Indictment Maxxing

[00:00:10] Kim: Welcome back to hashtag Sisters in Law with Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuade, and Joyce Vance, and me, Kimberly Atkins Stohr. You know, we love hearing from you all. So go ahead and leave a comment down below. And don’t forget to follow us and hit the notification button so you All of our episodes as well. It’s been a busy week, but we’re gonna break down three topics with you. First, we’re gonna talk about how the government has been stepping up efforts to make you freaked out about the upcoming midterms. But we’re gonna let you know why you don’t have to worry as much as they say you may need to. Also, we’re going to talk about the big grift, how Trump officials seem to be going down in a blaze of shame for doing some apparent alleged self-dealing. And also we’re going to talk about how Trump’s massive Lawsuit, huge lawsuit against BBC, the BBC is probably backfiring on him now. in a way that he doesn’t seem to like. But first, You know, the air is crisp here in Washington DC. The leaves Are falling, the Halloween decorations are up, and you know what that means. That means it is time to eat some yummy fall food. I am hoping this weekend to make one of my favorites this time of year, which is a nice Butternut squash soup. Our neighbor has this Butternut That’s absolutely like it looks like something out of Jack and the Beanstalk. Uh and she gives us some of them and I always am able to make soup with that a couple times over the fall and that’s really one of my favorite uh One of my favorite meals, a little bit of sage. Um, it’s really good. So what do you guys like to eat or cook? In the fall, what are your favorite foods? How about you, Joyce?

[00:02:00] Joyce: You know, funny that you should ask because when we were talking about this, my immediate reaction to what are your favorite fall foods was all of them. You know, absolutely everything. It’s my favorite season to cook. It’s not exactly cool and crisp in Alabama, to be honest. Bob and I were in Maine earlier this month. And we got into this chowder phase, fish chowder, clam chowder, you name it. If it was chowder, we were eating it and I was making it at home. So that was definitely a favorite. Yeah. I love your soup. And you know, I have a pumpkin that I grew this summer that I’m dying to turn into soup. So I think that’s next up. And then after that, this is the big one. Chili Bob Vance makes, hands down, the best chili of anyone’s chili that I have ever had. It’s why I’ve kept him around for almost 40 years now. And today I started saying, honey, don’t you think it’s just about chili time? And I noticed he’s out at the grocery store. So it’s all good in my world.

[00:03:02] Kim: Great. We’re gonna have to have a chilly cook off one of these days.

[00:03:05] Joyce: You know, I still dream about your fried chicken, Kim, so I would be willing to taste your chili.

[00:03:10] Kim: All right, all right. So how about you, Barb? What’s what foods make you think of fall?

[00:03:16] Barb: Well, you know, you both had me at butternut squash soup and chili. Two of my absolute favorites. I had some butternut squash soup yesterday. So good. With like, you know, like little seeds floating on top. Yes, yes. But I’m going to go dessert here. One of my favorite things to do this time of year is to get some fresh apples and slice them up. and then melt some of that caramel sauce that you can get at the grocery store. And use it as like a little dip, you know, and dip it in there. And I always say I’m just going to have a couple, but before I’m done, I’ve polished off the apple. Um my husband and I like to have that as a dessert. We’ll just slice up an apple and heat up some Caramel sauce and uh the apple. It’s like the perfect fall dessert.

[00:04:00] Joyce: You know, not to stretch your limits, sis, but you actually can make caramel sauce at home. It’s really easy and it’s so good. I’m going to teach you how to do it. You teach me to use the air fryer, and I will teach you to make caramel. It is.

[00:04:15] Kim: I looked at the Oak Park Public Schools taught me little school home etiquette. I love it.

[00:04:22] Barb: I learned how to make tacos in Home Economic. That was fine guiding.

[00:04:29] Jill: About you, Jill. I learned how to sew in home ec. That’s what I learned. Well, I learned that too.

[00:04:35] Kim: But I will say at the time I was, you know, it was the progressive eighties, so All the boys and all the girls took both home ec and shop. Like in the earlier years, like the boys would go to shop and the girls would go to home ec. Every I knew how to use like, you know. I made a stool too. In addition to a stool,

[00:04:54] Jill: I’m from the less progressive era where I got Homecom and the boys got. Shop. Uh But I really didn’t learn how to cook until college when I took a cooking class as an actual course. And I still use some of the recipes from that course because they were really, really good. And you know, you have I. has a farm on it and an agricultural center. So I really did learn how to cook. I love soups and I love casseroles. That’s my favorite thing to do. Oh Fall and winter. And of course, I love the butternut squash. I love egcorn squash soup. I love, you name it. I’m lentil soup, mushroom soup, any soup or any casserole. I’m just enamored with. That’s what I love to cook. Barb, when it comes to apples. And we get a lot of good apples in our area. Some of them come from Michigan, but a lot come from Illinois.

[00:05:53] Joyce: What about Maine?

[00:05:55] Jill: Well, I don’t think we get any apples from Maine, but I’m sure they’re good. Um I core an apple. I stick some Cloves in in it. Put a cinnamon stick where the core used to be. Put some diet soda as a basting liquid Bake it for about an hour. It is the best dessert ever. And it’s really just an apple, but it is so, so tasty. It’s great. And you can use it with whipped cream or ice cream, which takes away some of the diet value, but it is really, that’s my favorite winter dessert.

[00:06:32] Barb: Is the use of an oven involved in this dish? It is,

[00:06:34] Jill: but all you have to do is put it in a little thing and put it in the oven. That’s all. It’s really not. Doing anything. I will think about it. I will think about it. Take a video of me doing it and send it to you. Okay. Do this. You can do this. You can love it. But I do sound good. Yeah, I do like your idea. The Walworth County Fair does that, and it is yummy. Um with their Caramel sauce and Just sliced apples. Fabulous.

[00:07:00] Kim: Alright Barb, we’re all gonna give you cooking homework and you gotta show us your results.

[00:07:04] Barb: Oh man, pressure’s on.

[00:07:15] Joyce: We love cats. And cat owners can’t say enough great things about smalls. Like a lot of you, for the longest time, we thought that the cat kibble they had in the grocery store was fine. It’s right next to all the food we buy for our families, so it has to be good, right? That was wrong, though. Once we found out that it was mostly filler corn and ingredients you can barely pronounce, We knew that cats everywhere deserved better, and ours certainly did. So after making the switch to Smalls, my cats have so much more energy and their fur seems softer and more luxurious too. But here’s the real proof of how great Smalls is. We actually ran out a couple of weeks ago and our cats sort of sauntered over to whatever it was that Bob found to fill up their dishes with. And they just We’re not. You know how cats are, you could tell that this was reject food. We ordered more smalls. Our cats are back to liking us and snuggling up with us again. So if you’re a cat parent, there’s no better to try smalls than right now.

[00:08:18] Barb: I love it that your cats are food snobs.

[00:08:21] Joyce: Cats are so damned finicky, it’s unbelievable.

