Pantsuits and Lawsuits with Attorneys General Kris Mayes and Dana Nessel

Policy Whiplash and the Rule of Law: Attorneys General on What Happens Next

• Attorneys General Kris Mayes & Dana Nessel

Share episode

Rapid policy swings aren’t just political noise—they have real consequences. When funding changes overnight, clinics stall, families worry, and trust erodes. This episode looks at how state attorneys general step in to challenge unlawful actions, stabilize services, and protect the people caught in the middle.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield joins us to talk through managing early crises while also tackling the unglamorous but critical work of modernizing systems, supporting frontline staff, and defending consumers. He also explains the multistate challenge to federal tariffs and how questions of authority translate directly to everyday costs.

Former DC Attorney General Karl Racine reflects on the first travel ban, the evolution of the AG role in a more polarized era, and major accountability fights—including the emoluments lawsuit. We discuss prosecutorial ethics, officer-involved shooting investigations, and how new legal doctrines are reshaping the limits of accountability.

If you care about the rule of law, reliable public services, and institutions people can trust, this conversation offers clear-eyed insight and practical perspective. Subscribe, share, and let us know the reform you want to see next.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

Hi, everybody, and welcome back to another riveting episode of Pan Suits and Lawsuits, your favorite podcast to catch up on everything the world's been throwing at us lately and so much more, especially with with regard to American law and uh litigation that is ongoing. I'm your host, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, and we are joined once again by my good friend and colleague. Uh by the time this is released, now former, sadly, uh New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, uh, and buckle in everybody because we have a jam-packed program for you today. Um, by the time this episode comes out, we'll have made it through a full year of Trump's second term in the White House, otherwise known as uh 800 million years, uh, all packed into uh 12 months. So there's a lot to discuss. And then later in the episode, we'll be hearing from former DC Attorney General Carl Racine as well as Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield. And we're gonna talk about their thoughts on the the evolution of the role of state AGs since at least back to 2017. Uh so it's been a very busy decade for state AGs, and we're gonna look back at how far we've come, the important fights we've had, uh, and what new frontiers lay ahead. So, Matt, uh with uh, you know, only a short period of time left in in office, is there anything in particular that you are trying to do right now to make sure that your legacy in office is uh is cemented or you know, cases you're wrapping up, or cases perhaps we're investigating that you're getting charged. I know you can't tell us everything, but um, is there anything in particular that you're you're trying to do understanding that there's a deadline coming for you?

Matt Platkin:

Yeah, I mean, we've like I said, we literally worked through the night on a case that we're trying to resolve. Um important case for the state. You know, uh look you you and I have talked a lot about this. This is this job is amazing. And you know, you I um would want to do it right up until the very last minute, which is what we'll do. But I'm also trying to, you know, see some of the folks that I worked with and say goodbye to them and thank them and the staff who have done amazing work. So and set up the next uh you know administration to help be with a professional transition. So it's been it's been a mix, but you know, and certainly we're not you and I are both dealing with the craziness coming out of Washington, the scary things we're seeing on the streets across the country. So I think you know, that is certainly stuff that moves real quickly. So who knows what could happen this weekend.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

Yes, this is true. Uh and I think just uh the other night we um you know, we saw some news out about um, you know, billions of dollars in cuts to some really essential funding. Uh a lot of it involving um things like drug court or um, you know, uh or or treatments for people who suffer from substance abuse disorder. Uh and we were all horrified and terrified by it, and then by the next day, um it was retracted. Uh so again, this is just how we've gotten used to this administration working, just kind of flying by the seat of their pants and um not really making well thought out decisions, in my opinion.

