196: Don’t Hate Me ‘Cause You Ain’t Me
Update: 2024-08-10
4
4Share
Description
Get tickets for the #SistersInLaw Live Show in NYC on 9/20/24 at politicon.com/tour
Joyce Vance hosts #SistersInLaw to discuss a DC judge’s finding that Google’s search engine violates antitrust laws, the risks of big tech monopolies, and whether increasing scrutiny by the DOJ is pushing tech leaders to the right. Then, the #Sisters examine the implications of guilty pleas by Jenna Ellis and a fake elector in Arizona, explain why Trump was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator and the parallels to Nixon, and look at how prosecutors choose who to charge. They also revisit KSM’s attempted plea deal after its collapse and investigate if Project 2025 will ban no-fault divorce while laying out the growing list of lies by Trump about the Republican agenda.
Get your #SistersInLaw merchandise at politicon.com/merch
WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT
Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast
Mentioned By The #Sisters:
MSNBC’s Democracy 2024
From Joyce on more Republican lies about Project 2025
Get tickets for the #SistersInLaw Live Show in NYC on 9/20/24 at politicon.com/tour
Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon.
Check out Kim’s New Podcast: Justice By Design
Please Support This Week’s Sponsors:
HelloFresh:
Get one free kids’ meal per box for two months while your subscription is active by going to hellofresh.com/sisterskids
Calm:
Perfect your meditation practice and get better sleep with 40% off a premium subscription when you go to calm.com/sisters
HoneyLove:
Get 20% OFF @honeylove by going to honeylove.com/sisters! #honeylovepod
OneSkin:
Get 15% off OneSkin with the code: SISTERS at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod
Osea Malibu:
Get 10% off your order of clean beauty products from OSEA Malibu, with free samples and free shipping on orders over $60, when you go to oseamalibu.com and use promo code: SISTERS
Get Barb’s New Book:
Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America
Barb’s Book Tour
Get More From #SistersInLaw
Joyce Vance: Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack
Jill Wine-Banks: Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President
Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | Unbound Newsletter
Barb McQuade: Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC
Joyce Vance hosts #SistersInLaw to discuss a DC judge’s finding that Google’s search engine violates antitrust laws, the risks of big tech monopolies, and whether increasing scrutiny by the DOJ is pushing tech leaders to the right. Then, the #Sisters examine the implications of guilty pleas by Jenna Ellis and a fake elector in Arizona, explain why Trump was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator and the parallels to Nixon, and look at how prosecutors choose who to charge. They also revisit KSM’s attempted plea deal after its collapse and investigate if Project 2025 will ban no-fault divorce while laying out the growing list of lies by Trump about the Republican agenda.
Get your #SistersInLaw merchandise at politicon.com/merch
WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT
Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast
Mentioned By The #Sisters:
MSNBC’s Democracy 2024
From Joyce on more Republican lies about Project 2025
Get tickets for the #SistersInLaw Live Show in NYC on 9/20/24 at politicon.com/tour
Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon.
Check out Kim’s New Podcast: Justice By Design
Please Support This Week’s Sponsors:
HelloFresh:
Get one free kids’ meal per box for two months while your subscription is active by going to hellofresh.com/sisterskids
Calm:
Perfect your meditation practice and get better sleep with 40% off a premium subscription when you go to calm.com/sisters
HoneyLove:
Get 20% OFF @honeylove by going to honeylove.com/sisters! #honeylovepod
OneSkin:
Get 15% off OneSkin with the code: SISTERS at https://www.oneskin.co/ #oneskinpod
Osea Malibu:
Get 10% off your order of clean beauty products from OSEA Malibu, with free samples and free shipping on orders over $60, when you go to oseamalibu.com and use promo code: SISTERS
Get Barb’s New Book:
Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America
Barb’s Book Tour
Get More From #SistersInLaw
Joyce Vance: Twitter | University of Alabama Law | MSNBC | Civil Discourse Substack
Jill Wine-Banks: Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President
Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | Unbound Newsletter
Barb McQuade: Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC
Comments
Top Podcasts
The Best New Comedy Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best News Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New Business Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New Sports Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New True Crime Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New Joe Rogan Experience Podcast Right Now – June 20The Best New Dan Bongino Show Podcast Right Now – June 20The Best New Mark Levin Podcast – June 2024
In Channel
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States00:00
00:00
1.0x
0.5x
0.8x
1.0x
1.25x
1.5x
2.0x
3.0x
Sleep Timer
Off
End of Episode
5 Minutes
10 Minutes
15 Minutes
30 Minutes
45 Minutes
60 Minutes
120 Minutes
Transcript
00:00:00
Hello Fresh helps you savor the taste of summer with recipes like blackened
00:00:05
chicken penny or my recent favorite street cart style chicken which was a
00:00:10
recent hit with my family. We all loved it. Right now you can get one free
00:00:14
kids meal per box for two months while your subscription is active at hellofresh.com
00:00:19
slash sisters kids you can also find the link in the show notes. Welcome
00:00:36
back to #SistersInLaw with Jill Weinbanks, Barb McQuade and me Joyce Vance. Kim
00:00:42
is out this week but she'll be back soon. But today before we get started and
00:00:47
including Kim I've got a couple of announcements because in Kim's absence
00:00:52
from our podcast she started her own new one. She'll still be here with us at
00:00:57
#SistersInLaw every week but for her we excited about what she's doing and we
00:01:02
hope you've checked out her new podcast Justice by Design where she introduces
00:01:07
you to people who are dealing with the most challenging issues facing our
00:01:10
country. Barb was on the last episode with Kim. It was a great one. You can find
00:01:15
Justice by Design wherever you get your podcasts or watch it on the
00:01:19
Politicon YouTube channel. Check it out. In other podcast news #SistersInLaw will
00:01:25
be live at the 92nd Street Y in New York City on September 20. You can get
00:01:31
tickets at Politicon.com/tour. If you are in New York City we hope we will get to
00:01:37
see you live. We hope it will be the second time we had a great group at our
00:01:40
first live podcast in New York last year and we can't wait to get back and
00:01:46
speaking of live shows our good friends at MSNBC are also getting ready to do
00:01:51
their first this is such a unique thing it's their first-ever live event. On
00:01:55
Saturday September 7 MSNBC hosts and some experts like our our brother-in-law
00:02:01
Andrew Weisman will be holding MSNBC Live Democracy 2024 in New York City. You
00:02:08
can get tickets at MSNBC.com/democracy2024. We'll put a link in our show notes. It's
00:02:16
gonna be great fun are y'all looking forward to it? I really am. I'm really
00:02:20
excited. It is going to be a really great show. 13 of your favorite MSNBC hosts
00:02:27
will be together all in person in Brooklyn. Catch Maddow, Saki, Chris Hayes,
00:02:34
Stephanie Ruhl, Harry Melbur, Joy Reid, Lorenzo Donald, Simone Sanders, Alex
00:02:39
Wagner and more all in conversation. Yeah you know the event takes place over
00:02:44
the course of one day there's an afternoon session and an evening session all
00:02:48
talking about the state of the 24 race but there's also going to be Rachel
00:02:52
Maddow's first-ever film called From Russia with Lev that will premiere at the
00:02:59
State Long Festival. So should be highly entertaining as well as fascinating. Yeah.
