Rep. Esther Panitch's Stand Against Anti-Semitism and Her Journey to Political Influence

When Georgia State Representative Esther Panitch's own home became a canvas for hate, it wasn't a signal to retreat but a clarion call to action. On this episode of the Jack Hopkins Show, I sit down with Panitch as she takes us through her powerful movement against anti-Semitism, sharing the resilience required to transform personal attacks into political triumph. Our discussion doesn't shy away from the complexities of legislation or the intricacies of forming alliances across the aisle in today's divisive political climate.

In the very fabric of our nation's history, threads of hate and discrimination are interwoven with stories of courage and unity. This episode isn't just a close examination of the legal twists in high-profile cases like that of Fannie Willis; it's also a testament to the importance of moral compass in leadership. We tackle the uneasy balance of intellectual integrity and the sometimes harsh realities of political authenticity. With Representative Panitch's narrative as a backdrop, we uncover the necessity of remaining steadfast and true in both the public eye and our private endeavors.

By the end of our conversation, you'll feel as though you've truly met Esther Panitch—not just as a state representative, but as a beacon of action in a world often paralyzed by fear and silence. We reflect on the strength it takes to voice dissent, the grace found in apologies, and the unyielding necessity for accountability at all levels of governance. Join us for an episode that promises not only a deeper understanding of today's political landscape but also an intimate look at the leaders shaping it.

** In the opening Introduction of this episode with Re. Panitch, I mistakenly said "Her grandmother..." I meant to say "Her great-aunt..." 

Enjoy!

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:08

Welcome to the Jack Hopkins Show podcast, where stories about the power of focus and resilience are revealed by the people who live those stories and now the host of the Jack Hopkins Show podcast, jack Hopkins.

Speaker 2: 0:26

Hello and welcome to the Jack Hopkins Show podcast. I'm your host, jack Hopkins, today. My guest in episode three is Georgia State Representative Esther Panich. She's the only Jewish member of the Georgia House of Representatives. She was a co-sponsor of a bill designed to protect those in Georgia's Jewish communities and, in fact, in January of this year, governor Brian Kemp signed into law Bill IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, anti-jewish hate crime and Representative Panitch was the driving force of that. If you do a Google search, you'll see all kinds of video clips and news clips of her pushing for this, and she pushed hard enough that she got it through.

Speaker 2: 1:25

In this episode of the Jack Hopkins Show podcast. You're going to find out what makes her tick, and she's got a story that has to do with how her name came to be that I think you're going to find as inspiring as I did, and you also might find out how that links up with one of the strongest drives inside of Representative Esther Panich. So I'm not going to wait another minute. Let's get right in to the conversation that I had with Georgia Representative, castor Panitch. As you know, I've really been looking forward to this for a number of reasons, as you already know because I've expressed this to you, but the listeners or viewers wouldn't know this.

Speaker 2: 2:28

You're really somebody that I look up to and admire for the courage, and I know that word gets thrown around a lot, but it's often thrown around and used in situations where somebody's life isn't necessarily at risk. You know somebody, maybe they go out for a sport that they didn't think they'd be good at. Somebody says, oh, you're really courageous. That's not the kind of courageous I'm talking about, and we'll get into the specifics of this in a moment. But you've been threatened, your family has been threatened, and yet you still kept keeping on, and that is something that is it's rare today. So let's talk about we won't necessarily go in chronological order here. I want to get right into the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism Bill that you saw through. I mean, you pushed and you pushed and you pushed and it got signed into law. So tell me a little bit about. Well, let's start with the need for that.

Speaker 3: 4:01

Right. So the bill. Actually, I was elected into office in November 2022. My first session started January of 2023. This bill had been in the works for a year before but didn't make it out of it. Made it out of the House but didn't make it out of the Senate, and anti-Semitism was already on the rise. So when the lead author, john Carson, approached me when I came into session, because I was the only Jewish person in the entire legislature in 2023, he asked me if I was interested in joining him and anti-Semitism had been on the rise. It was the highest amount of anti-Semitism Jews in America have seen since, maybe ever. And it was sustained. It wasn't one act, it was sustained. So I said, of course I would help, and then it was moving along in its committees and it wasn't really. There was no attention. There was attention to it in the Jewish community, but not in the mainstream non-Jewish community in Georgia. And then my house received flyers of these awful, hateful, anti-semitic flyers on my driveway, along with hundreds of other families that had received them that morning, in addition to the hundreds that had received them throughout the state prior to that. Now the Jewish community knew about that, but the non-Jewish community didn't.

Speaker 3: 5:38

So when I'm threatened as a general rule, because it's not the first time I've been threatened I'm a lawyer. I have been involved in high-profile litigation throughout my career, so I'm not afraid to take someone on. I took on the Boy Scouts in Georgia. We were the first firm to sue the Boy Scouts for past sexual abuse and it helped drive them into bankruptcy. So not the and I was threatened in that case, not by the Boy Scouts but by witnesses. So I'm not it happens and I.