[00:08:25] Jill: Unbelievable. Even though we don’t have cats, I love listening to your stories about yours. It’s fabulous. And seeing the pictures of your cats. And small fresh cat food is protein packed and made with preservative free, 100% human grade ingredients that you’d find in your own refrigerator. and it’s conveniently delivered right to your door. In addition to Joyce, they have many outstanding reviews. Christina P. said, difference Smalls has made in my 15-year-old cat is amazing. She eats it all up. has gained some weight and is playing like a kitten again.

[00:09:03] Kim: And Christina, what she says makes sense. Cats use protein as their main energy source, and more protein means more fuel and sustained energy. Small’s fresh, gently cooked, preservative free cat food gives them high protein and improved hydration for strong bones and toned muscles. Plus, Balanced diet leads to less shedding, fewer hairballs, and a more silky shine. Even better, lots of the nutrients in Small’s food are digestible, so less junk comes out the other end. That means less cat-related odors, and that’s something we can all appreciate.

[00:09:40] Barb: The team at Smalls is so confident that your cat will love their product that you can try it risk free. That means they will refund you if your cat won’t eat their food. Cats’ health and longevity start with what they eat. For a limited time, because you are a hashtag sisters-in-law listener. You can get 60% off your first order. plus free shipping and free treats for life. When you head to smalls.com slash sisters. One last time, that’s 60% off your first order, plus free shipping and free treats for life. when you head to smalls.com slash sisters. The link is in our show notes. Well, we are seeing some activity from the Department of Justice relating to the upcoming elections. And now it seems like a full court press on voting. I can’t wait to see what they have up their sleeves next. First, we had several indictments this week. against individuals in California and North Carolina. in which DOJ alleges voting. By non-citizens. Of the forty million people in California. DOJ, after looking for years, appears to have found illegal voting. Bye. 28 of those 40 million people.

[00:11:05] Kim: Just to be clear, 28 of those people, not all of them were charged with actually voting. In fact, most of them were not. It was registering.

[00:11:12] Jill: Yeah. And by the way, that is like one one thousandth. Percentage point. It’s point zero zero zero one

[00:11:22] Barb: Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good narrative now, Joe. Uh Joyce, I thought you had a very interesting piece this week in your Substack newsletter. in which you you kind of recount some of the history that you’ve seen. Down there in the south. where you point out some similarities into prior efforts to use false claims or maybe exaggerated claims of voter Fraud in an effort to suppress voting. Can you elaborate on that? I thought it was an interesting take.

[00:11:51] Joyce: Yeah, I mean what intrigued me about this and the reason I sort of started writing this column Was so much of what Trump is doing now, these allegations about immigrants voting and how that’s creating fraudulent outcomes. It was so reminiscent of, you know, about 30 years of living through voting rights and their dissolution in the Deep South. And when I sat down and started writing about it, I realized I literally had enough material for a book, and I tried to cram it into about 2,000 words. The basic idea is just this: the myth of widespread voter fraud is one of the oldest tricks in the voter suppression playbook. It is nothing new. And for decades politicians have used baseless allegations of fraud to justify making it harder for Americans. particularly black Americans to vote. But they’ve also been using the same thing to make it harder for brown-skinned people, for Asian people, for other immigrants to vote. And so from the prosecution of black voting rights activists in Alabama, y’all may remember this from Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearings. Way back when, during Trump’s first term in office, and you heard a lot about Jeff Sessions being racist, well, it was about this case he prosecuted. Where a very conservative district judge actually dismissed almost all of the claims. And a jury came back non-guilty on everything that was left in trial, but Sessions was out. Interviewing black voters, and interviewing is the wrong word because it was all about intimidation. and making them feel afraid to vote in future elections and undermining confidence in elections. I think that sounds pretty familiar to those of us who are paying attention today. The point of all of this is that the evidence of widespread fraud never materializes. And that’s the point, the accusations themselves do the damage. Trump has picked up that playbook for the midterms. Understanding that history is really essential to recognizing what’s happening today. Also, to making people around you aware. This isn’t something new. These are the kind of allegations that have been disproven over and over again. And used for political dirty tricks. So I’ll put a link to my piece in our show notes, and I hope y’all will read it and put your friends and neighbors on guard too.

[00:14:19] Barb: Chill. Also, saw this week a tweet from Harmeet Dillon. She’s the Assistant Attorney General. For the Civil Rights Division. She was bragging about a case that was brought in Utah. And in this tweet, she bragged about. Xing Waxing. I couldn’t believe it. Can you please explain? why comments like that are so inappropriate. Under DOJ standards and ethical standards.

[00:14:51] Jill: It is wrong in so many ways. And Three. Let me say before I even answer that. The replies to her tweet about indictment maxing. from the MAGA crowd. Show exactly why she did it. So it’s irrelevant what the case she was talking about is. It was just enraging and making happy, not enraging, making happy the MAGA crowd. Um This is the Department of Justice. That has been weaponized in ways that No one. in the past could have ever, ever. thought about. And it is exactly what they’re doing. Bringing cases Just as we have been talking about just to make elections look bad. And just to raise issues that don’t really exist, that are non-existent, voter fraud. Non-existent. The percentages that we’ve talked about are so infinitesimal, it could not. Passively. Impact an election. This is How they are going about. making people fear the government. And how they are saying, we’re going to go after everybody, we’re going to indictment max. It’s wrong ethically. It’s wrong legally. We’re supposed to be investigating for facts. Matching that to laws to see if there are crimes that the Department of Justice should be pursuing. Or civil cases that the department should be pursuing. Not just saying, we’re gonna indictment Max and everything we can to inappropriately go after people.

[00:16:30] Kim: And can I just also add that just the fact that she is leaning into this maxing like internet speak that comes from the most gross, misogynistic, scary part of the internet. It’s just chefs kissed all of this.

[00:16:43] Barb: It’s just such a pandering, isn’t it? To you know hey, look everybody, I’m throwing you some red meat is uh what it feels like to me. But as Jill says, that’s just so unethical. You know, you’re supposed to say that uh these are only charges, people are presumed innocent. None of that, it’s indictment maxing. Um well Kim, there was another case that came up this week where DOJ filed a civil lawsuit. against California to block 20,000 California voters From casting ballots. on the grounds that they believe uh that they are non-citizens. Um what what’s your take on that case? Does Do you j have uh Strong legal or factual basis for that kind of a demand. They have a role to play here.