00:03:05
You know that's a that's a touch tone to love Parnass. One of those figures who
00:03:10
surfaced during the Mueller investigation and leave it to Maddow to make
00:03:14
history interesting and to dig up all the good details. This is really exciting. I
00:03:20
think it's going to be a lot of fun but one thing that we know with all of this
00:03:24
heightened political talk it means we're getting closer to the election. That
00:03:28
means it's almost fall and for me that means I'm going back to teaching next week.
00:03:32
Next week. So soon. Next week. The four we get started. I need your advice. You
00:03:40
know ever since the pandemic I have never been able to figure out what one
00:03:44
wears in public. I mean can I really not wear my yoga pants with a blazer
00:03:48
over them like I do at home when I'm doing TV. What do I wear to teach? So don't
00:03:52
ask me because I'm celebrating the 50th anniversary of Richard Nixon's
00:03:57
resignation. And I was already a lawyer at the time obviously. And I couldn't
00:04:04
wear pants even anywhere because it just was frowned upon. I had to wear skirts
00:04:09
suits. No pants are okay. So no. I mean so this is page. I would have to say yoga
00:04:18
pants are a no trousers are okay. Jeans depends on your school. I think I
00:04:26
wouldn't do it when I was teaching at Columbia because that's sort of like a
00:04:30
city thing. But hey you're in Birmingham so you have to decide what's okay for
00:04:35
your students. Yeah you know I think one of the things that's most important
00:04:40
joys is that you'd be comfortable. You know you get a look. I think. Yeah that's
00:04:45
fine. I think you have to look professional but in my view you throw a
00:04:48
you know blazer on over everything and and you're good to go. So I think you
00:04:53
get a blazer on top of those yoga pants. I bet you look a okay. I'm gonna tell my
00:04:58
Dean Barb McQuade said that this is okay if there are any questions. Well okay we
00:05:02
have a lot to discuss this week. Let's go on to the show.
00:05:07
You know I'm feeling pretty calm. I know it can feel like your plans are
00:05:18
worries and to-do lists are never ending. But luckily when your brain is
00:05:22
constantly racing on overdrive, calm can give your mind a break from the
00:05:27
noise. Calm is the number one app for sleep and meditation and gives you the
00:05:32
power to calm your mind and change your life. Calm recognizes that everyone faces
00:05:36
unique challenges in their daily lives. That mental health needs differ from
00:05:40
person to person and at time for meditation may vary. Since self-practices are
00:05:45
so deeply personal, calm strives to provide content that caters to your
00:05:50
preferences and needs. I love to use the guided walks. Sometimes in nature
00:05:55
sometimes just down my street that get me just thinking in the moment for
00:05:59
getting about my troubles. You are so right although right now I am feeling
00:06:04
energetic and happy and I want to keep that going and their meditations range
00:06:11
to fit your needs each day from anxiety and stress relaxation and focus to
00:06:17
building habits and taking care of your physical well-being and to keep you
00:06:21
happy. There are also sleep stories with hundreds of titles to choose from
00:06:26
including sleep meditations and calming music that will have you drifting off to
00:06:31
dreamland very quickly and naturally. They even have expert-led talks on topics
00:06:37
like tips for overcoming stress and anxiety, handling grief, improving
00:06:42
self-esteem, caring for relationships and keeping yourself happy. I sleep so much
00:06:49
better now that I incorporate calm sleep stories into my routine. Daily practice
00:06:55
makes a huge difference when stress starts building up. Calm can help you
00:06:59
dedicate a few minutes each day to reduce stress so you don't take so much time
00:07:03
that it makes you feel more stressed out that you're taking the time. You can
00:07:07
improve your focus and increase your overall well-being. The calm outputs the
00:07:12
tools you need to feel better in your back pocket. If you go to calm.com/sisters
00:07:17
you'll get a special offer of 40% off a calm premium subscription with new
00:07:22
content added every week. Stress less, sleep more and live better with calm. For
00:07:29
listeners of our show, calm is offering an exclusive offer of 40% off a calm
00:07:34
premium subscription at calm.com/sisters. Go to c-a-l-m.com/sisters for 40% off
00:07:43
unlimited access to calm's entire library. That's calm.com/sisters. Look for the
00:07:49
link in our show notes.
00:07:52
This week a federal judge in the District of Columbia found that Google
00:08:03
has violated antitrust laws by stifling competition in internet search engines.
00:08:10
The judge will determine later what the remedies are, but this is a real
00:08:14
blockbuster case. So first Joyce, can you just tell us about the case it was
00:08:18
brought by DOJ and state attorneys general? What's the gist of the court's
00:08:22
finding that Google violated the law? Yeah, so this case is about whether Google
00:08:27
has a monopoly in internet search and has abused the power of its monopoly and
00:08:32
judge Amit Mehta in the District of Columbia found Google violated antitrust
00:08:37
law by stifling rivals in internet search to protect its monopoly. That means
00:08:42
they tried to keep the competition from honing in on their business. The key
00:08:47
allegation in this case is that Google illegally insured its dominance in part by
00:08:52
paying other companies like Apple and Samsung billions of dollars a year to
00:08:57
have Google automatically handle search queries on their smartphones and web
00:09:01
browsers. This is a really huge ruling in the world of antitrust. I mean if this
00:09:06
was an earthquake, it would be a seven or an eight. Yeah, I think so and you know
00:09:09
Jill, I can't help but be reminded of this big Microsoft case that happened. It's
00:09:14
now 24 years ago in 2000 when DOJ brought an antitrust case about the
00:09:20
Windows operating system. Every computer that you bought had Windows on it.
00:09:24
Can you remind us what that case was about and more importantly maybe how it
00:09:29
changed the market because I think that is an interesting bell weather for what
00:09:33
we're seeing today. It is really amazing to me that it was actually 24 years ago.
