The $64,000 Question

Kim (00:00)
Welcome back to Hashtag Sisters-in-Law with Jill Winebanks and me, Kimberly Atkins-Stor. The U.S. has begun drafting criminal defense attorneys to use because the DOJ is so short. And so that is why Barb and Joyce are not. No, just kidding. could you imagine? Like, he gets summoned to the DOJ, like, you must prosecute this case against the local newspaper.

No, they are not being held hostage, they will be back soon. And so it is just Jill Winebangs and me this week. ⁓ But that still doesn’t stop us from telling you news that all four sisters are very excited about. We are headed to Rocky Mountain High, Colorado. Denver, baby, we will be at the Cervantes Masterpiece on April 23rd.

Tickets are available at politicon.com slash tour. We can’t wait to see you there. And we have some more live shows coming up. Aren’t you excited?

Jill (01:25)
I am, I can’t wait to announce them.

Kim (01:28)
It will be great, but not to bring down the mood, but we have to talk about what this show is about today, ⁓ First, we are digging into the fact that there are more obscene files coming. Imagine that, more files, because they were caught not having released them all. Also, we’ll get a little bit into the legalities of the war with Iran. We are not like foreign policy analysts, but we can tell you a little bit about. what the law is and is not to help you ⁓ sort of, you know, manage that story a little bit better. And we’re going to talk about a group of states suing to stop Donald Trump’s new round of tariffs after the Supreme Court struck down his first round. But before we get into all of that deep stuff, it is spring. Like, Jill, I don’t know about you, like the crocuses were popping up out of the lawn. I’ve seen some tulips poking through snow. True story, true.

Spring is springing, Jill, and it makes me think about my rituals for spring. So I braid my hair. I have done so when the weather. great. Thank you. And I also plant some fresh herbs, which I love. It makes when you cook with fresh rosemary or fresh mint or something, it’s so much better than when you use the stuff from a little jar. So what are your spring rituals, Jill?

Jill (02:53)
So first I have to say that I work with a phenomenal trainer who comes to the house and my husband said, your hair got so long, what happened? And she said, well, it’s not my hair. I braided it and added extensions. And she was showing him how she weaves the extensions in. So he was really fascinated. For me, I don’t really have a lot of spring rituals, although I always start focusing on what annuals do I want to plant.

We’re way behind DC and I’ve been following when the cherry blossoms are going to bloom because I just, I love that. I always wish I could just fly there for the day to see them in full bloom. ⁓ But aside from thinking about the gardening, this year I’m doing something that is not a spring ritual, but I have decided that it is time for me to really start cleaning house. And I don’t mean physical cleaning, sweeping. mean,

like stuff that I have been accumulating for all the years I’ve lived in this house. And it’s just, I’ve gotten overwhelmed by my possessions and I am looking to hire someone who will help me to actually carry this wish forward. So that’s my spring.

Kim (04:08)
help it declutter. what was the lady on that show, Kondo, that she came in and she went through all your stuff and if it didn’t spark joy, you had to get rid of it?

Jill (04:19)
my God, I need her. I need her. I’m gonna find someone, I will.

Kim (04:25)
All right.

The news is more stressful than ever, isn’t that the truth? And I think all of us want to escape. And you can escape to a relaxing tropical beach far away from the craziness, because even if you don’t buy a plane ticket, I got the next best thing for you. With Osea Malibu, I feel like I’m in paradise when I incorporate them into my regimen. Right now, I’m really enjoying their dream collection.

It’s an amazing combo for unwinding and resetting for the day ahead. And it’s the perfect way to give your skin a fresh start now that it’s spring. You need to try it. Have you tried it, Jill? I love putting it on before bed.

Jill (05:17)
⁓ I not only have tried it, but my husband has tried it and he loves their products. I shocked. husband never used anything. And he just, liked the smell so much, he thought, I’m going to try it. And he’s a big user. So to fill in our listeners, I want them to know that Osea’s Dream Night Serum and Dream Night Cream are clinically tested formulas as powerful as any retinol that you have ever tried.

They’re designed to reduce the visible effects of stress, which Kim, we both have a lot of stress now, stress on skin while you sleep. I like putting on their Dream Bioretinal Body Serum first, and I was very excited to try it. It’s a brand new full body restorative treatment that visibly destresses the skin with a holistic blend of bioretinal, red seaweed, magnesium, and lavender.

Then I follow it up with the night cream. Both products are so nurturing and now I wake up with firmer, more moisturized skin that glows wherever I applied it. It doesn’t just visibly firm and improve skin elasticity. It also smooths lines and wrinkles with less potential irritation than the traditional retinol of other brands.

Kim (06:42)
Skincare is self-care, and the Dream Collection makes it easy to give your skin a rest. Say goodnight to dryness, dullness, wrinkles, and a lack of firmness, and say hello to serenity. It’s the perfect relaxing ritual and works overnight. In the morning, your skin is softer, smoother, and more radiant. Both of its products are truly an essential treatment in any bedtime routine, and they are so efficient.

and lead to real transformation in your body and well-being.

Jill (07:15)
There really is nothing better for promoting a restful night while visibly firming and improving skin elasticity. And we also love that everything is vegan, cruelty-free, and comes in sustainable packaging. So don’t wait. Give your skin a rest with clean, clinically-tested skincare from Osea. And right now, we have a special discount just for our listeners. Get 10 % off your first order site-wide with code SISTERS10.

at oseamalibu.com. That’s O-S-E-A, malibu.com, code SISTERS10. The link is also in our show notes.