[00:17:29] Kim: Yeah, it has the aroma of desperation, Barb. So let me tell you what happened. Earlier this summer, as the Department of Homeland Security was, you know, dashing out their letters to election officials in states, California got one that claimed that it had identified, the Homeland Security had identified 190,000 Non-citizens on California’s voter rolls. California had to do something about it, right? And so. you know uh California was like, we’ll look into it, I guess. And they did. And they’re like, no, they’re not. And, you know, we’re good. And then suddenly the DOJ gets involved and they send this demand to California that said. We have found at least 20,000 non-citizens on your voter roll. So I don’t know how you went from 190 to 20, but that’s where we were. And You have 48 hours to purge them for your voting list or face repercussions. And California told them politely to you know Then so they filed this civil suit alleging that these names were on it. Now, California officials. Have long and other states have long decried the methods in which the slap dash methods with which the federal government is allegedly cross-checking voter registrations in ways that election officials in blue states, in red states, everywhere, they’re saying you are picking up citizens. You’re picking up naturalized citizens. You’re picking up citizens who have the same name as somebody who’s not a citizen. You are picking up. This is a terribly inexact science, and we’re not going to boot people off voter rolls. in order for you not to do that. So cal the the federal government wants California officials not to deliver mail-in ballots, I should be clear, for these 20,000 to not deliver mail-in ballots to these people that they’ve identified as non. Uh Non-citizens. California said no, because we just looked at we just started looking and there are a bunch of citizens on this, so we’re not going to do this. It’s an N run. Remember a few ways back, the federal government tried to get the U.S. Postal Service from delivering any mail and ballots to somebody who they claimed was not a citizen. And all the courts, including the Supreme Court, was like, yeah, no, you’re not going to do that. I think this is an end run to round that Donald Trump has been demanding, demanding. They provide evidence of illegal Voting by non-citizens, and they just can’t find it. The fact that they did a whole press conference about these 28 people. And you know what? The Los Angeles Time did great reporting because they went and found some of the people who were being detained as part of this thing and they were like, Okay. I’ve never registered. Like, I don’t even know what you’re talking about. It could be a mistake. Election experts say sometimes when you go to the DMV and they have a motor voter. And you have sometimes people get an identification card and it it incorrectly registers them to folk. or they’re filling out paperwork and they click a box that they didn’t mean to click. Or something like that. But most of the time, you it’s one reason why you don’t see any charges for actually voting. People aren’t gonna do that, but it’s meant to scare them. It’s meant to scandal citizens, it’s meant to scare mixed citizen households. From going to vote because they’re hearing all these criminal charges being threatened. And so. Don’t do that. If you are a citizen, you are registered to vote, please vote. Please don’t be afraid. Um it is more important than ever to vote and the fact that they’re trying so hard to make it hard for you. uh speaks volumes.

[00:21:04] Joyce: Yeah. My favorite part of that whole the the public outreach, the DOJ press conference in California when they were announcing this lawsuit. Is the acting deputy attorney general saying, well, you know, we might be wrong about something. I mean we’re not perfect. I’m not sure. I mean, Barb, I’m I’m gonna use the crystal ball to predict your response to that. You thought Holy goodness, DOJ’s rules, the Justice Department’s manual, it requires you to believe that you have evidence sufficient to obtain a conviction and make it stick on appeal before you bring charges. And here’s the Deputy Attorney General saying, I don’t know, some of our cases might not be so good. I mean, my blood pressure went through the roof.

[00:21:56] Jill: And can I add that they didn’t even say these are non-citizens, they said they are. Possibly identified as nonsense. They use the word possibly. You cannot exclude someone who is possibly a citizen. Voting.

[00:22:12] Barb: Yeah. You know the other thing that our listeners should be aware of is before you can be convicted of a crime, you have to do this knowingly. It’s not enough that you made a mistake on the form or you were careless or reckless. You have to knowingly You know, check a box that you were a citizen and entitled to vote. It’s

[00:22:30] Kim: a crime of intent. Yes. So, you know, I.

[00:22:33] Barb: We don’t know all the facts, so we’ll wait to see how these things come out. But It does strike me as an effort to kind of advance a particular narrative right here. Um Joyce, in an odd move, so we’ve got this case, right, where DOJ has filed this lawsuit. California says nothing doing. We’re not gonna block these voters from getting ballots just ’cause you think they might possibly be non-citizens. It struck me as an unusual movement Where on Thursday the Justice Department Asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. To hear the case, leapfrogging the federal district court, which set a hearing for, I think, next Tuesday. Well, the case still remains pending. And they said, this court is stonewalling us. Therefore, we need to go to the court of appeals. I mean, can they do that? Are they trying to fast track this to the Supreme Court? How do you read

[00:23:22] Joyce: that? No, they absolutely cannot do that. There is no legal precedent for doing this. DOJ’s claim is that the judge, quote, constructively denied its request. By not ruling fast enough. But look, that’s just nonsense, and appellate courts have rejected similar moves. My guess is that there will be a hearing on Tuesday in front of the district court as scheduled. The case will proceed normally. And let me explain, by the way, why that’s so. When appellate courts rule, they don’t hold evidentiary hearings. They just make their decisions based on the record in the district court. So the district court needs time to put together its record and make its decision and in many cases write an order that explains its decision. So there’s something for the appellate courts to look at. But Trump just wants to skip all of that and go straight to his pals on the Supreme Court, who I guess he assumes will rule for him.

[00:24:22] Barb: Yeah. make a s I could make a snide comment there, but I’ll I’ll try to I think I did though. I did it for you. Oh, thank you. Thank you, sis. Um Jill, one other thing, and we we’ve hinted at this and talked about this a little bit, but DOJ has specifically threatened. Prosecute election officials. who allow non-citizens to vote. What would it take to be able to do that? I mean, is there a legal basis for that? What would they have to show to do that? And what do you think is the purpose of these threats?

[00:24:51] Jill: Yeah, Barb, they did threaten. And as we have already just said. Knowingly doing something is required. So Right now, there’s no knowledge that a list provided likely non-citizens. proof that they are or aren’t non-citizens, no proof they’ve registered. No proof that they have voted. And in fact, California has now done a preliminary sampling. They took 200. people on the list. found that most of them Don’t even live in LA County. They don’t have LA County. So they’re not even voters in LA County who’s being threatened, right? Okay, so that’s number one. And Of those, they’ve identified many who are actually Natural born citizens. They were born in America. U.S. born. U.S. born. So It’s a ridiculous threat. Nonetheless, I’m sure that it has some impact on Um The officials who are being threatened. No one wants to be sued. No one wants to have to have a lawyer defending them. Um I got trained to do some election integrity work and have uh been Assigned to some Early voting sites where There are Even in blue, Illinois, there are Precincts And so I’ve been assigned to those areas. And It’s so interesting to watch. the role of people and how seriously they take everything they do, including signature matching, including when people are flagged as having a male ballot. And so therefore you can’t vote in person unless you turn it in. It’s been very interesting, but You know, but the first thing I thought was, What crime would these people be charged with? And I guess it’s aiding and abetting someone voting illegally. Um Again, knowledge is important. Intent is important. And there’s absolutely No. Truth. So far That would suggest that there is any way that an indictment Could be brought, should be brought. and certainly that a conviction would not be sustained. as is required as Joyce has pointed out.

[00:27:12] Barb: Yeah, you know, I think if you take the the big picture, Kim, uh you know Rick uh Hassan, the uh election expert has said he believes that all of these legal actions that we’re seeing from DOJ these days are just stunts. They’re designed to intimidate voters from going to the polls. They are designed to advance a false narrative that non-citizens are influencing the outcome of elections. or to justify seizing ballots and voting machines. Should individual voters be concerned? about these efforts to undermine the outcome of an election and what can each of us do to ensure that our votes are counted.

