0:03

We're excited to say

0:05

that it's the season

0:07

to get your hashtag

0:10

sisters in law merch.

0:28

We have hoodies perfect for the weather,

0:30

t-shirts for warmer climes and our new

0:32

mug. Just click the link in the

0:34

show notes or go to

0:37

politicon.com/merch today. And now onto

0:39

the show where today we'll

0:41

be discussing the Colorado Supreme

0:43

Court decision to disqualify Donald Trump under

0:46

the 14th amendment. Another

0:48

delay in the Trump trial from the US

0:50

Supreme Court and Rudy

0:52

Giuliani's bankruptcy. But

0:55

first I wanted to chat with you all about

0:57

holiday gifts. You know, I was so delighted to

1:00

see that I'd received a gift from Joyce

1:03

that I opened this morning and I thought,

1:05

well, my friend Joyce sent me a holiday

1:07

gift. That's so nice. And I opened

1:09

it up and inside was a whole bunch of Alabama

1:12

Rose Bowl football memorabilia,

1:14

which, you know, turned out to

1:16

be not the happiest of gifts.

1:19

Of course, the two teams are playing each other

1:21

in the Rose Bowl. So the rivalry is on.

1:23

Game on sister. I

1:25

got something coming your way too. So just look out. Oh,

1:28

come on. Tell the truth. You loved

1:30

it. You love the t-shirt. You

1:32

love the bracelets. You love the smells like a

1:34

Tide Victory candle. Yeah, that was

1:36

pretty funny. The candle that, you know, they put

1:38

the scent on it,

1:40

evergreen or, you know, vanilla fantasy or

1:43

whatever it usually is. This one is

1:45

smells like a Tide Victory. And

1:48

I posted a picture of it

1:50

online and someone on Twitter responded

1:52

by saying, is that a candle?

1:56

Oh, we'll see on New Year's Day, girl, you are

1:58

going to be burning that. candle all day long and

2:01

it's good. All right, the event,

2:03

smell, victory for the time. See you

2:05

at the Rose Bowl. Well, I think

2:08

the loser has to wear the winner's,

2:10

you know, Rose Bowl shirt. Absolutely. And

2:12

make a video of the loser themselves

2:14

wearing it. The loser or the winner should be

2:16

wearing an FSU hat. Because they

2:19

should be in this game. Oh, so

2:21

losers are so bitter sometimes, I think.

2:25

Now, you have a good point, June. Many

2:28

people in Big Ten country have said Florida

2:30

State should have been in there. Not Alabama,

2:32

because we say, oh, Alabama might beat us.

2:35

We'd rather play Florida State. Smelling

2:37

that time victory. But seriously, I

2:39

do have a question for each of you. The

2:41

holidays are upon us and

2:43

we're now getting to that point where there's

2:46

not a lot of time left for holiday

2:48

gifts. So what do you do when you

2:50

need a last-minute holiday gift for, you know, anybody?

2:53

You're going to a party or somebody's

2:56

coming to your home that you had perhaps

2:58

not anticipated or you just haven't gotten around

3:00

to it. What's a good last-minute gift that's,

3:03

you know, meaningful, valuable, thoughtful? You

3:06

have any thoughts? Any ideas? So

3:08

I do. First of all,

3:10

I am a planner. And so I just

3:14

don't let myself get into having

3:16

to do an unplanned gift. All

3:18

year long, I find

3:20

cute little things and I store

3:23

them in a special place so

3:25

that when I need a hostess

3:27

gift or something unexpected, I

3:29

have that. Plus, I am also

3:31

a canner. And so I always

3:33

have things that

3:36

I have made homemade preserves, jellies,

3:38

by peaches. Well, you play

3:40

like Laura Ingalls Wilder, like you're growing

3:42

bamboo and you're tanning your own produce.

3:44

Oh, my gosh. I know. It's

3:46

ridiculous. Certainly not anything that anyone would

3:48

have expected from me, but I

3:51

love doing it. And it's to me, that's

3:53

one of the best gifts you can ever

3:55

give is something that you spent the time

3:57

making yourself. So I'm pretty

3:59

much always. prepared for the unexpected. What

4:02

about you Joyce? You know I'm

4:05

with you on that Jill but but first can I just

4:07

ask if I come up to Chicago would you teach me

4:09

how to can because I don't know how to do it

4:11

and I'd love to be able to do it with all

4:13

of our summer projects. Absolutely. Can we have a date

4:15

to do that? Sure, that would be so fun. But

4:18

of course you couldn't take it home with you because how are

4:20

you gonna get it back unless you drive?

4:24

I mean even better right give a man

4:26

a fish but you can teach me to

4:28

fish for myself. I can use up all

4:30

those cream pancakes and just go back that

4:32

way that you bought. You're responsible. But

4:40

so you know I knit I do a lot

4:42

of knitting throughout

4:44

the year and then I do that

4:46

as presence for people that I know

4:49

who love and appreciate knitting. But I'm

4:51

like you Jill I have what my

4:53

kids call the presence closet where everything

4:55

gets stashed throughout the year. I always

4:58

have sort of like a list and I plan along

5:00

the way. And for me

5:02

that's really fun. My daughter who is not

5:04

coming home for Christmas she's in grad school

5:06

and she's staying in Boston. She

5:09

was saying how bad she felt that she'd only gotten

5:11

a few gifts and put them in a box to

5:13

us. And I was thinking really

5:15

at least at this point in my life I

5:17

am so much more interested in finding the perfect

5:19

present for other people than

5:21

getting anything for myself. And I guess maybe that's

5:23

a sign of old age but here we are.

5:26

Oh you really are a pioneer farm girl. I

5:29

don't want any gifts myself. And

5:32

what's your trick Barb? So you know

5:35

what I think is a great last-minute gift

5:37

and I

5:39

don't know if I'll have an opportunity to give any but I

5:42

don't mind receiving gifts unlike Joyce is

5:45

subscriptions to all these great publications.

5:47

You know how everything good is behind a paywall

5:49

these days? Except

5:52

Sisters in Law which remains cost free

5:54

for our listeners. Just a little something

5:56

we do for all of you. Happy

5:58

holidays. a

6:00

subscription to the Atlantic or

6:05

The New York Times or the

6:08

New Yorker or you know

6:10

anything I suppose a subscription to You

6:14

know movie content or there's so many good things

6:16

now But so many good subscriptions are behind paywalls

6:18

and I think you know young people often say

6:21

oh I didn't read it because it

6:23

was buying a paywall and you know I can't

6:25

afford to pay for all these types of subscriptions.

6:27

So I think that could be a good one,

6:29

you know You all those publications are putting out

6:31

special holiday deals right now, you know We can

6:33

get a year's description for twenty nine dollars or something

6:35

like that So I think that might

6:37

be a good last-minute gift and you could get

6:39

it at the last minute. That's a great idea

6:42

I actually love that one Barb. I'm just gonna

6:44

do that for our kids I'm gonna give them

6:46

each a subscription to something that they should read

6:48

but that they don't well I think a subscription

6:50

to Joyce's substack is definitely the

6:52

thing that should be on everybody's

6:54

list. There's a great idea Yeah,

6:56

in fact Joyce. I can't tell you how often

6:58

I hear people tell me that they they do

7:00

subscribe and how much they enjoy it they find

7:03

it incredibly relevant

7:05

informative credible and Ask

7:09

your right leg and just the right length, you know Like some

7:11

things are deep dives and these I don't really have time today

7:13

just all this But I'm gonna read Joyce's substack and it's gonna

7:15

get me up to speed on what I need to know So

7:18

that is that well, thank you all now I'm glad

7:20

you a great holiday gift for anyone who wants to

7:22

learn more about what's going on in the news I

7:34

Am so concerned about the environment and

7:37

I started growing bamboo Yes,

7:39

even in the Chicago area

7:41

bamboo will survive and thrive

7:43

and it spreads like crazy So

7:46

I was very excited to learn about

7:49

bamboo being used to make toilet paper

7:51

Because that's a perfect material

7:53

that will not hurt the

7:56

environment. It's amazing how

7:58

soft and strong the bamboo is

8:01

and because the plant regenerates like

8:03

grass, we're not killing trees just

8:05

to make something that we use

8:07

once and flush down the drain.

8:11

That's why using real doesn't

8:13

feel like you're sacrificing something to

8:15

help the earth. It feels like

8:17

an upgrade. You know, Jill,

8:19

we're big fans of bamboo too. We grow

8:21

a big hedge of it in our backyard

8:23

and the chickens eat it. I'm convinced that

8:25

that's why our girls are such good layers

8:27

because of the protein content. That

8:30

makes me really acutely aware of

8:32

what a great renewable resource is.

