Blanche V. Barr

Kim (00:06)
Welcome to this episode of Sister Sidebar with Jill Wine-Banks and me, Kimberly Atkins Stohr We love answering your questions, which is the whole reason that we have this second podcast from Sisters in Law. And if you’d like to leave a question, you can send them to us via email at sistersinlaw at politicon.com. But you don’t have to just type them. no. We like hearing your voice. And if you want to ask your question in your voice in a way that might show up.

in our podcast, you can leave a voice memo. Just email it right to sistersinlaw at politicon.com and your question might be one of the voices we pick in the next episode. So you can join us too. So don’t forget to do that. And of course you can also ask us questions in the traditional way why we had the name hashtag SistersInLaw by tagging us in your social media and we will pick from those questions as well. So

Let’s get started, shall we, Jill?

Jill (01:08)
Absolutely. And we have a great audio question for you, Kim, from someone named Jill. And it’s not me.

Kim (01:17)
She’s from Chicago.

Jill (01:20)
my goodness, so she is. I swear it is not me. And I didn’t know there was another Jill in Chicago. I wish she would let me know who she is. Please contact me.

Kim (01:30)
So we’ll let let’s hear a voice and make sure it’s not you. Hello, sisters in law. My name is Jill and I live in Chicago. My question is about Dr. Anthony

Jill (01:41)
Before he was Biden

Kim (01:45)
Fauci. I assume that pardon only covers possible federal crimes that happened before that pardon was issued. At a recent congressional hearing, Dr. Fauci invoked the Fifth.

Amendment and refused to answer some questions about the COVID pandemic. Now the Senate committee has voted to hold him in contempt of Congress. My question is this can someone be held in contempt of Congress for simply exercising their Fifth Amendment rights? Thank you for taking my question and I can’t wait to hear your thoughts.

Jill, that is a great, great question. And I believe you are probably referring to Dr. Anthony Fauci, who went before Congress recently and repeatedly on advice of counsel invoked his Fifth Amendment right not to testify, to questioning about his handling about the pandemic during the Biden administration. And well, he also started during the Trump administration.

also throughout the Biden administration after they took over. So the question is a good one. Okay, so can someone be held in contempt when they plead the fifth? The answer is it depends, but in this circumstances, I don’t think that Dr. Fauci can be. So let me explain. When you assert your Fifth Amendment rights, it’s against potential self-incrimination about something that you may have done.

In this case, it’s worth remembering that Dr. Fauci received a pardon from President Biden for his work in the pandemic throughout the pandemic through 2025. So he cannot be prosecuted for anything he did in the job as a federal official during that period of time. And there is a claim by some Republicans that because he is pardoned, he cannot assert the Fifth Amendment.

Because he’s in no jeopardy of being prosecuted. That in itself is true. He cannot be prosecuted for anything that he did. So he’s not in jeopardy of answering questions about that. But what I think is happening, and what I think Dr. Fauci and his lawyers believe is happening with these hearings, is that lawmakers are trying to catch him in a perjury trap. Basically ask him a question in a way that they can turn around and say, you lied under oath when you answered this question.

In this way, sort of cue what’s happening with Jack Smith, for example. And Dr. Fauci can assert a Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself against contempt of Congress charges, which is, I think, what he was instructed to do here. So it’s a little complicated. He does still stand in jeopardy for whatever he says in 2026 before Congress in terms of potential criminal contempt, not for what he did before.

But that still gives him the right to assert the Fifth Amendment in order not to be caught in this trap. So it’s something that we’ll probably see play out in the courts, but I think that he has a very strong case here of having asserted that right. Our next question is a great one from Susan. The question is Todd Blanche versus Bill Barr, who is worse for the rule of law? I have my thoughts, but Jill, I want to hear yours. Okay.

Jill (05:18)
Okay, well I wanna hear yours too, but let’s say it’s really sad that we have to be asking a question like that. I know. Who’s best? What’s a good attorney? We’re asking who’s worse, and they’re both worse. They’re terrible. But I I mean, if I have to pick one, I’m gonna say Todd Blanche, and his damage isn’t even over yet. Let me remind you that Bill Barr is not a good guy, although he did in the end quit.

and refused to do final actions that were requested by the president. So

Kim (05:53)
He finally drew the line at trying to intercept the results of an election and overturn the results of an election.

