think one of the strongest argument one of the strongest factors in favor of the government is the fact that this was originally a Lynx style course. And so if they had gone to actually follow the APA and gone to the purpose and saying, look, this is our plan. This is what we want to do. We want to return it to its historic use as this.

Put it through the process to allow the public to engage and stuff, they probably could have done it. But they’re trying to do it in a sneaky way because they know that the public isn’t gonna like it. You know what I mean? They even if the public came back and gave a lot of negative feedback, in the end, if they did it anyway, it would have taken more time. They probably wouldn’t get it done in time for whatever tournament Trump is thinking about he wants to use it for.

Barb (44:11)
Exactly.

Kim (44:12)
But if this was really about restoring it,

To its original style as a golf cour they p they could have done that easily and it’s very little standing in its way, but the fact that they wanted to be sneaky and they wanted just just to get it done for whatever, you know, big tournament that Trump wants to invite the Saudis or whoever to that’s why we’re here.

Barb (44:35)
think that that’s right. This is about whether this park that has in many ways become a people’s park, right? That’s why it was converted from a link style course to the beautiful tree lined course that it was ’cause kids would play on it and and people would so

Kim (44:48)
Bike through it.

Barb (44:49)
they weren’t supposed to. Yeah. and it just was a beautiful sort of a family venue. And Donald Trump wants it to be a place where he can host billionaires for his benefits. And that’s

Jill (45:00)
he can just play by himself instead of having to travel anywhere. You know, I didn’t play golf when I lived in Washington. I do now. And it would be so great to have a publicly available, affordable course right there in your own neighborhood. and I did use to walk Haynes Point, which is adjacent and oversees it. And I used to love looking at it, even though I didn’t play golf. So

But let’s talk about because there is, I think, a clear violation of the judge’s order, don’t cut them down, and they did. And as Kim was saying, they’re defending on the grounds, well, no, we were really just maintaining and we’re allowed to do that. what is the way to stop the government? You know, I worry about are they gonna tear down the Kennedy Center? Does you know, she said, Don’t cut down any trees. They didn’t say don’t dig up every hole.

and if if it’s not a total ban that is absolutely clear, they will do something horrible. What is it necessary to have court orders obeyed so that we don’t have the Kennedy Center torn down? As Kim said, once you tear down the East Wing, it’s gone. No matter what you do, you it’s not going back up. So what are the legal ways that we can prevent horrible things from continuing to happen?

Barb (46:27)
You know, I worry about this a lot and I wrote a column in my newsletter, Civil Discourse, about it this week and and there’s a great example in her order. She says that they can’t fell any more trees, right? They can’t chop them over. Well, gee, I can think of a lot of things that they could do short of felling right? They could cut right below the branches, and say, Judge, we didn’t fill any fell any trees. We we were just doing a little bit of topping. and the the

Problem that Judge Reyes now faces is this. They violated her order. There’s no doubt about that. The question is, what is she gonna do about it? The courts don’t have armies that they can send out to enforce their orders. And look, the US Marshals, they are not gonna go out and enforce court orders against the executive branch, because the United States Marshals are part of the executive branch. Right. And so I I think if you’re a district judge,

You have to approach this gingerly because you do not know whether the United States Supreme Court will back you or not when push comes to shove. And Jub Boseburg in a very different context, the judge in the JGG case, who is looking at the government’s decision to keep flying the planes full of migrants who were going to Seacot prison af after Judge Bosberg told the government to turn those planes around.

And now he’s tied up in courts that aren’t sure that he ought to be able to go ahead and hold contempt proceedings. I think Judge Reyes needs to look at that process and learn from it. And you know, I I mean, I I think it’s tough if if you’re a judge. I just think it’s tough. Judges have been targeted personally, their families have been targeted. But I think that the judiciary needs to adopt a little bit of this strategy that the Trump administration has been using.

Go fast and break things. Hold them in contempt. You cannot be afraid of this administration. You cannot back down in the face of a bully. I think you have to call it the contempt that it is. I think you have to use the sanctions available to you. You would do it if any other litigant was involved. And then if the Supreme Court doesn’t see fit to back district judges, shame on them.