Just when you thought the Epstein files couldn’t get worse, but also thought they would because otherwise, why would Donald Trump and the Department of Justice work so hard to keep them from disclosure as required by the Epstein Transparency Act? But it did. It got much more damaging. First of all, Kim, I want to ask you, how did we know that there were missing ⁓ 302s that have now been released?

Kim (08:31)
Yes, so ⁓ as we talked about before 302s are the summaries that the FBI makes of testimony that has been given in a case so in the released ⁓ Epstein files there also were some indices so these indices people were going through them like investigative journalists ⁓ and other people and there has been some really good work by them creating searchable files and stuff about

what’s in there. Well, they noticed that this index did not match up with the actual documents that were released and raised some flags about that. so ⁓ soon everyone, including lawmakers, was calling on the DOJ to release what they clearly had not released. And by not releasing it, they were violating the law.

Jill (09:23)
I love that you said indices instead of indexes, but so proper you are. Yeah, I mean, there was an index in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial that showed that there were four interviews of a young woman, a woman who talked about when she was like 13 to 15, being sexually abused, including by Trump. And there was only one.

the four interviews in the actual files produced. And so that led to a lot of outrage and saying, you know, we need the others. So Kim, the one that was released did not mention Donald Trump. It mentioned her being abused when she was somewhere between 13 and 15 by Jeffrey Epstein. And she was interviewed by the FBI in July of 2019.

But the other three do mention Trump. So what do we learn from these other three? What is important there now that they have been released and we can read the actual interviews?

Kim (10:36)
Yeah, so it’s pretty terrible. I should give a trigger warning right here for anybody. ⁓ And I’m not going to get deep into details about it, but just to be safe, I should do that. And these are allegations that were made in these interviews by this woman. Donald Trump has denied any wrongdoing ⁓ with Epstein and otherwise. But this testimony from this ⁓ woman who you said, was a teenager, a young teenager.

at the time, barely a teenager, that she was introduced through Epstein to Donald Trump and that she did meet Trump and that Trump attempted to assault her and she got away by biting him, but also gave other information about the relationship between Trump and Epstein, that it seemed to be a relationship that had gone on for some time.

that Trump had seemed jealous of Epstein for a while, but sort of seemed like he came up enough to not have to be jealous of him. I mean, it’s really interesting in that it paints this picture of two individuals that were deeply in each other’s circle and that Donald Trump was at the very least aware of the abuse was going on and at worst perhaps participating. Again, this is just her accusations, but that’s what was in.

⁓ that was in these transcripts.

Jill (12:05)
So let me just say as a prosecutor who has read multiple 302s, hundreds of them, these are particularly stark in their allegations and in clues that at the time could have and should have been investigated. There was a lot of there there and the FBI seems not to have followed up on this for some reason.

And that’s of interest to me. There are many clues that could have confirmed or proven untrue her allegations, but none of that happened and it should have. So now here we are, it’s 2026. These interviews were in 2019, but the abuse was when she was 13, not in 2019. And I just want to point out she met him because

He called for babysitting services and she went to babysit for his nonexistent children. Yes, Epstein, he Epstein, that’s how she met Epstein who then introduced her to Trump. ⁓ So what about the statute of limitations? Because these crimes are really old. So let’s look at both federal law and state law because these crimes

Kim (13:14)
I’m trying to buy a scene.

Jill (13:33)
know, sexual abuse of a minor are ⁓ both federal and state crimes.

Kim (13:42)
Yes. in most states, and I think in most of the states where it would be relevant here in the Epstein cases, there is either an extremely long or no statute of limitations at all when it comes to the abuse of a child. Now, the length of it can sometimes depend on what the age of the child was when they were abused. But generally speaking, for example, under federal law, there is no statute of limitations when it comes to the abuse.

or rape of a child. But in some of the states where Epstein has properties, there are varying ones. In Florida, for example, if the victim is under 16, there is no statute of limitations, but there may be one if it was a teenager that was older than that. There’s no statute of limitations for criminal prosecution in South Carolina, meaning that charges could still be filed.

A problem with that, of course, is evidentiary. longer a case is, it becomes more difficult, if not impossible, to try. you know, this is a sort of a rhetorical argument in some sense. But New York has the New York Child’s Victim Act. And the statute of limitations lasts ⁓ until a victim turns 28 years old. And for civil lawsuits, they may file a…

claim until they turn 55. If the victim is under 11, no statute of limitations at all. And also in New Jersey, there’s no statute of limitations. So it depends on the jurisdiction as to when a case could be brought. But as I said, the longer it takes, the harder it is.

Jill (15:29)
As a matter of proof at trial, memories go stale and people just don’t have the detail anymore that they would have had even in 2019. mean, seven years is a long time. Most statutes of limitations are five years for that particular reason. And you’re mentioning states where it is possible that she was abused because it could have been Florida, New York, New Jersey. Exactly.

Kim (15:53)
Yes.

in it, but yeah.

Jill (15:59)
⁓ So, I want to ask you as a journalist and as a citizen, what do you think should happen now to an investigation that should have started seven years ago, and what’s likely to happen or result?

Kim (16:14)
Yeah, you know, I think that the public should continue its pressure on the Justice Department to follow the law and live up to the promise that Trump made on the campaign trail and release all of these documents. The reason that we have this extra little tranche, the reason that we got the documents that we got when we did was because the people

pressured their government officials to get it out and Congress passed a law and now DOJ has to abide by a law that they’ve been violating for a while because this was all supposed to be done weeks ago. But ⁓ it’s that kind of pressure. So I feel like the more that we learn, the more that that drumbeat is, and it’s in that way is proof of democracy in action. And so in that, I’m very heartened by it.

