Welcome to this episode of Sisters Sidebar with Jill Weinbanks and me, Kim Atkins-Store. If you have a question for us, please email them to us at sistersinlawatpoliticon.com. You can also tag us on social media using hashtag sistersinlaw. But you don't have to just type your questions. We love your voices and they are so important, which is why we want to hear them right on the episode. So you can email us a voice memo using one of your note tabs and we just might play your voice on our show. Before we get started, we have great, great news. We are so psyched to share that we will be doing a live show in Denver, Colorado, one of my favorite places, at the Cervantes Masterpiece on April 23rd. And you can get your tickets right now. Go to politicon.com slash tour to get your tickets. That's politicon.com slash tour. Get them before they sell out. And we cannot wait to see you there in the Mile High City. So let's get started with questions, shall we? Let's start with some of our voice memo questions. Jill, let's listen to one from Michelle. Hello, sisters. Regarding two cases, UHA and the Advocacy for Human Rights v. Bondi, what are the chances of the court's ruling in favor of the plaintiffs? Once again, thank you for all you do in the name of justice. Michelle, I think the chances are excellent that the plaintiffs will prevail in UHA v. Bondi, which is a federal class action lawsuit filed in the District of Minnesota in January, really less than a month ago. And it challenged the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's new Operation Paris. That's spelled with two R's because it means post-admission refugee re-verification and integrity strengthening. The lawsuit alleges that the administration unlawfully targeted legally resettled refugees in Minnesota for arrest, detention, and potential deportation, despite them having valid legal status to be in this country. The core issue is whether Operation Paris allows the detention of those people. And they've been here for years with a legal right to be here. And the problem is they haven't yet completed the process of adjusting their status to lawful permanent resident. And that's because the process takes a long time. And there is a law that says within a year, you have to be available for reinterviewing. But it doesn't mean you get to be detained and kept in detention for a long time. And the reason I'm so optimistic is because the government's argument has already been rejected. The judge in the Minnesota case has already granted a TRO that he extended until February 25th. So it's still in order, and he's heard arguments for a preliminary injunction. And based on the arguments and based on his reading of the past arguments, I think that he is going to say, no, the use of the term custody in the law that they're relying on does not authorize DHS to arrest and detain refugees who are here lawfully. And so I think that he's going to grant a preliminary injunction and that eventually this will go away completely. So your timing is great in asking this question, Michelle, because we are right now waiting for the decision on the preliminary injunction. Our next question comes from Kathy in Oregon, who asks, regarding Fulton County, if the law only requires ballots be kept for 24 months after the election, why on earth are they still available? Shouldn't more states destroy theirs before Trump comes after them? Jill, what do you think? You know, one of my friends commented that we always say it's such a good question. And I said to her, it's because they are really good questions. And this is a good question because you are right. It's actually 22 months under federal law that you are required to keep ballots. And after that, you can do whatever you want with them, although I think everybody recognizes that they must be destroyed in a way that protects the confidentiality of the ballots. So why are cities and states maintaining them Well state laws can be for longer In Georgia it is 24 months as opposed to the 22 months that federal law requires And so you would have to keep it for 24 months But obviously we way past the 24 months from the 2020 election. So I can't really answer your question because I don't know why they kept them. It costs money to store them and maintain them and protect them. And they aren't necessary for any reason. Once they have been gone through, if they were subject to a lawsuit, then maybe. But they aren't. All the cases involving this have been over until the search warrant to Fulton County. So they should have been destroyed. Kim, Tim has asked a question from Chicago. So Kim, Tim, meet each other. And Kim, you tell Tim in Chicago the answer to his question. This is Tim from Chicago. Is it illegal for a U.S. citizen to hire an undocumented immigrant? If so, has the current administration gone after those guilty of hiring undocumented immigrants with the same fervor that they have gone after the immigrants themselves? Oh, Tim, this is a really, really great question. So under federal law, it is unlawful to knowingly hire someone who is not eligible to work in the United States. And that includes people who do not have the proper documentation to work because they are in the country illegally. So that is unlawful. Now, an important part of that is knowingly. Do lots of people without documentation work in this country every day? Yes. And that happens through a number of ways. Either they're working through agencies or groups that do not disclose their status and you can hire someone, say you're hiring a long service company or you're hiring a contractor or something and you don't know. You didn't go through and personally look at the