[00:27:47] Kim: So yeah, to the point and and you know, in my column this week at the Globe, I write about the things that this election interference and Jill’s point that you need an intent requirement for all of these. So th these these suits are going nowhere. These uh indictments are going Nowhere, but that’s not the point. The point is not to secure a conviction. The point is to further the election lie that Donald Trump has been demanding people within his government. continue to pursue. It is meant to scare people. problem is it’s working. The latest Gallup poll shows that the majority of Americans of both parties are concerned about election integrity. I mean, think about that. That was not the case. That hasn’t been the case my whole life for sure. And they’re concerned for different reasons. Most Democrats are concerned about political leaders pressuring election officials to change election outcomes and about voter intimidation near polling places, according to Gallup. But Republicans, in contrast, are Concerned about ballots being improperly handled, counted, or secured. Um Two-thirds of Republicans report at least a fair amount of concern about This issue as opposed to 52% of Democrats, was this still a majority of Democrats? This is fodder. And I think Trump and his supporters want to exploit. The real concerns that voters have about election security. So, what you should do is make a plan. Cure your own vote. Be in charge of that. Make a voter plan. Uh the um The NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU have online kits. That show you everything that you need to do. Make sure that you are enrolled. Check your voter registration. Make sure your name hasn’t been purged. When you mail your but where I live, when you mail a ballot, you can check it’s traveling, you can check it’s um You know, it’s a little journey online, or you can vote in person and you can make sure when I vote in person, I make sure that the ballot gets tabulated and put through. You do what you can to make sure your vote matters. And when you go and you meet the people as you’re voting that Jill’s talking about who helped carry out election administration and you talk to them, that’s one reason I like voting in person, you see how secure the system is. You see that there’s not shenanigans in place. And if anything goes wrong, certainly report it. Um but elections R Secure. We have not had election interference. We have not had election fraud. We do have a history of election suppression. So don’t be a part of that by being scared off from the polls. If you’ve enjoyed this topic, don’t forget to hit the like and subscribe buttons and hit the notification bell so you never miss an episode. I love seafood. And when you love seafood like me, you deserve the best. At the grocery store, you never know where it came from or what it has in it or whether it’s sustainable. Even worse, you don’t know how long it’s been sitting out there on display. We need a provider we can trust, which is why we wanted to tell you. About Wild Alaskan Company. They offer the best way to get wild-caught, high-quality seafood delivered right to your door on your schedule. Trust us, you haven’t tasted fish this good.

[00:31:22] Barb: We always recommend them and it’s wonderful to know our listeners, our friends and family are all getting the best. Each Wild Alaskan box comes with individually portioned vacuum sealed fillets that are easy to prep and great for any meal, whether it’s quick or elevated. I love it. When I just want to cook for myself, I open the freezer and there are some salmon fillets ready to go. You know, you can throw it in the air fryer, which I often do, and it is a healthy and delicious meal. All of their fish is quick frozen, fresh from Alaskan waters, which helps lock in its freshness, texture, flavor, and key nutrients like omega-3s. Better yet, there are no GMOs, antibiotics, or other additives in their catch. which means it’s fish you can trust.

[00:32:08] Jill: You know, I love everything you said, Barb, especially that you were cooking because we know look at me often. And I used to be afraid to cook fish. Not seafood, but fish. And ever since getting Wild Alaskan It’s so easy and it never smells fishy. And I love now cooking fish. It’s really, really a pleasure. Like us, you all are going to love every order, and especially knowing that every order. Sustainable harvesting practices and Alaskan fishermen. You know, I just came back, I was in Alaska not too long ago. And watching the fishermen and how important fishing is to the economy in Alaska really made me value. That. The history is tied to the region, and the practices of sustainability are really important. And when you become a member of Wild Alaskan. Your deliveries are flexible and at your own pace. I love the Pacific Halibut for a tasty treat that’s low in fat. high in protein and rich in omega-3s. It’s a delicious whitefish that turns a savory looking bright white when you cook it. And it’s perfect, just grilled. seared however you like it. You need to try all of the fish and All amazing.

[00:33:30] Joyce: While the Alaskan Company is so confident that their fish is the best that they offer a one hundred percent satisfaction and money back guarantee, So you can try your first box risk free. Go to wildalaskan.com slash sisters for $35 off your first order of premium wild caught seafood. wildalaskan.com slash sisters for $35 off your first order. Thanks to Wild Alaska and Company for sponsoring this episode. The link is in our show notes, but if you, like me, have never used an air fryer, we’ll have to get Barb to do the tutorial for us. I’m all over it.

[00:34:18] Jill: This week we’ve seen some serious allegations of bad behavior. Uh unethical Probably illegal. And I want to focus in on two particular X Yeah. Alina Habba and Kimberly Guilfoyle. And They are among now the women who’ve been fired from the or left. uh voluntarily in air quotes. Um the Trump administration. Why them? I mean, there are allegations of corruption. For Habba, it’s a $50 million employment contract. for a newly created company that doesn’t seem to be doing any business. And It was followed immediately by the owners being granted a full pardon after getting a sweetheart deal from the Department of Justice, where his felony charges were reduced to a misdemeanor. And then for Gilfoyle. Pales in comparison, I guess, because it’s only $100,000 that she got someone to pay off her American Express bill. Boy, I sure wonder what’s on that $100,000 American Express bill. Um And she Apparently, she did it because she was going to undergo a confirmation hearing and didn’t want to be embarrassed by her $100,000 outstanding. But Kimberly first Let’s talk about Who is Habba? Let’s just remind people because it’s maybe a name from slightly the past. Um And In addition to who she is, What exactly did she do? Um And was she a federal employee when she did it?

[00:35:56] Kim: So I feel like we talked about Alina Habba so much. Like, how can our listeners not know who Alina Habba is? But if you’re a new listener and new to this realm of conversation, if you were born yesterday, Alina Habba. Is an attorney who practiced law in New Jersey. Um a law firm in an in-house someplace else related to her family. Um and then was a Mar-a-a-lago. I think it was her first two husbands actually after you write the flaws. Her first two husbands. And then she was a, most importantly, to her career, a member of Mar-a-Laga, where she met President Trump, fawned over him, got a gig on Fox News, talking his talking points, and then won a job as his legal team. And man, she was busy because he was fighting off indictments as well as filing lawsuits. Like the one found to be frivolous in Florida against Hillary Clinton and other former officials, as well as defending the Eugene case, in which that civil case in which Eugene Carroll won not one, but two massive jury awards against Donald Trump. All of them, Alina Habba was on his team. So clearly, she is a high-performing lawyer. One worthy of the spot of U.S. attorney, where President Trump tried to install her in New Jersey, but she was not. Properly installed. She couldn’t get Senate confirmation. She broke the rules by refusing to leave. To the point that she got sanctioned by the legal licensing board. So that’s Alina Habba. Apparently, after that, she got a contract job. with the Department of Justice. So she was still working there after all this. Still working there when the events, as Jill laid out, the exact timeline I haven’t been able to work out specifically, but she was working at the DOJ. She was suddenly hired for $10 million to do nothing that we can figure out at this uh Parent shell company? For $10 million. And then poof, right after she gets that job. the father of the owner of that. alleged seeming shell company receives a pardon. Pardon he had been seeking for a long time and reaching out to other Trump officials before Habba to try to secure. You know, just so coincidental.