The House Oversight Committee has been interviewing and subpoenaing at times people to testify about this, whether it’s their alleged involvement or with respect to the investigation. And I know Pam Bondi is set to ⁓ give a deposition behind closed doors. If it’s behind closed doors, might there actually be information that is credible and usable to get behind what happened there?

Perhaps because we’ve seen her in public hearings where she’s essentially hot-dogging for an audience of one. So will she actually act like an attorney, like with some sense in these closed-door depositions? We’ll see. ⁓ But I think that the fact that the public has kept pressure up is why these members of the House are acting. That’s why we got that bill passed, and that’s the only way we get closer to full transparency in the kind of…

investigation and justice that these survivors deserve.

Jill (18:10)
You know, I’ve lived to see how public pressure does make a serious difference. And I know people keep writing to us saying, don’t tell me to write to my congressman because what good does it do? I’m telling you folks, it makes a difference. Call, write, email, send letters, send telegrams if they still exist. A postcard. It really mounts up and they do keep track of what people are saying. So it does.

make a difference, keep the pressure up because that’s the only way there will be accountability. And we owe it to the survivors of this abuse that, and there are at least a thousand of them according to estimates. So make sure you keep up the public pressure.

If you aren’t concerned about microplastics in cleaning products, you should be. They aren’t good for us, our families, our pets, our world, and most people don’t realize they’re bringing them into their homes every day. That’s why we’ve made the switch to Blue Land across all the cleaning products in our homes, especially at the start of the year when we’re rethinking routines and trying to build more sustainable habits at home.

Certified by Cradle to Cradle, BlueLand products meet the highest standards of clean. They’re effective, yet gentle on people and the planet.

Kim (19:46)
From cleaning sprays and toilet bowl cleaner to dishwasher and laundry detergent tablets, Blue Land’s 100 % microplastic-free EPA Safer Choice Certified formulas are safe to use around my family and Snickers too in my house. And I love not having to choose between the safe option and what actually gets my house clean, and you will too.

Jill (20:12)
BlueLand is on a mission to make it easy for everyone to make sustainable choices. Like us, they believe that hardworking, clean products can be the norm, not the exception, so that you can do better for your family and the planet at the same time. It feels great knowing that I’m incorporating sustainable practices into essential everyday activities. I’m always amazed by how well their dishwasher tablets work.

They’re proven to perform no matter how intense the baked on or burnt on stains get. It’s a lifesaver when the dishes start to pile up and you won’t even need a rinse aid.

Kim (20:51)
Everything is independently tested to perform alongside major brands, and the formulas are free from dyes, parabens, and harsh chemicals. Plus, Blue Land is a Certified B Corp and certified cruelty-free by Leaping Bunny. Their formulas have been EPA Safer Choice Certified, and many have received the Gold Material Health Certificate from cradle to cradle. Their products are trusted in over one million homes, including ours.

And Blueland has a special offer for our listeners. Right now, get 15 % off your first order by going to blueland.com slash sisters. You won’t want to miss this. Blueland.com slash sisters for 15 % off. That’s blueland.com slash sisters to get 15 % off. And the link, as always, is in the show notes.

Jill (21:49)
you

know, affordability has become a key political word. And that’s because it seems like nothing is affordable these days. And that anything you buy falls apart way too fast. Now it’s all about quality and cost, especially in my closet. If it’s not well made and versatile, it’s just not worth it for us. That’s why we love quints. Their fabrics feel elevated, the cuts are thoughtful,

and the pricing actually makes sense. To fill you in, Quince makes high quality wardrobe staples using premium fabrics like 100 % European linen, 100 % silk, and organic cotton poplin, working directly with safe ethical factories and cuts out the middleman. That means you’re not paying for brand markup or fancy retail stores, just quality clothing.

Kim (22:49)
Yeah, know, sustainability means a lot to me and so does high quality clothing. And it’s nice not having to choose between the two here. They have so many must have items and their lightweight cotton cashmere sweaters are perfect for the changing season, especially with their can’t miss seasonal colors and prints for spring because spring has spring, at least it’s trying to spring.

And so you gotta be ready for it. Most importantly, all of their pieces are versatile, well-made, and make getting dressed simple. Plus, Quince uses 100 % European linen. Their cotton poplin is crisp and holds its shape. The gauze is soft without being flimsy. And from the stitching to the fit and the fabrics, everything Quince makes is built to hold up season after season.

These are pieces you’ll reach for over and over. That’s true, Jill. I have a couple of pieces from Coins that I bought ⁓ in the early days of the pandemic, and I’ve watched them a thousand times, and they’re still so, good.

Jill (23:54)
They are an amazing product. And when you choose Quince, you’re getting smart, stylish, and effortless clothes at prices you’ll love. The cashmere is so cozy in the cold. I personally love their wraps. And in Chicago, even in summer, it’s cold indoors because air conditioning is set way too cold for me. So I love having that cozy thing that I can put over me.

Everyone needs Quince Washable Stretch Silk Blouse. I wear mine a lot. It’s great under suits, but it’s also great just with pants and it’s the star of the show. The material feels amazing and the style is perfect for relaxing at home or taking care of business. There’s nothing better for looking your best. And now that the weather is getting nicer, well, it is. We have rain, but we have like 60 degrees this week in Chicago.

⁓ So it is getting better and that means the ultimate workout motivation is new active wear from Quince.

