FACE Off

Jill (00:00)
Welcome back to Hashtag Sisters-in-Law. We’re so glad you’re here. And today we have a full set of sisters. We’re here with Kimberly Atkins-Stor, Barb McQuade, Joyce Vance, and me, Jill Winebanks. And we want you to know that we’re doing live shows. We have one April 23rd. just next week in Denver at the Cervantes Masterpiece Theater. And then on May 3rd in Atlanta at the Buckhead Theater. Tickets are available at politicon.com. Get yours before they sell out. Today we have a really big show and we are gonna be talking about the FACE Act. I know you all remember what that is. Freedom of access to clinics. And then we’re gonna talk about the Swifties One. what that will mean for you as a ticket purchaser. And then we have some news about ICE. But before we get to that, I want to talk to my sisters about decluttering because I’m

Kim (01:12)
No, No, no, Sorry, let’s, I’m all about this good spring cleaning, but that’s not what we’re gonna talk about today. We are going to talk about the fact that Jill Winebanks has been acknowledged internationally for her fabulosity involving her pins. Jill, tell us what happened.

Jill (01:31)
Hall of Fame pins. ⁓ It was a lot of fun. got an email from the Financial Times of London that they wanted to do a piece about my brooches. They call them brooches because this is after all London. I had a wonderful interview. I reported from London. Obviously, the time difference meant it was a strange time for her and me. ⁓ She wrote up a story that

Joyce (01:47)
Yeah.

Jill (01:59)
I have to say, I think she really captured the joy of collecting and the meaning of my pins. And she focused on five pins, but I actually snuck in a sixth pin and all of the people who follow me will a long brand. In the picture that is the cover of the story, I’m wearing an ERA rhinestone pin. And that was not one that she talks about in the article, but. anybody seeing that picture is gonna see ERA, something I’ve been working on since 1976. Although I’ve been wearing pins for longer than that, they didn’t used to be message pins. And she does have at least the pin that I was wearing the day I cross examined Rosemary Woods is an actual ⁓ jewel piece. It’s opals and seed pearls from the tiny jewel box in Washington DC.

Joyce (02:53)
⁓ my gosh. ⁓

Kim (02:57)
I a friend who works there.

Jill (02:58)
Really? ⁓ my God, we’ll tell them that their pin is featured in the Financial Times. I bought it there. Yeah. And you know who else used to shop there besides you fabulous people is Secretary Madeleine Albright. She has bought pins there. So if you have a copy of her book about pins, she identifies some as coming from the tiny jewel box. So it was a lot of fun. And they came to the house with an American, the journalist was

Kim (03:03)
Oh my God, she’s gonna be so excited.

Jill (03:25)
Kate Yoddy in London. Was the American there to translate? Yeah, I need that sometimes, but she was there to do the photographs and she had me changing suits every time I had a pin so that it was not all the same color. But unfortunately, she only used the pin on the lapel. so, I mean, it just could have been on a piece of fabric, but anyway, I loved the photographer and I enjoyed meeting her and talking with her.

The equipment she brought to the house was quite amazing. So, and it gives you a different view of my house. The thing I’m looking at now as opposed to the thing you’re looking at now.

Kim (04:05)
gorgeous.

Joyce (04:06)
So special. I was reading and that popped up in my feed and I immediately texted you. But it just was such a nice moment. It was glamorous, but it was sensible. We just all need a little bit of that joy,

Jill (04:20)
Well, and you’ve gotten into pins. I love that you are wearing pins.

Joyce (04:23)
You’ve inspired me, girlfriend. In fact, when we’re in Denver next week doing the live show, I have a pen planned.

Jill (04:31)
Really? I can’t even think about what I wear.

Kim (04:32)
I’m gonna-

Joyce (04:32)
No.

Kim (04:34)
I’m gonna have to look in my jewel box and pull out a pin too.

Jill (04:37)
Everybody has to wear a brooch on the show, for sure. Everybody bring one with. Well, I don’t know about a pin, but I am committed to figuring out the perfect Denver area sports jersey to wear for the… So, listeners, give us your suggestions on what would be the best sports jersey to wear at the Denver Live Show.