00:09:38
It seems like there wasn't even computers back 24 years ago let alone a
00:09:43
monopoly but that's what the court found and they forced a breakup and they
00:09:48
claimed that Microsoft was bullying PC makers and preventing them from using
00:09:53
other operating systems and that's what they broke up and it definitely changed
00:10:00
the availability to consumers of alternatives. Before that Microsoft word was
00:10:07
like the only thing available and now we have think of all the different things
00:10:12
we have and it's the same now as to what would we have if Google didn't control
00:10:20
as much as it controls and I think we'll get to talk about that a little bit
00:10:25
more later. Yeah so that brings us back to Google you know I don't know about you
00:10:30
but I kind of like Google. I use Google all the time. Google has become so
00:10:34
successful that it's become a verb right let me Google that. Google itself in
00:10:39
their defense said you know we're only big because we're great because
00:10:42
everybody uses us is that so bad you know don't don't hate me because you
00:10:45
hate me essentially. On the other hand their business practices are pretty heavy
00:10:51
handed as Joyce said they were paying off you know Apple and Samsung and all
00:10:55
these companies to the tune of billions to kind of force on everybody their
00:11:00
search engines and I even noticed this morning when I was working on my
00:11:05
research for today when I wanted to open a link using Gmail it automatically
00:11:10
nudged me to open on Chrome. There was a pop-up that said you know Chrome is the
00:11:13
preferred browser open in Chrome and you know Chrome of course is a Google
00:11:17
product so it was an interesting reminder of just how in your face all of that
00:11:22
is so so let me ask you Jill you hinted at this I'm interested in what both of you
00:11:26
think that is this a good decision for consumers or is it bad for consumers I
00:11:31
like Google are they going to wreck Google or is this a good thing that will
00:11:37
benefit consumers because that's you know that's I'm a consumer that's what I
00:11:40
care about. Yeah I mean look competition is always good right it gets us
00:11:45
innovation it can get us lower pricing if we still had mobbell our world would
00:11:51
probably look very different than it does we wouldn't have as many options
00:11:55
and you know I am old enough sad to say to remember when they start mobbell and
00:11:59
people were worried it would ruin telephone service and look where we are we're
00:12:03
in a much better world so maybe we'll look back on this decision in much the
00:12:07
same way when they but you know Google is essential to a lot of us I mean it
00:12:12
feels very important and I love it and I hope this won't damage it in any way so
00:12:17
if that makes me a monopolist I guess I am one. So here's another news for you
00:12:25
it was my law firm Jenner and Block that sued AT&T so we were involved in that
00:12:30
case not only am I old enough to remember it but I was involved in it. So again
00:12:34
from the pages of history there she was just really weird. Are very unfulfilled. So essentially
00:12:40
Jill's responsible for the cell phone I have to think. Well that's because I work for Motorola that
00:12:46
I might say she invented the cell phone sorry you can't get me there but let me answer your
00:12:51
question which is and I had a very interesting discussion with three of my best friends last night
00:12:55
about the fact that I love Google and I don't even use Chrome I still use Google the actual Google
00:13:05
and I think it's what is that I mean I don't know it's just there's a different comfort it's
00:13:11
but it's also obviously it's Google owned but it has a different symbol it's just a G with
00:13:17
multi colors as opposed to the circular colored thing that's Chrome and I the Google has a
00:13:24
better microphone so that I can ask questions of it better than Chrome so that's just my preference
00:13:31
but it's still Google and I think it's a monopoly because it is by far the best search engine I really
00:13:38
really like it but my friends pointed out how do I know that there wouldn't be something better
00:13:44
if it wasn't a monopoly that someone who's been suppressed in developing some startup might have
00:13:51
something better and we know that when you have a monopoly there are fewer competitors there are
00:13:55
fewer people who can enter the market so we have as consumers fewer choices we don't know that it
00:14:01
wouldn't be cheaper to use something else because the increased price for what is being paid to
00:14:09
people to make them use the Google means that we're not getting the same choices so I guess I am
00:14:17
in favor of this lawsuit and all the other ones that are coming from the Department of Justice
00:14:23
yeah you know one other thing I would add about why I think it's a good thing to bust up monopoly
00:14:28
you know this goes back to the days of Theodore Roosevelt and Standard Oil who was a Republican by
00:14:33
the way but he understood that these big companies were not good for consumers they could gouge people
00:14:39
with prices because there was no competition and there was no incentive for innovation or creativity
00:14:44
because they were you know fat and happy and so but one other thing that's new I think from that era
00:14:50
is data privacy and when there's one big search engine like Google I worry that you know they're
00:14:59
compiling all of our data they are pushing ads at us they are able to micro target us by building
00:15:06
portfolios on us so that they know what we like now in some ways it's useful right you know they're
00:15:12
constantly pushing me on things like wouldn't you like to buy this Detroit Tigers baseball cap well yes
00:15:16
I would they know me they know me so well but it's also you know kind of dangerous because it allows
00:15:23
targeted ads in ways that can really push your buttons and I think as part of that whole you know
00:15:27
echo chamber of living in bubbles that that leads to polarization in society so I think that's
00:15:36
another reason that it might be beneficial to break up something as big as Google when it's collecting
00:15:41
our personal data but you mentioned Jill that there's some other cases going on and I wanted to
00:15:47
like kind of zoom out a little bit because this case seems to be part of a trend in tech there are
00:15:54
pending cases against Amazon and Apple we talked about that a few months ago and meta in addition
00:16:01
to Google whether it's from DOJ or the Federal Trade Commission and wondering whether the enforcement
00:16:09
is affecting politics you know do you think this is one of the reasons that some of the big tech
00:16:13
bros are favoring Republicans because you know democratic administrations are going after
00:16:20
these big monopolies and unfair trade practices what do you guys think so barb to answer your
00:16:27
question I don't think it's really politically motivated because this case started under attorney
00:16:35
general bar in the Trump administration so if it is being viewed as favoring Republicans to be
00:16:44
against this then I think the Republicans should be aware that it started under a Republican administration
00:16:52
what do you think choice like why is it that Elon Musk and all these tech bros want to invest in
00:16:59
back Trump's campaign yeah I mean I think Elon Musk is a whole different story right but you know
00:17:06
around July it was clear the little a lot of the tech bros were sort of pivoting and supporting Trump
00:17:12
I think part of it is that democratic administrations typically do engage in more of this kind of work
00:17:18
the anti-trust division always gets beefed up during a democratic administration but you know there's
00:17:24
probably more to that and I think we're actually starting to see it get right sized I saw an
00:17:29
interesting tidbit that Joe Rogan has abandoned Trump um he lived and raved in his Thursday afternoon
00:17:36
news conference and it was uh disturbing to many people so it's good to know that there is some
00:17:42
line that folks want that is it turns out he's a cat lady you know he might be I'm I'm still waiting
00:17:51
to see and maybe we need to do this for our podcast each of us in full glam mode with a cat draped
00:17:58
around our neck really y'all we need to do that for our next little sisters in law for the montage
00:18:02
well very good um you know I was once an intern at the anti-trust division at the Department of Justice
00:18:08
you'd think I'd know more about really that exhaust my knowledge on anti-trust my anti-trust trust
00:18:14
no one that's my I remember my anti-trust professor handler who used to say let's adoom break the exegesis
00:18:23
of the situation and I just I will never forget that line but I have to say preparing for this segment
00:18:29
trying to remember what market share was and how you define it whether it's too vague or too broad
00:18:35
really brought back memories of more than 60 years ago so that was pretty interesting
00:18:41
get out your snug summer dresses honey love has your back with targeted compression to
00:18:54