[00:38:34] Jill: So coincidental. And I gotta also add, you know, you were talking about she got sanctioned for one thing, but she actually got sanctioned for filing frivolous lawsuits. The courts.

[00:38:43] Kim: Oh, that’s right. No, she got, yeah, she got fined. Trump did too. That Hillary Clinton lawsuit. Exactly. She got a court sanctioned for that. The other thing was disciplinary. Uh Evaluation from, you know, allegedly not refusing to leave her post when she wasn’t qualified to.

[00:39:01] Jill: Exactly. So, and James, let’s let’s fill in. The facts. Um you know, I there’s still maybe More to learn, I’m sure. But if you could just talk about: is there any evidence now of her being involved in the pardon? And what was the timing of it in terms of her being a special employee of the Department of Justice after she was ousted from the U.S. Attorney’s job?

[00:39:27] Joyce: Yes, so I haven’t seen any publicly reported evidence that suggests that Habba actually contacted Trump or White House officials or DOJ officials. or anybody else to obtain Julio Vellatini’s pardon. What there is Though there is significant, substantial circumstantial evidence. Makes you ask, you know, why did this family hire her and pay her $10 million a year guaranteed for at least four years plus bonuses? So we’re looking at a contract worth about $50 million.

[00:40:01] Kim: Yeah, Joyce, you gave what the legal, the proper legal Terminology for something milk and clean.

[00:40:10] Joyce: I think that that is as good of a way as putting it as possible, right? I mean, this is just there’s an inference here. Why are they paying Alina Habba of all people to do this kind of work? You know, it’s interesting to note, by the way, that Chris Keese, who’s a Florida attorney who’s also been on Trump’s team, he was on record as Bellatini’s lawyer. He was advocating for the pardon. The Times reports that people who are familiar with Habba’s contract told them that they believed that she had been hired to help secure the pardon. But they never gave the Times any specific actions that she took towards that end. And there have been a lot of denials. Habba says she had no involvement. DOJ went further stating she did not speak to anyone about a pardon. And the White House has also denied her involvement. So make of it what you will. I’m sure that we will be learning more about this in the weeks ahead.

[00:41:06] Kim: And I’m sure, you know, depending on what happens uh next month in the elections, pretty soon that will, you know, the congressional hearing will sh We’ll just clear all of this up.

[00:41:17] Joyce: Thank God for the presidential pardon power.

[00:41:21] Jill: Let’s talk law. So Assuming And that we know enough. What are the Passable laws that might have been violated by this contract and payment.

[00:41:36] Barb: I imagine that if there were to be an investigation, and I don’t know that this DOJ will investigate, but if there were to be an investigation, I think the statutes that would come to mind are either federal bribery or federal conflicts of interest laws. So the bribery statute. is um 18 United States Code section 201. That essentially says that if a public official receives a thing in of value, In return for Being influenced in the performance of any official act is guilty of a crime. What’s tricky about that Is the Supreme Court has really gutted that and narrowed the application of that statute to the performance of what they call an official act. And that has to be more than just talking to somebody and trying to influence somebody. It means you have the authority to make the decision yourself or to take official action. I think because she’s not the pardon attorney herself, It might be difficult to make that out. Maybe there’s a conspiracy charge potentially there if she worked with, say, the pardon attorney and they both knew that there was something corrupt about this, but merely, you know. Putting a thumb on the scale for the pardon with the pardon attorney may not be enough. There’s another statute, though, and I fully fault the Supreme Court for that because. You know, i if the facts bear out, it certainly feels like a bribe and it certainly feels incredibly corrupt. And so the fact that the Supreme Court has really narrowed this says to me we need Congress to step in and close that loophole. But there’s another federal statute that might be a better fit, and that is this one that relates to conflicts of interest. It’s 18 USC Section 208. And that is uh It’s a crime for somebody who has skin in the game. You know, if they’ve got a business interest or they have family with a business interest. And they take an action that inures to their own benefit. Then that is a crime. The challenge with that one is it’s only a misdemeanor unless you act willfully, which means you know what you are doing is illegal. So, also not a perfect fit, but that might be a better fit. And if you do it willfully, it is a felony punishable by thinking it’s up to five years in prison. So the first step is to investigate the facts and see where they fall. Those are some potential charges that are out there depending on the facts.

[00:43:58] Jill: And I would point out there’s a five-year statute of limitations. So even though this Department of Justice won’t investigate, Congress could. And eventually a Democratic Attorney General might. Take a look at this. Okay, let’s turn to Kimberly Guilfoyle. Yeah.

[00:44:16] Kim: My namesake.

[00:44:23] Barb: I said, did you ever date Don Jr.?

[00:44:25] Kim: I did not, I did not, nor Gavin Newsome, no. Oh,

[00:44:29] Jill: thank heavens, thank heavens. And of course, Donald Trump doesn’t know her either, even though she was engaged to him. Now he doesn’t.

[00:44:39] Joyce: Okay, so isn’t she isn’t she just the coffee boy?

[00:44:44] Barb: Yeah, yes, remember that. That’s from like Trump season one. The Trump show season one.

[00:44:54] Jill: Oh, we need a new word, don’t we? Okay. Oh, God. What are the allegations against the former now Ambassador to Greece?

[00:45:04] Kim: Please. Well, we mentioned this before that she is alleged by another Trump supporter. To have asked for her Amex bill to be paid off. $100,000. Wonder where she’s shopping. You know,

[00:45:21] Barb: who’s got a $100,000 American Express bill? My gosh. Into.

[00:45:26] Kim: into Uh In exchange for allegedly access to the Trump world and to the Trump sphere and to business dealings and such. So also violates the very same statute that Barb talked about, section uh two hundred eight of the USC because you can’t line your pockets. You can’t use a Federal Post to line your own pockets. Very, very illegal. But I think the reason she got ousted. uh is because much like the uh the press secretary who lasted a half mooch. Um, she embarrassed the president. Like, it’s like clearly, we have identified in episodes on this show time and time and time and time and time again, signals of apparent corruption in this. Um, administration where it’s all Jarrett Kushner or the Trump family or any any other people and they are still around they’re still doing the things that if you do the grift if you do the grift quietly apparently that’s okay with president trump when you do it in a way that embarrasses you when you were asked in front of him where you took the bar and your answer is china goodbye If you if you get caught. from another Trump supporter. You know, who basically blew up your spot with your plea, honey, please text. Goodbye. Right. I think even I think Christine Ohm should be feeling a little twitchy because after Corin Lewandowski, This Justice Department is investigating him into alleged self-dealing because they did it in the word, like that plain. Bedroom on the plane, goodbye. Right? So I think what we’re seeing is at a time, by the way, in which polls I point this out in my newsletter this week. Holes A Fox News poll put the number one concern. of voters. as corruption. And this is for Republican voters, Democratic voters, they are tired of corruption. And what is what are these officials dealing up in headlines? Corruption everywhere you go coming up on the election. I think maybe also Donald Trump is realizing that that’s a bad look. Mr. Gilded St. You know, White House and such. So I think this is why these folks are falling. If I were Christina, I might be nervous. But at this point, it seems that Trump is having his fill. drifting badly, so I also would worry if I were Elena Harper too.