Matt Platkin:

Yeah, I happened to be with uh one of the recipients of just by sheer coincidence last night said at an event with one of the recipients of those grants, um, who just said to me it was like whiplash, you know, you this is somebody who provides you know counseling and drug treatment services, and then you know, to have it taken away suddenly and then maybe have to fire or lay off a bunch of people who are doing this important work or tell their, you know, patients that they're not gonna get treatment, and then the next morning it just gets turned back on as if there nothing happened. I think you can grow numb to sort of the headlines, but these dollars support really critical programs.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

Yeah, I think one of the things that is not discussed enough is how important it is that people be able to rely on the promises made to them by the the federal government. And you know, I've talked to people who say like we're not even going to be seeking any grants from the government uh moving ahead because we don't know that we can rely on them. It's like better just to have fewer programs or fewer staffers uh or whatever that means for that particular organization or grantee, um, because the federal government has become so fundamentally unreliable.

Matt Platkin:

Yeah, it's uh it's grants, it's recipients of the funds, it's people who rely on the federal government for food. I mean, you think about SNAP. I mean, for us, if we just took the number of children on SNAP assistance, on food assistance in the state of New Jersey, they would, and you took that population, it would be the largest city in our state. And yet in the first 10 days of November, it's not like this is the first shutdown we've ever experienced over the last three decades. We've had quite a few of them. They've never not paid for people's food. And this administration, even that wasn't a bridge too far for them. So I do think people are looking trust in government is already at an all-time low. We've talked about this with respect to corruption. And I don't think the federal government going out and promising things and then reneging on them, which by the way is how Donald Trump has operated his entire life. I mean, you talk to people in Atlantic City where he ran casinos and asked them how good his word was and how often he paid contracts. This is not new to him. The difference is we're talking about hundreds of millions of people being affected and trillions of dollars in spending. You know, it's easy, I think, to be sort of depressed about it and say, well, you know, look how far we've come. And I do think we've we've seen a lot of institutions crumble, we've seen a lot of disappointment, we've seen a lot of really scary stuff, we're seeing really scary stuff still. Um it seems like, you know, they're ramping up. But at the same time, we've also been able to fight back, I think, quite effectively. Um me, our colleagues across the country have stood up in a lot of suits, dozens and dozens of suits, um, and we've been successful. And, you know, for us to get through, I think the next year, next three years, it's gonna require both uh sustained legal action as well as the public continuing to voice, you know, their opinion in very strong numbers. And uh, I do think that's happening. Well, we're thrilled to have Dan Rayfield, Attorney General of Oregon, join us. Uh, I want to note for the record that I'm sitting physically in an office. Dan doesn't think I have one, that I'm only in the car. Um New Jersey we do have buildings where I work, at least for another few days. But Dan is a great colleague, he's been a great leader on many things, including uh the tariffs lawsuit, which uh we are waiting on. Uh but Dan, thanks for joining, joining Dana and me. Um, and thanks for being for all the great work you're doing and being a great colleague.

Attorney General Dan Rayfield:

Absolutely.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

So uh Dan, you came uh into office uh around the same time that uh that Donald Trump entered his second term, uh, and you came out of the gate swinging. Uh so I I'd like to know a little bit about, you know, in terms of your decision to enter this fresh hell uh that is uh the second term of the Trump administration, is uh is it all you dreamed of uh and more? Or how are you feeling now that you've had uh a year or so to get acclimated?

Attorney General Dan Rayfield:

You it's it's interesting, right? So I was in the legislature for 10 years and served in like roles that I thought were some of the most meaningful roles that I think you can serve frankly in state government. I was the co-chair of Wise of Means for four years, so you're doing state budget stuff, incredibly meaningful work, nobody knows what to do, um, but it's in wonderful stuff. And then two years as uh the speaker of the house. And so very different roles, right? Different responsibilities and you know, a lawyer background, you thought moving into this world that you would um really enjoy it and find a different set of meaning. I think the one thing that I don't, I mean, you all I think may have calculated for this. I don't think I necessarily had calculated the degree of meaning that would just be thrust upon all the Democratic AGs once President Trump got into office. Uh and you know, I think we even, you know, prior to getting elected, right, all the Democratic AGs are talking, there's research is going on. Um, and I I would probably say there was probably a little part in the back of my head that was like, well, that's overkill, right? Uh like this is a lot of work. Are we really gonna need all of this? And is this the best use of our resources? It turned out that absolutely was, right? But I was fairly new, hadn't even been sworn into office and just kind of learning some of those conversations. So um when you come into office, right? You're uh acclimatizing to um your world, right? You're making staff changes, you're bringing your people in, you're absorbing into an agency culture things, some of which you like, some of which you want to change. Uh, and at the same time, you have to then start taking on these new roles. So I that's I don't know if that's a real great answer to the question, but just kind of a, you know, that I don't know if I put everybody to sleep with that one.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