We hear a lot about microplastics in the oceans and in our food, but they can also come from products we use every day at home, including the ones we use to clean. It’s not good for us, our pets, or the environment. That is why we wanted to tell you about BlueLand.

Joyce (05:23)
BlueLand is on a mission to make it easy for everyone to make sustainable choices based on the belief that cleaning shouldn’t come at the cost of the planet. I love BlueLand. From cleaning sprays and toilet bowl cleaner to dishwasher and laundry detergent tablets, BlueLand products are independently tested to perform as well as major brands. The formulas are free from dyes, parabens, and harsh chemicals.

Jill (05:48)
love not having to choose between the safe option and what actually gets my house clean. And you will too. 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.

proven to perform no matter how intense the baked on or maybe burned on, I plead the fifth, no confessions here, ⁓ the burnt on stains may get. It’s a lifesaver when the dishes start to pile up and when it’s time to cook and eat, you won’t be worried about residual plastic getting into your food. You won’t even need a rinse aid.

Kim (06:38)
Best of all, BlueLand is a certified B Corp and Leaping Bunny Cruelty Free certified. Their formulas are EPA Safer Choice certified and many products have also earned Cradle to Cradle’s Gold Material Health Certificate. Put it all together and it’s easy to see why their products are trusted in over one million homes, including ours. So help us celebrate Earth Month and make the switch today. Get up to 30.

by going to blueland.com slash sisters. If you’ve been thinking about making the switch, now’s a great time. Get up to 30 % off at blueland.com slash sisters. Make the switch this Earth month and get up to 30 % off at blueland.com slash sisters. And the link is in our show notes.

Jill (07:36)
Well, this week came a story that has really set me off. know, it surprises me that I can still become surprised and disgusted by some of the conduct coming out of Trump’s DOJ, but this week really rocked me. And that was the first report of DOJ’s weaponization working group. I think it hit hard because it hit Detroit, where I have friends who were fired as a result of this.

This report was a doozy. And so I really want to dig into this. And I thought, ⁓ I want to just ask the questions about this one because I don’t know that I can be objective because I am so ⁓ disgusted by what has happened. ⁓ first, ⁓ Jill, let me ask you about the report. It relates to the FACE Act. ⁓ Can you please tell us what the FACE Act is, first of all, to sort of set the table here and why Congress chose to enact this legislation?

FACE Act stands for Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances. And although it says clinic entrances, it probably should be FACCE because it also includes churches. It’s not really just clinics. And it was enacted in 1994 because of a growing amount of violence in threats and violent actions preventing access to abortion clinics or

to abortion resource centers, which are those places that take the opposite view and are anti-choice. ⁓ So that’s why it was enacted was to protect people’s right to enter. It does not affect First Amendment rights. People may protest with words. They can’t block entrances or threaten or bomb clinics. Those are things that are illegal under the FACE Act. ⁓

Joyce, you wrote about this report in your substat newsletter, Civil Discourse. ⁓ I want to talk about the report itself. Can you tell us what was in the report?

Joyce (09:38)
Yeah, so look, let me confess my biases just like you did, Barb. I had the same reaction that you did. It just was even in an era where we should be past shock, still shocking. So we get this 882 page report. And essentially what it is, is a major introduction of politics into prosecution, which is something our listeners know should never happen, right? Prosecution, it’s about the fact and the law.

We have this statute that Jill has laid out. If it has been violated, then it’s appropriate to prosecute. know, prosecutors use some discretion, but what DOJ is complaining about in this report is the fact that Biden-era prosecutors used this statute more than it had been used in recent history. And let’s talk about why that happened. It happened because the Supreme Court decided dogs and rolled back abortion rights under Roe versus Wade.