Nothing is worse than that dry, crepey feeling your skin gets when it’s getting dehydrated by the sun day after day. It’s uncomfortable and it does not look great either. And you know it happens in winter too, sometimes when you’re least expecting it. We’ve all tried to avoid it with store-bought products that don’t work and leave you greasy and wishing that you had time for a shower. But what we’ve discovered that we all really love is Osea’s Undaria Algae Seaweed Infused Body Oil.

It’s a clean, simple formula. It’s seaweed powered from the sea and made by an award-winning skincare company that actually delivers. I just put it on when I’m done showering. Barb’s not here this week, so we can go into a little bit of detail. I just don’t walk out of the shower without patting it on first. And it’s become a lifesaver during scorching summers, but also during frigid winters. I love that it’s made for everyday relief with.

Quick absorption and a non-greasy feel, and its delightful award-winning formula has been clinically shown to instantly and visibly improve elasticity and deeply moisturize for a silky, smooth, full body glow.

Kim (50:06)
Andaria seaweed is the not so secret ingredient in OSEA’s best selling Andaria algae body oil, and I love its citrusy scent. It feels like you just escaped to a lush and vibrant orchard, even when you’re baking on the pavement of a bustling city or you’re cuddling up under blankets and sweaters as the temperatures cool.

It’s so much better than any other body oils that I’ve tried. And the hydration makes the weather so much more bearable for your skin. I have to say I get eczema and when I use the the body oil right out of the shower, it really makes it feel so much better and it really prevents it. I right now I normally would be itching from head to toe, but with that, I’m really not.

Jill (50:52)
You know you’re right, Kim, and since we started using it, the body oil has proven that it 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 after showering, and the glow lasts all day. So does my husband. He loves this product and he’s not a product person for body care, but he does love this one. And

Like him, your skin will feel the difference after just one use. Just like ours did, for over thirty years, OSIA has stayed consistent with clean, clinically tested skincare from the sea. We also love the story behind it. Founded in Malibu in nineteen ninety six, OSIA is a mother daughter founded skincare brand harnessing the power of seaweed and the wisdom of the ocean.

Kim (51:46)
It’s no surprise Osea’s Andaria Algae Body Oil is an allure award winning bestseller, and they have so much more to offer, so go to OSEAMalibu.com and get ten percent off your first order with code SISTERS10. That’s O S E A Malibu.com code Sisters10. And the link as always is in our show notes.

Barb (52:21)
Okay, y’all, it’s our third topic for today. It’s a little bit of a heavy one. We usually try to lighten up on on topic three, but it has not been one of those weeks. So let me set the stage. On October 13th of this year, three weeks before the midterm elections, the Department of Justice sent letters to California’s Secretary of State and to the Los Angeles County Registrar, and the federal government gave them until October 15, two days later.

At noon, no close of business, gave them until noon, to review a list of purported, quote, likely non citizens who were sent a vote by mail ballot from California to participate in the november twenty twenty six federal election. So those letters directed the California officials to do two things. One, the Justice Department wanted them to segregate already returned ballots from listed voters, voters DOJ was claiming were non citizens.

And who couldn’t be immediately verified. And secondly, it wanted the state to refrain from sending any ballot to any such individual who had not already received a ballot. So you get the drill here, right? The October 13 letters, they identified an email address at DHS as the point of contact that California was supposed to deal with. The letters identified an email address at DHS as the point of contact. And then they threatened California with the

following punishment if it didn’t comply. If the recipients couldn’t move in forty-eight hours to do all this stuff, the United States will have no choice but to seek emergency relief. In other words, file a lawsuit. So look, this is more of Trump’s war on elections. He does not want people like you and me to get to vote. so this just really isn’t a surprise. As his efforts get thwarted, he becomes more desperate, turns to crazier stuff.

This ridiculous effort I think too will fail, but it’s important that we talk it through and understand what’s happening. So Kim, let’s start with California’s response to the letter it received. what have they done since?