[00:47:57] Jill: I would also suggest there’s one other possibility, which is They didn’t share the grift with him. They take the money themselves. been obsessed with one skin for a while now. So I was really excited when they sent their new. OS one Face Cream for us to try. It’s exactly what my skin has been craving, especially now that the colder weather is almost here. And once you get into your forties and beyond, Your skin quietly changes on you. It gets drier, thinner, and it stops bouncing back, no longer resilient. You start wondering what you’re doing wrong. This isn’t a unique problem. Something is actually shifting underneath the surface. Your skin is losing the collagen, elastin, and barrier strength that keep it firm and hydrated, which is a biological process the team of longevity scientists at OneSkin call the density shift.

[00:49:03] Joyce: But don’t worry. Thanks to a new rich cream from One Skin, we all have a product to meet the moment. Their face rich cream brings the same age reversing peptide technology you already love. Delivered in a dual-phase hydration system to hydrate while it builds up skin’s collagen, elastin, and barrier strength. The result is firmer, more hydrated, visibly smoother skin over time. And this rich cream does more than just moisturize. It rebuilds the structural density and barrier integrity that skin needs to hold on to moisture for longer. As a bonus, the hydration lasts all day without feeling heavy or greasy.

[00:49:44] Kim: Once you try it, you’ll be amazed at how refreshed you look. It feels so soothing and relaxing to apply and the results are incredible. One of our favorite parts about it is that it’s proactive. When it comes to aging, we all need to be on the cutting edge and one skin delivers. Now it’s an essential part of our routines and we know you’ll love it too.

[00:50:07] Barb: Born from over 10 years of skin longevity research, OneSkin is helping you unlock your healthiest skin now and as you age. For a limited time, try their new OS1 face rich cream with 15% off using code sisters at oneskin.co slash sisters. That’s 15% off oneskin.co. Code Sisters. After you purchase, they’ll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. The link is in our show notes.

[00:50:46] Joyce: As we get deeper into fall there’s nothing better than snuggling up under a lola blanket. They are so warm and comfortable, your worries and your stress vanish as soon as you climb underneath one. And if you add in your favorite movie, a couple of loved ones or friends and a tasty snack, it can become the highlight of the week. After discovering Lola blankets on Instagram, Our Lola has been a part of so many memories. Bob and I actually now each have our own: one on the couch, one on the bed. And that’s why we decided that the next gift we bought was going to be one for our kids. Our kids are now all in the process of getting them too. So whether it’s for a holiday or birthday or just a treat. Lola makes it easy to recreate those treasured moments with something that you can enjoy every day.

[00:51:35] Jill: Lola blankets come in tons of colors and beautiful designs, so you can find the perfect fit. Any home or personality. They not only make your space warmer, Much more put together. their softness is on another level. Each one is so luxurious and there’s no Pilling or shedding. Pure comfort. Speaking as a true blanket lover, Lola’s are the best. crafted with ultra-soft luxury faux fur. and a signature four-way stretch. that somehow makes them both plush and light at the same time. They’re machine washable. Double hem for durability, and even after countless washes, they look brand new with a wow factor that makes them a special gift that will last for years.

[00:52:21] Barb: Yeah, Lolas are popular at our house as well. And I’ll tell you, many of my friends who listen to the podcast have told me that they have bought Lolas and it is a hit in their homes as well. Lolas are really perfect for the people who are impossible to give gifts to. And so this is a great, you know, holiday gift because anybody likes a blanket. They’re always so thankful and surprised. It’s probably because everyone loves a cozy blanket. Which is why Lola has more than 20,000 five-star reviews, including ours. I have them all over my house, and once you feel it, you’ll know why. There’s a reason it’s called the world’s number one blanket. But the story behind it is what makes it even more special. Lola was founded by two brothers, inspired by their mom. who found comfort in her favorite blanket while living with breast cancer. Later, she gave blankets like hers to her children so they’d always feel that warmth and love.

[00:53:15] Kim: Once you touch a Lola blanket, you’ll know you’ve got a blanket for life. And for a limited time, our listeners can get 40% off select Lola blanket products with code sisters at checkout. Just head to lolablankets.com. And use code sisters to get 40% off your order. Again, go to lolablankets.com and use code sisters to get 40% off your order. After your purchase, they’ll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show by telling them we sent you. Wrap yourself in luxury with Lola Blankets. The link is in our show notes.

[00:54:02] Joyce: Well, out of the frying pan and into the fire. You know, it has been a rough week for Donald Trump. H the former women in his administration are coming up on a little bit of the grift and the corruption. Uh scenarios. And his own lawsuits, you know, he’s always used his own lawsuits as an offensive weapon. Even that is going poorly for him. So here’s a topic that has not gotten as much coverage, I think, as it deserves. And part of it, look, is I just need to confess I love the BBC. Give me some time alone in a hotel room. I will turn on the BBC and watch it. I like their news, I like their programming. And now I really like their swagger when it comes to getting sued by the president of the United States because he has brought this incredible case. $10 billion against the BBC for defamation. Oh, and the BBC already apologized for some of the comments he objected to. So, can you have got him a background as a civil lawyer? Can you make this lawsuit make sense for us,

[00:55:09] Kim: please? Well, probably not, but just because you’re going on about BBC and $10 billion, like those were two separate Austin Powers references, you know, $10 billion. Remember the song BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three? Austin Powers. The BBC song in my head, as well as Dr. Evil. So, yes, I am a civil lawyer that passed the bar. So, I can tell you this: I can tell you that this lawsuit was filed by Donald Trump after the BBC aired a documentary about 9-11 in which. They edited together comments that he made in that rally. Yeah. insurrection rally that he held on the ellipse. And they took two statements that he said about our part. One, it was about going to the Capitol and another one talking about fighting like hell. Put it together, and Donald Trump said that made it seem falsely as if he were telling the crowd to go to the Capitol and be violent. And he didn’t actually say that. Um BBC already uh at first they edited That they re-edited the piece. issued a formal apology. Not enough for Donald Trump. He insisted he wanted this $10 billion. I don’t know how they got to this valuation to get it past the pleading stage, but here we are.

[00:56:36] Joyce: So Jill, as Kim has pointed out, Donald Trump objects to being deposed. He knew that this was going to happen, right? He filed the lawsuit. This is his lawsuit. Plaintiffs get deposed. His lawyers had agreed to a date, then they backed out. They proposed a January date, but it was after the cutoff date for discovery. And now the judges ordered him to sit for a deposition by December 11th or face dismissal of the case. So can you help us understand, first off, just generically, this notion that judges set limits on discovery? What the… What’s that about? Also, can you talk about how unusual it is for a litigant? Especially for a plaintiff, just to ignore the discovery cutoff? I mean, do you think the threat of dismissal here might be real?