8:35

It grows fast, faster than even my

8:37

voracious chickens can get at it, which

8:39

makes so much more sense than cutting

8:41

down trees and using the paper for

8:44

toilet paper. Real paper ships

8:46

for free to your door in plastic-free

8:48

packaging and you can schedule

8:50

it on a subscription so that it comes exactly

8:52

when you need it. That means

8:54

no more last minute runs to the store. It's

8:57

environmentally friendly and soft and real is

8:59

partnered with One Tree Planted. That

9:02

means that with every box of real that

9:04

you buy, they help to fund reforestation across

9:06

the country. Real is

9:08

planting trees, not cutting them down. Boy,

9:10

you two are quite the urban farmers

9:12

growing your own bamboo. You

9:14

know it, girl. I

9:17

can't grow anything except, I don't know,

9:20

weeds in my garden. Real

9:22

paper is available in easy

9:24

hassle-free subscriptions or for one-time

9:26

purchases on their website. All

9:29

orders are conveniently delivered to your door

9:31

with free shipping in 100% recyclable, plastic-free

9:36

packaging. Head to realpaper.com/SIL

9:38

and sign up for a

9:40

subscription using our code SIL

9:43

at checkout. You'll automatically get

9:45

30% off your first order

9:48

and free shipping. That's

9:53

reelpaper.com/S-I-L

9:56

or enter promo code S-I-L to get 30%

9:58

off your your first order

10:00

plus free shipping. Let's make a

10:03

change for good next year and switch to real

10:05

paper. Real is paper for the

10:07

planet. You can also find the link to

10:09

the deal in our show notes. So

10:19

we go from that conversation about last

10:21

minute gifts to the biggest

10:24

bombshell this week, which was Colorado

10:26

Supreme Court's conclusion that

10:28

former president Trump engaged in insurrection

10:31

within the meaning of the 14th

10:33

amendment section three, and that as

10:35

a result, he is disqualified from

10:37

being on the Colorado primary ballot

10:39

by the clear language of that

10:42

section. It is

10:44

an historic decision that

10:46

I'm excited to talk to my sisters about

10:48

because I really want to get their views

10:50

and get going on a deep dive

10:52

on this. I want to start by saying

10:55

section three of the 14th amendment

10:57

was enacted after the civil

10:59

war to prevent Confederate officers

11:01

and supporters from holding office

11:03

in the union government and

11:06

was used very recently to borrow

11:08

candidates for local office. So it's

11:10

not just that it was used around the time of

11:12

the civil war. Let's start

11:14

with the language of the 14th amendment

11:16

section three and the arguments made by Trump

11:18

as to why the words of that section

11:21

did not apply to him or bar him

11:23

from the ballot. I'm going to

11:25

read the relevant language that

11:27

is at issue in this case.

11:29

And then Barb and Joyce, I have

11:31

some questions for you about that language.

11:35

Section reads, no person shall

11:37

hold any office civil or

11:39

military under the United

11:41

States who having previously taken

11:44

an oath as an officer of

11:46

the United States to support the

11:48

constitution of the United States shall

11:50

have engaged in insurrection or

11:53

rebellion against the same or

11:55

given aid or comfort to

11:57

the enemies thereof. Let's

12:00

talk about some of the contested words,

12:02

which is whether the presidency

12:04

is an office under

12:07

the United States, and

12:09

whether the oath of the president

12:12

is to support the Constitution, even

12:14

though it reads to protect and defend

12:17

instead of using the word support. Yeah,

12:20

so, you know, there's this argument,

12:23

and in fact, this was the argument

12:25

that the trial judge used to find

12:27

that Donald Trump was not disqualified under

12:29

the 14th Amendment. And that is

12:32

that although the amendment talks

12:34

about federal officers, officers under the

12:36

United States, it excludes the office

12:38

of the presidency. Now,

12:40

it strikes me as a rather

12:42

odd argument that when the 14th

12:44

Amendment was passed and the goal

12:47

was to prevent former Confederate members,

12:49

people who had betrayed

12:51

the United States as, you know,

12:54

traitors in the Confederate Army, they wanted

12:56

to keep them out of powerful positions

12:58

in government. except

13:01

for the most powerful president of the United

13:03

States. But, you know, the

13:05

law sometimes comes down to the language. And

13:07

so what they look at here is the

13:09

language of the 14th Amendment, which says, no

13:12

person shall hold any office under the

13:15

United States having previously taken an oath

13:17

to support the Constitution of the United

13:19

States. And if you look at the

13:22

oath that most federal US

13:25

officials take, it says

13:28

that I will support and defend the Constitution of

13:30

the United States. So there's the oath. The

13:32

presidential oath on the other hand doesn't

13:35

say support the Constitution. It says,

13:37

I will preserve, protect and defend

13:40

the Constitution of the United States.

13:42

So by using those words, did

13:45

the framers of this amendment

13:47

intend to exclude the president

13:50

as an officer of the United States? Or

13:53

was that just sort of careless wordsmithing?

13:56

But that's one of the arguments that it

13:58

doesn't include. But as I said, It

14:00

strikes me as rather odd

14:02

that you would exclude the

14:04

most powerful position in

14:07

the country when your goal is

14:09

to prevent traitors from controlling the

14:11

government. And Joyce,

14:14

the Colorado Supreme Court said

14:17

that engaged in insurrection or rebellion against

14:19

the same was something

14:21

that Donald Trump had done, even

14:24

though they did reach

14:26

the legal conclusion that the section

14:29

didn't apply to him. They said

14:31

factually he had committed

14:34

the act that is at issue here. So

14:36

can you talk about that? Yeah,

14:40

I mean, this is really interesting because

14:42

for me in advance, this was what

14:44

I thought would be the break point.

14:46

They wouldn't sign on to the finding

14:48

that Trump had committed insurrection. You know,

14:51

insurrection requires a certain amount

14:53

of intent to use force. And I thought

14:55

that might be where the court

14:57

would say the petition fails, but they didn't.

14:59

And it's interesting to me that in the

15:02

Colorado Supreme Court, even the

15:04

dissenters seem to sign on to the

15:06

idea that Trump engaged in insurrection. They

15:09

were satisfied with the trial judges factual

15:11

findings in that regard. And

15:13

I think that's what's at the heart of this

15:15

decision. You know, we've talked about this before on

15:18

appeal. Appellate

15:20

courts show a lot of deference to a

15:22

trial judge's findings. Here there's

15:24

five days of testimony. The trial judge

15:26

makes the insurrection finding and appellate judges

15:29

are only supposed to reverse a finding

15:31

like that if they believe that it

15:33

was clearly wrong. And

15:36

here they really can't. And especially the

15:38

court points to evidence that Trump, while

15:40

the riot was ongoing, did nothing to

15:43

stop it when he could have and

15:45

in fact continued to solicit senators to

15:48

help hold up the certification of the

15:50

electoral college vote. And so there

15:52

it is, a finding that he committed insurrection. So

15:55

it is interesting. And you mentioned the

15:57

five-day trial, which I think is not getting...

16:00

the proper attention

16:03

because he's claiming, well, I didn't

16:05

get to do anything. He presented

16:07

evidence. His lawyers were very active in

16:09

this five-day hearing. There was never a

16:11

cutoff. So Barb, can you talk

16:13

about the trial and whether it afforded Donald

16:16

Trump due process? Yes,

16:19

due process is a

16:21

phrase that gets thrown around a lot by people who

16:23

are not lawyers who don't know what it means, but

16:25

they kind of have a vague recollection from high school

16:28

government class, like, oh, yeah, due process. That's a thing.

16:30

You get it. That's a constitutional right. And

16:32

it is, but I think what they're conflating is

16:34

the due process rights that a person gets in

16:36

a criminal case when you are

16:38

at risk

16:41

of losing your liberty and you

16:43

have the right to be there

16:45

physically present to confront your accusers,

16:47

to cross-examine witnesses, to

16:50

have a public trial, to have a jury trial,

16:53

to have a presumption of innocence, to have

16:55

a right to remain silent, and a right

16:57

to testify. All of those rights are what

16:59

are grouped together and called due process in

17:01

a criminal case. But this is a civil

17:05

case where he was excluded from the

17:07

ballot and he did get due process.

17:09

The process in this case is different from

17:12

what he would get in a criminal case,

17:14

but that does not mean it was not

17:16

due process. There was a trial. There were

17:18

witnesses who came in over a course of

17:20

five days and testified about all

17:22

of the things that happened. They talked

17:24

about there were police officers who testified

17:26

about the attack. Congressman

17:28

Eric Swalwell testified about what it

17:30

was like to be inside the

17:32

courtroom. They had some experts testify about

17:34

their interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

17:36

And the judge made findings that he

17:39

engaged in insurrection. And so this idea

17:41

that he didn't get due process, I think,

17:43

is a very

17:45

misleading argument designed to, once again,

17:47

generate outrage and portray Donald Trump

17:50

as the victim. Exactly.