documents of each of the people who are working there. That can happen now. In that case, if it's found that the person who were helping to build your house was undocumented, are you guilty of a crime? No, because you didn't know. You didn't purposely seek those folks out. Others may be in trouble, but not you. It has to be knowingly. There are requirements on employers to use federal systems like E-Verify to ensure that the people that they hire are eligible to do that. And there are penalties for not doing that for employers. But to get to your question, no, it does not. I have not seen any particular ramping up or operations to try to sting people who hire undocumented immigrants in the country, certainly not with the same fervor that people have been. The administration has gone after immigrants, U.S. citizens, whoever they think might look like they could be someone that they want to deport. They're certainly not the same. There's not that same energy there, Tim. Kim, at Manchu Scott Blue Sky Social, has said almost everything the Trump administration does is illegal. What do the hashtag sisters-in-law recommend we do about it? Please don't tell us, call or write our congressman. Okay, Manchu. So I'm going to start by defending myself and saying, yeah, we do say call and write your congressman, your congresspeople, because that's important. And because they actually do listen. I mean, we talked on this week's episode of Sisters in Law about the Epstein files and the latest fallout from that. The reason that we have the information on Epstein that we have is because of public pressure. It's because of public outcry. The administration was content to just bury it completely. So you cannot say that what we do in terms of pressuring our elected officials is fruitless and it doesn't matter. Also, we are a democracy and the democracy's power lies in its people. And the minute that we give up and start calling some tools ineffective, we are throwing in the towel on our democracy. So I will not do that. And I suggest that other people don't do that, too. But you are right on track when it comes to other things that can be done against illegal action. There's so much that you can do. So let's take, for example, a lot of the actions that I think are unlawful that the administration is taking to make elections more difficult for people. You can do a lot of things. You can support organizations who are filing lawsuits challenging some of these actions You have organizations from the Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights to the ACLU and others who are nonprofits and they operate on donations and they could use that funding help You can volunteer your time and your efforts when it comes to elections. You can be an election worker. You can be an election observer. You can make sure that people that you know are registered to vote and that they know the rules, that you know the rules in your jurisdiction about voting and that others do too. You can urge people in your community and church to be vigilant as well. And that is just on one area that this administration is taking unlawful action. You can do the same thing when it comes to protecting immigrants' rights. There are groups that do that that you can support. You can do the same thing when it comes to any number of things. There are people who are doing good work on the ground in your communities. And usually that is where the greatest efforts bear fruit and have these big victories in the end in fighting against this stuff. So there's plenty that you could do. It's not just calling your lawmakers, but calling your lawmakers is also very, very important. I want to add to that, Kim, because I'm from a generation that saw the impact of public protest, both in ending the Vietnam War and in Watergate. It was public pressure that got Richard Nixon, after firing the special prosecutor and his attorney general and deputy attorney general, to hire a new special counsel and to turn over the tapes. I saw how powerful, and in those days, it was letters, handwritten letters came in and telegrams, if anyone remembers what a telegram even is, that made the difference and brought about the end of the corruption and criminality of the Nixon administration. So it does work. Don't give up on it. Postcard writing, phone banking are things you can do in your own home that have an impact. Marching in the No Kings March is also important. Show the power of the people. It really does matter. All right, let's go with another, let's do another audio question for you, Jill. It comes from Jean. Are there any rules for decorum at congressional hearings? Watching Pam Bondi, why isn't anyone holding her to those rules? Yes, Jean, there are rules of decorum, though you obviously wouldn't know it based on Pam Bondi's appearance before the House Oversight Committee. So because there are rules, let's look at what they are. And they are specific for congressional hearings. They are intended to ensure civil orderly proceedings with the chair enforcing strict standards against disruptions. interruptions. And I want to stress that with the chair in charge, because you ask, in addition to, are there rules? How come they're not being enforced? And that's because the chair isn't enforcing them. The chair, of course, in this hearing was Jim Jordan. Participants are supposed to address the chair, avoid personal attacks. And by the way, that applies to witnesses, not just the members of Congress. Avoid personal attacks. What did Pam Bondi do and was never stopped by the chairman, she had a burn book of attacks against every single Democrat who asked a question, except for the one who