Kim (54:34)
well both the registrar in the county, LA County, as well as the elections official, the state election official, basically told the administration to go scratch that they were not going to be complying with this order. And legally they argue what I think is exactly right, which this whole scheme, if it sounds familiar,

It seems to be an administration the administration’s way to try to enrun its loss over its other mail in ballot, male in ballot executive order gambit, which the Supreme Court stopped in its tracks, if you recall, I guess it was just a few a month or so back.

It feels like it was eighty-four years. but the Supreme Court blocked the upheld a lower court ruling that blocked the Supreme Court from being able to implement this gambit that they tried to put in place, which would have put the Postal Service in the position of deciding who gets mail in ballots and who doesn’t, based on whether or not they appeared on some, you know, d

lists that the federal government was compiling based on a program which is shown to be error prone. We went through all of that. Look at our earlier coverage of that if you’re seeing. But if you just look under the hood a little bit, that’s exactly what the administration was trying to force LA County to do, which is basically bar them from delivering ballots to anybody who, according to the federal government, were likely, I’m using scare quotes for those who can’t see, likely

to be non-citizens. Now we’ve seen the federal government go after alleged non-citizens on voter rolls in the past, claiming that there were thousands or however many on there. And when push come came to shove and everybody was checked out, it was not that. If there were any, it was just a handful of people who probably got in there based on some error. You know, people are y humans can make mistakes, but it was not on any sort of wide scale way that was being alleged here.

government was basically trying to put that order in place with respect to LA and LA officials were like, uh-uh, you this has been decided already. The Supreme Court said you can’t do this, so don’t try to do this just on a piecemeal basis based county by county, by forcing people to do this. Also, we have to remember the Purcell principle, which is that, you know, you’re not supposed to on in the days leading up to an election,

even the months leading up to an election, impose big electoral changes to the way the rules are. That’s anti democratic and it robs people affected of their right to vote in the way and and select the candidates they see fit. So I think they knew this was a losing gambit choice, but, you know, desperation fuels all kinds of chaos.

Barb (57:39)
Kim, Kim, Kim. I can’t believe that you think that the Purcell principle applies when we

Kim (57:46)
Is that real? I still believe in it.

Barb (57:49)
voters in California vote. Don’t you

Kim (57:51)
I still believe in the personal principle like Santa Claus. I know it’s not real anymore, but I still believe in it.

Jill (58:00)
Ha ha ha ha.

Barb (58:02)
Okay, that’s just that’s the best line. Like I’m I’m just I’m done now ’cause that’s so great. Unfortunately the Justice Department was not done, Jill, because they turned around and sued California last Thursday. but we learned some interesting stuff from the federal government’s complaint, didn’t we?

Jill (58:20)
Well, we did. And of course they sued because they said they would, and they don’t care if they have grounds for suing or if there’s any chance that they’re gonna prevail. They wanna create chaos. They wanna create doubt in the system. So what we learned is that they had identified twenty thousand people who allegedly are non citizens who got mail in ballots. And they learned this because the

Homeland Securities investigation and the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service created these lists of names. And these were people who were to be struck from the roles and not be able to vote. Now, we know from past examples that these lists kind of evaporate when you ask for evidence. And that, of course, is what California will do. They’ll ask for, well, how did you identify these people? Let me see the data that shows that they aren’t citizens.

and in other cases we know that they went from like, what was it, sixteen, eighteen thousand to a hundred and eighty-five to zero that were non-citizens. And that’s what it looks like. So it seems to me that this really is a violation of anything that we believe in in terms of the right to vote and the right of the states to control who votes. and that there is nothing to this except

to have an excuse when they lose, a the Republicans lose, to say, it’s a because of all these non citizens who voted. It’s absurd.