Kim (25:00)
Coins Clothing is consistently rated 4.5 to 5 stars by thousands of customers. Real people like us who wear these pieces every day and truly love them. So stop waiting to build the wardrobe you actually want. You don’t need a closet full of options. You need pieces that work. Right now, go to coins.com slash sisters for free shipping and 365 day returns. That’s a full year to wear it and love it.

and you will, and some good news. Quince is now available in Canada too. So if you’re in Toronto, our friends in Vancouver, know, in St. John’s, you can get Quince now too. It’s great, great news. love, those are some of my favorite places, by the way. I do love them. Don’t keep settling for clothes that don’t last. Go to quince.com slash sisters for free shipping and 365 day returns.

Again, that’s coins.com slash sisters and the link is in the show notes.

Well, if it looks like a war and smells like a war and claims the lives of American troops like a war, it seems like a war to me. ⁓ But so much about the U.S. and Israel’s military attack on Iran, which has sparked wider conflict in the region, has been left unexplained by the administration, including the reason why we got the U.S. into this and whether it even is a war, it’s a big mess. But luckily, my sister-in-law.

is a former US general counsel of the army, the first woman to hold that position, by the way. So let’s start with the basics, Jill. ⁓ Can a president even declare war without consulting Congress first?

Jill (26:55)
Well, that is the $64,000 question. Although that may be a dated reference that no one knows anymore because there used to be a TV show called The $64,000 Question, which was a lot of money when there was a TV show that night. I that show. you remember it. I’m so glad. Okay. So I also, before I answer your question, I just have to point out that the late night comic shows have all featured Mark Wayne Mullen.

soon, well, maybe nominated now to become the Secretary of DHS to replace the fired Kristi Noem. And he was saying in one sentence, it’s a war, no, it’s not a war. Well, you said it’s war. Well, no, they said it’s a war. Well, I mean, I think we, if we could include in our show notes, the clip of him saying it’s a war, it’s not a war. Yes, it sure looks like a war. It’s not a declared war.

because no one has declared a war or has authorized the use of force. And those are things that the Constitution gives the power of Congress. And the reason they give it to Congress is because when you put Americans’ lives at risk, service members, it is deemed that it should be something that the public supports. And the way you know that

public supports it is if there are representatives in Congress, senators and members of the House, vote a war resolution or authorize the use of military force. And that’s why we have the Constitution saying that. But there is a small conflict because although Congress is given that power in Article 1, in Article 2, the president is made the commander in chief of the military, which means he can command

and order them to do certain things. And in this day and age where Congress has ceded much of its power, its power of the purse, its power to declare war, the president can get away with doing this. Yes, I think the Constitution requires that Congress do this. There is also a law that was passed because of the Vietnam War ⁓ to stop presidents from expanding ⁓ wars.

that says that the president can do certain things, but only for like 60 days. And then if Congress doesn’t authorize the action, it’s over. The president can extend it for 30 more days. then you’re talking 90 days, but again, it’s over if Congress doesn’t approve it. So that’s where we are. I believe the constitution gives the power to Congress and that the action of bombing a foreign country when it’s not

attacked us, it’s not retaliatory, it’s not self-defense, is unconstitutional and illegal.

Kim (30:00)
It was really wild to see so many members of Congress who support the president saying, when asked point blank on television interviews, who has the war power? They kept saying, ⁓ well, Article II of the Constitution gives the president the power to take decisive action when American interests are in danger. And it’s like, did you miss the whole first article?

Not just the whole first article of the Constitution, but the one that created your job. Like, this is literally your job. And they were all twisting themselves in knots anyway. So the horse is out of the barn when it comes to Article One powers. Congress wasn’t powerless, Jill, to my point. ⁓ Tell us about their effort to ⁓ rein in Trump when it came to Iran.

Jill (30:45)
Great stuff.

Well, let me start with the conclusion. The effort failed.

But it’s not over, it could-

Kim (31:04)
It’s not funny though. mean, it’s really awful. It’s the abdication of their…

Jill (31:10)
It is, but there was some effort. Let’s give credit where credit is due. There was an effort. The War Powers Resolution that was introduced by Representatives Massey and Ro Khanna failed to get the proper number of votes. And that was because strangely enough, there were some Democrats who went with the Republicans and said, no, they didn’t want to limit Trump’s powers. And there were some

Republicans who voted with the Democrats to say, yeah, this is a power that we have and Trump doesn’t and we want him to enforce it. Massey said, the Constitution is clear. Our Constitution provides Congress initiates the powers of war. And so he was trying through this resolution with Ro Khanna to get it. But there were some Republicans who said, well,

⁓ I’d like to shorten the War Powers Resolution from 60 days to 30 days. And if he doesn’t get our approval in 30 days, then we have to stop it. Well, you know, that isn’t how it should be, but even that hasn’t passed. So right now it’s just a defeated resolution. And I hope that they will get their act together and agree that at some point in time, they will not fund it and they will take action to preserve their power.

as Congress because they’ve become pretty much ⁓ useless. mean, what’s even a worse word than useless? They really aren’t doing their job.

Kim (32:45)
Remember all this when you cast your votes in the midterms, ladies and gentlemen, vote for people who are willing to do the job. Well, one reason, ⁓ one rationale behind the rules we have about engaging in war and who can do it is because it is the most important and solemn decision that I think most elected officials can make is entering into that. And that is because ⁓

of the great risks that it poses people, particularly our service members who put their lives on the line. And that’s why historically we have seen presidents and administration officials treat ⁓ military strikes and wartime or military casualties with the solemnity they deserve. ⁓ But Jill, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth are not usual. ⁓

What have they said about the now, as of I believe as of this recording, six ⁓ service people have lost their lives in this mission. What have they said about them making the ultimate sacrifice?