17:53

And we've already talked a little

17:55

bit about this, but Joyce,

17:58

the Supreme Court of Colorado, did

18:00

not accept the legal conclusion of

18:03

the trial judge. They accepted the factual finding,

18:06

but not the legal conclusion. And what

18:08

was their analysis that led them

18:10

to reject the legal conclusion that

18:12

he wasn't covered by the

18:14

14th Amendment Section 3? Right,

18:16

so we've talked about this before, and this

18:19

was this ruling that had always seemed crazy

18:21

to all four of us coming out of

18:23

the trial court here, that a

18:25

president is not an officer of the

18:27

United States. Here, the

18:29

Colorado Supreme Court rejected the trial

18:32

court's legal conclusion, and

18:34

again, to be nerdy and go back to the standard

18:36

of review on appeal, they're entitled

18:38

to do that, because they review legal

18:41

decisions made by the district court

18:43

de novo. That means afresh, thinking

18:45

that they're in as good of a place

18:48

as a district judge to make legal decisions. The

18:51

reason they defer on the factual decisions is

18:53

because the trial judge gets to hear from

18:56

the witnesses and see all of it, whereas

18:58

their look at it is much more restrictive.

19:01

So here, they just said, look, we disagree with

19:03

you, trial judge. And something

19:05

that was important to them in making

19:07

this decision was the text of the

19:09

Constitution, which talks about officers

19:11

of the United States, including presidents,

19:13

so that by the time the

19:15

14th Amendment is adopted in 1868,

19:19

it's logical to conclude that when Congress

19:21

adopted it and used this language, they

19:24

understood what they were doing. It's

19:26

nonsensical to believe that they would include

19:30

any other position in government as

19:33

being a position that you couldn't hold

19:35

after engaging in insurrection and create an

19:37

exception only for the president of the

19:39

United States. They found that to be

19:42

fanciful and reversed in that regard. They

19:44

also did a very interesting analysis of,

19:46

at one point, the amendment did say

19:48

the word president, and then it

19:51

was taken away. So that was one of the

19:53

arguments that, well, they didn't mean to include him.

19:56

They said, well, I'm not going to include the president. But they

19:58

went through the analysis and said, no, they

20:00

changed it to any office, civil

20:03

or military, which is broad enough that

20:05

it clearly includes that. I

20:07

mean, he's the commander in chief of all of our forces.

20:09

How could he not be an officer? And

20:11

they rejected the argument he wasn't under

20:14

the United States because he was the

20:16

United States with his argument, which is,

20:18

of course, absurd. There's great

20:20

legislative history on that that Alex Wagner read

20:22

on her show earlier this week with two

20:25

of the senators going back and forth. But

20:27

there's an important technical point here, which is

20:29

that when the language of the statute is

20:32

plain, you don't have to look

20:34

beyond the face of the statute to decide what

20:36

it means. You don't have to go to legislative

20:38

history. And here, Jill, I think

20:40

you're dead on the money, right? The language is

20:42

plain. Officer of the United States

20:45

includes the president. Exactly. And

20:47

of course, the Colorado Supreme Court made that same

20:49

point in saying, even though the

20:51

language is plain, we don't have to look

20:53

at legislative history. But we're going to just

20:55

do belts and suspenders. So we're going to

20:57

talk about it because it clearly supports our

20:59

conclusion. But they

21:01

didn't have to. You are absolutely right. But

21:04

the decision wasn't unanimous. It was 4-3. And

21:08

the three dissenters each wrote their own dissent.

21:11

And so, Barbara, I want to ask you about what

21:13

the crux of the dissents and whether

21:15

they were strong. And I'm

21:18

going to include in the show notes,

21:20

George Conway wrote in The Atlantic that

21:22

the dissents were so weak that they

21:24

actually made him believe the majority

21:27

was correct. So

21:30

talk about the dissents and whether they swayed you

21:32

in any way at all.

21:35

Yeah, this is a really interesting point

21:37

that he makes about the dissents. I

21:39

think that sometimes dissents

21:42

are overlooked because they aren't

21:44

the outcome. That's just

21:46

what somebody else thought about it. But 4-3,

21:48

that's a pretty close case. What

21:51

George Conway points out too is they

21:54

don't really quibble with the big issues.

21:56

They don't talk about federal officer. They

21:59

don't talk about what they're talking about. there was insurrection, they

22:01

don't talk about whether there was appropriate

22:03

fact finding, they actually look at state

22:05

law issues and say that

22:07

there are state law issues that should protect him.

22:11

And they're not particularly

22:13

persuasive because it's about the US Constitution.

22:16

And I also think that those issues

22:18

will be irrelevant for other states

22:21

that might take up this issue

22:23

and want to disqualify Donald Trump

22:25

because anything in Colorado

22:27

law isn't going to matter. And

22:30

I think the repercussions beyond Colorado is what's

22:32

so important about this case. Colorado

22:35

has gone blue in most recent

22:37

presidential elections. And so it's probably

22:39

likely that Donald Trump wouldn't win

22:41

there anyway. And so his removal from the

22:43

ballot maybe is less consequential. But other

22:46

states are watching this. And I think that

22:48

if this stands, you will quickly see many

22:50

other states, including swing states, take similar action

22:52

and remove him from the ballot. So the

22:56

Colorado state law really is not

22:58

relevant to the big picture here, which is, I

23:00

think, the point that George Conway was making, that

23:04

not that they weren't well presented,

23:07

just that they were weak in terms

23:09

of changing

23:12

the outcome of this case. So

23:14

let me turn to our appellate expert Joyce

23:16

and ask, do you think SCOTUS is going

23:18

to take the case? And

23:21

what are the possible grounds for them to

23:23

refuse to take the case? Yeah.

23:26

So, you know, first, Trump has to file a

23:28

notice of appeal, which he has still not done.

23:32

But he probably will. And I'd look for him to

23:34

do it on the last day he can, which I

23:36

think is January 4th, because why

23:38

not milk it for all the delay that you can

23:40

get if you're Trump? Some folks

23:42

have suggested that the court won't

23:44

take this case, that it's only

23:46

Colorado and that Trump and the

23:49

Supreme Court will just let it

23:51

stand. I think that they've

23:53

got to go ahead and hear this case,

23:55

because the issue is percolating elsewhere.

23:57

Minnesota has said no to taking. Trump

24:00

off the ballot. There's an active

24:02

process in Maine and in some other

24:04

states. And I just can't

24:06

imagine a situation where there's not a

24:08

national rule where you've got this patchwork

24:10

quilt of 50 different states and everybody

24:12

makes their own decisions. So Jill,

24:14

my gut instinct is that the court has got to

24:16

take this one. Well, I want to ask you a

24:18

follow up question to that because there is

24:21

also an argument that Donald Trump

24:23

should not apply for an appeal

24:25

because this is just Colorado. Whereas

24:28

if the Supreme Court takes it

24:30

and rules in favor of the

24:33

Colorado Supreme Court, that

24:35

it will then be a nationwide applicable

24:37

ban. And so he's better off

24:40

just leaving it as it is.

24:42

What do you think about that argument? You

24:45

know, I think it's a fascinating question. I

24:47

mean, I guess the answer to it is

24:49

how lucky to Trump's lawyers feel about the

24:51

Supreme Court, right? If they think that there's

24:53

a significant chance that they could lose, they

24:56

might want to leave it alone. As Trump

24:58

pointed out, Trump is unlikely to win in Colorado

25:00

in any event. I have the numbers for you.

25:03

I looked up numbers from 2020. Joe

25:06

Biden took 55.4% of the vote in Colorado. That

25:10

was 1.8 million votes. Trump

25:12

only got 41.9% of the votes or 1.3 million. If

25:17

he thinks that there's a risk that the Supreme Court

25:19

would take him off the ballot, he might

25:21

want to just let it go. But

25:23

here's the thing. He is

25:25

a candidate for the presidency of the United

25:27

States. And how do you credibly

25:30

run for that job after a court has

25:32

found you are an insurrectionist and you do

25:34

not appeal that ruling? I mean, I guess

25:37

with Trump, all things crazy are possible,

25:39

right? Maybe next week he'll say, I

25:41

am the candidate of insurrection and spend

25:43

that however he wants to for his

25:45

followers. But honestly, I think even

25:48

for Trump, that's a little bit too much

25:50

Alice in Wonderland. So another interesting thing in

25:52

the majority opinion is

25:54

that the Colorado Supreme Court quoted now

25:56

Justice Gorsuch while he was still on

25:59

the circuit court. of Appeals that

26:01

said a state may exclude

26:03

from the ballot candidates who

26:05

are constitutionally prohibited from assuming

26:07

office. So Barb,

26:10

what do you think the significance of

26:12

quoting Gorsuch is, whether that indicates how he

26:15

will rule in this case if it goes

26:17

to the Supreme Court, and

26:19

how other conservative justices will rule?

26:22

Yeah, this is, I don't know to think

26:25

about this as honoring Justice Gorsuch by quoting

26:27

his words or trolling him by reminding him

26:29

what he said. Remember what you said. I

26:32

mean, it really says like states get to decide

26:34

these things. States' rights, right?

26:36

I mean, a lot of these conservative

26:38

justices, conservative legal scholars have always been

26:41

all about states' rights. And now

26:43

when it seems not to suit them so much, states'

26:46

rights suddenly are less important. And so I

26:48

think it's a good reminder to Justice

26:51

Gorsuch, what he said in the

26:53

past. It makes him a little harder,

26:55

I think, for him to disagree with

26:57

that sentiment, lest he appear to be

26:59

hypocritical. I don't think it's binding

27:01

in any way, but I think it's actually pretty

27:03

interesting to say, remember states get to decide who's

27:06

on the ballot. Joyce,

27:14

I'd want to ask you about one skin, except

27:16

my daughter stole all of mine and thinks it's

27:18

the greatest thing she's ever used. Tell me about

27:20

it, because I lost

27:23

mine. It's so funny that you would

27:25

say that. Ellie actually took mine off

27:27

of me when she was home at Thanksgiving.