Barb (59:57)
Yeah, I mean, you know, there’s this larger case, the common cause case, that talks about this effort to use lists manufactured by the government. And there’s actually an order in that case that says that the government cannot do that. And so as I read DOJ’s complaint, it looks like the list that they’ve sent to California is precisely the kind of list that they’ve been prohibited from using in the Common Cause case. And in fact, the plaintiffs in the Common Cause case

filed a notice with the judge saying, hey, we think that the government might be violating your order. So I mean that’s sort of pending out there. and the point that you make is these lists that DOJ writes, the Nevada list, I I think really is just a fascinating example where DOJ comes on really strong, you know, take these 16,000 non citizen voters off your list, and Nevada keeps looking and looking and at the end of the gig, they realize that zero.

None of the people on DOJ’s list are non-citizens. So that’s what’s at stake here. Exactly. DOJ is complaining at best about a very small universe of non-citizen voters, but they are willing to disenfranchise tens of thousands of American citizens across the country in order to keep up this little fake narrative that is jealous they may be using for nefarious purposes.

Kim (1:01:23)
So they want to keep up this narrative and who it just so happens that these voters in the United States may be disenfranchised, and it just coincidentally they may be in places like LA or Atlanta or just democratic strongholds and pla it’s just it’s just coincidental.

Barb (1:01:46)
But I mean, Kim, take a look at that issue more holistically, right? Trump keeps making these allegations about non citizens voting. There’s a lot of smoke. He comes back to it again and again. Is there some fire there? Maybe maybe there’s something.

Jill (1:02:02)
Ha ha

Barb (1:02:05)
No.

Jill (1:02:05)
No.

Kim (1:02:09)
No. And you know what it’s real this is terrible because at the end of the day, democracy depends on people having faith in our election systems. And even though we can talk about how illegal and what, you know, d in disingenuous and everything these efforts are, but at the end of the day, there are real people in these places. Journalists talk to them every day.

Who sit when they ask, I I was just watching today on on MS Now, them interviewing voters in Arizona. And they were like, if Democrats win, would do you believe, will you trust the results of that? And a lot of people were saying no. And that’s what really is at the heart of all of this. And that is a that is a crisis for our democracy. Because those people aren’t doing it just because they are

not good people or me it’s because the Trump administration and those who support him are effective in their drive to cast doubt on the security and the integrity of our elections. That’s an attack on all of our democracy. That’s at an attack on what the found of the ideas that the founders implemented in creating our representative government. And that’s what I’m sad about because I don’t know how long it’ll take to fix that. We can

If there is a different administration in the future, we can bring in all kinds of rules to make this kind of meddling in elections much harder to do. The harder job is going to be in changing the minds and instilling trust in vo And it’s not just conservatives, it’s people, you know, folks on the left who don’t trust what the government is doing. That’s a horrible place for us to be in our democracy. And I hope we think more about that in ways that we can re rebolster.

That trust’s gonna take a long time. But we need to remember that that in the end is surprised.

Jill (1:04:12)
You know what’s so awful is that one of the things that really bothers me in this regard is that it’s very hard to change a first impression, especially when it’s echoed by the media stream that you happen to choose to listen to. And even though if you paid attention and I got to interview the Secretary of State of Nevada about this exact issue and how she stood up to the government and said, I’m not giving you these records and show me what you have.

And it turned out that they admitted they had nothing, basically. They had zero. And it went from thousands to hundreds to zero. And yet, even though the government admits it has zero, they made their point. And the people who are being interviewed, as Kim points to, actually believe that there’s something amiss here, that there’s something foul going on. And first impressions are hard to change. So it’s really

A serious problem for democracy that this is going on, and we really, really need to stop it and somehow get the facts out.

Barb (1:05:18)
Well it feels very deliberate. You guys have both made, I think, the compelling point, which is that what they’re doing, they know it’s not gonna hold up in court. So why are they doing it? I mean, Trump has smart lawyers. They may take positions that I think are morally reprehensible, but they’re not stupid. And my concern is that what we are seeing here is Trump setting up the narrative that he will use when he loses monumentally in these elections.