[00:57:24] Jill: I think the threat of dismissal is very real. It is a final step. Normally, there are intermediate steps that a judge would take. So let’s go back. Yes. Anybody who files a lawsuit. knows that there will be discovery. They get discovery. and the other side gets discovery, deposing the plaintiff is Normal. It’s almost mandatory. And so anyone who didn’t predict that he would be deposed did not have very good legal advice. which, as we’ve been talking about with Alina Habba, uh probably maybe true that he didn’t get good legal advice. But the law is very clear. One. Penalty for not cooperating in discovery would be dismissal of the lawsuit. And I think, you know, firstly, you would Take something like Okay, there’s a little delay. So the first time he doesn’t show up is, you know. a little slap on the wrist. The second time that he proposes something that is outside the scope of the discovery period, which is done so that courts can control their calendar. Otherwise you would have forever litigation and you wouldn’t be able to set schedules. And let me just say his excuse for, you know, I can’t do it because I’m so busy. when in fact what he was doing at the time was campaigning. That doesn’t take priority over a lawsuit you filed. And Also, let’s look at how much time he spends on the golf course. If he has the time for the golf course, he has time to sit for a deposition. Sorry, those excuses don’t work.

[00:59:03] Kim: I really wish I had said to a judge, sorry, judge, that deposition date doesn’t work for my client because he’s golfing that day. Like, I really wish.

[00:59:14] Jill: Can you imagine what the joke is? Oh, my God. It’s ridiculous. So, anyway, um, Then you get to the point of defying court orders, where he has now been said, you will sit for this deposition on a certain date. If he doesn’t show up for that. I think that dismissal is not only appropriate. Mandatory. And Judges have to control litigation. It’s frivolous litigation to begin with, because when you look at the apology, the re-editing, That alone is enough. This was not a deliberate attempt to deceive the public. probably and certainly the other thing is it was never shown in the US. Never. So he filed a lawsuit in Florida where it has never been seen. So, what damages did he suffer in Florida? What is the jurisdiction of the Florida Federal Court? So there’s a lot wrong with the lawsuit that probably deserves it being dismissed to begin with. And as you said, Kim, you know 10 billion, how did that survive? Uh and I can’t even imagine. It’s ridiculous. So I think willful bad faith, they’ll never be able to prove that. Um There have been prior warnings. Uh I I think that honestly dismissal

[01:00:32] Joyce: Yeah, I think that’s right. You know, I think is Austin Powers isn’t it $100 billion? But you know,

[01:00:38] Kim: he started out as 1 million and then everyone laughed at him.

[01:00:44] Barb: I mean it is $10 million.

[01:00:46] Joyce: It almost doesn’t matter. Trump is so far out in the ozone on this one. And one of the interesting discovery squabbles that’s happening is that the BBC wants to get statistics, wants to get information. About new memberships and dues payments for Mara Lago, because that’s one way of evaluating whether he suffered any reputational damages. And Trump is resisting turning that over. I mean, it’s just like it’s hard to believe that this is a real case for so many different reasons. You know, and I may have mentioned this before, as a young lawyer in Washington, I worked on a case where Pat Robertson, who many of you will remember as a right-wing evangelical Christian preacher. who ran as a third-party candidate for the presidency. And while he was running sued for defamation, two clients of my law firm, a sitting congressman and a former congressman. It turned out that the judge set for the trial date a couple of years into the litigation the date that was the Super Tuesday primary. And Robertson was like, oh no, Judge, I can’t come. I have to campaign. And the judge said, you know, you can pick Mr. Robertson. Do you want to run or do you want to be in court? If you don’t want to be in court, you can dismiss your case. That’s what he did. And if I had to predict, I would say that’s what Trump is going to end up doing here rather than sit for a deposition. Barb, there is one other really interesting feature in this case. Um Before this squabble about Trump’s deposition came up, the BBC had already gone with requests to Ivanka, her husband, her oldest brother, Don Jr. try to get information from them about the case. And they were using the Secret Service to duck subpoenas for information that was in their possession. Lord have mercy. Is that that situation for us? Is it the Secret Service’s job to act as a buffer between its protectees Courts and what do you think happens here? You got

[01:02:47] Barb: to love this baller move here, right? Right. Secret Service says, get off our property. We have protectees in here. You can’t show up here, but we want to serve process. Well get get off our property. Well, will you accept service for us? No, we’re not authorized to accept service. Oh. They call the lawyer. Uh Hey Secret Service, if you can’t accept service, can you tell us how we can serve? Ivanka Trump and her husband and her brother. No, we are not authorized to give you that advice. So shut down in every way. Since then, um Lawyers for the BBC have gone back to the court. and obtain permission to serve them through certified mail. Yeah. you know, using the uh using the Secret Service to dodge Service of process. That’s a pretty good one. Haven’t seen it. Your

[01:03:43] Kim: taxpayer dollars at work keeping. private citizens from being served process. With legal process, yeah.

[01:03:50] Joyce: Well I think this is a great case to keep an eye on. For one thing, you know, the BBC, not an American media company, is really giving us all a little bit of a lesson on what the First Amendment protects, a free press. And it’s exciting to actually see a news entity that when sued by Donald Trump for defamation doesn’t just roll over and start coughing up money. We all remember what happened with 60 minutes, so I find this one to be a little bit refreshing.

[01:04:18] Kim: Here’s a cheers to the BBC! To the BBC. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Nobody watches Austin Powers. You know what I heard? That sisters-in-law listeners who like and subscribe and hit the notification bell go on to live much happier lives. So we suggest you do that.

[01:04:52] Barb: Well, it’s October, which means it’s everyone’s favorite time of year. Not Halloween. I’m talking about Cybersecurity Awareness Month. And if this is the first time you’re hearing about it, I don’t blame you. probably think cybersecurity is for big tech companies. Not so for me or my sisters. Did you know that more than $3.5 billion with a B was lost to scams last year in the United States. And a lot of that might have been avoided. with better personal cybersecurity practices.

[01:05:25] Kim: That’s why our sponsor, Delete Me, is celebrating this month by sharing a few quick tips to help you step up your cybersecurity game and reduce your risk of getting scammed. Tip number one, when you get an unexpected email that looks legitimate, verify the email domain is from the right place. Scammers will use fake domains that look like legit businesses. to trick you into clicking a malicious link. Downloading malware hidden in a PDF or giving up valuable passwords. Number 2. If you get a lot of spam calls, do not answer them. Answering can signal that your number is active, which can put it on even more lists and make the problem even worse. The safest option is to mute or ignore the call, block the number, or change your phone setting to ignore unknown numbers. And tip number three: make a habit of googling yourself so you know what information is out there about you. and how it could be used against you.

[01:06:21] Joyce: So, you know, ironically, as we’re taping this ad, did you guys hear I forgot to mute my phone? It just went off. It was one of those annoying spam calls. But because Kim was telling me what to do. I didn’t answer it. I just let it go. Believe me can help you, though, with all of these things. They monitor your presence across data broker sites that sell your personal information to anyone who’s out to buy it. You can get it removed and make sure it stays removed throughout the year with Delete Me. In the internet age, all of us are potential targets for malicious actors. Especially if you have kids in your family, delete me is a must. Once we got started with them, the peace of mind was a huge relief. trust them to help protect me, my sisters, and my loved ones, and I know that they can help keep you and your family safe too.