And sort of weirdly, this is a little bit counterintuitive, but after people who were pro-choice lost in court, violence at clinics began to rise. And I don’t want to overstate it. It wasn’t all, when the act was originally passed, it was a response to murders of doctors who worked at abortion clinics. This was more along the lines of obstruction, some of it pretty violent efforts to keep people from getting into clinics.

and recognizing that if they didn’t use the act aggressively, that would only escalate. The Biden Justice Department did what the Justice Department is supposed to do. It enforced the law. So this report comes in and it sort of cherry picks facts and takes them out of context, complains about one case where the defendant was acquitted and says that this was all a political ploy on the part of the Biden Justice Department. And you know, here’s the kicker. The example that they use,

Is this guy who gets acquitted? Well, that sort of puts the lie to everything that they’re saying because it wasn’t the Biden Justice Department that was convicting these defendants. It was juries who heard the law and the fact. And in that one case where they decided DOJ had overstepped, they acquitted the defendant.

Jill (11:51)
Yeah, you know, that phrase gets repeated over and over again. The Biden DOJ did this, the Biden DOJ did that, the Biden DOJ did the other thing. You know, my friend and former colleague who got fired over her role in one of these cases, I’m pretty sure she got hired in during the administration of George W. Bush. She’s been in the office for 24 years. She doesn’t consider herself a Biden prosecutor. She’s a Department of Justice prosecutor who goes into court and says her name on behalf of the United States of America.

And so the idea that she was fired over this and is somehow labeled a Biden DOJ lawyer is absolutely absurd. ⁓ Trump already pardoned the 24 defendants who’d been convicted under the FACE Act right when he took office. What’s your take on why DOJ then chose to undertake all of this work to investigate the FACE Act prosecutions in the first place? Why was it necessary if all of these defendants have already been pardoned?

⁓

Kim (12:51)
Well, it wasn’t necessary. And the only reason that I can think for this is that they are trying to keep happy the contingent of their constituents who are among the most. And I want to be careful here because I don’t think that all conservatives and I don’t think that all Christians ⁓ are down with harassing, threatening.

harming, assaulting people outside of these clinics. But there is a contingent of the Christian conservative movement that have staked their political stakes on this idea that they themselves are the ones that are being prosecuted, that Democrats, including the Biden administration, were out to get them. And I think that this administration is trying to hold its coalition together as best

it can, and this is one of those efforts to do this. I think that this is entirely political. And it’s important to step back and think, look, we are not just talking about people standing outside ⁓ clinics that provide reproductive care or ⁓ churches or other places that provide sanctuary for people seeking these kinds of services. We are talking about people who were sentenced to decades in prison.

for really, really heinous crimes that were pardoned under this act. We were talking about people put in danger. People have died ⁓ from attacks at abortion clinics. So these are really, really awful crimes. And it was bad enough that the pardon took place. But for this 800 plus word report to be made for the purpose of, in my opinion, peddling propaganda,

It’s just really outrageous. I’m with you too, Barb. I can’t hold my bias in this case.

Jill (14:48)
Yeah. You know, they seem to advance this false narrative that the individuals who are prosecuted were engaging in peaceful protest and that they were prosecuted because of their beliefs. And it’s just the opposite that is true. These people believe that they were above the law because of their religious beliefs. And you can believe whatever you want, but the law prevails and you can’t stop other people from doing what the law permits them to do. Well, Jill,

three prosecutors, as we said, were fired for the roles in these cases. And despite the fact that this administration has demanded that prosecutors serve as zealous advocates to advance the agenda of the president, ⁓ Stacey Young, who leads that nonprofit group of former DOJ employees that’s called Justice Connection, she issued a public statement this week that I thought was pretty interesting. She blasted ⁓ DOJ for this hypocrisy.

Aren’t DOJ employees subject to civil service protections and how can they be fired for simply doing what they are instructed to do? So, you know, this goes back to what you started with, which is when we used to be proud to say on behalf of the United States. And I never thought of myself. I actually started at Justice under Richard Nixon. So that’s what can I say?