enhance your curves with the comfort of a gentle hug their shape were never rolls down no
00:18:59
matter how active you are featuring amazing design details you'll want to show off no matter what
00:19:05
exciting plan your summer has in store for you honey loves breathable fabric will keep you cool
00:19:10
and confident no matter how hot it gets and for a limited time only you can get honey love on sale
00:19:17
get 20% off your entire order with our exclusive link honey love dot com slash sisters support our
00:19:24
show and check them out we absolutely love honey love honey love dot com slash sisters embrace the
00:19:30
summer of yes with honey loves best selling super power short for a flawless silhouette under any
00:19:37
outfit it's the go to thanks to targeted compression technology and a signature expand that works with
00:19:44
your body for maximum style fit and comfort flexible supports hidden in the side seams ensure
00:19:51
your outfit stays sculpted and smooth across its coverage and the boost bands provide fantastic
00:19:59
lift plus there's cotton reinforcement where it matters the most and it gives you the perfect
00:20:05
amount of compression and all the right places honey love has more than just sculpture wear they have
00:20:11
super comfortable bras tanks and leggings for everyday support their leggings are the best
00:20:16
on days with lots of exercise or on that rare day when you have a decadent day at home with friends
00:20:22
and family they're seriously so comfortable no matter what life has in store for you honey love is
00:20:29
for you don't be stuck in your shape where look and feel your best with honey love oh you make it
00:20:35
sounds so great shape where should not be difficult treat yourself to the best shape where on the
00:20:41
market and save 20% off at honey love dot com slash sisters use our exclusive link to get 20% off
00:20:47
honey love dot com slash sisters after you purchase they'll ask you where you heard about them
00:20:54
please support our show and tell them we sent you say yes to every adventure with honey love
00:21:00
look for the link in the show notes
00:21:10
you know this week it was especially hard to select just three topics this has been a big issue
00:21:18
oriented week but we wanted to talk about one of the big ones which was Jenna Ellis pleaded guilty
00:21:26
to the Arizona fake electors indictment the grand jury was discovered wanted to indict Donald
00:21:33
Trump but prosecutors said no and I want to throw in a sort of a very brief question about
00:21:39
what would actually be a fourth topic but it fits in with this one and it's one of our topics from
00:21:44
last week which was the plea deal with two of the 9/11 plotters who have been at Guantanamo for
00:21:50
over 20 years they agreed with military prosecutors to plead guilty in exchange for taking the death
00:21:56
penalty off the table no sooner had we recorded our episode last week then I had to add a little
00:22:03
extra thing after we had finished recording because the situation had changed so by let me start
00:22:10
with you this is a case where we can benefit from your national security expertise so what happened
00:22:15
after we finished recording and where are we now and does any of it make sense or seem fair to you
00:22:21
yes so interesting right we just finished recording we got the news that secretary of defense Lloyd
00:22:28
Austin had put the kabash on the deal and said you know there's this plea deal where Khalid
00:22:35
Sheikh Muhammad and some of his co-defendants planners of the 9/11 attacks had agreed to plead guilty
00:22:40
in exchange for you know not having to be exposed to the death penalty but instead to life sentences
00:22:48
so it struck me as really bizarre and it is strange and I imagine it will invite some legal
00:22:57
challenges from these defendants you know in the civilian court system it's completely different
00:23:09
in the military system and Joey talked about this a little bit last week you know there's courts
00:23:13
Marshall but this is the military commissions created by Congress to deal with the people responsible
00:23:19
for the 9/11 attacks and so it was specific legislation and it's had a lot of problems there have
00:23:25
been all kinds of legal challenges and so I think in part to avoid those legal challenges and the
00:23:30
certainty of conviction there was also litigation about the fact that their confessions had been
00:23:36
obtained by torture and then some of the subsequent evidence was tainted by those confessions obtained
00:23:43
by torture that this seemed to me like a pretty good deal and now you know the alternative is they
00:23:49
must go to trial and that's that's got some risk and now there's also this thing called illegal
00:23:58
command influence where you know the person who has been delegated the responsibility is supposed
00:24:04
to handle the responsibility and a superior officer is not supposed to use politics to influence
00:24:09
the outcome of the decision I think they've opened themselves up to that argument now and so it
00:24:15
wouldn't surprise me frankly to see us go all the way back to where we were before at some point
00:24:20
but it's it was really a head scratcher that they did not have internal communications such that
00:24:28
secretary Austin had already signed off on this I mean that was definitely to me so yeah you've
00:24:33
already mentioned one of the strangest things of this which is that it's in a military court
00:24:38
instead of in a court I mean when we think of trials we think of the Department of Justice we don't
00:24:44
think of the sect of having anything to do with squashing a plea deal and it does look a little odd
00:24:53
and so we'll have to wait and see what happens whether it ends up back on the plea deal being
00:24:59
agreed to and but let's move on to Arizona the fake electric case there it was filed in state court
00:25:07
less than four months ago so it's pretty fast when we say that something has happened in which includes
00:25:14
a plea by one of the fake electors Republican Lorraine Pellegrino and by Jenna Ellis who along with
00:25:23
Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows was indicted for her role in the fake electric scheme although
00:25:31
Trump was not indicted in this case but he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator number one
00:25:38
so let's let's look at what's going on there in terms of the Georgia case involves the same
00:25:46
charges about fake electors and Jenna Ellis pled guilty in that case and her law license was
00:25:55
suspended for three years as a result and it will be reinstated only if she proves by
00:26:01
clearing convincing evidence that she has been rehabilitated has complied with all disciplinary
00:26:06
orders and rules and is fit to practice law again now she has pleaded guilty in the Arizona case
00:26:12
and two days later Pellegrino did the same so there's a lot of news about this Joyce I want to ask you
00:26:20
you've been involved in reviewing disciplinary charges against attorneys in Alabama and so what do
00:26:26
you think about the punishment that she got in the Georgia case that Jenna Ellis got in the Georgia
00:26:31
case and what do you make of the Arizona case in general and Ellis's plea there which includes a
00:26:37
cooperation agreement yeah so I mean you know I sat on a bar grievance committee in Alabama and
00:26:44
typically these committees are very permissive for lawyers on a first offense but I'm going to go
00:26:50
out on a limb here and and say that a three-year suspension of her Colorado bar license is simply
00:26:56
insufficient for Ellis I mean it's not like she made an inadvertent error it's not like she
00:27:01
mishandled client funds it's not like she missed a couple of deadlines she was trying to undo
00:27:07
democracy she was trying to help a president steal an election and I appreciate her tearful
00:27:14
guilty plea in Georgia where she has pled guilty and received a sentence of five years of probation
00:27:20
where she said that if she had to do it over she wouldn't do it the same way that's great she
00:27:25
should never have the opportunity to do it again we don't need her in the practice of law
00:27:29
so I know some people may think that's a little bit harsh but I think bar associations
00:27:35
have really failed by not taking that strong stance for every lawyer who was involved in the
00:27:41
insurrection they've taken too long they haven't been firm enough and what that sets up is the
00:27:47
possibility that it will happen again completely agree with your choice thank you I appreciate that
00:27:52
I was afraid I was going to be the mean mommy here um it does look to me like there's real progress
00:27:58
going on in in Arizona this is an attorney general who knows what she's about she took this case on
00:28:04
almost immediately after she took office investigated it hot and heavy when ahead and got an
00:28:10
indictment Jenna Ellis has a full cooperation agreement that means that she only gets this
00:28:16
very favorable treatment dismissal of all charges if she cooperates truthfully and there is
00:28:23
some language in her cooperation agreement it requires her to cooperate in all state and federal
00:28:29