Jill (06:00)
was late. He also don’t let’s not forget that he did issue some information that was misleading while withholding the actual reports and so and first impressions. In the Muller. In the Muller report, right. Which and

Kim (06:15)
It was outrageous.

Jill (06:16)
it was hard to change first impressions once you say something that’s totally false and then you release the report that says the opposite. So he’s not you know, he’s not a good guy. But Todd Blanch has done so many

many, many, many, many things that it’s hard to believe that he is actually representing the people of America as he is supposed to. Remember, the Department of Justice is the people’s lawyer. When we go to court from the Department of Justice, we say on behalf of the people of the United States. And he is there in his former role as the President’s personal attorney. His quote, air quotes, all of you,

His settlement agreement that gives immunity from paying taxes to the president and that creates a one point seven seven six billion dollar settlement fund that I don’t believe Yeah, right. He didn’t he didn’t, he did not. I don’t believe he did, and nobody else does. Anyway, he’s done so many terrible things that I would have to vote for him. Well how are you voting?

Kim (07:23)
Epstein files, I’m with you. That the the refusal to release the Epstein files going out.

Jill (07:29)
With the Epstein Survivors. How can he do that? my god. Yes. What an whoops. I

Kim (07:34)
Terrible going after

Jill (07:35)
can’t say it.

Kim (07:37)
I mean, you know, prosecuting, criminally prosecuting and raiding the homes of journalists and doing whatever President Trump says, purging the Justice Department of people who committed the crime of participating in valid investigations during the Biden administration. I mean, just unbelievable things. Listen, Bill Barr was bad. I was I happen to have been guest hosting on the NPR show on point the morning that the Mueller report was released.

And it was released in the hour that we were live on air. So it was released, I believe, at 10 o’clock, and that’s when the show started. And 20 minutes before, Bill Barr comes out and gives this, you know, summary, and I’m ready to do that. And then I’m we get the report and I’m reading it while we’re live on air. And it’s like, that’s this is not what that said. That’s not what it says. So it’s like in real time I had to debunk the attorney. See, he’s terrible, but I agree with you. Blanche is hard.

Jill (08:31)
Yeah, yeah. And think about Blanche supporting Cash Patel. Think about Blanche not bringing cases against ICE agents. Absolutely out of the question. He’s not gonna do it. And I there’s just so many more things. Okay, so I we could go on forever, but I think we all agree that it’s Blanche’s the winner of this race. And Kim, we have another question for you. And this one comes from Steve. I’m gonna read it to you. He’s in Lincoln, Massachusetts.

So sort of near your Boston Globe.

Kim (09:03)
Base.

Jill (09:04)
Yes. Okay. He asked, even though criminal offenses may be pardoned, can civil suits be used to recover funds received through corruption, fraud, theft, etcetera?

Kim (09:17)
It’s a great question, Steve. And it’s one that I’m glad you asked because it really raises a very important point. Yes, civil suits can still be brought even when there is a pardon in place either by a president or by a governor for state charges or or a panel, depending on what state you’re in.

If that pardon is issued, that does not foreclose civil suits. So for example, if someone is, you know, it it’s say hypothetically, someone after a slow speed chase was apprehended for murder, but then pardoned for those charges because you know the governor really loved him as a football star. If the family of the person who he allegedly murdered sued him, he cannot get that that taken away.

Right. So you understand that kind of situation that I’m talking about. And that’s really important because civil suits serve a very different function than criminal prosecution. Criminal prosecution is for punishment. So an executive has the right to issue clemency if they think that there are questions about that criminal prosecution or it was somehow unfair, or if they think the sentence is too long or something like that. But

purpose of a civil case is to either change a practice or to make someone who has been harmed by an action whole again. So it wouldn’t really make sense, and it wouldn’t be very fair to allow a president or a governor to say, no, no, yes, you were harmed by this act of another person, but you’re not allowed to be recompensed for that. So it wouldn’t make a lot of sense for that to happen. And it also gets to a point that we’ve made on the podcast many times, but I think it’s important as all, I believe all of us, even the

former prosecutors have done civil litigation at some point or another. And that’s because it’s an important part of just of the justice system. Civil justice is important in ensuring that people can seek some sort of either seek some sort of monetary compensation when they’ve been harmed, even if the money alone can’t make them fully whole, or also to try to ensure that

an action that is dangerous or harmful to people is stopped. And you see that a lot with civil actions that are brought, for example, by states attorneys general to stop a particular practice that can be harmful to their community. So it serves a really important purpose and no, that cannot be pardoned away. So thanks for that question.

