A Busy Court Day – Jill Wine-Banks Talks With Stephanie Miller
Jill Wine-Banks Talks With Stephanie Miller On A Busy Court Day
Nixon prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks remotely visited the Stephanie Miller Show this morning. With Judge Sullivan considering a refusal of Trump’s get out of jail free card play on Michael Flynn. Plus the US Supreme Court phoning in their proceedings to force Trump’s foreign bank backers to show their copy of the Trump tax returns. There’s a lot of legalistic spaghetti to untangle. That’s what Jill Wine-Banks knows best. Break through the absurd Trump defense with The Watergate Girl.
Trump’s court woes were the topic of conversation. They discussed the absurd ploy of the Trump Administration to hide all things Trump. In this case, a copy of his tax returns that are held by Deutche Bank.
I believe this is how that conversation went.
May 12, 2020
Jill Wine-Banks On A Busy Court Day
Stephanie Miller:
It’s like waiting on the steps of the Supreme Court for the Nixon ruling and Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks is here with us today on this historic Supreme Court day. Oh Jill, thanks so much for taking the time. I know you’re monitoring what’s going on and crazy busy. So tell us your impressions so far.
We’re hearing that Justice Sotomayor asking very pointed questions. Gorsuch looks like he’s in play.
Jill Wine-Banks:
You’ve got two of them. Justice Breyer is equally in the mix here, and Thomas has, once again, asked one of his rare questions. He has spoken, usually he doesn’t but, Sotomayor has been very, very clear in her questions. Very clear I would say, in demanding an answer to her question. Not to what the the lawyers wanted to say regardless of what she asked. So she’s been, I think, very clear and so has Justice Breyer. The whole thing does bring back memories of being inside the court during the Nixon arguments and of course those are being referred to in this case. As is whitewater. As is Paula Jones and so far I have to admit. I start with a bias based on what I believe the Supreme
Court will do, should do, can do. What’s consistent with their prior practices. So I start with the Nixon case and saying that the president is not the king. The president is not above the law and that he cannot stop his accountants from turning over the documents that are in their possession that have no privileged claim. Because he wasn’t President. These are pre-Presidential.
Stephanie Miller:
But also. Isn’t that the key difference with Nixon, Jill? That everybody’s talking about there the subpoena is not to him. It’s to the these financial institutions, right?
Jill Wine-Banks:
Yeah that that makes a difference. In terms of whether it’s a burden on him that could interfere with the conduct of the Office of the President, and it can’t. Because he doesn’t have to do a thing in regards to this and to the extent that he would have to. You’d have to look at the Paula Jones case in the court saying, yes we could make accommodations to suit his timing. But he has to respond and if you can be forced to respond in a civil case then there is no reason why you don’t have to respond. Right now they’re arguing about Congress’s power. There is also the New York District Attorney’s case which will be coming up after this one and that raises a different set of issues this has to do with legislative oversight.
[Lawrence Tribe just tweeted. He’s watching as well]
Trump’s lawyers says Whitewater and Watergate were, quote, too recent to count as precedent for demanding information from a sitting President.
Wow. Too recent to be precedent? Oh that is a novel, is a novel argument. It certainly is an unprecedented one.
Stephanie Miller:
Yeah, this isn’t Jill Wine-Banks’ first time at the rodeo it’s hard to shock Jill Wine-Banks.
Jill Wine-Banks:
Did you say what the courts response today? No he hasn’t .
Stephanie Miller:
Jill, you said it best. You said, can we trust SCOTUS to save us from Trump? Today’s the day we’re gonna find out it is there still justice in America is one man above the law. I mean, for those who just tuned in. So just what is happening in case you don’t know. Trump is asking the Supreme Court to grant him sweeping immunity from investigation by Congress and local prosecutors into his conduct.
As a private citizen they’ll explore Trump’s claim he cannot be subjected to subpoenas or any criminal investigative process by virtue of demands of the presidency. He’s, as you know Jill, been completely unsuccessful at every level up until now. It would literally put the president above the law if the Supreme Court sides with the president’s lawyers in this case. Said one of the legal experts. So that’s really what we’re deciding. Are we a nation of laws today still or are we a nation of men, right?