cases if she's called to now look that is boilerplate language I got to say I put that in every
00:28:34
cooperation deal I ever made a defendant sign off on so it could just be that it could just be boiler
00:28:40
plate that's always there but there's a possibility that she can provide some assistance to Jack Smith
00:28:47
and in case you haven't noticed Jack Smith is struggling right now to realign his case after
00:28:52
the Supreme Court tried to cut him out at the knees so does Jenna Ellis have anything of value that
00:28:57
she can offer could she help him have an additional theory could she give him some direct evidence that
00:29:02
he can use because it involves um personal acts not official ones so the Supreme Court's immunity
00:29:08
opinion doesn't um interact with it you know there are possibilities here right she was around for
00:29:14
a lot of this she may have something to say not just about Donald Trump but about other witnesses
00:29:20
that Jack Smith or the Arizona Attorney General would like to convince to cooperate she could be
00:29:26
really valuable and sort of a game changer in this regard but lots of ifs we don't know for certain
00:29:31
and certainly she could be valuable against Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows who are co-defendants
00:29:36
or work co-defendants they are still defendants she is not um and it it's you know I just want to also
00:29:42
add to what you said we talked last week about Jeffrey Clark getting a very light suspension that
00:29:49
I think we all disapproved of thinking that the recommended suspension was insufficient but there's
00:29:54
another interesting development in the Arizona case and that is there's been reporting based on
00:30:01
some documents filed that the Arizona grand jury wanted to indict Donald Trump but the prosecutors
00:30:08
said no although they did as I said name him an unundited co-conspirator also that they didn't want to
00:30:16
indict Ellis who just pled guilty if they didn't want to indict her or her fellow lawyer Christina
00:30:21
Bob but the grand jury did and they did so so why would they uh talk the jury out of indicting Trump
00:30:29
and what was going on with Ellis and Bob yeah this is super interesting so first let me talk about Trump
00:30:36
because I think this story is being reported as somehow the attorney general in Arizona chickened out
00:30:45
or didn't want to indict Donald Trump uh and was too cowardly or something like that um I don't
00:30:53
think that's the case at all you know prosecutors have discretion and they make strategic decisions
00:30:58
about whether to indict who to indict I guess that's a whom to indict um and with the pending
00:31:06
federal cases it could really complicate things to add state charges while that Trump case is pending
00:31:13
because now there may be discovery obligations that the lawyers in both jurisdictions have that could
00:31:21
really kind of mess up the case against the other uh disclosures cooperation things going on in
00:31:30
parallel and so sometimes people get charged in more than one venue and it can work but usually
00:31:35
there's great coordination between prosecutors at the state and federal level to say would it hurt
00:31:39
your case if I charge mine and sometimes people say yes it would like stand down we don't need to
00:31:44
charge this person in both venues and so the fact that they didn't want to charge Trump strikes me
00:31:49
as kind of wise it says that they um brief the jurors on what's known as the petite policy which talks
00:31:55
about usually allowing states to go first and fed step in only if there is some unresolved federal
00:32:01
interest but I suppose this is a reverse petite situation where the feds have already charged
00:32:07
Donald Trump and they just don't want to muck it up so I really don't have a problem with that
00:32:11
decision to refrain from charging Donald Trump in in Arizona uh at least not not yet the more
00:32:17
interesting thing though is the prosecution did not want to indict Ellis or Bob and the
00:32:23
grand jury did it anyway you know in the federal system that just can't happen because the prosecution
00:32:28
has to sign off on the indictment as well right I mean if I'm a prosecutor my grand jury is saying
00:32:33
I want to indict Jill white bags and I can say no I like um I will try to persuade them why it's a
00:32:39
bad reason they'll tell them why but I like I'm just not signing it right it has to be signed by the
00:32:42
grand jury for a person and by the prosecutor with sometimes several levels of approval depending on
00:32:48
the case so it's stunning to me that this is even possible but I suppose they just felt strongly
00:32:55
about the evidence but you know just because you can charge someone doesn't mean you should there are
00:32:59
discretionary reasons and strategic reasons as we just discussed with regard to Trump that it might
00:33:04
be a better choice to refrain from charging somebody so it is surprising to me that a grand jury
00:33:10
was even able to charge these two defendants without the agreement of the Arizona Attorney General's
00:33:18
Office and this was so reminiscent to me of what happened in Watergate where the grand jury
00:33:24
wanted to indict then president Nixon and so did we actually mostly trial team but Leon
00:33:32
Jaworski who was then a special prosecutor was adamant that impeachment was the right way to go
00:33:38
and not indictment and so we said well then you're going to have to come in and convince the grand jury
00:33:44
that they shouldn't do this so this goes to your you can but you shouldn't and although we thought
00:33:50
we should we didn't negotiate with Leon he came in he convinced them but we convinced him that we
00:33:56
could name Nixon an unindicted co-conspirator which is sort of what happened here and um his name by
00:34:05
the way was kept in a safe in judge syracas uh chambers until the indictment
00:34:11
required us to reveal that he was an unindicted co-conspirator he was just listed as unindicted
00:34:17
co-conspirator one so um joys how common common is it for a prosecutor to refuse to indict?
00:34:24
yeah so look i think that there probably aren't statistics that are kept on this for one thing
00:34:31
but you don't need to see the numbers to know that it's really rare um there there are different laws
00:34:36
that grand juries operate under in different jurisdictions which also muddies it up a little bit
00:34:42
but typically we leave these decisions up to grand juries about whether to indict up to a certain point
00:34:49
right i mean grand juries might think that they had enough and and the prosecutor might just say
00:34:54
i can't take this case to court there's a legal problem there could be evidence that's inadmissible
00:35:00
or as barb says sometimes even if you technically can indict they're good reasons that you should not
00:35:06
in the federal system prosecutors for instance have to only indict when there's a national interest
00:35:11
when there's a good reason to indict even if you can uh and you believe that you can get a jury
00:35:18
verdict and sustain it on appeal so these can be complicated cases in reality though what happens
00:35:25
if there's a dispute is this process that you're talking about Jill there's a conversation
00:35:29
where the prosecutors talk with grand juries you work as a team and ultimately prosecutors can
00:35:36
lay this on the table for grand juries and i think it's very rare that there's um disagreement
00:35:41
at the end of the day in fact it sounds like in Arizona they did agree ultimately with the prosecutor's
00:35:47
decision we don't know if it was prudential reasons um if it was strategic reasons or evidentiary
00:35:53
reasons that she did not want to indict Donald Trump it could have been a timing issue they could for
00:35:59
instance have been waiting on Jenna Ellis it's very interesting that they didn't want her
00:36:03
indicted and now here she is cooperating so i think you know to be continued right but this could end
00:36:10
up being the most interesting of the state case i think they also might just wanted to get to trial
00:36:15
faster than if Donald Trump is a defendant that would complicate it and if you want to get to trial
00:36:22
in a reasonable time omitting him may be the best course of action
00:36:35
after spending a long day out in the sultry southern heat cleaning out my chicken coop
00:36:40
i am so glad i have one skin's os one face spf protect and repair to fight back against sun damage
00:36:48
especially during the travel invocation season and the chicken coop cleaning out season i feel great
00:36:54
knowing my skin will be ready for anything the elements throughout me one skin's regimen works
00:36:59
fast and the formulas feel amazing when you apply them i don't go anywhere without one skin i'm
00:37:05
actually wearing it right now even though i'm inside because i love the sunscreen but i like it
00:37:09
as a moisturizer too wear it everywhere we know you'll love it too so you had me a chicken coop clean-up
00:37:18
something that i will never ever do but come on down come on down okay you promise me i get to
00:37:24
feed a chicken can i hold one too only if you're wearing your sunscreen okay well i wear a lot