27:29

So I have the same dilemma. But

27:31

she tells me it's wonderful. In fact, it's so

27:33

great. I can't say who I got it for

27:36

for Christmas, because I think she listens to the

27:38

podcast. But

27:40

I did get one of the really nice packages that

27:42

has a lot of the different products in it for

27:46

someone who I hope will really enjoy it for

27:48

Christmas. The holidays are

27:50

here. That means it's perfect timing for

27:52

today's sponsor, One Skin. We

27:54

all know that with all the holiday fun

27:56

and festivities comes stress and harsh weather that

27:58

can really take a hole on your

28:00

skin. But thanks to OneSkin's

28:03

disruptive approach that targets skin aging

28:05

at the source, you can finish

28:07

off 2023 with your skin at

28:09

its healthiest as long as you

28:11

don't have 20-something daughters who steal

28:13

it from you. So

28:15

I guess I'm really grateful that I

28:17

don't have a daughter who steals it

28:19

from me because I get the benefit

28:21

of using it. And I'm

28:23

grateful to this podcast for

28:26

making me aware of OneSkin.

28:29

It feels amazing to apply, especially

28:31

on my face. I feel

28:33

so fresh. It's like a massage at

28:36

the Fountain of Youth. The regimen worked

28:38

very fast, and I love that OneSkin

28:40

just launched a mini bundle which

28:43

includes face and eye topical

28:45

supplements, body lotion, and

28:47

cleanser, which all come in

28:49

a really cute travel bag. It's

28:52

a great gift. And if you're traveling this winter,

28:54

OneSkin has your mini skincare essentials totally

28:57

covered. And if you are

28:59

gifting this holiday season, they are

29:01

the perfect stacking stuffers. OneSkin

29:04

is the world's first skin longevity

29:06

company. OneSkin addresses skin health

29:08

at the molecular level, targeting

29:11

the root causes of aging so skin

29:13

feels and appears younger. It's

29:16

time to get started with your new face, eye,

29:18

and body routine at discounted rates

29:20

today. New customers get 15% off

29:22

with the code sisters at oneskin.co.

29:25

That's 15% off oneskin.co

29:28

with the code sisters.

29:31

Order soon for the new year. The new

29:33

year is approaching, so now is the best

29:35

time to invest in your skin. Age

29:38

healthy with OneSkin. And look for the link

29:40

in our show notes. Well,

29:51

I've always wanted to be able to say breaking

29:54

news. And today I

29:56

get to say that as we talk about

29:58

Trump world. Interestingly enough,

30:02

what I had thought would be the

30:04

big breaking news story actually got surpassed

30:06

a couple of minutes before we started

30:08

to tape the podcast. It's

30:10

Friday afternoon on December 22nd, and I

30:12

hope that this is it and that

30:14

no more news breaks before you all

30:16

are listening to the podcast. But

30:18

we'll start with yesterday's big breaking news,

30:21

because last night the Detroit News

30:23

reported that they'd been able to

30:26

listen to recordings of a conversation

30:28

that was held between Donald Trump

30:30

and RNC Chair Rona Romney

30:32

McDaniel and two Wayne County,

30:34

Michigan Republican vote canvassers. And

30:37

the call was an effort to prevent certification

30:39

of the county vote following the 2020 election.

30:43

Barb, can you fill in the details and explain

30:45

what the significance of the call and the fact

30:47

that it's on tape is? Yes.

30:50

So this recording comes from November of

30:52

2020 during a

30:54

time when the election was

30:57

over and there

30:59

was waiting for the certification

31:02

throughout the state. Wayne County is Michigan's

31:04

biggest. It's where Detroit is. And

31:07

you may recall that Detroit was one

31:09

of the scenes where there was some

31:11

chaos on election night as people were

31:13

claiming that fraudulent ballots were being counted

31:15

and other kinds of things, despite absolutely

31:18

no evidence of anything of the sort.

31:21

So the time came for this

31:23

board of canvassers to certify

31:26

the election. And

31:28

there's this phone call of Donald Trump and

31:30

Rona Romney McDaniel, who is from

31:32

Michigan and was serving

31:34

at the time, I think still is, the chair

31:36

of the Republican National Committee, urging

31:39

the two Republicans on that board

31:42

of canvassers to refrain from

31:44

certifying the vote.

31:47

And in response to their demands, they

31:50

did that. They switched their vote and

31:52

said, we're not going to sign

31:55

off on it. They first had verbally

31:57

indicated that they would approve. And

32:00

then left that night without signing and in

32:02

that call one of the things that trump

32:05

and mcdaniel say is we'll get you lawyers Don't sign

32:07

that thing go home without signing it. We'll get you

32:09

lawyers And then the next day

32:11

they signed affidavit saying that um, they were

32:13

withholding their approval because they had been pressured

32:16

Uh the other way they you know, they

32:18

they claim to have been pressured to certify

32:21

Uh, in fact, it appears the pressure went the

32:23

other way. So what's the significance? Well first and

32:26

foremost this is very good evidence

32:28

for jack smith in his federal election interference

32:30

case Uh to prove up, you

32:32

know, there are some allegations about what happened

32:34

in michigan that trump was pressuring officials and

32:36

lawmakers in michigan To uh switch

32:39

the outcome of the election and now

32:41

there's recorded evidence, which is really powerful

32:43

evidence that prosecutors love It's so much

32:45

better than just asking someone to share

32:47

their reflections of this um,

32:49

the two canvassers had previously testified

32:51

about the call and just

32:53

said that um Trump had called

32:55

and said thank you for your service. Have a good

32:57

holiday So this is quite different

32:59

from that. Um I

33:01

also think it can be useful in georgia as 404 b

33:04

evidence We talked about this in

33:06

a prior episode that is evidence of a

33:09

different episode of bad acts that can be

33:11

used to show A person's

33:13

intent motive absence of mistake or

33:15

modus operandi, and I think that's

33:17

exactly what this is under these

33:19

circumstances There's also some chance

33:22

that this is a standalone

33:24

crime Um, i'm not sure

33:26

a prosecutor would charge it as a standalone

33:28

crime But there is a crime for neglect

33:30

of duty of office by a public

33:32

official. So these two officials could

33:34

face that there's another crime, um

33:36

of Obstructing

33:39

an official in the performance of his duties,

33:41

which is a misdemeanor that could apply to

33:44

Um mcdaniel and trump But

33:46

I think what's more likely is this

33:48

becomes evidence in some of those already

33:50

pending cases Yeah,

33:53

I think that last point you make is so

33:55

fascinating. You know, I was looking at michigan

33:57

crimes last night I think we even texted back

33:59

and forth about it. And the

34:01

crime that I landed on is that

34:03

Michigan has this bribery

34:06

crime that's very much parallel to

34:08

the federal crime. And it

34:10

would make it a crime, for instance, to

34:12

offer a public official something of

34:15

value in exchange for making

34:17

or not making an official decision. And

34:19

the reason that that appeals to me

34:22

as an appellate lawyer is that there's

34:24

a Supreme Court case that limits the

34:26

federal bribery statute. And it's the case

34:28

involving the Virginia governor, McDonald, where

34:32

he's alleged to have taken a bribe

34:34

in exchange for setting up an appointment

34:36

for somebody to push their corporate interest.

34:39

And the Supreme Court says, no, that's

34:41

not enough. For it to be bribery,

34:43

you have to be offered something of

34:45

value in exchange for taking or not

34:47

taking an official app. This

34:49

looks very heartland to me, right? This

34:52

is offering something of value, a lawyer's

34:54

services, in exchange for

34:56

not certifying the election. And

34:59

so I'm with you, Barb, on this point of

35:01

whether or not a prosecutor would exercise

35:03

their discretion to charge it

35:05

standalone. I bet you

35:07

that Michigan prosecutors are looking

35:10

at that bribery statute in addition to

35:12

the official duty ones that you mentioned.

35:14

I'm fascinated by where this could end

35:16

up. And I wonder if they're looking at

35:18

perjury as well. Well, I was going to ask.