No, I mean it's it's a tremendous amount of work, and I I think people underestimate just how much of our time is monopolized by this, but of course it's of such great importance to all of our states that um in some ways there's not anything more important that we could possibly be doing. But how do you juggle the when I say the day-to-day items? Obviously, you know, it's not these rum cases aren't all we do, and they're so much involved with you know criminal prosecutions and consumer protection issues, uh, and and things that you're dealing with with your own legislature uh and governor. Um, how do you manage to juggle all that?

Attorney General Dan Rayfield:

You know, I I kind of think that you know we're all busy in lives. Like my wife is busy nine to five. She'll be on call on the weekends doing stuff. I think she's just as busy like as all of us. We're just busy doing different things. Um and we're fortunate to have really good people around us. Uh, and so I think there is, my wife and I were talking about this last night, actually, that there is a perception of what our jobs are about the day-to-day, right? And the perception is what the media picks up, right? It is all the Trump stuff, but that media doesn't cover, frankly, 95% of the work that we do, right? Now, granted, it's covering some pretty darn important stuff right now. And I would, I would argue for in the long-term 100-year trajectory of our country, right? Some of the most important work that's going on. Um, but when we're thinking about um like the day-to-day, I mean, one of the most fun meetings I had this week was with our division of child support um in Salem where we brought in 40 frontline workers who are meeting Oregonians, helping them assist their work, trying to hear how we can do better as a state. I'm like a chronic malcontent. How can we do better? We have some technology things that we can do to improve and streamline things. Now, no newspaper is going to pick that stuff up, right? Nobody really like cares about it, but it will help Oregonians. It'll help um, you know, frankly, our division and the frontline staff doing the work. I get all really excited about that stuff. Um, and so I think that's a little bit of the, I think, the balance. And then it's just trying to make sure that, I mean, I think I'm sure you all know this. I think you have to have good people around you. You have to be able to delegate, right? But you have to be able to set a culture and set a North Star and also bring some excitement, um, I think, into the room for the change that you want to see. Um, so I've really enjoyed that.

Matt Platkin:

I'm really curious because you did jump in and you led the tariff suit as uh relatively new in the AG world, which has been, you know, I think a tremendous success, and we're waiting to hear what the Supreme Court did, but your team did a phenomenal job. How did you go about that was a very uh important case brought, and at the time it was not the easiest case to bring, and how did you go about sort of coming up with that and getting the momentum behind it and support for it?

Attorney General Dan Rayfield:

Yeah, um so the values behind that, right? Like just cost of living is something that like sticks out to me, right? One of the things that motivates me is just the haves and the have nots in the world, and I'm kind of of this opinion that I don't care if Democrats or Republicans in office. I think structurally we continue to create a bigger divide in this country. Um, and that just something that bothers me. Um I had it like I almost got a double major in economics, so I'd spent a lot of time in that world. And like, so oddly, like I yeah, yeah, I was well, it was either that or I had to like wait an extra term to go to law school. And I was like, I'm gonna go to law school. I don't need to double major. Um and so like I spent oddly spent time like looking at steel tariffs and like the whole, you know, that dynamic with Reagan and and um you know and the dumping of steel from foreign companies and all this. So like I've always naturally found that airy interest in the Nexus and um you know and the the adverse consequences that can come from when you use tariffs uh incorrectly. And so early on, and again, you gotta remember, it's like what's the first month of really being in office? Um, and you're coming around with institutional staff that frankly are better and smarter lawyers than me, uh, people that you know teach at law schools. And so I just came in one day and I said, Hey, I don't think they can do that, uh, which I think is like the way some of our lawsuits all start, right? We just start with that basic premise. I don't think they can do that, could you all look into this place? But I honestly was a little cheapish. And I know that a couple of other AGs were interested in looking into this. And so you had A.G. Mays, you had um James and some others that were slightly interested in doing a little bit of homework. I started doing my own research. Like my wife was sleeping in the bed, like it was night, everybody sleeping. I have my laptop and I'm like doing my own personal research. I'm like, no, I think there's a case. So I built up my own internal confidence to then go back in and say, no, let's actually use resources and dig in. And then we started seeing there was a there on this. Um, and then knowing that there was some other AGs interested in this, uh, A.G. Mays had come to Oregon and her energy is incredible. Uh, and she's just very like, hey, let's go get it. Uh and so we were to be able to roam. And at that point, I think we kind of said, all right, let's go start rallying people together and start moving. And we had already started drafting a complaint, and then you just start doing what you do. You have conversations, right? And get people um talking about the issue. Um, so that's I mean, that was kind of how like I think we all kind of started that. Um, and together, and granted, a lot of credit. New York had done a lot of research, Washington had done research too, right? So you you always have these different states. California took their own track, um, and they were, I think the governor down there and A. G. Bonto were doing their own thing. So it was kind of a a unique kind of uh I think uh culmination of events.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

Have you seen um a ramp up uh from ice in New Jersey? What's uh what are things like on the ground there?

Matt Platkin:

Um yeah, fortunately, we haven't seen some of the same things that you're seeing in in Minnesota or in Portland. Uh um, but look, I I think the it should concern all of us. Like even if your states hasn't been targeted yet, that doesn't mean it can't be. Um and New Jersey, like Michigan, we are if we have a very um, you know, big immigrant population. And um, you know, New Jersey is one of, if not the most, by many measures, diverse states in America. We live in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, and um, you know, a third of our state are immigrants. Um, and um, they're scared. I mean, they're scared. You can't, frankly, as a every American should be scared right now. You watch a 37-year-old mother shot point blank um while she's turning her car away, you know, uh, and and the officer runs away, and the vice president of the United States goes on TV and calls her a domestic terrorist, and uh the attorney general, before even reviewing the evidence, shuts down the investigation and just um uh you know attacks a victim. I I mean I I just um I these are things I don't think we've seen uh in certainly in modern American history, and it is very alarming. So I do think it it's a very scary time. And um, you know, I'm glad that we haven't experienced some of those horrors directly in New Jersey, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

Well, you know, as somebody who's handled officer-involved shootings literally my entire career, um, and having done that and and been assigned to a special unit at a county prosecutor's office, uh this is not how investigations work. Uh, and I think we should make it clear to the public that the policies that are in place generally in every state and the country and formerly with the federal government is that every case of that nature is fully investigated. There are cases where you know there's video and it seems very clear that, for instance, uh a shooting may have been justified by a state trooper or a county sheriff or a local um municipal police officer. We fully investigate those cases. And that means reviewing all the evidence, all the video footage, body cams, uh, you know, iPhone footage, talking to all the witnesses, making sure that we collect all the evidence, have it all tested, get lab reports, and do a comprehensive analysis of the facts and the evidence to the law. And in our office, we make that public. Um, I mean, if it if the charges are warranted, then we go ahead and we charge that officer if they violated the law. And if their actions are justified, we put out the report actually on our website so that everyone can see it and read it. You can watch the videos, all of that. Because we want to be as transparent as possible, because we want people to have faith and confidence in law enforcement. So, what we're seeing now in terms of this particular case with Renee Good out in Minneapolis, to me, it's unprecedented as a longtime prosecutor and defense attorney.