Speaker 3: 6:12

But I got really angry and there was this decision I had to make very quickly Was I going to report it or was I going to hope it went away and not say anything? And because it had been happening for months and nobody was doing anything and it wasn't stopping, I said, ok, this is my, this is the opportunity to make other people aware of what what the Jewish community is going through. So I went public, I tweeted it. It immediately got responses by the governor, who pledged his support to the community, to the attorney general, the highest ranking members of this state and my colleagues, who embraced me and I got to explain to them what was going on with anti-Semitism and that this bill would be a good step. This bill itself wouldn't solve the flyer problem because it's a First Amendment protected, at least at the moment. It's First Amendment protected speech.

Speaker 3: 7:09

However, if this person, this group, which I don't want to identify to member of the Jewish of Ahmaud Arbery, talked about race, religion or national origin, race Jews are not a race. Hitler called us a race. We are not a race. Religion, yes, and national origin wouldn't apply unless you're from Israel. So religion is only part of it. Jews are a people, we have a culture. It's not simply a religion, and so we needed a definition, because a swastika doesn't go against the religion of Judaism. There's nothing in the Torah the Talmud about what a swastika is, torah the Talmud about what a swastika is. So I'm a defense lawyer. I would poke holes in that. So we needed a real definition of what it meant, and that's when it gained.

Speaker 3: 8:38

Speed was when I had been flired, and so it kind of took on a life of its own and notwithstanding all of that, there was significant opposition and it made it out of the House again and it died in the Senate for a second year.

Speaker 3: 8:54

Then fast forward October 7th and the whole world could see what Jews were being subjected to around the world. It was the largest loss of life in the Jewish community since the Holocaust, and we could see essentially the sewer grates coming up with all this vile anti-Semitic rhetoric coming from everywhere, from both sides. You know, I used to think that it was just the right, the far right. It's not, it's the far left too. So they're just as dangerous, they're just as evil. They want the same ends, which is to rid the world of Jews. So they call it. They want to rid the world of Zionism, but 90% of the world's Jews are Zionists, and Zionism just means that Jews have the right to the homeland the same way any other people do right to the homeland, the same way any other people do. And when these people who are protesting don't protest Muslim countries for being Muslim countries or Christian countries for being Christian countries, but only the one Jewish one in the world, there's an anti-Semitism problem.

Speaker 2: 9:59

I think you are, at least on the surface. You are familiar with my story. I'm a former Republican. I said I've had it, I can't do this. I didn't just pull away from Trump, I pulled away from the party. I came to the Democratic Party and I've got to tell you it was really October 7th for me that put this in the spotlight. But I was really shocked to find how many people in this new party I had come to were not on board with my tweets defending the Jewish community and I was just dumbfounded by that. And let me go back. Oh gosh, I'll be 58 next month, so 45, 50 years ago.

Speaker 2: 10:56

As a child, my take was this when I would take was this when I would see things about slavery or the Trail of Tears, my little brain back then said okay, well, I guess some of it is that those people look different from the white people who have this position, and human beings must just people who have this position and human beings must just hate difference. So that's it. But. But the one thing when my grandfather would talk to me about the Holocaust and I watched these videos and I'd see these photos and books, these people looked like me and I couldn't get my head around that. And again I'm talking as a child.

Speaker 2: 11:50

I thought what is it they hate about these people so much? I've got to tell you, like I said, I'm 58 or same as now. I still don't know. I still don't know in terms of nobody's ever presented me with a legitimate reason, because there are none. Oh, you'll have the haters come out and they can give you a thousand reasons, but none of them are legitimate. So tell me, at what age did you know? Wow, this being Jewish thing is, I'm viewed differently.

Speaker 3: 12:35

So I was in high school, I was a debate nerd in high school and I actually debated with our now Supreme Court Justice, katonji Brown-Jackson.

Speaker 2: 12:45

We went to competing high schools.

Speaker 3: 12:47

We went to summer camps together for debate. Her coach was my summer coach. It was all. I mean. It's amazing, so, and it was a really great community. And one summer I went to camp for debate camp in Ripon, wisconsin, and I went with other people from South Florida and we were meeting new people who we hadn't met before, and we met this girl from Oklahoma, I mean. So I must have been 16, 17, maybe 15. And another friend of mine was there and we said something that made it obvious that we were Jewish. And this girl started looking at our heads and my friend, who was kind of a jokester, said, oh, we cut our horns this week and I didn't even know what she was talking about. And this girl said oh, you did a really good job, very seriously. And I was just kind of blown away because I grew up in South Florida. There's a large Jewish community.

Speaker 3: 13:54

I went to a Jewish day school until high school. My high school had a lot of Jewish students, so it wasn't this, wasn't. You know, I wasn't around people who had never met Jews before. This girl had never met Jews before and so all she knew was what she had either seen on TV or read, and she earnestly believed that Jews had horns and you know that we were some other species, essentially Wow, and it really stuck with me. I mean I never. I still remember it. It really kind of just struck me like there really are hateful people out there and I don't know that she was hateful, I think she just didn't know. So it was this whole new world that I was exposed to Now, growing up, because I went to Jewish day school.