35:21

Yeah. What do you think is important

35:23

here for prosecutors? I

35:26

think, you know, Barb referred to this

35:28

in her answer, but the most important

35:30

thing is there is nothing as compelling

35:32

to a jury as

35:34

a recorded conversation where you

35:36

can hear the crime being

35:38

committed. And so I know

35:41

that from the Watergate case, there

35:43

was nothing more compelling than hearing

35:46

the tapes with all

35:48

the defendants and co-defendants

35:50

and unindicted co-conspirators having

35:53

conversations that were the commission of

35:55

a crime. So none

35:57

of us has heard this tape. So

36:00

it was, you know, it's a Detroit news

36:02

story and NBC

36:04

hasn't heard the tape or confirmed

36:07

its existence. But assuming that the

36:09

tape says what is alleged, it

36:12

would be a slam dunk in terms

36:14

of admissibility and

36:17

compelling evidence for conviction

36:19

in many of the cases,

36:22

including in Georgia and including in

36:24

the January 6th trial in federal

36:26

court. So I think it's really

36:28

important. Yeah, I mean, it's

36:31

really something that the President of the

36:33

United States had time to call two

36:35

county officials. It really suggests that Trump

36:37

had this very granular involvement in the

36:39

whole scheme. If I

36:41

was a prosecutor, I'd sort of be proud to

36:43

put that evidence on. Okay,

36:45

that's the news from Detroit. Last

36:48

week in the podcast, we were talking

36:50

about the oral argument that had occurred

36:53

that morning in Mark Meadows bid to

36:55

get his case removed from state court,

36:57

Fulton County, Georgia, into federal court. Barb

37:00

had listened to the oral argument and had

37:03

a pretty negative assessment of how it went

37:05

for Meadows. And we got a

37:07

fast answer, right? That argument was on Friday the 15th.

37:10

We got the opinion ruling against

37:12

Meadows the following Monday morning. That

37:14

was a lightning pace. I mean,

37:16

were you surprised by how quickly

37:18

that happened? I was. Because I

37:21

do agree that the judges showed a lot

37:23

of skepticism in the argument that was being

37:25

made by the Trump lawyers. But a couple

37:27

of them were also showing a little skepticism

37:30

against the

37:32

prosecutors from

37:34

Georgia about this

37:36

idea of whether it

37:38

applies to, ever applies to

37:40

former officials. So,

37:43

you know, I thought they'd wrestle with it a little bit,

37:45

but they clearly had that opinion written over

37:47

the weekend, ready to

37:49

go. Boom. So I thought

37:51

it was very good, though, that they issued an

37:54

opinion so quickly because it does seem that they

37:56

understand the need to keep these

37:58

cases on track and to move. very quickly.

38:01

And so it was, I think, the

38:03

right decision. It went even further than

38:05

I expected, as we said. It says

38:07

a former official is never able

38:11

to remove a federal case

38:13

from state court to federal case to

38:15

court, which I found surprising. But regardless,

38:18

what Meadows did here was certainly

38:20

outside the scope of his duties

38:23

as the chief of staff. And

38:25

so the case stays in

38:27

state court. So I was

38:29

surprised. I also think it has ramifications

38:31

for anyone else who might be inclined

38:33

to try to remove the case. So,

38:35

you know, can I just say, and

38:38

this is just, I think, something that

38:40

you could only think if you had practiced in

38:42

front of the 11th Circuit as much as I

38:44

did, because I was the appellate chief in my

38:47

office before I was the US attorney and argued

38:49

a lot of cases in the circuit. And

38:51

I have to say, I was

38:53

not surprised. I was tempted to

38:55

take actually Saturday, had there been

38:58

a betting pool among appellate lawyers in the

39:00

11th Circuit, which of course I would never

39:03

gamble. But

39:05

had there been, I might have even gone earlier. I think

39:08

it really matters that this opinion

39:10

was written by the chief judge,

39:12

Bill Pryor, a conservative Republican who

39:14

was on Trump's shortlist for the

39:16

Supreme Court. And he spoke

39:18

very definitively and boy did he speak

39:20

fast. So Jill Meadows

39:23

is not the only Fulton County defendant who

39:25

wants to get out of state court

39:27

and into federal court. That includes people

39:30

like one of my least favorite villains

39:32

in this entire insurrection incident, Jeffrey

39:35

Bossert Clark, who was at the Justice

39:37

Department. What does this ruling mean for

39:39

the other folks who wanted to get

39:41

this treatment? Well, first

39:43

of all, I think we could talk about who

39:45

our favorite villains in this case are. Clark would

39:47

certainly be high on the list, but there are

39:50

plenty of others. And what

39:52

it means for all of those who were federal

39:54

officers, their cases not going to

39:56

get removed. If Meadows

39:58

didn't win... none of them

40:00

is going to win either. And

40:03

both in terms of whether because

40:05

they're former officials

40:08

or because none of them can claim that

40:10

committing a crime is within their

40:12

duties. And unless it's within the

40:15

duties of the office that they held, they

40:18

can't get removed to federal court and they

40:20

can't raise any federal defenses. So I think

40:23

it's all over for everybody in terms

40:25

of removal. They're going to all have to

40:27

stand trial in Georgia. And

40:30

that means that maybe there'll be some more,

40:32

please. Well, interesting, interesting,

40:35

right? Because the real breaking news

40:37

this Friday afternoon is

40:39

that the Supreme Court has

40:42

denied Jack Smith's request for

40:44

them to directly hear Trump's

40:46

immunity issues before the Court of

40:48

Appeals can. And of course, quick

40:51

refresher, Trump asked the district

40:53

court to dismiss the indictment against

40:55

him claiming he had presidential immunity

40:57

and some peripheral double jeopardy arguments that

40:59

meant that the case needed to be

41:01

dismissed. Judge Chuck can review

41:04

it, wrote an extensive opinion, and said,

41:06

sorry, no dice. You're not

41:08

entitled to that dismissal. Trump

41:11

appealed to the District of Columbia Court

41:13

of Appeals. Pumpernickel,

41:16

that's actually not the correct lingo. So

41:18

let me just re-say that. Trump

41:21

appealed to the Court of Appeals for the

41:23

District of Columbia. And Jack Smith

41:25

went straight to the Supreme Court and said,

41:28

please go ahead and hear this case quickly

41:30

before the Court of Appeals does. It's a

41:32

matter of national importance, and we should just

41:34

cut to the chase, since you're going to

41:36

have to decide it anyhow. Just

41:39

before we did the podcast, the

41:41

Supreme Court said, no. They're going

41:43

to let the Court of Appeals proceed

41:45

with this case. But it is very

41:47

interesting, right? Even

41:50

though the removal issue is a

41:52

little bit separate, it sort

41:54

of tangled up in this same thread of

41:57

trying to figure out what does

41:59

the president have immunity for. Trump says

42:01

he has absolute immunity for anything he

42:03

did while he was the president, and

42:05

certainly for anything in the outer perimeter

42:08

of his duties, which he claims is

42:10

what he's charged with in D.C. Jack

42:13

Smith says, no, you don't get

42:15

immunity for criminal acts. And even

42:17

if you get some, this isn't

42:19

what you get immunity for. He's

42:21

really arguing that it's akin to

42:23

what the 11th Circuit just ruled

42:25

against Mark Meadows on and by

42:27

implication would apply to Trump, that

42:29

what he was doing here was

42:31

the conduct of candidate Trump, not

42:33

of President Trump. So no

42:35

immunity. But here

42:37

we are. We're not going to get

42:39

the quick decision from the Supreme Court

42:42

that many had hoped would keep Judge

42:44

Chutkin's March trial if not on track,

42:46

but only delayed by a few

42:48

weeks. What do you make

42:50

of what's going on here, Barb? How do you think

42:52

that this will play out? Well,

42:54

it's certainly a setback for Jack Smith. I

42:57

think this builds in some additional delay for

42:59

the trial. You know, we were looking at

43:01

that March 4th trial date, and

43:03

I think when Judge Chutkin issued

43:05

a stay, meaning nothing could happen

43:07

while this appeal was pending, you

43:10

know, that put that trial date in jeopardy. I

43:12

think we're now looking at even further delay from

43:14

all of that. I suppose

43:17

it is not necessarily any signal

43:19

on the merits because

43:22

after Jack Smith filed that

43:26

motion for a writ of certiorari for the

43:28

Supreme Court to take this case up immediately,

43:30

the D.C.

43:32

Circuit Court of Appeals issued

43:34

its scheduling order, including oral argument for

43:36

January 9th, which is pretty quick. And

43:39

so maybe upon seeing that the court thought, all

43:41

right, this is all going to happen pretty quickly.

43:44

So we can let the intermediate appeals court take

43:46

its normal course, and then we can

43:48

make a decision here. So

43:50

I don't know that it should send any

43:52

bad messages on the merits. But Joyce, you

43:54

were pointing out that this could

43:57

impose more than a little delay, even

43:59

if the... Court of Appeals acts quickly,

44:01

right? Just because of some built-in timelines

44:03

about how much time a non-pervailing

44:06

party has to appeal, right? Yeah,

44:09

I mean, it's hard to figure this one

44:11

out, but Trump, after the Court of Appeals

44:13

rules, has 45 days

44:15

to ask the full court to

44:17

rehear the three-judge panel's decision with

44:19

every judge sitting in an en banc

44:22

proceeding. And he gets 90 days

44:24

before he has to ask the Supreme Court

44:26

for certiorari. That's a lot

44:29

of delay. The government anticipated that,

44:31

and they did ask the Supreme Court, you

44:33

know, if you won't agree to hear our

44:35

case right now, will

44:38

you at least please take the case

44:40

immediately after the Court of Appeals rules

44:42

without any of that additional delay? The

44:44

Supreme Court did not speak to that.