Matt Platkin:

Yeah, I I agree. And and like you, I've handled a lot of those cases as well. My office by law has to independently investigate every single fatal police encounter, and we actually have to present every single one of the grand jury. So we're somewhat unique nationally in that regard. Any case, even legally justified or not, is a tragedy. I think it's a tragedy all around. I I like you, we I've I've known officers who have had to use lethal force in justifiable circumstances. They don't like doing it. You know, I know the police chief well in Minneapolis. He used to be the police director here in Newark, where I'm sitting, and he's a great chief. He he oversaw the implementation of the consent decree in Newark. He just a phenomenal police leader. I am sure his life is being made a whole lot more difficult by this chaos. It does a disservice to every law enforcement officer. When you take these guys, you pay them fifty thousand dollars, you give them six days of training, and you throw them out in the streets with all kinds of military gear, um, and they act like vigilantes, which is what they're doing. Um, it does not make the public safer.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

No, absolutely. And and let me say this in all the years that I've worked with so many different prosecutors' offices around the state of Michigan, and of course working at the AG's office, um I have never seen prosecutors resign their positions because they were being made to do things that were unethical. I I I've never seen it. And again, I've been I've been practicing law again since probably before you were born, Matt, but No, since 1994. And um I, you know, I it's I have never seen this. I have absolutely, as a prosecutor, as an assistant prosecutor, I've had issues with cases. I talk them out with my supervisors, my coworkers, and we come to some sort of resolution on whether the case is going to proceed or not. But, you know, I I I've never seen someone being made to pursue, in this case, I think an investigation into the spouse of the decedent as opposed to the shooter in this incident. And I I applaud those uh assistant U.S. attorneys uh who took a bold stance and said, I'm not going to engage in conduct that I think violates my oath uh and uh as an attorney, and of course the oath as a you know as a public servant. But it's very scary that this is happening over and over and over, where we're seeing people being made to prosecute cases where there is no case, and then career prosecutors who are just like, I'm out. That's it, I can't do it. It's terrifying.

Matt Platkin:

I couldn't agree more. And this toothpaste is hard to put back in the tube. Once people think the Department of Justice, which I basically do think right now, is essentially a political agency that does what the president wants to do. It punishes people, it serves a political narrative, it doesn't seek to find justice, doesn't look at facts and the law the in an impartial way, a way a pro good any good prosecutor would do. Once the public views it in that way, it's very hard to recapture their trust and confidence, not just in this administration, but you know, in future administrations. And so Pam Bondy and Todd Blanche and everybody else who are willing to just go along with this nonsense, and Harmie Dillon, they are doing potentially irreparable damage to an incredibly important institution in this country that has been built up over 150 years.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

Thank you so much for coming to uh our uh our little program here.

Karl Racine:

Great to be with you, uh A.G. Nessel and A. G. Platkin, uh two great, great attorneys general who I look up to and happy to be your friends.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

Carl, uh, tell us a little bit about like how when did you come into office and then uh when did you leave?

Karl Racine:

I came into office in January of 2015 as the first elected attorney general of the District of Columbia prior to uh that uh uh November 2014 election. Um, AG in DC were appointed by the mayor. And I served for eight years and was really, really fortunate to serve with both of you for some of those eight years.

Matt Platkin:

Carl, have you seen the AG? Obviously, over the past 10 years, we've seen AGs really be engaged on federal-facing litigation, on a whole range of other areas, um, some of which are still bipartisan and a lot of which have broken down along partisan lines. Are you seeing the AG position as someone who has sort of been in the space now for some time evolve or change in ways that um maybe make it look a lot different than when you started?

Karl Racine:

Yeah, it really has changed dramatically. There was a lot more bipartisanship, um, both in terms of, you know, folks who are Democrats and Republicans really working hard to find issues that they could work on together and advance. Uh, there also was a real good group of more centrist or moderate Republican attorneys general who would stand up uh to uh some of the excesses uh that um, you know, my view, that the president um, you know, sought uh to impose on the country. Um and of course, in subsequent elections, unfortunately, many of those, every single one of those moderate or centrist Republicans have been taken out. And so the room um is much less bipartisan. Not being an AGE now for the last three years, I still believe that there are opportunities for folks to have good relations and perhaps work on things together. But my perspective from the outside is that there's a far less bipartisanship uh than there was even in my time.