Jill (12:00)
A lot of us had the perfect couch in college, got a great TV after our first big job, and have some of our favorite art on our walls. But it used to seem like finding a great rug was impossible, especially if you’re a dog owner. They can transform your entire space, so you want style and a beautiful design, as well as something that the dog can’t ruin. Unfortunately, a lot of the overpriced stuff out there can’t handle the wear and tear of daily use.

And the cheap options might be washable, but they’re basically temporary. Our homes are made to be lived in and you need a rug that looks great and can handle whatever life throws at it. With tumble rugs, you can finally have both.

Kim (12:44)
I gotta say, having a sick dog this week, I was really glad tumble rugs came in handy. I’ll just leave it at that. You know, tumble rugs look like beautiful designer rugs, but they’re actually built for real life, not a museum. We’ve all had rugs that are too delicate and a nightmare to clean. But spills, muddy paws, and accidents are a part of life. That’s why Tumble makes everything spill-proof and machine washable. So hunched over scrubbing is a thing of the past.

Instead of relying on elbow grease and a flexible back, you can let the washer take care of it. Even the larger ones are machine ready, I have to say I have the largest size and I threw mine in the washer and dryer no problem. Plus, their proprietary spill proof surface causes liquids to beat up on top of the rug so that you can wipe them up in seconds. I’m still surprised every time.

Jill (13:38)
Me too. And more important or as important is finding a fashionable rug with a design that suits your personality and the space. We want to put the perfect finishing touch in any room. And I found, and think it’s fantastic, how great tumble rugs look. Right now I’m in love with the Amara Light Blue and Ivory. The hand-illustrated patterns are mesmerizing and it’s such a classic modern fit for the space.

you’ll love exploring the styles, and they’re perfect for living rooms, kitchens, entryways, hallways, and even kids’ rooms. And dogs’ rooms. Let’s not forget the dogs’ rooms, basically anywhere life gets messy. And thanks to Tumble’s cushioned nonslip rug pad that tucks into hidden corner pockets underneath it, everything stays securely in place and doesn’t slide around. Not only that, all tumble rugs are OEK OTX

Certified with non-toxic materials so they’re safe for your animals and little ones.

Kim (14:41)
Don’t just take our word for it. Hundreds of thousands of homes have already switched to Tumble Rugs, and they have over 30,000 five-star reviews, including ours. Machine washable rugs made better. And for a limited time only, our listeners get 10% off plus free shipping at tumbleliving.com slash sisters. That’s T-U-M-B-L-E Living dot com slash sisters.

After your purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show by telling them we sent you. The link is in the show notes.

Our next question is from Roger and it’s for you, Jill.

Jill (15:31)
Okay. This is Roger from Connecticut. You have mentioned that federal prosecutors secure an indictment when there is a probable cause that a federal has been committed. For people who have had a preemptive pardon, is there any value in investigating whether a possible crime has been committed? Would it be in the public interest sometimes for people just to know, even if a trial or conviction isn’t possible? Thanks, sisters.

Great question, Roger, as all our questions are. We get so many good questions and please keep them coming. That’s an important question, Roger, to think about what is in the public interest when someone is possibly not going to get prosecuted, is there a reason to bring an indictment? So where there has been a preemptive pardon, can there be an investigation? Is it in the public interest to know what officials

did when they were in office before they got a pardon or even after they got a pardon? So the answer is both in terms of the public interest, that’s not a reason for indicting. Investigating by Congress, yeah, that would certainly be within the public interest and something Congress could and should do. But in terms of a prosecutor using resources, their time and the investigative resources that would be necessary.

For something that cannot be prosecuted is not in the public interest. And we’ve seen cases in this current administration where they are going after people in cases that will not stand. And remember that it’s not just that you think you have probable cause to get a conviction. It has to be sustainable on an appeal. And these cases would not be sustainable on appeal, so I don’t think it’s in the public interest. Okay.

We have another question for you, Kim from Todd. Todd, how interesting that that’s the name. Okay. Todd wants to know, do you think campaigning on SCOTUS reforms by Democrats will have an impact on their decision on the emer by their, he means SCOTUS’s decision on emergency appeal made by the Trump administration regarding mail-in voting? And you’re our Supreme Court expert, so that’s a great question for you.