44:47

And there's also this other hidden

44:50

issue here. Right now, the stay

44:52

in front of Judge Chutkin prevents

44:55

any further trial preparations from going

44:57

forward. Well, the DC Court

44:59

of Appeals could remove that stay. They

45:01

could decide the case. They can do

45:03

it pretty quickly, right? Oral argument is

45:05

now scheduled for something like January

45:07

9th. They could say it oral

45:10

argument, we're going to lift the stay and everything

45:12

can proceed. And that might incentivize

45:14

Trump to appeal to the Supreme Court

45:16

sooner rather than later. So there are

45:18

a lot of weird variables here. It's

45:21

hard to game out right where this

45:23

goes. But I mean, the potential downside

45:25

here is that 90 days

45:27

that Trump would get to ask for

45:29

certiorari. And that knocks out, I think,

45:32

perhaps even the possibility of a trial

45:34

before the election. Especially because I want

45:36

to just add one other point to that

45:38

is if the stay does not get lifted, nothing

45:41

more can happen. And so there are still

45:43

some pretrial things that have to happen before

45:45

the case can go to trial. So it's

45:47

not like on the 91st day, you know,

45:49

trial is starting. They still have other motions

45:52

to resolve. They have some discovery to exchange.

45:54

They have some SEPA litigation, Classified Information Procedures

45:56

Act litigation, and they were sending out questionnaires

45:58

to jurors. Like all that got Tell

48:00

me if you think I'm wrong, but he could ask

48:02

for an appeal on day 90 unless the

48:04

Supreme Court tells him he's got to go

48:06

ahead, right? Exactly. So, there's

48:09

a minimum of three months. It sounds

48:11

longer to me when you say three

48:13

months than when you say 90 days. Three

48:16

months is a long delay. And

48:19

we also have the delay from the stay

48:23

of all proceedings. So, it's what,

48:25

at least a four month delay and it

48:28

was supposed to start on March 4th? Well,

48:30

that puts you a long way

48:32

into the summer and that is

48:34

a problem. And don't forget there

48:37

are other trials that are scheduled. And

48:39

so, it's not just like, okay, it's a 90

48:42

day delay. No,

48:44

it's not just that because then you run

48:46

into other trials and they would either have to

48:48

be rescheduled or you'd have to fall to the

48:50

back of the line. And

48:52

that would definitely be after the election.

48:55

So, I think it's a serious

48:57

problem that they didn't take it right

48:59

now. And it's not

49:02

just 90 days. It's more than

49:04

90 days. And that is a

49:06

serious problem with other trials scheduled. And

49:09

besides the criminal trials, there are civil

49:11

trials. And so,

49:13

he can only be at one place at a time

49:15

and he's entitled to be at his trials. So,

49:18

I think that there's really a problem that

49:21

unless they act super, super fast

49:24

and, you know, let's keep in mind in US

49:26

v. Gore, they decided in

49:29

one day after the argument.

49:32

So, it is something that could happen

49:34

fast. And let's remember that in the

49:36

Watergate case, they postponed their summer break

49:38

in order to have the argument and

49:40

to issue the opinion a few days

49:43

later. So, I'm

49:45

certainly sure that they realize that

49:47

this is a case of national

49:49

importance and that if they say, well,

49:51

we'll take it up next October, that they would

49:54

be really guilty of

49:56

partisanship in a way that would not

49:58

be acceptable to the majority. of this

50:00

country. So I don't think they're

50:02

going to do that horrible. But

50:04

90 days is what

50:06

he gets and they can't act until after the 90

50:09

days. You know it's

50:11

utterly crazy. I mean I guess the

50:13

Supreme Court could affirm the DC Court

50:15

of Appeals, you know, but it's

50:17

hard to believe that they would do

50:19

that with an issue of that magnitude

50:21

without really wanting to decide it for

50:24

themselves. So I guess my best

50:26

hope is the fact that there were no

50:28

dissents from the denial of cert means that

50:30

the Supreme Court really doesn't intend to let

50:32

the 90 days run and that they'll hear

50:34

this immediately. But that's

50:36

a pretty weak hope Jill

50:38

and the scenario that you're

50:40

laying out really scares me because

50:43

you could imagine right the Manhattan DA's

50:45

case goes to trial in late March.

50:47

That could go while all of this

50:49

is happening. And then there's

50:51

Eileen Tannen who doesn't look like she's on

50:53

track to try her case in May. Maybe

50:56

she gears up. Yeah, no one is unhappy

50:59

about today's decision than Judge Eileen Tannen. Oh

51:01

no, I'm going to try that case now.

51:04

But the thing that has always worried me

51:06

about her trying that case is she gets

51:08

to decide what evidence gets admitted and if

51:10

she sort of kneecaps the government and doesn't

51:13

let a lot of their evidence come in

51:15

and Trump gets acquitted, that's it. The government

51:17

can't take an appeal from an acquittal and

51:19

if she takes up enough time that really

51:21

could functionally put this one out of time.

51:32

One of my favorite things to do

51:34

as a way to keep my sanity

51:37

is to take a break and cook

51:39

dinner with HelloFresh. And

51:41

every week I get some really

51:43

incredible menus. This week one of

51:45

my favorites was the Chicken Curry

51:47

Soup. Love it. Have you

51:50

tried it Barb? I have. Those soups

51:52

are great. They also have a great

51:54

chili. So all of those kind of

51:56

warm winter dishes are really nice options

51:58

with HelloFresh. HelloFresh, you

52:00

can get farm fresh pre-portioned

52:03

ingredients and seasonal recipes delivered

52:05

right to your doorstep. No

52:08

trips to the grocery store and no

52:10

time planning menus and a grocery list

52:12

and no wasted ingredients. Count

52:14

on HelloFresh to make home cooking

52:17

easy, fun and affordable. That's

52:19

why it's America's number one meal kit. Spend

52:22

your time shopping for gifts and sipping cocoa,

52:24

not stuck in the checkout line at the

52:26

grocery store. When you sign up

52:28

for HelloFresh, you get everything you need to whip

52:30

up fresh, tasty meals delivered straight to

52:32

your door. Just choose

52:35

your recipes, select the delivery date and

52:37

relapse, knowing that your meals are on

52:39

the way. You can also

52:41

make hosting a joy rather than a

52:43

hassle with the help of HelloFresh Market.

52:46

From crowd-pleasing charcuterie boards

52:49

to photo-worthy desserts, it's easy to add

52:51

these party pleasers to your weekly order,

52:53

saving so much time. That's

52:56

really amazing because you can also change how

52:58

many meals you get and how many

53:00

people it's for. So if you're hosting something

53:02

and instead of having just meals for

53:04

two, you can add two more and have

53:06

a great meal for four. HelloFresh

53:09

even works with your schedule. Their plans

53:11

are flexible and you can change your

53:14

meal preferences, update your delivery date and

53:16

change your address. So if you're going

53:18

away for the holidays to

53:20

someone else's house, you can have your

53:22

meals delivered there or cancel them for

53:24

that week. Imagine getting fresh

53:26

country produce from the farm to your

53:29

kitchen in less than a week so

53:31

you can enjoy the flavors of the

53:33

holidays right at home. So

53:36

I love it. I am going to

53:38

visit the in-laws over the holidays. I

53:41

can just have HelloFresh delivered to their house and

53:43

when they offer me a meal, I say, actually,

53:45

I brought my own. Just stand back. I'm going

53:47

to cook up some chicken curry soup. Go

53:50

to hellofresh.com/sisters free and use

53:53

code sisters free for free

53:55

breakfast for a life. One

53:58

breakfast item per box while subscribing. is

54:00

active. That's free breakfast for life

54:03

at hellofresh.com/sisters

54:05

free with Cone Sisters free. Everyone

54:08

can also look for the link to

54:10

HelloFresh, America's number one meal kit in

54:12

our show notes. Well

54:23

after that down topic, here's one

54:25

maybe that will give you some

54:27

holiday joy. To no

54:29

one's surprise, this week Rudy Giuliani

54:32

filed for bankruptcy. That followed the

54:34

entry of judgment for Ruby Freeman

54:36

and Sheimos on Monday. They of

54:38

course are the two election workers who won

54:40

a 148 million dollar judgment in a defamation

54:45

case against Giuliani last week. It

54:48

seemed noteworthy to me that in

54:50

the judgment their lawyer Michael Gottlieb

54:52

who has been pretty sharp throughout

54:54

this whole thing was careful to

54:56

get certain words included in that

54:58

judgment and those words were intentional,

55:01

willful, and malicious. And

55:03

so let's start there. Joyce, what

55:06

is the significance of getting those

55:08

words into the judgment as it

55:11

relates to Giuliani's bankruptcy? Yeah,

55:14

they're really important words. They

55:16

should mean that this debt can't be

55:18

excused as part of the bankruptcy proceedings.

55:21

You know some debts will get discharged

55:23

as part of a settlement of bankruptcy

55:26

but because by specifying here that

55:28

this was willful and intentional conduct

55:31

under the federal bankruptcy statute, Giuliani cannot

55:33

get out from this debt that he

55:35

now owes to Ruby Freeman and Sheimos.