[01:07:12] Jill: Okay, so here’s a question for you all. You say data. According to the dictionary. Both are correct. In any case, take control of your data or your data. and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me. Now, at a special discount for our listeners, get 20% off your DELETE ME plan when you go to join delete me dot com slash sisters. and use promo code sisters at checkout. Only way to get 20% off is to go to join delete me dot com slash sisters. Enter code sisters at checkout. That’s join delete me dot com slash sisters, code sisters. The link is in the show notes.

[01:08:05] Kim: Well, we are at the part of our show that is our very favorite, and that is answering your listener questions. If you have a question, you know what to do, hit them up. In our social media using hashtag sisters in law, or you can email us at sistersinlaw at politicon.com. But don’t forget, you can also send us a voice note, your voice asking us the question. And you may hear that question in your voice on our sister, get it? Our sister podcast called Sisters Sidebar. Which drops on Wednesday. So let’s get right to some of the questions you asked this week. Our first one is from Linda in Leconner, Washington, who asks, When Democrats control the House and Senate in January and they get down to passing bills and changing laws like they are supposed to, we know that everything they try to do will probably be vetoed by Donald. Are there steps they can take to reverse the veto? Barb, you want to take that on?

[01:09:05] Barb: Yeah, well, you know, yes, Congress can override a veto. It requires a two-thirds vote of the members present. Which is a pretty high bar. It means you’re going to have to get some Republicans to come over and override that. Don’t forget that that actually happened earlier this year when the president refused to sign off on a housing bill that was very popular with bipartisan support. He just refused to do anything with it. And so his failure to do anything ultimately resulted in the passage of the bill. So I don’t know that that is. an immovable object. I also think it’s important for members of Congress Do some things that they can do. So even if they can’t pass an agenda of policy. They can do is conduct oversight hearings and expose some of the corruption and misconduct we’ve seen in this administration. And even if they can’t get the president to sign off on legislation, I think they could pass legislation to send a message to the public: this is what it would look like if we had a president who cared about the rule of law and cared about you. And so I think in that way they could sort of tee up. a legislative agenda for 2028. So I think much work to be done in terms of anti-corruption and affordability to be done by this next Congress.

[01:10:31] Kim: Yeah, and I think in some areas, I mean, just like anti-corruption, if they’re listening to the voters that these will have bipartisan supports, I think that Republicans are going to start getting the message and saying if I want to keep my job, I’m going to have to start being responsive to people. So I’m hoping that there is broader consensus. Okay, from Mike, we have a question. He says, My question is for the former chief counsel for the army. I know who that is, Jill. The process of recording the execution of the Fort Hood shooter would violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as well as running afoul of obscenity standards for snuff films. Who would have standing to stop the recording and distribution of the video? of the execution.

[01:11:19] Jill: Great question. And let me start with the sort of conclusion, which is that public pressure. forced the cancellation. Uh Donald Trump has said no, we won’t broadcast this. They haven’t cancelled it being a firing squad. Which may

[01:11:36] Kim: Do you know if they’re still going to record it though? They’re not going to live stream it. Might it still be recorded though, to Mike’s question?

[01:11:44] Jill: I think the issue was whether it can be recorded and broadcast. And if it’s recorded and kept in secret, Maybe they could record it. But let me just say that the Code of Military Justice does not clearly bar it. The the code allows for chief officials to decide the form of um Execution And does limit who can watch in person. And you have to be, among other things, over 18. Which of course would be violated. Bye. broadcasting it in any way ever. Because Once it’s broadcast, anyone could see it, including those who are under 18. But the rule is for in-person viewing. It doesn’t contemplate A recorded version of it. Um and and as to his question about, well, what about you know who could sue? According to legal experts, of course. Tha person being executed, Hassan, could Do it. He has a right to Or may have a right to claim that the Eighth Amendment is violated by subjecting him to the degradation of. being made into an entertainment spectacle. with his execution. Um They also ask about obscenity and a snuff Yeah. And actually snuff refers to Motor which this would not be because this is a legally ordered execution. and for profit. And again, there’s no suggestion that even if it’s broadcast, it would be for profit. other than political gain. So I don’t think it meets the snuff film. Um rules. Don’t think anyone besides Uh the Person being executed is going to have standing. Someone suggested that maybe parents who want to make sure their children don’t see this. be able to sue but I think that’s Pretty much a stretch. So it will be interesting. I mean, as far as I know, there are no plans to do anything other than to hold the execution. and to do it in private. And That seems to be a very good outcome. I’ve seen Pressure makes a difference, as here. We’ve seen it in the past with civil rights. We’ve seen it in the past with the Vietnam War. We’ve seen it in the past with Vietnam. I’m sorry, with the Watergate case. And so let’s not forget the power that we, the voters, have. And at this particular time. So important that you Go out and vote.

[01:14:16] Kim: Our last question is from Joe, who asks, Public comments by administration officials about Congresswoman Omar give her grounds to allege prosecutorial misconduct if she or someone in her family is charged. Joyce, you’re a former prosecutor?

[01:14:31] Joyce: Is that how it works? Yeah, I mean, I think that this is a great. Question. What Omar would probably want to bring would be the same kind of motion that we’ve seen in the Comey case. It would be a motion for selective or vindictive, in her case, prosecution. And we’ve learned that there are limits to those kinds of motions. They’re only rarely granted. The way the Trump administration has conducted itself is a little bit different. Prosecutors have alleged in some cases, for instance, the case involving a Brego Garcia. is that the prosecutors made the decisions independently of any pressure from the White House. And so the prosecutors in that case, in the criminal case, said, well, Donald Trump may have disliked Debrego Garcia. He may have even had animus, but that didn’t influence our decision. We were just prosecutors who made a decision about whether there was sufficient evidence to indict. probably works. It’ll be interesting to watch how this situation plays out and if in fact there’s evidence of Animus, but there’s also evidence that Elon Omar committed crimes and that prosecutors made a decision to charge her on that basis, that probably would mean she wouldn’t be able to raise this particular kind of motion. But the revenge docket that DOJ has been running for Donald Trump has been rife with cases that looked good superficially and turned out to be bad. And we really don’t know what the evidence is here and won’t be in a position to assess it until we have more than sort of gossip rags. um making salacious allegations about the Congresswoman.

[01:16:17] Kim: Thank you for listening to hashtag Sisters in Law with Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuade, and me, Kimberly Atkins Stohr. If you enjoy listening to hashtag Sisters in Law, Tell a friend. Tell your uncle. Tell the Sunday school teacher at your church, tell your community club member, tell your mahjong partner. because they might like it too. And don’t forget to. Like and subscribe wherever you get your podcast, whether it’s Apple Podcasts or Spotify or wherever else. We are just about everywhere you want to find us. Join us every Saturday as we break down legal developments on hashtag sisters in law, but also. Come back and hear us out on Wednesday too. That is when Sister Sidebar drops. That’s when we answer even more of your questions, which is really our favorite thing to do. And don’t forget to show some love to our sponsors because they allow us to bring this show to you. They are Smalls, Wild Alaskan Company, One Skin, Lola Blankets, and Delete me. We love all of these products and we are really, really happy that they sponsor us and we’re happy to support them and you should too. See you next week. Hashtag sisters in law. Please. Honey, please. We’re just gonna start saying that. Greg needs something from Greg. I’m going to start with every text message to Greg. Howdy, please.