Speaker 3: 14:48

I learned about the Holocaust like everybody else, and because my great aunt was murdered by Nazis in a roving gas truck when they first started. So I'm named for my great aunt, who was murdered in the Holocaust. So I know the stories and I know what happened and I used to think who could stand by something like this when it's happening right next to you? And Hitler wasn't shy about what his ends were. He was pretty open about it. And now not when I was a child, but now after October 7th, we are living amongst people who would allow that to happen again and some of these people would encourage it.

Speaker 3: 15:33

And it is incredibly dangerous and people don't realize how dangerous it is because they didn't live through it. And a lot of these younger kids who are protesting didn't live through 9-11 either. They have no real conception of what terrorism is because they haven't faced it. I'm 52, you're 58. We remember, I remember exactly where I was. I remember my reaction, I remember my fear, it all you know.

Speaker 3: 16:04

A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack and this was like 40 times what happened, you know, proportionately, in the United States, what happened to Israel on October 7th, I don't know some exponential factor. It was just so horrific that and these kids have no sense of that they don't understand what it is to be terrorized and they've just chosen the wrong side. But these are the same people who would become good Nazis. And you know the either the far right or the far left, their tie is anti-Semitism. What brings them together is anti-Semitism. So whether they're fascists or anarchists, anti-semitism will bring them together and it's because the other it's a fear of things are not working out well in their own lives and they need to blame somebody. And Jews, because our numbers are so small, are an easy scapegoat.

Speaker 2: 17:06

You know, when you talk about the young people and particularly young people who support Trump or the MAGA movement who, I would add, almost certainly have no idea what they are supporting, what they're truly supporting it always conjures up in my mind an object I'm sure you are very familiar with, and it's the Hitler Youth Knife. And when you watch the documentaries on the indoctrination that the Nazis, how young they started, they started grooming them from such a young age and you have, if there was no sound and they didn't have on uniforms, you look and you see apparently innocent children just kind of going to school and doing their thing. They were killers in the making and I I see that here in that I I live in a county where, in the 2020 presidential election, of the people who voted, 78% of them voted for Donald Trump. I mean, this is one of those MAGA havens, it's where I grew up and, on that note, I wanted to say, too, I didn't grow up around, I didn't know, anybody that was Jewish.

Speaker 2: 18:51

So the focus of hate primarily at that time, especially among the generations before me, were African Americans. Right me were African Americans right, that's the closest link in terms of slavery, and you still obviously had descendants of people who owned slaves. But as far as the Jewish community, it was really only after I joined the Navy and got out of this little hole that I made fast friends with Jewish people, as I did with anyone else, and it just continued on that question of what is it? How did this come to happen? How can so much hate for these people exist? And when you mention October 7th for me, I can't even imagine what it was like for you, but even for someone like me, it brought it to life.

Speaker 2: 20:16

This was no longer a black and white 1940s clip on the History Channel. This was happening like now. It's such an unacceptable concept, and to think that the presidential nominee for the Republican Party is promoting this type of hate and ideology leads me to my next question. I'm sure you are very grateful for the fact that Governor Kemp signed this into law. Very much so. With that being said, as a Democrat, what kind of tension is there on the floor between the two parties, and you've obviously done an outstanding job at reaching across the aisle and getting things done. There aren't many people doing that right now. How do you navigate that?

Speaker 3: 21:35

How do you navigate that? It's interesting because last year, when my bill was kind of in their hands, I was quieter more quiet about publicly coming out against certain people in positions. Now that my bill has passed thank God, and it's law already it's I feel more free to be a little more vocal about things I don't agree with. So because politics is politics. You know, if you offend somebody and that's the wrong person, your bill's dead. So it's, they have the power. Right now the Republicans are in control the governor's mansion, the Senate and the House. So I can't get anything done without the help of the Republicans, and for that I'm grateful that they did it. I am grateful to all the House leadership and the Senate leadership and everybody who stood up and spoke. You will, for they will forever be, they will always be my friend and for that, if there's an issue, I will go to them privately first and say listen, this is bad and in fact we have a couple bills. I don't want to jinx anything we still have two more session days, but there are two bills that I have tried to put the kibosh on quietly behind the scenes. If they got to the floor and I spoke, they'd be embarrassed because of just because they don't realize the damage they'll be doing to the Jewish community after passing HB 30. Community after passing HB 30. So it's as if they would be talking out of both sides of their mouths. But I've, I'm hopeful that these bills are dead and that's because of the relationship I had. I'm going to because I now I have the presumption. If they were willing to do HB 30, then what they're doing now, which would be essentially opposite or inconsistent, is coming from a place of lack of knowledge, not intentional, trying to harm anybody. So that's where I come to them, whether it's the governor or any of the leadership governor or any of the leadership, I will speak to them privately, even though I could probably make some political hay if I didn't say a word and took my chances.