Matt Platkin:

Has it been three years already? What did you say? Has it been three years already?

Karl Racine:

It feels like just yesterday that you were It's been three years. I left office on January 3rd of 20 uh 23. And that's when um the great Brian Schwab, uh my successor, took office.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

Yeah, I I feel like the line in the sand um when it came to Republicans who would be able to stay in power and those that were going to be primaried from the right really was a case that, you know, my state was one one of the central states involving uh Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election in uh a variety of states. And, you know, I was shocked that any of his colleagues joined in uh in an amicus to support him. Um and again, it was trying to overturn the election in um Pennsylvania and in Georgia, in Wisconsin, in Michigan, I think Arizona as well. And uh, you know, the states that uh that joined him again, I was I was taken aback. I was shocked by it. But uh the Republican AGs who decided not to support him and who put their reasons out there as to why they didn't think it was a justified lawsuit, I think they all went on to lose their primaries in their next election. I don't know that any of them still are in office.

Karl Racine:

That's exactly right, Dana.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

You know, you were in office when uh Donald Trump f entered his uh his first term uh back in 2017. Um and I was not yet in office, and um Matt was still in elementary school, I think, at that time. Uh so I guess my question is Middle school. Okay, close. Um, but I guess my question is, you know, I mean, I was inspired to run for attorney general in part because what I saw when uh Trump came into office. But what was it like when all of the things started to begin happening? And it's yourself and a number of other uh Democratic uh AGs who I'm sure were horrified, perhaps some of your Republican colleagues as well. Um uh how did things come about in terms of like your very first lawsuit where you know you and other state AGs joined together to fight back against what you believe to be illegal actions by the new administration?

Karl Racine:

Sure, I'll I'll tell you that. We were trying to figure out what uh the president might do in the early days in 2017. I have to say, uh there was no Project 2017. Uh, and so we did not kind of have a uh a preview um or an idea as to where he might strike first. Uh there were indicators, and the initial indicators was that it would be a big focus on immigration. Right uh during the weekend that uh the president was inaugurated, as I remember if it's correct, we were in Florida for a Democratic AG session, uh, and we were at that point beginning to organize ourselves. But of course, on that Saturday, the president imposed um the Muslim travel ban. And I remember well that several AG had to leave uh the meeting in order uh to get to their desk and start working. Uh Mark Herring, the former AG of the Commonwealth of Virginia, um, went immediately to Dulles Airport uh to try to uh lend a hand. And so right then and there we all had to organize, figure out what our offices do best, uh, and try as best we could to put the best papers we could immediately uh to uh to be a block as to the Muslim travel ban. It was really um a fire uh without any preparatory opportunities whatsoever.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

Do you know how many cases uh you personally were involved in against the Trump administration during your tenure in office?

Karl Racine:

I think it was a lot, a lot. Um I believe that we were uh that we we brought or were party to over 170 lawsuits against the administration. Really proud of the record, about an 83% uh victor record. Now, I've got to say that some of those victories were because the President Trump wasn't experienced at the time, um, nor had he had a chance to put his um his judges in. Uh, and um, and so there the administration made a lot of mistakes that we were able to exploit uh in those litigations. And I do think the judiciary was far more favorable, you might recall, uh, that during that time period um there were a number of nationwide injunctions, um, injunctions that today, uh pursuant to Supreme Court precedent, recent precedent, are not really looked at favorably. So it was a very, very different time uh for those attorneys general during the time period 2017, um, you know, to uh to Donald Trump's uh the end of his first term.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

Did you have what you would consider to be sort of a favorite case that uh that you brought that you felt really strongly about, other than the ones that you've mentioned?