Jill (34:00)
So let me emphasize something you refer to, which is the solemnity of a declaration of war or of engaging in a war. Yeah. And the risk to service members and their families who will lose some of them. And back in Vietnam, because it was a draft at the time, ⁓ it made a big difference because it wasn’t an all-volunteer force as it is now.

People were like, I don’t want to go and fight for a stupid war that I think is not justified. And that made a big difference in how war was conducted. But Trump said, and I just want to quote him, as one nation, we grieve for the true American patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, even as we continue the righteous mission for which they gave their lives. Sadly,

There will likely be more before it ends. That’s the way it is.

Kim (35:03)
That’s the way it is.

Jill (35:06)
I’d say that that last sentence, that’s the way it is, shows total disregard and disrespect for the men and women who are risking their lives in this particular engagement. And then we have Hegseth, who basically treated it like it was a PR problem rather than a recognition of the service and an honor to recognize the fallen. He said,

This is what the fake news misses. This was at a Pentagon briefing on Wednesday. He avowed that the United States was winning decisively in the battle against the Islamic Republic, but when a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it’s front page news. I get it. The press really only wants to make the president look bad, but try for once to report the reality. Well, the reality is that people have died.

And it’s not just Americans who have died. Other people have died and more will die as Iran continues to engage in strikes in multiple countries and aiming at Israeli and US targets. But beyond that, other Middle Eastern countries are being hurt and there’s a chance we’ll run out of anti drone missiles and that more will then hit

⁓ But the big question is how do you treat the caskets of the fallen? And I remember when in 2003, President George W. Bush forbid the coverage of the caskets. And the reason was PR, because it was turning America against the war. It could see the consequences. And ⁓ he issued a

bar against the press covering the return of caskets. President Obama eliminated that bar and opened it up again. And now, who knows what the Pentagon’s going to do. They certainly don’t want any publicity about the returning members of the service who have lost their lives in this.

Kim (37:26)
I mean, that’s literally, they’re hiding the dead. Yes. They’re hiding the dead as opposed to going to their funerals, attending them, know, doing this whole, saying their names, thanking them for their sacrifice. Thanking their families.

Jill (37:43)
Think of their families. One of the excuses used was, ⁓ we can’t do this because it will invade the privacy of the families. ⁓ it will not. Families will appreciate the recognition for the service of their loved ones. And the alternative that’s being proposed is that the press cover the memorials so that they can talk more about the details of the person. Talk about invading the privacy. Is going to the funerals?

So, you know, Representative Vindman and Senators Duckworth and Kelly have spoken strongly against what the president and the secretary of defense have said. But I wonder, Kim, as a journalist, what do you think about, should the press cover the return of the caskets? What do you think is the right balance?

Kim (38:37)
don’t think you hide the dead in your coverage. don’t think, I mean, I just am gobsmacked by Hegseth saying that the only reason the press covers our fallen troops is to make the president look bad. Are you kidding me? you? I mean, that is so insulting to the families. ⁓ Yeah, you don’t want to be intrusive. I mean, as a young journalist, I covered funerals of

public officials or local people that in the community. It’s a horrible thing to do. It’s terrible, but it puts something more than a name to the loss. You’re covering what the impact of the war is. And that includes grieving families. That includes lives that were promising that were ended too soon. So yeah, it is a part of it. It’s not a fun thing to do, but

saying that it’s just an attempt to throw mud at the president is outrageous.

Spring cleaning season is here, so get rid of your lumpy old mattress and wake up rested and ready to take on the longer days with Helix. After all, great sleep is critical to success and there’s nothing better for sleep than a Helix mattress. I first heard about them when they asked to sponsor our show, but we’re very selective here on hashtag sisters-in-law. So we of course wanted to try them out. And as our sister Joyce has mentioned,

She can’t stop talking about them in particular. She has one in every room in her house because she aced the Helix quiz, which tailors your mattress to your sleeping style. Joyce matched with the Helix Midnight Mattress and joined us in getting the best sleep of her life ever since. Tossing and turning is a thing of the past. Now our families are getting them too and they love finding their ultimate fit.

Jill (40:45)
Joyce isn’t the only one. A recent study showed that 82 % of people saw an increase in their deep sleep cycle when using a Helix, and they are the most awarded mattress brand by reviewers like Forbes and Wired. There are so many options, and you’ll love how they combine memory foam and individually wrapped steel coils for the optimal blend of softness and support. There are even enhanced cooling features

to keep you from getting too warm when the weather heats up.

Kim (41:18)
amazed that Helix has been a part of my sister’s habits for over two years. Making the switch is such an upgrade. Since then, we’ve heard so many stories of people seeing amazing improvements in the quality of their sleep on their wearable devices, thanks to their Helix mattresses. Add that to free US shipping that comes direct to your door, a quick and easy setup, and no fuss trial policy, Helix is an easy choice.

Jill (41:47)
The Happy with Helix Guarantee offers a risk-free customer-first experience with a 120-night sleep trial and a limited lifetime warranty to ensure you’re completely satisfied with your new mattress for years to come. Don’t wait. Get a fresh start on spring with an incredible mattress that truly lasts by taking advantage of their best-of-web SleepWeek sale. Go to helixsleep.com slash sisters

for 27 % off site-wide, exclusive for listeners of Hashtag Sisters-in-Law. That’s helixsleep.com slash sisters for 27 % off site-wide, exclusive for listeners of Hashtag Sisters-in-Law. Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you. Again, it’s helixsleep.com slash sisters. And you can find the link in our show notes.