Speaker 3: 24:02

But I think after Trump, we've all learned you cannot play that game. You need to take out whatever you can as early as you can, because letting it go and coddling and humoring people only gets you to Trump. And you know, nobody really thought he could win. I know people who didn't vote, who I'm still now. I call them every election you got to go vote, and people who knew better and people who knew better, and you know it's. You have to work with everybody, but I'm not afraid to tell them what what it's leading to and, frankly, quietly, a lot of my Republican colleagues and friends will say I'm not voting for Trump. He's our nominee, but I'm not voting for him. A lot of them supported Nikki Haley and, you know, even though I don't agree with Nikki Haley on a lot of policy issues, she's not a crazy person in the sense Trump is. She wouldn't destroy the democracy we all treasure, but she obviously didn't make it this far. You know that far.

Speaker 3: 25:11

And now we're dealing with, with a possible second term, where he has told us his roadmap. He's going to act like a dictator. I don't know that we'll ever have another election after him and I don't like to be hyperbolic, I don't like to, you know, but it's. It's that serious because he's only going to put sycophants in these spots where other people stood up to him. We're not going to have the adults in the room anymore. They're all gone. So that's, that's the fear I have of Trump, most of which I disagree, but it's, it's his personality which has this cult-ish following and it's that's really scary because right now it I mean now he's focused on Muslims, it'll. It'll be Jews next. I mean he's not been a friend to the Jewish community, even though he's done, you know, pretty good things for Israel, he's not. He's not a friend of the Jewish community, he's very transactional. If he doesn't like the way you are, you're done. So one person saying something wrong will, you know, ruin it for all of us. But it's, it's terrible, it's just terrible.

Speaker 2: 26:32

I couldn't agree more. My position on Trump doing anything for Israel it's purely political. It's purely political, and when he no longer needs Israel during his campaign, you're right it will be nowhere on his mental map. What is your fear, or your number one fear, in terms of what Trump might do, not only with the Jewish community, with anybody that he hates, but, as someone who's Jewish, what is your number one concern about what a second term of Trump would bring for the Jewish people?

Speaker 3: 27:32

Much more political violence, many more threats and I don't know if he would give DOJ or try to make these priorities in terms of fighting back. So it's deportations of Muslims. It's. It's deportations of Muslims. I mean, I was in the. I went to the airport as a lawyer to fight the Muslim ban when it first started. I'm not an immigration lawyer, I didn't know anything about immigration, but I was going to that airport to be as helpful as I can and, you know, try to reunite families or or just be there.

Speaker 3: 28:14

So that's going to happen. I mean, there's no reason it won't happen. He doesn't respect the courts. So I don't expect that he will abide by any orders he doesn't like and the rule of law is going to be gone. That's what I'm most afraid of. But you know. But he encourages violence. So there's no reason to believe he won't continue that. It works for him. He gets results with it and people jump on board. So there's no reason he wouldn't continue that. He doesn't have the type of personality that learns from mistakes. So you know he's going to do what he wants and the people around him are going to enable him. And that's my biggest concern, those are my biggest there are a lot but those are my biggest concerns.

Speaker 3: 29:06

The one thing I will say in Georgia Governor Kemp stood up to. Donald. Trump. Now this whole thing that I, you know about the elections, this whole, and so did Brad Raffensperger, and and there were a lot of people who stood up in Georgia. Our governor, or whoever will be governor along the line, will put a stop to that, but it's an unknown and it's a scary prospect.

Speaker 2: 29:43

I think, as you stated, there are things that we can kind of maybe lean into with the assumption of we kind of know how it would go. But, like you said, the scary part is, at the end of the day they are still variables that are unknown, given that you are in Georgia not that you are part of directly related to that process, but still you're in Georgia. What's your gut on Fannie Willis and how this is going to turn out?

Speaker 3: 30:24

Well, this is a strange circumstance. I know everybody personally in this, in the courtroom, whenever there's a hearing. I know the judge, I know Fannie, I know the defense attorneys hearing. I know the judge, I know Fani, I know the defense attorneys. I don't know the clients, but it's strange to watch this play out for me because I do know people, not just watching them on TV.

Speaker 3: 30:48

I think the consensus is Fonny really made a poor judgment decision and I think if the situation was reversed and the DA was a man, or her predecessor, who had an affair with somebody who he had the power to hire and fire, we would be demanding his head because it's unacceptable, notwithstanding that the law in Georgia requires actual conflict and the defense lawyers didn't meet that burden. So I like what Judge McAfee did and said one of you has to go, and it really had to be Wade, because otherwise, if Willis went, her whole office went, which would have helped nobody. So Wade's gone. The people of Georgia spent a lot of tax money on prosecutors not there anymore and but we'll see what happens with the prosecution. I don't think it's.

Speaker 3: 31:49

Obviously the indictment is not going to be dismissed for that. That's not the remedy that happens in a case like this. So you know, he dismissed three counts. But they can refile and supersede the indictment. They can go back to the grand jury and try to get it again if they want to, and then we'll see. I mean, I'm frankly, I'm hoping he gets convicted somewhere else.

Speaker 3: 32:12

So we don't have to go through this. This is a this is a drain on Georgia. It doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. You can't ignore the president or at the time you know, violating the law like that but it's. It's not a good thing for for our state to have to be in the middle of this.