Read Jill’s experience breaking through the Washington D.C. glass ceiling and practicing law in the prosecution of Richard M. Nixon
The Watergate Girl -By Jill Wine-Banks
Jill Wine-Banks:
It will totally obliterate any oversight if he had his way. If Trump had his way in this case how could Congress do any oversight. How could they investigate children in cages? How could they investigate the miss-spending of any money? If he were totally immune from any subpoena? That’s an absurd concept! Limited immunity is recognized. That the Nixon case recognized for the first time. In it that there is such a thing but, it doesn’t grant the kind of sweeping powers. That say, I and I alone can decide what is going on here. No one can investigate him, that’s even beyond the Office of Legal Counsel. That says you can’t prosecute him.
Stephanie Miller:
I mean his lawyer literally did use the Fifth Avenue argument, right? I don’t even remember which case that was in. Where he said yes, the president can shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. Not only can no one stop him, no one can charge him, no one can investigate him, no one can until he’s out of office. I mean, it’s so absurd you don’t even have to be a lawyer to go, wait. What?!
Jill Wine-Banks:
I think is letting Americans hear these arguments live, and I was live-streaming it. Before we went on and I am recording it now. So I can listen to the whole thing. Really, that will make a difference. Because hearing the president argue in a Supreme Court that he is above the law is something that should frighten even his most ardent supporters. You may believe in all the policies that he wants to enact. You may not mind his crudeness in office, his lack of a decent vocabulary. You may find those to be charming and endearing and make him seem real.
That’s all fine but there has to be someone else who can carry out his policies. Without violating the law and obliterating all of the the institutions of government. The same thing is true in the Flynn case. He’s really arguing in Flynn that he’s above it all and that what he’s really doing is trying to obliterate the entire Muller investigation. The Muller Report, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and William Barr is a willing enabler of him. In that case. So these are both sort of the same thing. Both what’s happening in the Supreme Court today.
Stephanie Miller:
Yeah well you tweeted about that outrageous you said this would be like Nixon dismissing Watergate special prosecutor case after our office had finished its work and closed down. And you said cronyism isn’t a reason. Corruption and cover up are. 45 wants to dismantle everything Mueller did and well. As you know what 2000 DOJ alumni call on Barr to resign. I mean it, yeah. Obviously no real prosecutor would even sign this, right? Who wrote the op-ed? The guy that quit over the Stone case that said. Here it is again. This is…
Jill Wine-Banks Talks Trump’s Court Woes
Jill Wine-Banks:
-and by the way. So did Miss McCord who was relied upon dramatically. In saying this is why we should dismiss it there’s really no cause. Then she wrote saying, I am totally misrepresented in what I said. It’s taken out of context. It’s not what I said. Nothing I said justifies dismissing this case and I believe that Judge Sullivan is now, as the Supreme Court is this morning is, in a very pivotal place to help save democracy.
He can refuse to dismiss it. He can say it’s only dismissed without prejudice. Which means that it could be refiled by a legitimate prosecutor in the future, Assuming the statute of limitations doesn’t run out. Since this particular crime occurred very early in the administration, it’s going to be very very timely as to whether it can be brought before a statute runs. So I think we’re in a really serious point of view. I think Judge Sullivan needs to really have a hearing on what the actual claims are. Of course McCord would be a witness. Interesting that the name is McCord. Because the real whistle-blower in Watergate was a McCord.
Stephanie Miller:
I know! You know why I know? That’s because I read Watergate Girl. which is the best book in the world! I was saying, even your décor is classy and beautiful and fantastic. Just like you. Look at the artwork, look at the sculpture look at the Watergate girl she has a book right there. Of course it’s fantastic. Um, but you also just talked about the long list of people who thought Flynn’s lies were material.
Of course they were, but you said Judge Sullivan should reject the dismissal as baseless and an attempt to cover up crimes at the White House. That’s that’s the legal point is it’s clearly an attempt to cover up crimes which is why he should dismiss this.
Jill Wine-Banks:
If you read the motion to dismiss, the legal arguments and the factual arguments don’t pass the red face test. It would be impossible for me to stand before a court and argue what they’ve argued without bursting into laughter or blushing. It would be just absurd. They don’t make any sense and I believe that, that hopefully, Judge Sullivan will have the time to look at this and think about it and decide how to handle this appropriately. Judges can refuse a plea agreement. Judges can refuse a dismissal, and they only can allow a dismissal where it serves the public interest. So we need to look at that.