And look, we all lived through January 6th. There’s no need to sugarcoat it. We all know what’s coming if he suffers an enormous loss at the polls. This is the narrative in action. And I think one of the most important pe things that we can do right now is talk about this with our friends so that as you say, Jill, that first impression, that idea, they’re non-citizens voting, we need to put that to bed right now. There’s a great piece in the New York Times this week.

that sort of goes through it state by state and and debunks the myth. And it is just that a myth. So let’s just real quickly, because I know we’ll be living with this case and the other cases like this for some period of time. But what do y’all expect to see next? I mean Mark Al Elias has already moved to intervene on behalf of two groups. That would be a good thing, because it would mean that there would be somebody else in this mix who would try to protect male voting.

But in terms of the case, Kim, what are you looking to s to see happen next? I mean

Kim (1:06:44)
And

I I just really hope that the Supreme Court sticks with and and the judges can be empowered by the Supreme Court basically saying, look, trying to make the rules about who can be delivered ballots is a is a bridge too far for the federal government and stick with that. Because it’s a hard job right now being a trial level federal judge, not just because

of the threats and stuff that they’re getting. I was just talking to another judge about this this week, the death threats and all the other stuff. But because of the fact that they’re making these rulings trying to apply the law and the Supreme Court keeps up ending them. I feel like on this one they haven’t and maybe they can keep that courage because this isn’t gonna be the last one of these kind of suits. and they’re gonna keep going, they’re gonna keep going beyond the midterms and all the way leading up to twenty twenty eight. So I hope that they have

hard that they stick with this, that they keep making the rulings that they have, because by and large the lower courts have been blocking this kind of stuff. and that they keep up the faith, even though I know it’s hard.

Barb (1:07:52)
You know, California’s the first state that we’re hearing about this in, but what pops into my mind is how many Republican states have they made similar requests from and those states have complied and w Yeah,

Kim (1:08:03)
We don’t

Barb (1:08:05)
right? I mean there’s more coming. Jill, what are you looking for next in this lawsuit?

Jill (1:08:08)
Well,

I I you know, I’m hopeful that the decision that the United States Postal Service couldn’t be the determinant of who gets a ballot will apply in this case and the the court will say no. And I guess to your point, Joyce, I just took off the brace that I’m wearing. For those who are watching on YouTube, it says, I am the blue wave. And that is maybe the most important thing is huge numbers of voters

of all parties, including independents and Republicans, have got to reject the Republican fascist trend that we’re seeing and get out and vote for anyone but the Republicans. And

Kim (1:08:53)
And I also I just wanna say one little thing, ’cause we say that a lot and it it is important. I really want Democrats, Democrats should be leading with an agenda on how they fix this. I mean, it’s not just enough to throw the bums out. And that’s what one reason why I’m usually not the one that’s just like, get out and vote blue and do all that. That isn’t gonna mean a darn thing if nothing changes. So I need Democrats to be running on in these last days before the midterms.

And following up on and following through on a pro-democracy agenda. Don’t just use their victory as evidence that Trump has been defeated. No, we know what’s broken and now it’s time to fix it. So if if I’m ever not super like, you know, just Democrats need to fix this, I’m not sure that d Democrats have not been a barrel of of confidence in how they’re gonna do this so far. And I really need them to put their big boy pants on and big girl pants on.

And come up with a pro-democracy, pro-people agenda that shows them that they mean business beyond just investigations, beyond just congressional hearings, fixing what Trump broke. So i I take your point, Jill, but I’m gonna need Democrats to say what they will do, not just what they will fight against. Just my little

Jill (1:10:12)
I think in the

weeks left before the election, that’s not gonna happen and that we have to stick with vote.

Barb (1:10:30)
This episode of #SistersInLaw is brought to you by our friends at Wildgrain. Ooh, say it, Kim. Just say the word. Say the word.

Kim (1:10:39)
Poisson.

Barb (1:10:41)
Cozy season is here, which means cooler temperatures, warm ovens, and the perfect time to enjoy fresh-baked breads and seasonal treats at home, like croissants. Wild Grain delivers sourdough breads, seasonal pastries, and French butter made with simple, recognizable ingredients by small independent bakeries. And best of all, it’s all delivered to your door and ready to bake straight from frozen in 25 minutes or less.