Speaker 2: 32:35

We'd rather be doing other things as a defense lawyer and of course I'm asking you to speculate here. So I'll make that clear what's your gut on what happened and how it might influence jurors?

Speaker 3: 32:55

So the jury is going to be questioned about it. But it's not enough like do you know what happened? It's? Will that prevent you from giving the defendant a fair trial? So now Fulton County on the whole is pretty blue, but I've gotten acquittals. I mean, they're people you know. They don't not convict people if they've taken an oath to weigh the information.

Speaker 3: 33:23

I mean, I ended up as the foreperson of the Fulton Grand Jury I think it was 2019, for two months and even though I'm a lawyer, they couldn't keep me off once my number hit. It's not like a trial, voir dire, that you see on TV, where they ask you and then they exclude you. So I thought it was the coolest thing because, as a defense lawyer, I'm not allowed in the grand jury room, but I took an oath. If there was probable cause, I would indict and I signed indictments notwithstanding, I'm a defense lawyer, so people like to honor their oaths and the jurors I know have all taken it very seriously. Juries that I've talked to after my trials they all take it very seriously. It's their civic obligation and they've sat through the trial. They want to do the right thing seriously. It's their civic obligation and they've sat through the trial. They want to do the right thing.

Speaker 3: 34:15

That doesn't mean they always get it right, but I think they try to get it right and I think they're going to weigh the evidence. The challenge is we have to keep out any external forces threats. You know, these jurors' names should be, should be sealed, and they should. They they're going to need protection. So I think if they feel safe, then they're going to do what they can do, but if they don't feel safe, it's going to be a lot harder. So that's why I'm hoping this somebody else convicts him first, and then, you know, we don't have to worry so much about this.

Speaker 2: 34:52

Very true. I have several friends who are lawyers. Some have mostly been prosecutors and others have mostly been defense lawyers, so I have a little teeny idea of how they think about the world when they watch the news. Defense lawyers tend to look for holes in things and prosecutors tend to look for okay, I would do this so as a defense lawyer, and I don't know that I've seen anybody ask this on television as a defense lawyer, when you look at the various trials that are coming up with Donald Trump, if there are any weaknesses or things that concern you as a US citizen, what might be the primary issues for the prosecution?

Speaker 3: 36:01

So the only challenge I see in the case the documents case with Jack Smith is the judge who seems to be giving him every benefit of every doubt and fortunately she's not the final word on things. She's an important word but the 11th Circuit above her has no problem kind of sending stuff back to her and saying do it right this time. But the case itself, I think, from what I know, do it right this time. So, but the case itself, I think from what I know and I'm not in the courtroom, I'm not privy to the all the discovery. I know what everybody else knows just from watching on TV. It seems pretty straightforward about. He had these documents. He was asked to return them. He failed to. He not just refused to return them, he hid them, which is consciousness of guilt. So I don't know that that's a difficult case in terms if this was anybody else and not a president or a former president. The Fulton County case I think the weakest part is probably against the quote, unquote, fake electors. I'm not talking about the lawyers who were involved. I think they should be held responsible and some of them already pled. It's the lower-level people who relied on lawyers and took their advice and I'm not saying all of them. I'm not saying it's not a case. I'm just saying, if I had to judge the weakest to the strongest, I think the fake electors are at the bottom. Again, that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be prosecuted and punished if they're found guilty.

Speaker 3: 37:49

But definitely Trump is the head of the snake. I mean, he's the one or the head of the, whatever it's called. He's the one he put it together. He sent people out in different directions. It is a criminal conspiracy and what people don't understand is that co-conspirators don't have to know everybody else in the conspiracy. My own clients have a hard time understanding that else in the conspiracy. My own clients have a hard time understanding that when people get indicted, if it's a part of a conspiracy, they're going to be people at the top and they're going to be people at the bottom, and most bottom people don't know each other and most of them have never met the top. They're people in between, but they're all culpable for what happens in the conspiracy. So the bottom is as responsible for the people at the top as the top are as responsible for people at the bottom.

Speaker 2: 38:36

You've just hit on such an important thing, because it is so easy for the average person, just watching the news or reading something online to see how this thing all fits together, as these people who all get together somewhere at various times and they all are part of the discussion and they all know each other, and you bring up the fact that that's not at all how it goes. How it goes, and I would think, as somebody, prosecuting this case.

Speaker 3: 39:22

That makes it more difficult? Yes, it does, but if the jury instructions are clear, it will be obvious that the law is. You don't have to know everybody else in the conspiracy. A conspiracy is two or more people intending to do something illegal and usually doing an overt act. So here you have all of that of this conspiracy, like in other states to do the fake electorate. You know the fake certificates, then you don't have to. That's not required to find you guilty. You are. If you committed the crime, you intended to do something unlawful then and you did it, you did something towards it, then you are guilty. There's not less guilty or more guilty. The only thing that would impact is sentencing. So at a sentencing, yes, the judge would punish the kingpin or the head much harsher as they should than the person at the bottom. So you know, that's where the difference comes. It's not in the guilt or innocence of the person. It's the amount of punishment that they're going to get relative to the other people in the conspiracy.