55:38

Yeah, so that was really important that

55:41

he won't be able to discharge this

55:43

in bankruptcy. Giuliani

55:46

though refused to share his

55:48

finances with Moss and Freeman

55:50

as part of the discovery, his

55:53

discovery obligation or with

55:55

the court during the defamation trial and he got

55:57

all kinds of sanctions as a result of

55:59

that but he stood firm, he never turned over his

56:02

finances. Why do you suppose he did that? And

56:04

what are the consequences for

56:07

either Giuliani or Mawson Freeman?

56:10

Well, first of all, he's not gonna be able

56:12

to do it in the bankruptcy court. So that's

56:15

something that we can kind

56:17

of cheer on. I

56:20

think the bigger question is, why

56:22

did he even go to trial in this case? Why

56:24

didn't his lawyers say the evidence

56:27

is overwhelming and you're

56:29

gonna spend a lot of money and you're gonna owe

56:31

me a lot of money at the end of this

56:33

trial. You shouldn't even go to trial, but okay,

56:35

that's a different thing. In

56:37

terms of his non-cooperation, there

56:40

is no excuse or reason that I

56:42

can posit for him doing that, but

56:46

it did lead to $132,000 penalty for

56:50

him, a fine from the judge

56:53

who found him liable for

56:55

this and punished him for that.

56:58

And actually issued that he was liable

57:00

for defamation and ordered him subsequently

57:03

to pay immediately, which

57:06

the day after he then filed for bankruptcy,

57:08

to pay immediately because his past behavior had

57:10

indicated that he might hide his assets. Yeah,

57:14

I thought that was important. The judge was

57:16

on to his games. Well,

57:19

Joyce, let me ask you, do you think Mawson

57:21

Freeman will ever be able to recover the

57:24

whole $148 million? I

57:26

mean, you can't get blood from a stone and

57:28

what if Rudy's really broke and he doesn't have the money? He's

57:32

got other assets. How

57:35

do they make good on that judgment? Yeah,

57:37

I mean, you can't get blood out of a

57:40

stone, as you say. I mean, it's unlikely. Look,

57:42

let's just be frank that they're gonna get all

57:44

$148 million at any point in time. First

57:49

off, there'll be a delay. As the

57:51

court stays any debt collection while the

57:53

proceedings get underway, that's just how bankruptcy

57:55

works. But in

57:58

bankruptcy, Rudy can be forced to- I

58:00

think all of his assets except for

58:02

his primary residence to satisfy what

58:05

he owes to his debtors And

58:08

or rather to his creditors and

58:10

it's not clear where Ruby Freeman and Seimos

58:12

will end up in that line It's unlikely

58:14

that they'll collect the full amount that they're

58:16

owed, but at least they'll see some of

58:18

it They

58:21

will have a claim against any future

58:23

earnings He might make right if Rudy

58:25

Giuliani writes a tell-all book about Trump

58:28

Any proceeds that he would get from that would

58:30

go to satisfy judgments And there's

58:32

also the prospect of using investigators to see

58:34

if he has hidden any of his assets

58:37

offshore The fact that he would

58:39

never tell the court where his assets were

58:41

is sort of a red flag that there's

58:43

something funky going on There it's a federal

58:46

crime to make a fraudulent transfer of your

58:48

assets anticipating a bankruptcy All

58:51

sorts of stuff that can be looked at

58:53

there, but 148 million. I don't believe that

58:55

they'll see that yeah I

58:57

think you make a good point which is that they can chase him down for

58:59

the rest of his life and take every penny

59:01

They can but you know the

59:03

secured creditors are going to take priority over

59:05

them. So some

59:08

of his busy biggest assets are his

59:10

residences and Those

59:13

are probably mortgaged. And

59:15

so the mortgage holders are going to

59:17

take priority And so I'm

59:19

just not you know, I'm not sure

59:21

at this point how much they will

59:23

actually get but you're right They're gonna

59:26

be working for him or he

59:28

will be working for them is what I meant to say

59:31

From now for the rest of his life if he does

59:34

what George Santos has done and

59:36

is gonna make greeting cards for

59:38

hundreds of dollars All

59:40

that money is gonna go right into

59:42

an account for them and other Non-discharged

59:46

debtors. Oh, yeah, he could do cameo

59:48

appearances. Maybe you could get him to

59:50

say happy birthday to I

59:53

don't know if your loved ones want one your enemies You didn't

59:55

have any Giuliani jump on and say happy

59:57

birthday. Well, let me ask you the

1:00:00

consequences, you know, because of course Giuliani is

1:00:03

a defendant in other civil cases and

1:00:05

in the criminal case in Georgia, where

1:00:08

he's part of that multi-defendant Rico case along

1:00:10

with Donald Trump. How does he

1:00:12

pay his legal fees? What happens if he has

1:00:14

no money? Will he get appointed counsel down there?

1:00:17

Public defender could be.

1:00:20

You have to wonder

1:00:23

what lawyer is going to take him on

1:00:25

once these amounts are known.

1:00:28

I mean, it was very interesting to

1:00:30

read the reporting on his bankruptcy. His

1:00:33

lifestyle at one point cost him $230,000 a

1:00:35

month. He belonged to 11 different country clubs.

1:00:37

He had six different residences.

1:00:45

He doesn't seem to have that anymore, but

1:00:47

where did the money go? Is it offshore?

1:00:50

So, it was

1:00:52

interesting to see what

1:00:54

is happening. I think

1:00:56

it'll be hard for him to get a

1:00:58

lawyer to spend the kind of time.

1:01:00

And we've seen the evidence. So, I'm

1:01:02

back to my original question of why

1:01:05

even spend the money to defend yourself when you

1:01:07

know you're going to be convicted? And,

1:01:10

you know, isn't he better off thinking about, oh,

1:01:13

maybe I should make a deal. If I flip,

1:01:16

I could maybe save myself from going to

1:01:18

jail. I don't have to pay lawyers. So,

1:01:21

it could be interesting whether

1:01:23

he'd be a credible witness at this point.

1:01:25

I don't know. Well, we'll leave it

1:01:27

there. So,

1:01:37

holiday season is a time when I worry a

1:01:39

little bit about identity theft. I can remember a

1:01:41

time several years ago when

1:01:44

my husband said to me, I think our

1:01:46

credit cards had been compromised. I got a

1:01:49

call from the credit card company saying that

1:01:51

our cards had been used to various retailers

1:01:53

all online, all over the place, and mostly

1:01:56

after midnight. And I said, actually, I

1:01:58

think that's me. That's

1:02:00

how I do most of my online

1:02:02

shopping. But it's a real risk because

1:02:04

of course, your information is out there

1:02:06

and when you do have your identity

1:02:08

stolen, it can be a nightmare to

1:02:10

get it back. And as Joyce said,

1:02:13

your personal information is out there for

1:02:15

anyone to find. Data brokers scrape public

1:02:17

tax records and sell that information legally,

1:02:19

making it accessible to anyone. We all

1:02:21

need to fight back. When privacy

1:02:23

is paramount, that we are thrilled to partner

1:02:25

with Aura. Aura is

1:02:27

the all-in-one online safety solution that

1:02:29

helps protect you and your family

1:02:32

from identity theft, financial fraud, and

1:02:34

online threats before they happen. Chael,

1:02:36

how important is that to you?

1:02:38

Of course it's important to me because I

1:02:40

have been hacked and getting a new

1:02:43

credit card, even though they send

1:02:45

it out fast and cancel your

1:02:47

old one, really is inconvenient,

1:02:49

especially if you have auto charges on it

1:02:51

and have to notify all those vendors. You

1:02:54

know, I have not been through this for a

1:02:56

long time, but when I went through it, it

1:02:58

was many years ago. In fact, Barb, it was

1:03:00

when we were U.S. attorneys. I

1:03:02

ordered cupcakes for our boss for his

1:03:04

birthday in Georgetown. And by the time

1:03:06

I got to the hotel, I was

1:03:08

spending the night in Norfolk, Virginia that

1:03:10

night. My credit card had been used to

1:03:12

buy $50,000 worth of

1:03:14

train tickets in Mumbai, India. It

1:03:17

was a lot of fun to sort that one out. I

1:03:21

am a big fan of Aura, especially at this

1:03:23

time of the year when many of us are

1:03:25

doing a lot of shopping online. I think it's

1:03:27

incredibly important. And I'm really glad

1:03:29

I learned about Aura when they began to

1:03:32

advertise on the podcast. I always learn great

1:03:34

things from our advertisers. This one has really

1:03:36

come in handy. The security

1:03:38

with Aura is a great feeling and Aura

1:03:41

offers a suite of tools to protect you

1:03:43

and your loved ones, including real-time

1:03:45

alerts on suspicious credit card activity.

1:03:47

I would have benefited from that.

1:03:50

Computer virus protection, parental choices,

1:03:52

a VPN and a password

1:03:54

manager. It's a

1:03:57

comprehensive safety solution that provides the tools

1:03:59

you need need all in one place.