There was a case in Watergate where there was an argument over dismissing a case in Texas. So that the defendant in that case could plead guilty in DC and testify against Governor Connally. The public interest in that case clearly warranted dismissing the Texas case to allow the case to proceed in DC. This is a case where it would disappear completely. It’s not that he would be prosecuted somewhere else. It doesn’t address all the other crimes that he got off of. But you know, as part of his plea agreement he wasn’t charged with other things. So will those charges be brought then?
Read Jill’s experience breaking through the Washington D.C. glass ceiling and practicing law in the prosecution of Richard M. Nixon
The Watergate Girl -By Jill Wine-Banks
Stephanie Miller:
Yeah exactly. We shall see when President Joe Biden appoints Attorney General Jill Wine-Banks! Okay, quickly back to the Supreme Court Neal Katyal said of the Supreme Court. They’re probably pretty happy with the lower court reasoning and these cases. As we know, the lower courts have upheld the the subpoenas as serving legitimate purposes. I don’t understand; the law says “shall furnish his taxes†it does not say maybe or whatever. Even just that part in terms of the congressional requests. Then Paul Clement said, “I think if you look at the court’s precedents you know the president’s argument is a tough one.
Jill Wine-Banks Talks Trump’s Court Woes
Jill, is the key? As I’m hearing and we mentioned a little when we started this interview. Is the key the fact that because the subpoena was to Nixon and he to turn over the tapes which he did. A lot of people were saying if this subpoena was to Trump, we know what would happen. He would refuse it and then we’d be in a constitutional crisis but this is not to him and all signs are the Deutsche Bank or whoever would comply. Am I wrong?
Jill Wine-Banks:
No, you’re quite right that they would definitely comply. They’ve shown no inclination, and by the way while we’re talking about it.
Stephanie Miller:
That’s why he’s freaking out. Because if they rule against him today, there’s nothing he can do about this. His taxes and financial information are going to be released to the court, right?
Jill Wine-Banks:
That’s maybe why he’s freaking out, but he freaks out almost every day. I think about him walking out of a press conference because two women asked him questions. I want to go back to the Supreme Court argument today. Because I heard only very briefly before we got on air. That the lawyer for Congress was arguing, and he pointed out how wrong the other side had been, and had misquoted them, and pointed the court to the right pages. That did specify why they needed this and why they had a legitimate legislative purpose.
So you always have to hear both sides. The hard part was we had to get through listening to the government’s lawyer and the president’s lawyers arguing, but now the court will have it put in context by being able to hear the other side of the argument. I also think that this should lead to people being able to hear on a routine basis Supreme Court arguments. It’s not interfering with any thing and it’s really interesting to be able to sit and listen as it’s happening.
Read Jill’s experience breaking through the Washington D.C. glass ceiling and practicing law in the prosecution of Richard M. Nixon
The Watergate Girl -By Jill Wine-Banks
Stephanie Miller:
I mean it’s too bad right, the pandemic, that we can’t all be sitting on the Supreme Court’s steps like those people were. I was so hoping someone was gonna go, oh my God! Jill Wine-Banks is so smart and also so pretty.
Jill Wine-Banks:
Well, my first time sitting in the Supreme Court, I was admitted that day to practice before the Supreme Court. So it was special not just because of the case. Then later when I was Solicitor General of Illinois, I got to argue in the Supreme Court and it is an awesome experience.
Stephanie Miller:
I bet. It’s nice and after all these female reporters stood up the president yesterday you’ve got to read “Watergate Girl.” About a woman before her time standing up to the to the big boys back in the Watergate era. It’s so fantastic, Jill. Always so proud of you. So privileged to know you.
Jill Wine-Banks:
Thank you, my pleasure. I am sure!
Stephanie Miller:
Also, she’s doing an event for Joe Biden. How do we find out about that?
Jill Wine-Banks:
It’s students for Joe Biden and I tweeted it but I’ll tweet it again so that if anybody wants to join in they can here and it’s sponsored by a wonderful student I think the youngest person ever elected as a delegate he’s graduating high school in a few weeks.
Read Jill’s experience breaking through the Washington D.C. glass ceiling and practicing law in the prosecution of Richard M. Nixon.
The Watergate Girl –By Jill Wine-Banks
You Can Read Another Jill Wine-Banks Interview Here
Jill of Watergate fame talks Trump on the Stephanie Miller Show.
And Here’s All My Jill Wine-Banks Posts