Speaker 2: 40:43

How critical was it that this was brought as a RICO case and complicated? It is a confusing subject, even among lawyers and it's very broad in Georgia.

Speaker 3: 41:01

The Georgia statute is much broader than the federal statute. And I will say, the person who wrote the RICO book in Georgia, john Floyd, is a colleague of mine and we both worked on the Boy Scout case together. So I mean I haven't spoken to him in years but it's a he knows what of which he speaks and so I don't doubt that it's a RICO. You don't need that much in Georgia to make something RICO, but it is difficult explaining it to a jury. So if you could just go to the substantive crimes versus this conspiracy, rico conspiracy, things would be much more simple. But it's a challenge for any prosecutor to deal with a RICO case.

Speaker 3: 41:48

Now they have been very successful in many of those cases. So they use it against gangs all the time. They use it against drug cartels all the time. They use it against the Atlanta public school teachers when there was a cheating scandal. So you don't have to be the mafia to have a RICO case against you. So it makes it harder for the prosecutors to explain to non-lawyers a jury of normal people in the community likely none of whom are lawyers to get them to understand the concepts. But I think if they can simplify it to, here's the conspiracy and draw it out for them. Here's the top. This is what each person was assigned to do. They didn't have to know each other and this is what happened and this is the result then, and why it's a violation of the law. Then I think they're okay. But I think Rico's too broad in Georgia. But that doesn't mean that this case wouldn't be an appropriate recant charge.

Speaker 2: 42:51

That's interesting because, by and large, most people what they see in the news or what they see on the talk shows, people saying, oh wow, you know he's hammered. Now they look at the advantages of it being a RICO case. But that's interesting and I learned something here as well. I've never heard anybody talk about the potential disadvantages of a RICO case, such as explaining it to the jury. So very interesting yeah it's confusing. It's not as straightforward as it appears, and I'm guessing, that confusion is never good for a jury.

Speaker 3: 43:46

Right, and it's never good for a prosecutor. So you know it's hard for jurors to convict somebody of something they don't understand. You know it's hard for jurors to convict somebody of something they don't understand.

Speaker 2: 44:00

So it falls on the prosecutor to explain it and to get the jury to understand it. I'm sure on the other side of the coin, I'm sure confusion was probably beneficial for a defense lawyer that when you have them unsure of something that was in your favor.

Speaker 3: 44:15

Oh yeah, and it's easier to find reasonable doubt if the jurors don't understand the concepts of RICO anyway. So it's hard. I mean, look, they get convictions, so it's not insurmountable. But you need a prosecutor who can explain it in English you know plain English to a jury so they understand it.

Speaker 2: 44:36

Let's shift a minute and I want to talk about, I guess, your faith, but not it doesn't have to be exclusively your faith but the question I have for you where do you draw your strength? For example, when you were the opposition, you were getting on this bill, getting the flyers and the threats, and still saying you know what, I have a job to do and I'm going to do it. Where do you draw from for that?

Speaker 3: 45:11

I think, just the way I grew up, my mother, you know, strong woman and would stand up for things even that weren't necessarily popular. But knowing the silence is deadly, you know, could be deadly not speaking up. You know, when I when Trump won in 2016, I was covering a murder trial for our local TV station, so I was out of town and nobody slept that night, you know, I called my kids in the morning. I said we're going to be okay. And then I asked my husband how are our passports Like? Are they up to date? And um, and I said essentially to myself, I got to do something, because yelling at the TV is not going to get me anywhere.

Speaker 3: 45:58

And I have skills, I have the ability to speak, and what else am I using it for, if not to make sure we're safe? So, and our country is protected and secure from internal threats as well as external threats. So I, I guess that's it. I mean I also have a stubborn streak. So, um, I'm sure, yeah, and I'm slightly competitive. So, on things I care about, I don't really care like sports or anything like that, but on things I care about I'm competitive.

Speaker 3: 46:32

So there's a push, there's an internal drive and things that, like I've been lucky in my law practice to do well, that I can choose cases that aren't always in my wheelhouse but I can learn and bring in experts who it is in their wheelhouse, like sewing the Boy Scouts and because you hear things that just upset you so much or piss me off that I'm like, okay, I'm going to chase this down, I don't know where it's going to go, but I'm going to try and let me see where I can go. So I investigated that Boy Scout case for six months, going up to this small town where this predator had been traded and he was a, you know, a pillar of the community. He literally had statues, he was alive. And I went up for six months, weekend after weekend, library, microfiche all the things, the things, and before I would file that case, because I knew the allegation in itself is is, you know, will bring somebody's life down, so it has to be accurate.

Speaker 3: 47:42

But but I've been threatened. I've had cases in my community before where I took a stand contrary to the will of the community and only later to have them apologize, and you know and realize I was right about that. So I know it's my name on the line and I only have one of those, so I'm not going to put myself out there for something I can't support. But a lot of times I'm first out there and I just have to wait for people to catch up. But it's, it's. I don't lose sleep like I used to when I was younger about it, cause I'm. I know what my abilities are.