Jill (1:11:10)
I love every single thing that I have gotten from wild grain. I have a new favorite though, it’s the harvest bread. I don’t know if you’ve tried that, but it’s really, really yummy. So is the walnut cranberry, so is the sesame seed, so are the baguettes. Everything is really, really good. And we love how you can customize your box with either the classic delivery or gluten-free, vegan or protein options.

And you can skip or cancel or change the contents with every single delivery. And right now, with the holidays coming up, Wild Grain is celebrating Carbs Giving, their biggest sale of the year, with their best offer of the year. No matter what you choose, it’s great how fast Wild Grain goes from the box to the table, and it’s always a treat. The ingredients are so much better for you than the products you find at the store.

And my husband and I enjoy every one of the breads, pastas, and pastries, and so do our guests. They are surprised and impressed when I tell them it’s baked from frozen, not homemade. They often end up subscribing themselves because it’s perfect for delicious meals, snacks, or quick food prep.

Kim (1:12:21)
Having wild grain delivered is so convenient when you have people over for the holidays. And I love watching the color and flavor come alive when the pumpkin spice bilgen waffles are heating up. They are really a crowd pleaser. It’s the perfect treat for fall, and they go so well with the slow-churn French truffle butter. But after a long day, the apple cider donuts are the truth. You have to get those apple cider donuts. Get them now. The aroma coming from the oven is incredible.

Just make sure you get enough to share because once you bake them, everybody’s gonna come running. Wild grain is the perfect go-to.

Barb (1:13:00)
If you’re ready for warm bakery quality food at home this cozy season, we definitely recommend giving Wild Grain a try. And for Carbs Giving, Wild Grain’s biggest sale of the year, you can get $40 off your first box plus free croissants for life. I cannot say it like you, Kim. Just please say it for me one more time.

Kim (1:13:20)
Coisson and you know what? I like the whole grain croissant too. So you you have your choice among croissants.

Barb (1:13:28)
There you have it from the woman who pronounces it the best. You can get $40 off your first box plus free croissants for life. That’s the best offer you’ll hear from us all year. Visit Wildgrain.com slash Sisters40 to get $40 off your first box and free croissants for life. Or you can use promo code Sisters40 at checkout. Again, that’s wildgrain.com slash sisters40. Use Sisters40 at checkout.

And the link is in our show notes.

Jill (1:14:09)
And now it’s time for our very favorite part of the show, which is your questions. We think you have the best and smartest questions, and we always look forward to answering them. So if you have a question for us, please email us at sistersinlaw at politicon.com, or you can tag us on social media with #SistersInLaw, and then we’ll select hopefully your question to answer next week.

So please be sure to send us your questions. but also follow us on all the different social media platforms because we only can answer three questions every week on the show, and we try to answer other questions that were asked on our social media feeds. So I have some really good questions. I want to ask you one, Kim, that comes from Bill from Troy, Michigan. Is there a difference between a lawyer and an attorney?

And does it matter? Kim, what do you think this is related to?

Kim (1:15:14)
dear Bill, are you talking about our beloved Katie Zakaria, the former, as we tape this, former press secretary of the White House. so for those who don’t know, the press secretary came under some fire for apparently patting her resume a little bit, saying that she was a an attorney who had served as general counsel for some organization and when reported.

Reporters asked her where she passed the bar because obviously they did a little reporting and found that she was not registered as a member of the bar in any of our 50 states. she said that she did it when she lived in China and that she served as she in a legal role under the licensing laws of China and said, Well, they don’t have a bar, which isn’t true. I mean, she just seemed to be trying to dig herself out of a padded res resume, is what it looked like.

to me and she claimed that she asked officials at her le law school alma mater pepperdine how she should refer to herself because she did graduate she has a J D but she also admitted that she failed the bar when she took it in California, said she was too busy prepping for a wedding. and they said to her that she can be called a lawyer but not an attorney. Now I’ve never been licensed to practice

In California, true disclosure, I passed two bar exams, one in New York and one in Massachusetts, and I practiced in Massachusetts, so I don’t know the rules over there. but what I’m thinking is that I know in Massachusetts we use the term attorney at law to distinguish somebody who was licensed to practice law, represent people, who was an officer of the court from people who just graduated law school, which is an accomplishment in itself. This whole thing was such a

ridiculous because she graduated law school. It’s a great o honor. I don’t know why she was trying to be something that she’s not when she already has a great honor. but a a great qualification. but this is why I think it’s actually important. We can all, you know, kiki at this White House, you know, shenanigan. But what I think is important is when you are an attorney, when you are when you pass the bar exam, when you are lic, when you are accepted to practice law.