Kim, we have discussed the Supreme Court’s strong rebuke just last month of President Trump’s imposition of tariffs under IEPA. We all remember IEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. So what did he do when he got struck down on it was illegal for him to do that? Instead of accepting defeat gracefully and working on refunding the illegally collected tariff money, Trump immediately used a different law.

Section 122 to impose a new 10 % tariff and threatening to raise it to 15%. But just as soon as he did, a coalition of 24 Democratic states attorney generals and governors, the ones who won the IEPA case and without a single Republican joining, even though their citizens are hurt by the tariffs just as much as the Democratic AG states are hurt.

They filed a lawsuit on Thursday asking the US Court of International Trade to block implementation of the Section 122 tariffs on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and violates Section 122. So Kim, let’s dig into Section 122’s exact language because there are some limitations in it that I think are important to analyze whether

the 1974 Trade Act, Section 122, can be used here. So, you want to read some of the language? Because I think that’s really important.

Kim (44:28)
Yeah, so ⁓ the language itself authorizes a president to impose quote temporary import surcharges, ⁓ not exceeding 15 % at Valorum for a maximum of 150 days. Now to do this, it has to be under the statute a fundamental international payment problem. ⁓

including a large balance of payments deficit or imminent dollar depreciation. So this sounds like a spuss to me. This is me talking now, not the language. This sounds to me. Okay, I’m not a tariffs expert, but like if something imminent happens financially, such as payments not being made or, ⁓ you know, the dollar tanks unexpectedly that the president can have.

for a limited time, 150 days, some space to maneuver a little bit with tariffs just to get you through that little bump. This does not sound to me like it authorizes, you know, tariffs of 10 or 15 % on various countries willy-nilly indefinitely, but that’s just me.

Jill (45:40)
Right. And of course he used it for global ⁓ impacts. It’s on every country except he does have some exceptions. And we’ll talk about that a little later because those are

Kim (45:51)
Basically, he is trying to recreate the struck down terrace, just plugging it into a different statute and seeing if it-

Jill (45:59)
And you are right because the reason this was passed was the dollar used to be pegged to gold and there was a time and this law was passed in 1974 when it looked like the gold standard was going to tank the dollar and so they passed it. So it is a very specific, it’s limited, 150 days and it is limited to a balance of payments or a tanking of the dollar.

and not anything else. So before we get to discussing that detail of what is a balance of payment versus a trade deficit, which is what Donald Trump is saying, and they’re not the same, but so what are they asking for in this lawsuit? We need to understand that first.

Kim (46:46)
Well, they’re asking for them to be stopped, to declare them illegal, ⁓ and also to refund whatever money they’ve been collecting off of them ⁓ immediately. Because you see, we’re now, we have this problem with the other struck down tyrants. How do you even refund them? And will they all be refunded? Probably not, because they went on for so long. So they’re like, hold the phone and give that money back now. ⁓ So they’re asking for them to enjoined from carrying this out.

Jill (47:16)
And as I read what they have put forth in their argument ⁓ in this request to enjoin the implementation of this tariff, ⁓ they have some pretty good arguments. So one of them is this difference that we were talking about, balance of payment versus… So let’s get into that a little bit.

Kim (47:34)
Yeah, balance of payment.

Yeah, so ⁓ in their brief, the Democrats argue that global tariffs are not under ⁓ the language of this because the statute clearly says balance of payment. And that is a specific thing. That is if a transaction ⁓ that has to do with specific transactions taking place in real time. That does not mean a trade deficit, which is a big, you know, ⁓

big concept that Trump still hasn’t even defined how he gets to the trade deficits that he claims with these countries, but that one country is benefiting more from a trade deal than another and that it’s unfair and that creates a deficit and so that the countries have to react. That is not a balance of payment problem. In fact, the brief argues that balance of payment problems don’t even happen anymore because of just modern banking.

Jill (48:37)
This gold standard ain’t anymore.

Kim (48:40)
Yes, it’s like just the fact that we no longer have, you know, the fixed rate exchange system that, you know, you’re checking to see what gold is doing on a particular day to know it’s going to, we don’t do that anymore.

Jill (48:53)
Exactly. And a trade deficit is when we buy more from overseas than we export overseas. And that’s not what this law is intended for. So even if we have a trade deficit with a country, this law doesn’t apply. And there’s another interesting argument which has to do with the argument that was had before the Supreme Court on IEPA. And the

government in that case basically said we have to use AIIPA because section 122 isn’t applicable to here. So we have to use this other law. they’ve made these obviously inconsistent arguments and is there a way around that? Is there any answer to that?

Kim (49:45)
For this particular litigation, no, you’re absolutely right. This does not apply to this statute at all. ⁓ It just doesn’t apply. Now, it’s interesting. I was actually interested when the government tried to argue this. suppose maybe they thought it was the quickest way. But if you recall in the Supreme Court decision striking down the first Harris under IEBA,

there was a dissent by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which basically was like trying to do the work of White House counsel saying, well, yes, you can’t do it under this one, but look, there are all these other statutes that a president can use that if these circumstances apply, he may be able to do it. ⁓ Brett Kavanaugh is basically trying to do White House policy from the Supreme Court. So I’m actually surprised that they didn’t immediately issue an executive order

That’s basically exactly what Kavanaugh said. then declare that. But I think the difference between those statutes is they don’t have the same emergency powers that the president uses, which is why he did it just at the stroke of an executive order, as opposed to going through the proper administrative process to try to impose these tariffs. So think that’s the answer to the question. yeah.