Speaker 2: 48:21

And it's everything you've described is very obvious to anybody paying attention it you, you live it you, you demonstrate it, and that's that's why I asked the question, because it is so obvious. And, by the way, I I happen to know a guy who also has a real healthy stubborn streak and it may be why we get along so well, I don't know. It gets me in hot water sometimes. For instance, as I'm sure you are aware, I will quite often post things that I know aren't going to set well with some of my followers.

Speaker 2: 49:03

But my pledge to my role on social media was that, above and beyond everything else, I'm going to be authentic. I'm not going to cater to my followers in hopes of not losing any or of getting more. I'm just going to be me, and sometimes me is probably going to be a little tricky to digest, but you know to be a little tricky to digest, but you know, I think in the end it all works out better when you are true to yourself and are authentic and being true to yourself with the big picture in mind. When I'm true to myself, as I am sure is the case for you, when I'm true to myself, as I am sure is the case for you. You're not being selfish, you're being true to yourself within the context of the greater good, and I think that's important, because if you're just true to yourself, because you just want to be true to yourself, that starts getting into Donald Trump-like behavior. Right, right, donald. Trump-like behavior Right.

Speaker 2: 50:20

So, looking forward at your career, let's go five, 10 years down the road. Have you thought that far out in terms of accomplishments, or do you?

Speaker 3: 50:30

Nope, nope. I have always been a go with the flow kind of person, but if I see an opportunity or something presents itself, then I'm I'm not hesitant to go after it. Um, I'm much better on my feet than I am planning ahead. Uh, I didn't intend to run for office, it was. There was an opportunity. I was told by two non-Jews in the legislature that there would be no Jews in the legislature if people didn't run. I put my name in, thinking okay, someone else who's equally qualified will put their name in, and then I can kind of back out.

Speaker 3: 51:08

I was living my best life. My kids had just gone off to college. I have a place in the mountains it was. You know this. I wasn't looking for this. I know how ugly politics is, so I didn't need this. But that also gives me the freedom because I don't need this to as my identity to make decisions that I think are in my district's best interest and what I think is right. I don't have to pander. I'm 52. I'm a grown woman and I'm not doing this for anybody else. You know, I'm not doing this to please somebody else. If the good people of my district think I'm not in their interest, then they'll vote me out and I'll go back to my life and I'll actually start earning more money again, because being out for a lawyer out of practice for three months is not good for business, you know. But but it's. I'm grateful I have this opportunity. I'm grateful I've been sent here, but at the same time I'm not going to pander.

Speaker 3: 52:10

I was threatened by the far left with a primary and it never materialized. So even if it did, I wasn't changing my view. I mean, there are things I have signed on to a Republican letter in my house. I was the only Democrat to do it. What are they going to do? You know, if I see something right, no matter who is doing it, I will agree with it. So I don't have this. Oh, if it's a Republican, you can't. You know, you can't give them anything. If something's a good law, I'm going to vote for it. I don't care who sponsored it. So I just I don't have that need to be um, I will never put party over country or party over state. And so there are times I've disagreed with my party and there will be times I disagree with my party and I, but I I don't.

Speaker 2: 53:03

The worst that happens is I don't get reelected and I'm OK with that, and I think that's such an important thing about you and and why we need more people in politics with that attitude. I'm sure you were aware of the online spat between myself and Ilhan Omar, which actually carried over into private messaging to private messaging, and here's the thing I believed and still believe that what I had addressed with her was wrong. It didn't matter to me that she was a Democrat, you know, in leadership in the Democratic Party, in leadership in the Democratic Party. By my estimation, that should never matter, because once we stop being willing to call people in our own party out, then the whole concept of democracy just crumbles and you wind up with something like MAGA and what we're seeing now.

Speaker 3: 54:16

Yep, yep, we have our own MAGA. They're just called, you know, we just haven't given them a name yet, but it's, you know the left has their own. So you have to call it out. Otherwise, you know, and we see Republicans calling out other Republicans, we call them brave. So you know when it happens to us you can't call it treasonous, or you know that you're a Democrat in name. Only Fair is fair, and if the Republicans are doing something bad or the Democrats are doing something bad, they have to be called out. You might call them out in different ways. I would prefer to call them out, talk to them privately and give them the opportunity to do the right thing and then, if they don't, then you know, come after them publicly if it's necessary. But I, you know. So some people may have different approaches to it, but it's, it's. You know, you, you have to be, otherwise people just get emboldened and continue to do what they're doing.

Speaker 2: 55:13

So there has to be some, you know some line that people can't cross, no matter what side they're on, and an example for me of very 24 hours ago I've become increasingly willing to voice my views on Merrick Garland, and boy, I've really gotten some stiff pushback on that and my point on this everyone talks about how fearful they are that if Trump is reelected, that you'll be too afraid to say anything about anybody. You'll just quietly go in your little corner and not say anything against them, not question them, and yet, at the same time, when people tell me I shouldn't be doing that, they are advocating for the same thing they are telling me they fear from Donald Trump. And so I want people to understand that if you, in the name of patriotism, say, nope, I'm not saying anything negative about anyone, even when I believe there is something to be said, you are conditioning yourself to get ready for what you fear. Yep, and I just refuse to do that. Which is why we get along so well. Yes.