00:37:33
of this product so i will and did you know your body starts accumulating senescent cells
00:37:40
as early as your 20s i hardly remember that but i do know it's happening also called zombie cells
00:37:47
these cells stop producing collagen and hyaluronic acids like they are used to and they secret an
00:37:53
inflammatory substance instead that makes nearby cells dysfunctional luckily there's a solution
00:37:59
for zombie cells and it comes from our friends at one skin founded by an all-woman team of scientists
00:38:06
one skin is the first and only skin longevity company to target a key hallmark of aging called
00:38:12
cellular senescence using their proprietary os one peptides os one is scientifically proven
00:38:19
to decrease lines and wrinkles boost hydration and help with a thinning skin that often comes with age
00:38:27
i know for sure it does i recently ran into a fan of our podcast and she asked a political question
00:38:34
followed by a more important one she wanted to know if i really loved one skin as much as i've said
00:38:40
on this podcast i told her absolutely but don't just take my word for it one skin has over
00:38:47
four thousand five star reviews for their full line of face body sun and travel size products
00:38:53
well i don't know much about peptides and zombie cells but i do know that for a limited time
00:38:59
you can try one skin for 15% off using the code sisters when you check out at oneskin.co
00:39:07
with one skin your skin can stay healthy strong and hydrated at every age one skin is the world's
00:39:14
first skin longevity company by focusing on the cellular aspects of aging one skin keeps your skin
00:39:21
looking and acting younger for longer get started today with 15% off using code sisters
00:39:27
at oneskin.co that's 15% off one skin.co with code sisters after you purchase they'll ask you
00:39:37
where you heard about them please support our show and tell them we sent you you can also
00:39:42
find the link in our show notes. So on Thursday Donald Trump held an entirely fact free press conference
00:39:58
where he said things that weren't true like no one was killed on January 6th and the democratic
00:40:03
party nomination was unconstitutionally taken away from Joe Biden both not true and there was
00:40:10
lots more along that same vein um unfortunately he was not fat checked in real time but here we are
00:40:17
today hashtag sisters in law i thought we might do a little bit of um fat checking on a situation
00:40:23
that's become really complicated and the subject of of lots of speculation and rumor we're here
00:40:29
today with the facts um and that's project 2025. Trump has publicly disavowed it we talked about that
00:40:36
a little bit last week more has happened that we'll go into and there's a lot of confusion about what's
00:40:42
in project 2025 and what isn't so today we turn to a claim that we've seen a lot about in the media
00:40:50
that project 2025 would do away with no fault divorce um interestingly enough the word divorce
00:40:57
only appears one time in project 2025 and it's in a sentence where it's used to describe the
00:41:03
separation of policies from the resources that are used to implement them in other words in a way
00:41:08
that has absolutely nothing to do with the end of a marriage but marriage that word appears in
00:41:14
project 2025 46 times it's worth pointing out where it falls the first time page four in a section
00:41:22
titled promise number one restore the family is the centerpiece of American life and protect our
00:41:28
children and marriages described as one of the essential building blocks of a healthy society
00:41:33
then there's promise number four secure our god-given individual right to enjoy quote the blessings
00:41:40
of liberty in that section we're told that our constitution grants each of us the liberty to do
00:41:47
not what we want but what we ought this pursuit of the good life is found primarily in family
00:41:53
marriage children thanksgiving dinners and the like y'all i'm not making it up that is the language
00:41:59
on the project 2025 website um and so marriage divorced here's here's the background for no fault
00:42:06
divorced in 1969 then governor Ronald Reagan of California who was himself divorced
00:42:12
signed the nation's first no fault divorce law and it allowed people to end their marriages
00:42:17
without having to go into court and prove that the other party had wronged them um so
00:42:23
barb here's our state of play is it true that project 2025 calls for an end to no fault divorced
00:42:28
tiktok is full of videos saying project 2025 will eliminate it you're our disinformation expert
00:42:34
true or false well it is false that it calls for an end to no fault divorce but it does talk about
00:42:42
restoring family as you said as the centerpiece for American life uh and many members of the far
00:42:51
right faction of the republican party have publicly supported ending no fault divorce including
00:42:57
JD vans mic johnson and ben Carson there are proposals pending in Oklahoma and Texas to end no
00:43:06
fault divorce and i think sometimes we think that's just a bridge too far i mean that's that's just
00:43:11
not going to happen but you know if you think it can't happen think about overturning rovers is weighed
00:43:16
or hostility to in vitro fertilization it's really amazing how we're backtracking on all of these
00:43:23
things and you know what's so remarkable about this idea of ending no fault divorce um you know
00:43:31
let's let's let's just use the language they use in project 2025 where they don't say we're going
00:43:36
to end no fault divorce but they do say that this pursuit of the good life is found in family marriage
00:43:43
children Thanksgiving dinners and the like they couldn't come up with anymore so they had to say
00:43:48
and and the like but they say our constitution grants us the liberty to do not what we want but what
00:43:55
we ought i mean i thought freedom right is what about freedom here we are in america that that's
00:44:01
common a Harris who's calling for freedom i mean you know i know many times republicans have
00:44:07
talked about you know the freedom to pursue uh liberty or you had to pursue to happiness whatever
00:44:13
it is um this idea that there's only one way to conform with a duty uh is our responsibility
00:44:23
under the law and the constitution whoa i mean that is some pretty radical stuff that is the
00:44:30
antithesis of of freedom i mean i'm married i'm happily married and i have a happy family and i think
00:44:37
family units can be helpful to society but the idea that people don't get to choose that that is
00:44:44
the course of their life is just so contrary to the notion of fundamental freedom
00:44:49
yeah i mean i think that's important and and so it's i think it's good for us to say
00:44:55
that project 2025 does not come out and have a sentence in it that says we will end um no fault divorce
00:45:02
right that's not in it but Jill context really matters and barbed touched on this a little bit can you
00:45:08
talk about where the so-called conservatives in the republican party um folks who i think are better
00:45:13
at this point designated as trumpists or mauga republicans where they on these issues so before i
00:45:19
answer that question i just want to add to barb's comments um i don't know if either of you
00:45:25
remembers or ever watched married with children one of the stars was katie sagal who was a backup
00:45:31
singer for bet middler my all-time fave um and one of the things that is clear here is that jd
00:45:40
vance for example says if you're married with children you should have more of a vote than
00:45:47
childless people because you have more invested in the country and the future which is total nonsense
00:45:55
so sort of leads to an answer to that question as well because it does in fact show that where they
00:46:03
are on this is you know family and children and old fashioned Christian values um and a specific
00:46:12
you know when they want to put up the ten commandments it's a specific ten commandments it's not a generic
00:46:18
one so i think the answer to your question about that is that they are really um depriving us of our
00:46:26
freedom thank you comola Harris for getting it back for us um so the bottom line is trump's party
00:46:35
and his uh likely conduct in office will be supportive although you have to say on no fault divorce
00:46:43
given his history that he might not approve of having to have taken proof of fault in his divorces
00:46:54
so maybe on this particular issue of no fault divorce uh he he would veto any kind of legislation
00:47:02
that tried to abolish no fault divorce oh come on you know trump he's got his divorces he doesn't
00:47:08
care about other people once he's had his way i don't know malony i might want a word yeah that's true
00:47:14
but the landscape here is pretty interesting there's an Oklahoma state senator dusty deavers who
00:47:19
introduced a bill in January that would ban that state's version of no fault divorce um republican
00:47:26
party in in texas in its 2022 platform in a plank that still will be in for 2024 um they've called for
00:47:34