Kim (17:55)
Is that you, Mr. Attorney General? Are you trying to see if this gonna if the election is gonna mess up your case? no, I know, I know that is not you. Thank you, Todd, valued listener, for writing in this question. The answer is no. I think that there is a lot wrong with the people in the majority on the US Supreme Court, in the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. I think it’s a lot wrong with the way many of them conduct themselves.

I think there’s a lot wrong with their ideology. I think that it is wrong that I believe their political leanings do affect their opinions. I think there’s a lot wrong. But one thing I don’t think they actually do is sit around worrying about what Democrats are gonna do or even the results of the election. and they certainly don’t worry about it in terms of, you know, th how they rule in the case, because there’s nothing that they can there’s nothing that

the lawmakers, even those advocating in SCOTUS reform can do to them. Constitutionally, the nine justices on the court, there is almost nothing that can be done to change their tenure or how they operate because when they took their oath of office, it was a lifetime tenure appointment. That’s ha what the constitution says right now.

So it’ll be unconstitutional to sort of retroactively say, psych, you can only stay for eighteen years or fifteen years or something like that. They know they it they are insulated from anything. And I don’t think they particularly care what happens once they’re off the bench. So no, I really think in this case that’s not they’re not thinking about that at all. They’re gonna rule the way they’re gonna rule for the reasons that may or may not be legitimate, but I don’t think that that is a reason.

All right, last question, Jill, and it comes from Larry from Eureka, California. Doesn’t the appointment of a new vice president require the advice and consent of both the House and the Senate? Why would either body consent to such an appointment by someone it intends to impeach and convict?

Jill (20:02)
Well, that’s an interesting question and it makes some assumptions that it make it harder to answer. But first let’s look at the twenty-fifth amendment, which is how we come to appoint a vice president in the case of a vacancy in the vice presidency. So if, for example, the president, i.e. Nixon, resigns, or if someone dies in office.

Then there’s a vacancy because the vice president becomes president and there’s no vice president. And when JFK was assassinated, there was no way to appoint a new vice president. Johnson, who was the vice president, became president, and there was no way in the Constitution to appoint a new vice president. So the 25th Amendment was created. It was used for the first time when Nixon resigned.

And Gerald Ford was selected to be the vice president. And it, unlike any other confirmation, does require approval by both houses, not just the Senate. So if there was a vacancy, if, for example, if Vance became president for some reason, he would have the ability to appoint a person. So why would he pick someone who was subject to impeachment? And

in this Congress, is there anyone who is impeachable? Is there anyone who wouldn’t be confirmed? And that seems to sort of end your question, which is this is not realistic because right now whoever would be selected by the new president would he would be careful to pick someone who wasn’t under indictment, for example. but y I don’t think that there’s any

reason to think that this could happen. But you’re right. Why would they vote for someone they intended to impeach? They wouldn’t. But if they had already started impeachment, then that person wouldn’t be selected.

Kim (22:07)
We’ve gett really good questions, things that, you know, I like th the way that these questions make me think about potential scenarios.

Jill (22:14)
Thank you for listening to hashtag Sisters Sidebar with Kimberly Atkins Stohr and me, Jill Wine-Banks Keep sending in your great questions and remember you can send them audio by using some kind of a voice note attached to an email or just send us an email with your question. But we love hearing your voice. So if you want to, we’d love to hear it, and then we can play your voice on the show as we did today. Emails are sent to sistersinlaw at politicon.com.

And please, please do that. Also, please show some love to this week’s sponsor, Tumble. The link is in the show notes, and we really do love Tumble Rugs. Please support them because they make this show possible. And don’t forget, you can pick up some hashtag sisters in lawmerch at politicon.com slash merch. We love our t-shirts and our hoodies. It’s getting to be

I know it’s still August, but pretty soon it’s gonna be fall and you’re gonna want that hoodie. Anyway, remember you can see us every Saturday with hashtag SistersIn-Law and every Wednesday with the spinoff show, hashtag Sisters Sidebar. We look forward to seeing you. Thanks for being here today.

Kim (23:35)
Was my eyelash falling off during the show? I feel like

Jill (23:39)
my gosh, no, it actually even looks natural. it’s really good. Thank you.

Kim (23:44)
It was excellent. I didn’t want to like touch it while we you know we’re talking about gardens

Jill (23:48)
I’m looking at

Kim (23:49)
and stuff, but