Speaker 3: 56:52

Look, nobody's going to save us but ourselves. There's no you know superhero coming in to swish in and say, okay, bad guy, you're out. We have to do this, we have to protect ourselves. The adults sometimes don't know what they're doing, and so other adults have to step in and fill the gap before someone truly evil steps in and fills the gap.

Speaker 3: 57:20

So it's, you know, I'm still learning things, but it's, I have never been regretful for speaking up, and even if it brings attention, that isn't nice. Again, I have plenty of friends. I love my friends, they love me. I will much better react if a friend says look quietly. Look, you know, maybe you want to think about what you just posted. I'll take a look at it. If some troll does it, I'm going to get defensive. If some troll does it, I'm going to get defensive. So it's, you know, it's a way you approach people too, but you have to be able to speak out, because soon we're not going to be able to. You know, without it you're not going to be able to speak out, and it's too late at that point.

Speaker 2: 58:06

And as we wind things up here, I will you mentioned superhero. My wife knows full well, and I mean this. You are one of my superheroes. I talk about our exchanges with my wife all the time. When I told her you were going to be a guest, she said oh wow, I know you are amped up about this because you think so highly of her.

Speaker 2: 58:39

You are a leader in the way that I think matters. You know what is right and what is wrong and you stand up for what is right. And the thing that I see lacking in politics and maybe it's always been lacking are people who have that moral compass with right and wrong and then follow it rather than being pulled or pushed one way or the other, not to say that that's can't ever be a factor. You, you, there are negotiations and you have to work with others, but there are too many people who are willing to give up on what they know is right and side with what is wrong. You don't do that and, on behalf of this country, I thank you for that that You're very kind and don't give me a bigger head, but it's it's.

Speaker 3: 1:00:00

You know, I'm also a human being and politicians are human beings. We're going to screw up, I've screwed up, I'm going to continue, I'm sure it's going to happen again, but I think part of it is I'm willing to apologize and acknowledge if I screwed up. And that's what we don't see is people saying I'm sorry because you could, which I don't understand, because I've never said I'm sorry and people not be okay. You know, I've never done anything terrible that you know has irrepro, you know, irreparably harmed somebody. But I, um, but I will make mistakes and hopefully there's space for people to allow people, even politicians, to make mistakes, as long as they're willing to own them and then move forward.

Speaker 3: 1:00:46

But you know, none of us are perfect. So but, but thank, that's very kind, jack, and I love that you've used your platform, your powers, for good and I'm happy that you're on my side and not on the other side, so, and that we need to keep calling people out. Me too, I need to be called out if I, you know, if I get a little too high on myself, but it's it has. We have to be able to to own our mistakes. Make mistakes and own them and move forward.

Speaker 2: 1:01:23

You're spot on and, as somebody who screws up on a daily basis, I fully understand that. I fully understand that and I will tell you it was not fun coming out and saying you know, I made an awful mistake by voting for Donald Trump in 2016. It didn't win me any Well. I can't say that it did win some friends from the left. I did win some friends from the left, but it also cut me off from a lot of friends that I've had for 40, 45 years. That's never fun, but it was right. It was the right thing to do, and you just accept that. You're going to deal with consequences and go on, and that's how you live. So I thank you so much for being the third guest ever on the Jack Hopkins Show podcast. What a fantastic way to spend my day. So thank you for taking the time out of what I know is an extremely busy schedule and thank you for the beautiful backdrop we've been able to enjoy today. That's fantastic.

Speaker 3: 1:02:45

And we'll do this again sometime if you're up for it. Yeah, hopefully you have what you need.

Speaker 2: 1:02:47

All right. First of all, we had a little connection glitch there during like the last 30 seconds of the podcast, but I think you'll agree that that in no way, shape or form took away from the powerful insights and the stories that I'm sure will last for you for years to come that Representative Panitch delivered during that podcast. Look, hate crimes are up in the United States. They are. Jews make up 2% of the population in the United States 2% and of all hate crimes committed, attacks, hate crimes against Jews make up 64 percent of all hate crimes and they're two percent of the population, and they're 2% of the population. Representative Panitch answered the call. She's out there doing things. She's out there moving and shaking, making things happen, making her state a safer place for Jewish communities and for Jewish families to live, work and play.

Speaker 2: 1:04:12

For a little over a year now, I've been able to call Representative Panage a friend and if you watch the podcast, if you listen to her insights and just watched her, I think you've got a pretty good idea why I'm proud to be able to call her a friend and, as such, I'd like you to do something. I'd like for you to follow her on Twitter at the letter E Panitch, e Panitch. And then check out her website, which will take you to her law practice website at panitchivorycom Panitch and then ivory, like the keyboard of a piano or an elephant, tusk, panacheivorycom. You know, I want to thank you again for joining us today on the Jack Hopkins Show podcast. Please be sure to hit like and subscribe and I will see you on the next episode of the Jack Hopkins Show podcast. I'm Jack Hopkins.