Jill (51:05)
Yeah, you know, it’s so odd that a president with total control of Congress, he has the majority in the House and the Senate, and they can impose tariffs. Why isn’t he going to them? In the same way, why isn’t he going to them for war powers? They can declare a war. Don’t you think he can convince his own members that they should support it? Well, obviously they couldn’t.

Kim (51:31)
he thinks he needs to because he’s just been doing things on his own and for the vast majority of the time he gets away with it. And also what a blessing to these congresspeople who support him because they don’t have to put their names on it. They don’t have to get their hands dirty and explain to their constituents why they back this tariff, which is killing American businesses. They can just say, well, it’s the president’s job under Article 2. It’s covering their backsides too. So it’s just a particular tidy little messed up

thing that’s going on here.

Jill (52:02)
Kim, I note that no Republicans have joined as plaintiffs, even though the damage in their states will be as severe. And why do you think that that’s happening? And why are Republicans saying it’s happening?

Kim (52:18)
Yeah, I think that it is, ⁓ as I said, I think they’re covering themselves the same way that Republicans in Congress are. don’t want to either, for the ones in Congress, they don’t want to be attached to terrorists that are unpopular. And for those outside, they don’t want to get on Donald Trump’s bad side because they see no future if that happens. really beholden. State Republican parties are really

shockingly beholden to the president, even those that are, even some Republicans in bluer states ⁓ are so. So, you know, they didn’t feel comfortable doing that in this particular environment. ⁓ But as you said, Jill, I suspect, I know the attorney general of California, ⁓ you know, said he thought that…

secretly that they’re rooting for them to win because they are. At least hearing from their constituents about the impact of these tariffs and that they want, ⁓ you know, just what it’s doing to businesses, what it’s doing to the economy, it’s hitting states and local communities too. So they know that it’s bad, but politically they can’t, they got to watch their words.

Jill (53:40)
I think honestly that it is really fear of Donald Trump and the Attorney General of Oregon said, I think in the current political environment, it’s very difficult for Republicans to join on to a case like this, challenging their party’s leader. We absolutely know that there are free trade Republicans out there and they should be supporting this, but they’re really afraid. And as you said, they probably are hoping that the Democrats

prevail in this. ⁓ So let’s look at what happens if the Democratic plaintiffs win the injunction, which they are confident that they will. ⁓ It’s going to go to appeals courts and eventually to SCOTUS. You’re our SCOTUS expert. So what do you think is going to happen? And will it be irrelevant because the 150 days, and that was the advantage of IEPA. It was a permanent thing. Only 150 days.

So they didn’t want to go with something that was only 150, although they’re now saying, well, we’ll use this as a bridge till we figure out another way to do it. So will this even be decided by the time the 150 days expire?

Kim (54:54)
Yeah, it’s well, first of all, if the Supreme Court keeps it consistent and fires up that shadow docket like it’s been, can totally weigh in before this 150 days. Also, yes, if there is not. So to have a question.

that the court is able to take up, can’t be moot, which means that the issue before it can’t have already resolved itself. what Jill is asking is because this is only for 150 days, if it gets to the court after that, will they just say, well, it’s moot, we can’t act on it? Not necessarily. There are exceptions to the mootness doctrine, such as things that are ⁓ able and likely to be repeated. So if Trump’s just gonna, you right after that.

fire up a bunch of other ones and think, oh, I got 150 days. No. If the Supreme Court knows that they could do that. And listen, I’m out of the game of predicting what the Supreme Court will do other than rule in Trump’s favor, but they did rule against him in the tariffs case and based on the language of the statute. And I feel like this statute is even clearer than the IEPA provision that was in question in the first one. So I do think the possibility is greater that they would.

strike it down, in fact that they could do it on the Shadow Docket without full briefing and stuff this time. So I don’t know, that’s just my hunch, but I could be wrong.

Jill (56:24)
Well, it sounds like a tax being imposed by the president, even though that is a power the constitution gives to Congress, not the president. Even 122 says it’s five months unless Congress acts. So it’s just another power grab by President Trump in his quest to be, I don’t know what to call it, an authoritarian dictator ⁓ and one that creates more economic chaos with Americans having to foot the bill.

So where is Congress on this and how fast will it get to court and be resolved?

Running a small business can get crazy. I know that because my husband runs a small antique store. So make this the year to simplify your workflow and take things to the next level, whether it’s a law firm, a podcast, or an antique store. You want to focus on the cases, the show, or client management instead of the stuff that feels like busy work. Unfortunately, there are a ton of hats to wear.

It’s distracting and can take the focus off your mission. That’s why we wanted to tell you about Gusto. It’s perfect for anyone who wants to take charge of their operation. And I know that in addition to my sisters, there are so many law firms and other small businesses that would benefit.

Kim (57:54)
Augusto is an online payroll and benefits software built for small businesses. It’s all-in-one, remote-friendly, and incredibly easy to use. So you can pay, hire, onboard, and support your team from anywhere. If you’ve ever had one of those days where filling out forms and handling logistics burned all of your time, you will definitely benefit.

Speaking from experience, repetitive paperwork can take up so much energy when all you want to do is focus on the work you actually enjoy. Now the process of running a business is so much easier and more efficient. Thanks to Gusto.

Jill (58:33)
They have a lot of automated tools to help you save time, and they are all built right in. Imagine how much simpler your workload would be with quickly accessible offer letters, onboarding materials, direct deposits, and more. It’s so easy to enter a flow state when you know you’re taking care of the things that actually matter. But there’s more. With Gusto, you even get direct access to certified HR experts to help support you through any tough HR situations.