1:04:02

Aura also helps reduce annoying robocalls,

1:04:04

telemarketers, and junk mail by sending

1:04:06

takedown requests for you regularly on

1:04:08

your behalf. Aura is just a

1:04:11

great deal. The best thing about Aura right

1:04:13

now is for a limited time, they

1:04:15

are offering our listeners a

1:04:17

14-day trial plus a check of

1:04:19

your data to see if your personal

1:04:21

information has been leaked online all

1:04:23

for free when you visit aura.com/sisters.

1:04:29

Visit aura.com/sisters to sign up

1:04:31

for a 14-day free trial

1:04:34

and start protecting you and your

1:04:36

loved ones. Again, that's

1:04:39

A-U-R-A dot com

1:04:41

slash sisters. Certain

1:04:43

terms apply, so be sure to check the

1:04:45

site for any details. And of

1:04:47

course, you know you can find the link in our

1:04:50

show notes. Well

1:04:59

now comes the part of the show that we love

1:05:01

the most. This is the part where

1:05:03

we answer listener questions. If

1:05:06

you have a question for us, please

1:05:08

email us at sistersinlaw at politicon.com or

1:05:10

tag us

1:05:13

at sistersinlawpodcast on threads

1:05:15

or tweet using hashtag

1:05:17

sistersinlaw. If we don't get

1:05:19

to your question during the show, please keep

1:05:21

an eye on our threads feeds throughout the

1:05:23

week where we'll answer as many of your

1:05:25

questions as we can. Our

1:05:27

first one has Jill Wine-Banks written all over it.

1:05:29

I'm going to ask you this question, Jill. It

1:05:32

comes from Steve who says,

1:05:34

can you please compare and

1:05:36

contrast Judge Aileen Cannon and

1:05:38

Judge John Sirica? So

1:05:41

I feel like I'm back in college or law

1:05:44

school. Compare and contrast. I

1:05:46

bet you Steve is a college student

1:05:49

and I can. And

1:05:52

mostly contrast would be the answer. Judge

1:05:55

Sirica was street wise

1:05:57

and smart. He was.

1:06:00

very involved in the trial. He

1:06:02

really believed that there

1:06:05

was guilt beyond what had

1:06:07

happened during the burglary trial,

1:06:09

the actual break-in, the

1:06:12

people who broke into the Democratic

1:06:14

National Committee headquarters. And

1:06:16

he went after it in a big way.

1:06:18

And he wasn't afraid to push the

1:06:21

prosecutors, and he wasn't

1:06:23

afraid to create new kinds of strategies

1:06:27

to get things in the public.

1:06:29

So, for example, when we

1:06:32

heard about the missing tapes, we

1:06:34

were going to go to the grand jury with it.

1:06:36

And he said, oh, no, this is too important. It

1:06:39

has to be in public. We're going to have a

1:06:41

public hearing. There was no such procedure available. Whereas

1:06:44

I see Judge Eileen Cannon, and I

1:06:46

don't know her. I've never practiced in front

1:06:48

of her. I did interview

1:06:50

for iGen Politics a

1:06:53

former Watergate colleague, John Sayles, who has

1:06:55

practiced in front of her and actually

1:06:57

has a high opinion of her. So

1:07:00

I'm not judging her, but I'm just judging

1:07:02

her behavior, which has seemed to

1:07:05

favor him and to favor

1:07:07

him in ways that are going to be

1:07:09

very dangerous by delay, delay,

1:07:11

delay. She has postponed

1:07:14

arguments and hearings beyond

1:07:16

the possibility of her starting the trial

1:07:18

as it is currently scheduled. But she's

1:07:20

not releasing the trial date, which means

1:07:23

that, for example, Fonny Willis cannot step

1:07:25

in and say, oh, I could go

1:07:27

sooner than August because the

1:07:29

August date was based on there was going

1:07:31

to be the Mar-a-Lago trial. So

1:07:34

I just feel like

1:07:36

she's inexperienced. And you can

1:07:39

compare that to, Sirica

1:07:41

was the chief judge at the time. He

1:07:43

was senior person on the court. And

1:07:47

her as an inexperienced person who's learning

1:07:49

on the job, he knew how to do

1:07:51

it and he was willing to do the

1:07:54

job. So I think there's a big difference

1:07:56

between them. Our next question comes

1:07:58

to us from John in Seattle. Lee Ranch,

1:08:00

California. What

1:08:02

did you think about the pardons

1:08:04

Joe Biden granted this week for

1:08:07

defendants convicted of possessing marijuana? Joyce,

1:08:10

what do you think about that one? Yeah,

1:08:12

so, you know, I mean, Barb, you

1:08:14

and I both worked on pardons as

1:08:16

U.S. attorneys because there was a real

1:08:19

commitment in the Obama administration to use

1:08:21

them to close gaps that

1:08:23

had led to disparate treatment for some

1:08:25

people who were prosecuted

1:08:27

for possessing crack cocaine as

1:08:29

opposed to crack powder where

1:08:31

the sentences were very offbeat.

1:08:34

Biden did something similar today and I think

1:08:36

something that's been a long time coming. He

1:08:39

pardoned people who had federal

1:08:41

convictions for simple possession

1:08:43

of marijuana, even some who had

1:08:45

convictions for attempted simple

1:08:48

possession or use of marijuana.

1:08:52

It's important. This is really what the pardon

1:08:54

process is meant for. It's to do justice

1:08:56

or to grant mercy to people.

1:08:59

And it's in a sharp contrast to how Donald

1:09:01

Trump has said he would use the pardon power,

1:09:03

right, to pardon what he

1:09:06

calls hostages, people who were

1:09:08

convicted of rioting and obstructing

1:09:10

the certification of the vote

1:09:12

on January 6th. So there's

1:09:14

a sharp contrast for you. As

1:09:17

a practical matter, this really is

1:09:19

important because there are so many

1:09:22

collateral consequences that come with the

1:09:24

conviction. By that, I mean

1:09:26

once you're released from prison, every time you try

1:09:28

to get a job, you have to tick the

1:09:30

box that says I have a former felony conviction.

1:09:33

Every time you apply to college or to graduate

1:09:35

school, you have to check that box. And

1:09:38

it can keep you from getting all sorts

1:09:40

of things, a license to be a barber

1:09:42

in some states, other sort of professional licenses.

1:09:45

So by issuing pardons, Biden

1:09:48

removes all of these collateral

1:09:50

consequences from people's lives and

1:09:53

lets them get jobs and become

1:09:55

productive members of society. They've

1:09:57

repaid their debt in many cases by serving.

1:12:00

absolutely no evidence whatsoever,

1:12:03

is what I think is really going

1:12:05

on here is an effort to cheapen

1:12:08

the impeachment power. And

1:12:10

so that Donald Trump can say, everybody

1:12:12

gets impeached, it's all just political. And

1:12:14

I think it's a way to whitewash

1:12:16

the Trump impeachments to just say, it's

1:12:19

all just based on politics. It has

1:12:21

nothing to do with wrongdoing whatsoever. See,

1:12:23

even Biden says so. So that's what disturbs

1:12:26

me about this. I see

1:12:28

it as an abuse of power. But I

1:12:30

think because of their political

1:12:32

authority, they have the ability to do it

1:12:34

if they want to. They can impeach him

1:12:36

just because they don't like the way he

1:12:39

looks at him. Now, the people's response

1:12:41

to that is the ultimate accountability is to vote

1:12:43

the bums out of office. But I think for

1:12:45

those who are leading

1:12:47

the parade

1:12:50

here on impeachment, come from states where

1:12:53

such sentiments are popular.

1:12:55

So unfortunately, they have

1:12:57

a lot of power

1:13:00

and they are using it in what I perceive to be a very

1:13:02

irresponsible way. Thank

1:13:04

you for listening to Hashtag Sisters-in-Law

1:13:06

with Jill Winebanks, Joyce Vance, and

1:13:08

me, Barb McQuaid. Kimberly Atkins-Storm will

1:13:10

be back with us next week. Remember,

1:13:13

you can send in your

1:13:15

questions for next week by

1:13:17

email to sistersinlawatpoliticon.com or

1:13:20

tweet them for next week's show

1:13:22

using hashtag sisters-in-law. And please

1:13:24

show some love to this week's sponsors,

1:13:26

Real Paper, One Skin, HelloFresh,

1:13:30

and Aura. You can find their links

1:13:32

in the show notes. Please support

1:13:34

them because they support this podcast. And

1:13:37

if you're listening, I know you've

1:13:39

already done this, but if not,

1:13:42

follow hashtag sisters-in-law on Apple Podcasts

1:13:44

or wherever you listen, and please give

1:13:46

us a five-star review. It really helps

1:13:48

others to find the show. Happy

1:13:51

holidays and see you next week

1:13:53

with another episode, Hashtag Sisters-in-Law. Welcome

1:13:58

back to Hashtag Sisters-in-Law with Jill. wine

1:14:00

banks, Joyce Vance. Who

1:14:04

are you? I'm Joyce Vance of course.