Karl Racine:

I think um our favorite case uh you know had to be the emoluments case, um, which was not a large multi-state, as uh we're we're used to to seeing in some of these instances. But uh Brian Frosch, the attorney general then of Maryland, uh and the D.C. office, me, we brought a lawsuit against the president of the United States uh claiming that he violated the oldest anti-corruption law in the Constitution, that is the Emoluments Clause, which forbade uh the president or any other federal officer from benefiting in their personal pocket books or wallets uh from foreign or domestic gifts, money uh to them. Um and for us in DC, it was quite local and personal because the president had a hotel, uh, the Trump Hotel. And at the Trump Hotel in the District of Columbia, there were any number of domestic emoluments, put people coming there to give the president gifts by renting the hotel, and foreign governments. It was a really interesting case, first of its kind. Uh, we won in the federal district court, lost at the Fourth Circuit, won our rehearing on Bonk. Uh, and then eventually, when the president lost the election to uh Joe Biden, the Supreme Court would dismiss the federal cases after the president left office. Um, so there's sort of a disappointing precedential history, but that was a really, really important case, I think, to have been brought.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

Yeah, except for now that you have the president, you know, buying and selling crypto and uh tennis shoes, uh, cell phones, uh, the list goes on and on. So uh I think we've we've surpassed any of those issues that um we knew about back in the first term. And now it's as though it's common practice somehow.

Karl Racine:

I think you're exactly right. And uh there's again an uh an incident, an instance where Congress really failed to step up uh and go ahead and tighten that emoluments clause with by fur by further legislation, you know, to ensure uh that we have public servants who are focused on the public good, not their own pockets. And you know, you can't help but focus on a couple of Supreme Court decisions here, right? Uh the uh the court's decision um around presidential you know immunity, making it so difficult uh to uh hold a president accountable um even for criminal wrongdoing. Um and then you side by side put put that one there with the president's pardon powers, and you've got uh an unchecked uh White House in a real way um where they can move forward on things now without much concern, certainly of individual liability, and then have the ultimate uh trump card, if you will, uh with respect to um the pardon power. Uh so we are really in challenging times here, um, and that's why I'm so grateful uh to the leadership uh that you, A. G. Nessel and and you, A. G. Platkin, and your colleagues uh have displayed over the last couple of years.

Matt Platkin:

Well, I I I know for for me and uh Dana, I assume for you, we I I looked up to what you had done in the first term um when I wasn't here. I was, as Dana noted, I was in middle school um learning multiplication and division. Um uh there are probably some people in the legislature who think that here, so I don't want to give them any fodder. Um but uh um no, you guys did was heroic, and I think you laid a roadmap for us, those of us who have been here for the last uh geez, I was about to say few years, but it's only been a year. It feels like a decade. Um, but we really you you were an amazing colleague.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

Yeah, and and Carl, I mean, you know, you're a big part of the reason that I ran. Uh I had never run for elected office of any kind before, but I ran for attorney general and it was the only job that I wanted because I saw that it was the best way uh to fight back against a lawless administration. So we uh really appreciate you leading the way uh and showing everyone else what could be accomplished uh with your uh law license and uh your authority over a state or in your case a district.

Karl Racine:

So you all are redefining um you know that even as we speak, uh and I continue uh to look with admiration uh in regards to all of your work.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

Well, thanks for being with us. Thanks for joining us, Carl. We hope to uh see you in uh in the future, and um we uh appreciate all your great work and uh you're reliving it with us uh today. So thank you.

Karl Racine:

Thank you so much. Love your podcast.

Attorney General Dana Nessel:

Well, that's a wrap on today's episode of Pan Suits and Lawsuits. Be sure to follow our departments on social media and check out our websites for daily updates about the important work our departments are doing to protect your rights. Thanks again, of course, to former AG Carl Racine, Oregon AG Dan Rayfield, and of course, my co host for today, New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin. Uh, Matt, it's been so great working with you. I don't even know uh what we're gonna do without you and our coalition.

Matt Platkin:

Thanks, Dana. And thanks for always letting me on here.