an end as you pointed out jadey vance doesn't love no fault divorce i think he wants to make sure that
00:47:39
his wife stays in the fold and others like house speaker might johnson ben Carson the former
00:47:46
secretary of housing and urban development they've all spoken out in favor of tightening these
00:47:51
divorce laws i think this is part of this same trend that we're seeing post dogs you know everybody is
00:47:56
saying oh well abortion we've lost abortion we have to work on that and they're not thinking that
00:48:01
there are other horribles behind it like the loss of birth control or the loss of no fault divorce
00:48:07
so barb let's just underscore the point why is it important to have no fault divorce available
00:48:13
as an option for people yeah well you know starting with this idea of freedom that we should be
00:48:17
able to choose our own destinies in american life i think is uh the biggest picture but you know think
00:48:22
about the situations that people are in in marriages you could be in an abusive situation
00:48:28
where one spouse wants to end the marriage and the other doesn't um it takes longer to get out of it
00:48:34
and it requires a trial because there has to be proof that one party is at fault through abuse or
00:48:40
adultery or some other reason um and so the the spouse who wants out would have to prove a trial
00:48:46
that the other spouse was at fault and so an abusive partner wants to preserve a marriage could
00:48:52
oppose it um in addition um having a trial could be very hard on children you know imagine instead
00:48:58
of just saying we've agreed to go our separate ways you actually have to go to a trial and put on
00:49:04
evidence and point to one spouse as uh you know having engaged in some sort of fault um you know it's
00:49:11
just difficult for families well if you don't want to be in a marriage anymore the idea that you
00:49:17
have to be is just really uh so fundamentally it odds with freedom in this country i mean we can't
00:49:24
have indentured servants how can it be we can have indentured spouses do either of you remember when
00:49:31
used to be the law that you would have a setup where one of the partners would be in bed in a hotel
00:49:40
room and a photographer would come in and take a picture of them it was a total setup but it was
00:49:45
a way of proving that there was fault and you are so right think how horrible that would be to the
00:49:51
children of that marriage and how horrible it is to the reputation of the person accused of fault
00:49:57
when it's totally unnecessary yeah i just think about all of the women who are being victimized
00:50:04
in abusive domestic situations um for whom it's a practical impossibility to get a divorce
00:50:10
by virtue of of fault and no fault divorce really changed that landscape it meant that the abusive
00:50:16
spouse knew that that partner could go to court and get a divorce without having to prove their
00:50:21
abuse of conduct um if we take that away it's just part of this slide of of women back in the second
00:50:27
class citizenship and i suppose it could work the other way um too you know it's not necessarily
00:50:32
a gendered sort of a situation um but clear that no fault divorce does um amplify freedom for all
00:50:39
of us so Jill i want to end where we started with prompt distancing himself from project 2025 he
00:50:45
did it again this week right but there's new evidence that suggests that he is far closer to project
00:50:51
2025 than we previously knew he had this little plane flight with the president of the heritage
00:50:57
foundation and he made a little speech afterwards um what do you make of all of this well it just
00:51:02
emphasizes how ridiculous the claims are that i don't know any of those people i don't know what's
00:51:09
in it i'm a no no i don't know well he picked a VP who wrote a forward to the heritage foundation
00:51:18
presidents new book which has i will note been delayed in release until after the election
00:51:26
because that would have been really sort of embarrassing as you said there's photographs of
00:51:30
Donald trump on the plane going to a heritage foundation uh meeting at which he spoke and he also
00:51:39
can't distance himself because if you look at the authors of each of the chapters most of them were
00:51:44
in his administration and will be in his administration if he should be reelected so those are the
00:51:51
policies that those people will want to implement when they're back in power so he can't do it i make it
00:51:58
out to be one of the big lies and as you started this saying there was this fact-free press conference
00:52:06
you could not keep up with fact-checking on that and i think Lawrence O'Donnell last night had
00:52:12
one of the best shows on thursday night um where he talked about this issue and suggested a way
00:52:19
to do fact-checking i actually think the only way you could keep up with this steady stream of
00:52:25
lies is to delay release of it you can have it live but delay it for an hour and then put it on
00:52:33
if you want but that would give time for every sentence to be fact-checked and so that you could have
00:52:39
him saying something with a big overlay that says false here's the fact because i think people can
00:52:46
easily get misled when he keeps saying the same things over and over again and you pointed to some of
00:52:51
his things but almost every single sentence was a lie there was almost not one thing that was true
00:52:58
yeah i mean it's overwhelming and and this thing about project 2025 is direct on target right we
00:53:05
didn't know about this private plane flight trump took with the president of the heritage foundation
00:53:11
until this week when a lovely photograph of them in the white leather swivel seat surfaced
00:53:16
and what happens trump gets off the plane he speaks to the heritage foundation group and he says
00:53:21
these are the people who are going to be coming up with our plans for the next few years wow
00:53:38
hey guys you know i love one of the products that we always talk about you know that feeling when
00:53:44
you first step out on the beach with the sun shining and palm trees swaying in the breeze
00:53:49
well Chicago's like front doesn't have palm trees but when i put on any osia malibu product
00:53:55
i feel like i'm enjoying palm trees complete with coconuts because osia has captured that fragrance
00:54:02
and feel in their all natural anddaria algae buddy oil it's uplifting notes of mango,
00:54:09
mandarin, grapefruit, lime and cypress melt just like summer it's so much more than a scent
00:54:15
the body oil is clinically proven to instantly improve skin elasticity and deeply moisturize
00:54:21
leaving skin silky and soft for that coveted post vacation glow i think you'll love the indulgent
00:54:27
rich never greasy texture of as much as i do it's their best selling product and it's for a reason
00:54:33
the creamy goodness is next level and after putting it on my skin always feel soft and silky
00:54:39
sort of like being surrounded by this unbelievable glow that lights up the room
00:54:43
if you're like me when it arrives you won't be able to wait to put it on
00:54:48
not only does it visibly firm your skin for a perfect sculpted tone but it's also clinically
00:54:54
proven to improve skin elasticity instantly my skin licks and feels the softest it ever has
00:55:01
right now you could be transported to the tropics with 10% off your first order with our code
00:55:07
cisters@osiamalibu.com osia is women founded and led and we love that osia has been making clinically
00:55:15
proven seaweed infused products that are safe for your skin and the planet for over 28 years
00:55:21
everything is clean vegan cruelty free and climate neutral certified with osia you never have
00:55:28
to choose between your values and your skin you will feel like you have escaped the tropics as
00:55:33
soon as you put it on so get healthy glowing skin for summer with clean vegan skin and body
00:55:39
care from osia get 10% off your first order site wide with code cisters@osiamalibu.com you'll get free
00:55:48
samples with every order and free shipping on orders over 60 dollars head to osia malibu.com
00:55:56
and use code cisters for 10% off look for the link in our show notes
00:56:00
well now we've gotten to our favorite part of the show where we get to answer our listener questions
00:56:15
if you've got listener questions for us please email us at cistersinlaw@politicon.com
00:56:20
tag us on social media using the hashtag cistersinlaw and if we don't get to your questions during
00:56:26
the show keep an eye on our feeds throughout the week we try to answer as many of your questions
00:56:32
as we can um this week we've got some really great ones Jill I'm gonna start with one for you
00:56:38
on one of our perennial favorite topics supreme court reform and this question is just very
00:56:44
succinct and to the point it's from Katie she says how many justices with the sisters like
00:56:49
of course I love my sisters and I cannot speak for them though I will speak for myself and if they
00:56:56
have a different opinion let them speak up I think there should be 13 maybe 14 but I know it's
00:57:04
bad to have an even number but the reason I think 13 is because when nine was selected there were