I was never a Nixon prosecutor and I was never a Lyndon Johnson prosecutor. I was a Department of Justice, United States of America prosecutor. So it is absurd. But to your point about civil service, actually, not exactly is the answer for lawyers at the Department of Justice. They do get some protections, but particularly in the first two years, they are really subject to being fired without cause.

And even then, they don’t have full protections of the civil service the way other people do because they’re part of the accepted service as lawyers. it doesn’t make it legal to fire people for no cause. And that’s what’s happening, especially when it’s for doing their job. They were assigned to prosecute crimes that the Congress made. They created the FACE Act, which has criminal penalties.

So there was no reason for them being fired. It’s completely illegal. And I agree completely with Kim. There is no basis for this 800 page report, which Joyce has laid out for us. It should not have happened. It was a waste of time, especially because there’s no pending cases and there won’t be under this administration. Is this what they’re trying to do to undo, to void the law? Maybe, but that’s up to Congress, not up to the White House.

Yeah, part of me hopes that these lawyers who get fired file lawsuits to challenge their dismissals so that they can expose this political propaganda for what it is. But of course, then you have to ask yourself, OK, then they win and they get their job back and they have to go back and work there in this place that fired them. So maybe I can understand their decision if they choose not to. Joyce, ⁓ in your sub stack, you wrote very movingly about your own experience with the FACE Act, about an attack at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama.

Can you tell us about that experience?

Joyce (18:13)
Yeah, you know, in January of 1998, I was ironically about a month pregnant with our daughter. I had just realized that I was pregnant. We hear a bomb go off in our house. We live about a mile and a half as the crow flies away from the new Women All Women abortion clinic in Birmingham. And a bomb exploded there that morning. It killed a police officer. It seriously injured a nurse.

Doug Jones, the Alabama senator, was not the Alabama senator yet. He was my boss, the US attorney. I was the prosecutor who was on call that morning and ATF called and said, hey, we need you to meet us at this clinic right by UAB. So I was the first prosecutor on the scene. It was devastating. It was chaotic. Within hours, we had the early response teams from both FBI and ATF on scene, mapping fragments.

beginning to look for components. ⁓ Lloyd Irwin, the almost legendary ⁓ bomb expert at ATF was on scene early identifying components of the bomb, which is ultimately how you prove who your suspect is. You tie them to purchasing the components. So, this was an overwhelming situation in the city of Birmingham, which as you might guess, conservative Alabama, not a lot of love for abortion.

but absolutely enormous support from the community for the notion that violence is wrong. And this is all I do professionally, almost throughout my entire pregnancy. We’re preparing the case. We identified the suspect, a guy named Eric Robert Rudolph, who also, it turns out, was responsible for the Atlanta Olympic Park bombing and two other bombings at LGBTQ spaces in Atlanta. And so we’re working with our colleagues in Atlanta, Sally R.

Sally Yates, future colleague, Barb, is handling it over in Atlanta. ⁓ And when we make a decision about how to indict the case, we don’t indict it under the FACE Act actually, because we had other charges to which the death penalty applied, and that was DOJ’s preference at that point in time. We ended up not charging the FACE Act. We could have charged the FACE Act, and in fact, we had to use it in other cases.

because we also had a clinic in Tuscaloosa, Alabama that was repeatedly threatened. And so, you know, I’ll tell you, I have reflected over the last week that had I still been at DOJ, I would have most likely been fired last week because I participated in three cases where the FACE Act was used and then the fourth Rudolph where we considered it. I’m so sorry. Apparently one of my dogs also objects to what DOJ is doing.

I don’t know if you can hear Bella, but she is agitated.

Kim (21:06)
Ella

is hot.

Jill (21:07)
Yeah, I don’t blame her. Well, Kim, I want to just close with this question. I read this report and it kind of cherry picks emails and ⁓ closing argument excerpts to try to make the case that these defendants were improperly targeted because of their religious beliefs. What’s your view of that claim?