Kim (59:04)
That can save you so much money, time, and worry. And best of all, it’s quick and simple to switch to Gusto. Just transfer your existing data to get up and running fast. Plus, you don’t have to pay a cent until you run your first payroll. Don’t just take our word for it. Gusto was named the number one payroll software according to G2 in fall 2025 and is trusted by over 400,000 small businesses.

Join them and start optimizing your business. Try Gusto today at gusto.com slash sisters and get three months free when you run your first payroll. That’s three months free payroll at g u s t o dot com slash sisters. One more time. G u s t o dot com slash sisters. And the link is in our show notes.

Now we are at what is truly, truly our favorite part of the show, which is answering listener questions. If you have a question, you can email it to us at sistersinlawatpoliticon.com or tag us on social media using hashtag SistersInLaw. If we don’t get to your question during the show, we want you to tune in on Wednesdays to our new show, Sister Sidebar, where we answer even more questions.

As I said, that drops every Wednesday. So don’t forget to check that out too. Today’s first question comes from Kelly on Instagram, who asks, what’s to stop the DOJ from simply destroying incriminating documents from the Epstein files that they don’t want made public? Jill?

Jill (1:00:57)
Well, I love that question because it brought me back to the days of why didn’t Richard Nixon destroy the tapes? And he didn’t for very silly reasons. And then we quickly subpoenaed them. And as soon as we subpoenaed them, it would have been a crime to destroy them. And at this point, it is a crime to destroy them because they have been requested

demanded, required under a law that was signed by Donald Trump into law. And so you can’t just destroy them at this point. Maybe they could have gotten away with it earlier, but I think that would have left everyone with the same feeling that we now have, which is, man, there must be some pretty damaging information in those documents, or they wouldn’t be fighting against

releasing them.

Kim (1:01:57)
Okay. Our second question comes from Shelly in Mount Pleasant, Michigan. Hi, Shelly. That’s not far from where I grew up. So thanks for listening. Regarding the Epstein files, why isn’t it a crime to have visited the island and not reported the crimes going on there? That’s a great, great question. It gets to the ⁓ laws that require

people to report criminal activity when they see it. Overall, Shelley, those are very rare. The general rule is that people, if they witness a crime, are not required to report it. If you see somebody doing what looks like, clearly looks like a drug deal when you’re walking down the street, you do not have a duty to turn around and run to your police office and ⁓ report it. But for ⁓ child abuse,

and that includes child sexual abuse. There are some exceptions to that. It depends on the state or the jurisdiction, I should say. His island is in the US Virgin Islands. And there, there is a duty of mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, but it’s only for a certain class of people. And they tend to be people like teachers, therapists, ⁓

home health workers, things like that. So if you are an average citizen and you don’t hold one of those positions, no, there is not a mandatory, ⁓ there is no mandatory requirement that you report crimes. Now you may be a witness to it if they are investigated by someone else, but that is why. And our final question comes from Carla in Phoenix who asks,

Are there any legal roadblocks to bringing back the draft? Wow. Could Trump do it unilaterally, Jill?

Jill (1:04:02)
This relates, of course, to the conversation we were having about the war powers and about whether you can cover caskets as the press. And the answer is the draft was abolished. And so you would have to create a draft system, both in terms of having a law that allows the drafting of U.S. citizens. You’d have to set the rules about whether women could be drafted now.

In the old days, was just men and it was only in a certain age range. But now women are accepted into the military. so would men and women be drafted? That would be part of the legislation. And no, it can’t be done unilaterally. It would take Congress to pass in both houses and then the president to sign or Congress to override a veto if he should decide to veto. And the draft, it was

Interesting to watch it be abolished and the change it made and how we perceive the military. We now have a much more professional military because they are all volunteers. But at time of war, you have to wonder, will we have enough in the same way we’re worried? Do we have enough anti-ballistic missiles to ⁓ survive the drone attacks? And the drones cost like 20,000. Our ballistic missiles are in the millions.

So it’s disproportionate spending. But yeah, he can’t do it unilaterally.

Kim (1:05:37)
Well, thank you for listening to Hashtag Sisters-in-Law with Jill Winebanks and me, Kimberly Atkins-Stor. We miss Joyce and Barb and can’t wait to have them back. And we hope to see you all in Denver at our live show at the Cervantes Masterpiece on April 23rd. Tickets are available at politicon.com slash tour. So make sure you get them before they sell out. I think I think all of our shows have sold out, Jill.

that we’ve done so you better get your ticket.

Jill (1:06:07)
They

have been, of course they were.

Kim (1:06:09)
Yeah. So don’t forget to pick them up and also pick up some Sisters-in-Law merch for the show and other goodies at politicon.com slash merch. And don’t forget to check out our sister podcast, Sister Sidebar on Wednesdays and show some love to this week’s Osea Malibu, Blueland, Quince, Helix and Gusto. The links are on our show notes. Please support them because we can’t make this show without them.

See you next week with another episode, hashtag Sisters-in-Law.

Jill (1:06:57)
I hope they still like us.

Kim (1:07:03)
They love us.

Jill (1:07:04)
I mean Americans, not you and me.

Kim (1:07:06)
Well,

they love us. we’re not… All right, we probably need to cut that out of the ad. We can’t be a feeding point.

Jill (1:07:13)
Couldn’t help myself when you said, love Canadians. don’t, anyway, sorry, cut that all out. I got carried away.

Kim (1:07:22)
Okay.