00:57:11
nine circuit courts of appeal and each justice was assigned to oversee one of those circuits
00:57:16
well the country's grown and so has the court of appeals there are now 13 plus the district of
00:57:24
Columbia so that's really 14 and I think that it makes a lot of sense to have the number match
00:57:31
the circuits it would also possibly get us out of this horrible situation where we had
00:57:38
three justices thrust upon us and a prevention of two being confirmed because it was too close to
00:57:45
the election ha ha ha and so I I'm for expansion our g1 away in yeah um I don't know where I stand
00:57:57
on that I think 13 makes absolute sense we've had different numbers throughout our nation's history
00:58:01
we've had five we've had seven we've now we're at nine and I think 13 does make some sense I worry
00:58:07
that expanding the court leads to this arms arms race of every few years we keep adding until we
00:58:13
finally have a court of like 99 justices and it becomes so cumbersome as to be unworkable I think
00:58:19
you need a small enough cohort of people to be able to work together know each other pass drafts
00:58:24
back and forth and I worry that with a court of 13 that it'll take even longer for them to exchange
00:58:30
these these opinions so I think Jill's view makes a lot of sense but I'm a little nervous about
00:58:36
adding any more bodies to the bench you know I'm the same way I'm real hesitant on this for the
00:58:41
reasons that that you discuss I mean I think they're already at critical mass but what I do think
00:58:47
this argument about expanding the court points to is the need for Supreme Court reform that will
00:58:53
restore the court's legitimacy um so that this is not seen as some as you know this is sort of the
00:58:59
last gas right expand the court because it's not behaving the way we expect the court to um and so
00:59:06
I think it does provide some impetus but the one thing that I'll say that that maybe suggests that
00:59:11
my view is not informed enough I've got a good friend who is um a very staunch Republican and his
00:59:20
comment was uh that if the Democrats don't do it the Republicans certainly will the next opportunity
00:59:27
they get so there's some interesting food for thought there um that what I just say I agree with I
00:59:34
agree with both of you um and with your friend as well Joyce and I think there are probably better
00:59:39
ways than expanding the court like term limits and some way of timing the terms so that every president
00:59:49
gets to appoint someone but that also bothers me because this should not be a political issue we
00:59:56
are appointing people to look at precedent and statutory language and to make fair and unbiased
01:00:04
opinions based on that so if we say that we need to have different political points of view
01:00:10
represented on the court that's saying they aren't making judicial decisions they're making
01:00:16
political decisions so that bothers me a little bit too but I do think we have to restore some
01:00:22
semblance of respect for the court and one of those plus of course an enforceable
01:00:28
code of conduct would be definitely mandated yeah I mean you make the ultimate point here that the
01:00:35
court is not supposed to be political and maybe that speaks to the caliber of the individuals
01:00:41
and we've sort of lost this notion of putting the finest brightest legal minds on the court and letting
01:00:46
them resolve these issues um so yeah it's a mess um second question today I'll take this one it's
01:00:53
from at 220 calls and they ask why is voter registration necessary it seems like a big impediment to
01:01:01
voting and the democratic process and it's a great question you know registration rules are different
01:01:07
in different states and some states like mine you've got to register early there's a cut off date
01:01:12
in other states there's all sorts of really difficult requirements for for registering
01:01:19
and then in other states it's easy you walk in the day of you can register and vote but the bottom
01:01:24
line is we have registration to provide some sort of a minimum level of cohesiveness in organizing
01:01:32
the polls you know not just anyone who lives in the US can vote you have to be a qualified citizen
01:01:38
and we do have these decentralized elections that take place in not really even in states but rather
01:01:45
most of them are countywide elections so this is a process that really um permits the states to
01:01:53
ensure and the counties to ensure that the voter rolls are accurate and updated and it's a fine
01:01:58
tuned balance between doing enough without unnecessarily impairing the ability of people to vote so
01:02:05
there's this baseline notion that registration is okay but what you can't do or what you shouldn't
01:02:11
do although some states do it is require for instance onerous levels of of identification or make
01:02:18
it difficult to get to a polling place or have impossible certification requirements on absentee
01:02:25
ballots there's this whole continuum about how do you guarantee access without permitting broad
01:02:30
to creep into the process and we know because statistics are really good on this that the problem in
01:02:36
this country is not voter fraud the problem is voter suppression so I would say registration
01:02:42
is this this necessary floor for ensuring that we have fair elections but it shouldn't be done
01:02:49
in a way that prevents people from voting our last question today comes um for barb it's from from
01:02:55
robber and robber it is a canadian he has this question for you barb do you expect a pardon of Donald
01:03:01
Trump if Kamala wins would it be positive or negative for democracy that's a big question this is
01:03:09
such an interesting question especially here we are on the anniversary of the resignation of Richard
01:03:15
Nixon and the swearing-in of Gerald Ford which of course uh was quickly followed by the pardon of
01:03:22
Richard Nixon I find this really intriguing you know my my first gut is like no way of course she
01:03:27
wouldn't do it but um you know my my feelings on the Ford pardon have really evolved over time when
01:03:34
it first happened of course I was a child so what did I know but um I remember you know Richard or
01:03:40
the Gerald Ford giving the talk about our long national nightmare is over we should move on from
01:03:45
all of this and thinking that that was first an outrage you know like wow is this the was this deal
01:03:50
cooked up and then thinking maybe it was best for the country that we can move on so we could get on
01:03:55
with our lives but in retrospect I think the pardon of Richard Nixon is what gave us Donald Trump
01:04:01
and unless there is accountability for bad behavior there will be more bad behavior and so in the same
01:04:07
way even if Kamala Harris is in any way inclined to pardon Donald Trump I'd be surprised if she
01:04:13
were but even if she were I think it would be bad for democracy because I think that when people
01:04:19
engage in such profoundly wrong behavior as Donald Trump did I think the public needs to see that
01:04:25
there are consequences and I think that you know the next people out there politicians are watching
01:04:30
and see can you get away with this kind of stuff and when people are held accountable it has a
01:04:34
deterrent effect on others so I think she's to the extent Kamala if you're listening president Harris
01:04:41
no pardon for Donald Trump thank you Barbara because I was outraged at the time because I was
01:04:49
not just old enough I was involved and I remain to this day outraged and share your view that but for
01:04:58
this pardon and I don't think that president Ford acted in bad faith I think he really believed
01:05:04
what he said I think at the time and in hindsight it was the wrong thing and you are right it led
01:05:11
to Donald Trump if he had been warned that this could lead to criminal consequences I'm not sure
01:05:18
he would have controlled himself because he seems incapable of that but maybe maybe he would have
01:05:25
and we certainly need to hold people accountable for crimes whether committed in office or before
01:05:30
holding office well that's all we've got time for today thank you for listening to hashtag
01:05:38
sisters-in-law with Joe Weinbanks, Barb McQuade and me Joyce Bants remember to mark your calendars
01:05:44
hashtag sisters-in-law are live in New York at the 92nd Street Y on September 20th you can get
01:05:51
tickets at politicon.com/tour and we look forward to seeing you there and please show some love to
01:05:58
this week's sponsors hello fresh calm honey love one skin and oh see a malibu their links are
01:06:05
all in the show notes please support them because they make this podcast possible follow hashtag
01:06:11
sisters-in-law on Apple podcasts or wherever you listen and please give us a five star review it
01:06:17
really does help others find the show see you next week with a new episode hashtag sisters-in-law
01:06:23
hey Simon what about our dog food supplement brisbee I told him it was coming are you hungry
01:06:34
what about our chopped meat sticks one of those coming get hungry