said, okay, I'm sitting here waiting. Ask me your disruptive question. Ask me what it is you want to do. And she sort of refused when challenged. Anyway, it also says you have to wear professional attire and adhere to time limits. The other key rules include prohibiting outbursts and maintaining respectful language, which didn't happen. And debates are supposed to be confined to the topic, which means that the witness can't say, I'm not answering your question, I'm asking you a question. And I'm going to go to, oh, maybe the great economy under Donald Trump instead of answering your questions about the Epstein files. So unless the chair is willing to stop personal attacks and make sure that the rules are enforced, it's never going to happen. So it's up to the chairman, and he failed. Kim, DJ in Greensboro, North Carolina wants to know, what would be the necessary steps for Congress to take to make sure the president uses his pardon power correctly? So the real answer, DJ, and I know it's probably not the answer that you want is that there's absolutely nothing for Congress to do to ensure that the president is using his pardon power correctly, because the pardon power is one of the near absolute powers that the president has under the Constitution. So I suppose one thing Congress could do is participate in the process to have a constitutional convention in order to amend the Constitution to limit the president pardon power But short of that, there's very little that anybody can do. The president has the power to pardon for federal crimes only and not, you know, an indefinite part. Like he can't just say, I pardon you for anything you may do forever. It has to be for something a little more finite. But, you know, anything arising out of this investigation, for example, it doesn't have to be just for a specific crime that doesn't even have to be for a crime that's already been charged. It just has to be about something identifiable. And that power, the Supreme Court, no court can review it. Congress can't strike it down. Nobody can do anything about it. I would like to encourage people to focus on ways that clemency can be used for good. And one thing you can always do is urge the president or urge your governors in your state when it comes to state actions to use their clemency power in order to effectuate justice, give people second chances, give relief to people who faced unjust trials, who may have been certainly people who have been exonerated when the courts will do not have an easy solution for them to be released. Clemency is not the enemy. When it's abused, it's awful. But it's something that we should be encouraging our leaders to use in a more effective way. So that is something, again, that is within your power to do, because I do think that that is important for a justice system. And our last question is from Marie in Albuquerque, who asks, what type of crime would a president have to commit that could be litigated to result in their guilt so that the immunity decision could be appealed to the scotus? What do you think, Jill? I love the question because I think everybody has assumed that there's absolute immunity for anything the president does. And I don't read the immunity decision that broadly. There are some things that are within his core powers, like being commander in chief, that are in his core powers and that do have absolute immunity under the decision. But there's the ones that are presumptive but rebuttable. And I think those are the ones that should be challenged. I think that paying hush money to Stormy Daniels just because you wrote the check in the White House does not qualify as something that is subject to immunity. And so what would have to happen is you'd have to have a Department of Justice that would be willing to file charges against a president to test it, because the only place you could have a criminal case against the president would be in the federal court unless a state attorney general would be willing to bring a case and challenge the immunity. And then you'd have the problem of removal to federal court. It would be complicated. But I think there are cases like that which have clearly nothing to do with the president's responsibilities as president that could be challenged. I don't think he has any power over, for example, elections. Maybe there's something about elections that could be used as the grounds for a state charge. I think there is a way to do this and that at some time it will happen. It's not going to happen on the federal level as long as President Trump controls the Department of Justice with its new banner of his face above the U.S. flag on the corners of the Department of Justice. Something that I find totally offensive. But that's not relevant to your question. Sorry for diverting. And thank you for the question. Thank you for listening to Sisters Sidebar with Kim and me. Keep sending in more great questions for next week's show. And if you send in a voice memo, we will try to play your question during our next episode. We hope to see you at our live show in Denver, Colorado at the Cervantes Masterpiece on April 23rd. Tickets are available at politicon.com slash tour. So make sure you get them before they sell out. follow sisters sidebar and hashtag sisters in law wherever you listen and please give us a five-star review because that will help others to find the show don't forget to pick up hashtag sisters in law merch and other goodies at politicon.com slash merch and see you every week on wednesdays and saturdays for new episodes of hashtag sisters in law and sisters sidebar That means that you're ugly. I don't think that's a compliment. That's not a compliment.