When you become an officer of the court, that comes with responsibility that extends throughout your time as a member of that bar, even if you leave the profession. So I’m a retired, I’m retired from the bar in Massachusetts. But even the even with that, I still take the oath that I took very seriously. And that includes an obligation to do things like not lie publicly.

about what you’re saying if you represent present yourself as an attorney. I represent myself as an attorney both here and when I give TV analysis. And even though I’m not giving legal advice, I take very seriously the fact that I can’t lie about facts, I can’t misrepresent the law, I can’t advance conspiracy theories, I can’t just do someone’s bidding because I am a member of an organization that has taken an oath to a profession that has taken an oath to uphold higher standards than that.

So that’s why I think all of this is important. If you pass, if you graduate law school, great. But don’t hold yourself out as being licensed as somebody who takes a higher standard and then accept a job where you might have done something that falls far below those standards. And in that sense, I think that this was a viable and just line of questioning for her and that she failed explaining that in my view, spectacularly. I’m not sad that she made the detri made the choice that perhaps.

That job, even though it doesn’t require a J D, is not for her.

Jill (1:19:06)
It’s true. And I would add that California law says that holding yourself out as a lawyer or attorney without a state license is a crime. And there is a complaint filed with the California bar to investigate that. So there you go. And Joyce, here’s a great question from Terry on Instagram. What do you think Cornell’s purpose is in hiring Sally Yates? She is a top-notch, amazing lawyer. Yates refused to defend the Muslim ban.

Could they possibly want systemic change? Because she’s not going to pull any punches. And I know you know Sally Yates, so let’s hear what you think.

Barb (1:19:46)
Yeah, I mean I do. I know Sally really well. A reminder for those who may have forgotten, because it’s been a while. Sally was the United States attorney in Atlanta when I was the United States attorney in Birmingham. We worked together pretty closely on cases before we became U.S. attorneys. In fact, we were both involved in the bombing of a Birmingham abortion clinic by a man named Eric Robert Rudolph, who also bombed Olympic Park, which was Sally’s case. So we’ve known each other for a long time.

she went on to become the Deputy Attorney General. She was the acting attorney general at the very start of the Trump administration after Loretta Lynch had resigned. And so it was Sally to whom the duty fell to refuse to defend Trump’s travel ban, and he fired her over that. You know, she’s been in private practice, she’s back in Atlanta since she left DOJ. And among the work she’s done, she’s been involved in conducting independent investigations, notably the 2022 investigation.

into sexual misconduct in women’s professional soccer. So she’s got some experience in this area. That investigation ended up exposing widespread abuse and institutional failures. And her team put together a very detailed report that discussed how those failures occurred. Knowing Sally, I would say it’s very unlikely she took this job unless she was assured that she would have access to all of the facts to

all of the evidence. And Cornell seems to have given her that broad mandate, including examining its own leadership and its oversight practices. You know, I note that their president is still in place. seems like that is not something that can last forever, right? One might expect that the president who was involved in this and didn’t put a stop to it might lose his job at some point. But I think we’ll watch the team that Sally’s leading engage in a genuinely independent review.

rather than just an investigation that’s designed to reach some predetermined conclusion. And certainly it’s necessary because we can talk about the law in cases, I’m sure we will when that’s appropriate. But the reality here is that a certain amount of social change, of commitment to not letting this sort of behavior happen is as necessary as legal enforcement. She’s the right person to do it.

Jill (1:22:10)
So I’m gonna take the last question. It’s from Melissa, and this is her question. When I was interviewing for residency, I got some very random questions. The weirdest one was, what kind of salad dressing would you be? Have you guys ever gotten a weird question on job interviews? And so I’ll answer that, but I think she said, you guys, and of course she meant gals.

Barb (1:22:36)
Y you know, you do, you get weird questions in interviews ranging from the truly strange to the ones that are maybe illegal, right? Like I was asked at one point if I planned on having children.

But I’ll tell you my favorite one I was asked during the final stages of being interviewed as a US attorney, and it was what three people would you invite to a dinner party? Which I think is just such a fascinating question. And because I read a whole lot, my answer involved authors, but that was truly a weird one.

Jill (1:23:11)
That’s fascinating. Anything other than are you planning to have children, Kim?

Kim (1:23:17)
No, that was gonna be it wasn’t quite that open, but it was just like, Do you have a boyfriend? You see anyone seriously? Do you plan to get married? And I’m like, Okay, I see you stepping around. Did you see on my resume that I actually am a lawyer? That I actually I actually did pass the bar and I practiced, so maybe you should be asking me this.

Jill (1:23:38)
Yeah. Well I I I bet every lawyer of our gender who was being interviewed any time in our lifetimes got that question too.

Kim (1:23:49)
Well I’m gonna say it I just wanna be clear because I’m still friends with the people who I worked with as a it was not my job as a lawyer that they didn’t ask me that question. It was jobs after I was a lawyer and I switched to a different career at that after

Jill (1:24:01)
Whoa. Okay. Well that’s even weirder then. one of my weirdest questions was, if you were having a dinner party and a client had a problem, what would you do? And I was like, you wouldn’t ask a man that question. And I was like anyway, I there was another one I was asked, which was, how comfortable would you feel in an all black school? That was when I was interviewing to be head of career and technical education for the Chicago Public Schools. And

I thought that was a really inappropriate question as well. but then there were comments like, Well, this is after I’d interviewed, no odd questions. But then they said, Well, you know, of course we can’t really hire you because everyone else here is a man and there’s travel involved, and we can’t possibly let you travel with a man. It’s like, then why am I here? Why are you interviewing me? You know, it’s like so there are a lot of those questions. And a friend of mine who went on to be a judge was asked, What would your mother say about you having to go home very late at night after working all day?

I mean, really? These are questions that women were asked. So I hope that answers your question and that takes us to the end of our show.

We’re very glad that you were here with us today. Thank you for joining us and listening to #SistersInLaw with Joyce Fance, Kimberly Atkins Store, and me Jill Wine-Banks. If you enjoy today’s show, please rate the show and send it to your friends so that we can increase our listeners. It really helps. Please follow us at hashtag SistersInLaw on Apple Podcasts or Spotify or wherever you listen and

You can also join us on Saturday for this show, but also on Wednesdays for our spin-off because we love your questions so much. We do Sisters Sidebar on Wednesdays where we answer just your questions. And we love doing that. But also, I’m reminding you to shop now at hashtag SistersIn-Law for our totes and other goodies. Go to SistersIn-Law at politicon slash merch and find it there. And

Please check out everything that we have to offer and come with us every week. And please, please support this week’s sponsors because they make this show possible: Bowlin Branch, HexClad, Honey Love, Osea Malibu, and Wild Grain. See you next week with another episode of SistersInLaw.

Kim (1:26:41)
sort of like when I dress Snickers up as a Rhesus peanut butter cup. Yes. She was like she was so

Barb (1:26:48)
Bad ’cause I never dress up my dogs. I’ve never put a costume on a dog.

Jill (1:26:53)
gosh, the year I lived in Miami, they have the best Halloween dog shows. The most amazing contests. Do they re I I love those. It was fantastic.

Barb (1:27:03)
I’m a bad dog mom. What should I do with Bella and Elsa? Can I make them last minute coffee?

Jill (1:27:08)
Make

them Dalmatians, of course. Put a t shirt in the hook.

Barb (1:27:11)
Amen.

Jill (1:27:14)
Yeah.