Kim (21:30)
Again, I think that it’s propaganda. least I want like it to me, ⁓ just like the way Joyce thinks about what happened in Birmingham. I think about John Salvi who opened fire in abortion clinics in Brookline, Massachusetts and something that’s still reverberates today. But let me tell you about one of the pardon people. One of the people Trump pardoned who was convicted under the FACE Act, her name is Lauren Handy.

Not even the first time she went to ⁓ clinics where reproductive health care was being performed across the country. In 2020, she went to one in Washington, D.C. with some of her cohorts and made appointments as if they needed care. And once inside, they used their bodies, chains, ropes and furniture to block the doors. That is not her exercising her right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

That’s a crime. is a federal crime. And the Trump administration wants to absolve those people. I mean, that’s just outrageous.

Jill (22:36)
Yeah, it seems like ⁓ pandering to a perceived religious block. And I can’t help but wonder if the release of this report, you certainly it’s been in the works for weeks, if not months, but the timing of the release sure is convenient for President Trump, who’s in a very public feud with the Pope right now. Calling the Pope week on product. can we get that, can we get that FASAC report right away so we can maybe get some headlines out of the way? Who knows? But the thing I am worried about is

that prosecutors in the future will not want to take on these cases because they will not want to risk their jobs. And what does that do to the people who need healthcare and the doctors who work in these clinics who now have to look over their shoulders because the message has been sent that ⁓ open season for vigilante violence for people who want to take the law into their own hands.

Joyce (23:34)
Everyone wants to curl up in a warm comfy bed. So having the perfect mattress for your sleep habits is a must. After all, great sleep is critical to success and there’s nothing better for sleep than a Helix mattress. So I had never heard of Helix until they asked to sponsor our show. You know, we’re very selective here on Hashtag Sisters-in-Law, so we wanted to try the mattresses out for ourselves.

helix quiz and I got matched with a mattress that was tailored to my sleeping style. It was the helix midnight mattress. I must have aced that quiz because I’ve been getting the best sleep of my life ever since it arrived. It’s been a couple of years now, tossing and turning a thing of the past. My whole family has helix mattresses and they all loved finding their ultimate fit.

Jill (24:24)
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’re the most awarded mattress brand by reviewers like Forbes and Wired. They have more than 20 different models, 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

now that the weather is heating up.

Kim (24:55)
I’m amazed that Helix has been a part of my sister’s sleep habits for two years, more than 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 with seamless delivery that comes direct to your door, a quick and easy setup, and a no fuss trial policy, and Helix is an easy choice.

Jill (25:24)
With Helix, you can rest easy with their seamless returns and exchanges. Their 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. Snuggle up on an incredible mattress this spring and beyond. Take advantage of their weekend flash sale and go to helixsleep.com.

That’s helixsleep.com slash sisters for 25 % off site wide. Again, helixsleep.com slash sisters. And the link is in our show notes.

Kim (26:20)
We’ve talked before about why one’s skin really stands out as a skincare company. It’s not just hype or fancy packaging. It’s real science. Their founding team is composed of longevity researchers who asked a deceptively simple question. If many visible signs of aging, like wrinkles, fine lines, and loss of elasticity, are driven by so-called zombie cells, what if you could actually reduce those cells to slow the aging process down instead of just covering it up?

That research led to OS1, one skin’s proprietary peptide. It’s the first ingredient proven to switch off those damaged senescent cells and actually slow down skin aging directly at the source.

Jill (27:04)
Kim is right, it’s serious science that fits easily into my routine and will in yours too. That’s one of the things we love about OneSkin. So many products rely on slick branding or filler ingredients, but not OneSkin. Every time I use OneSkin, I give my skin a clear signal to repair damaged cells, support collagen production, and strengthen my skin barrier. Now I can’t get enough.

Whenever I get dried out on planes or while I’m out in the Chicago wind, I use OneSkins OS-1 Face Topical Supplement to fight back against dryness. It’s the perfect supplement for making your skin look fresh and keeping it ready for anything the elements throw at you.

Joyce (27:48)
You know, I am, I would go so far as to say addicted ⁓ to these products. I absolutely love everything about OS1 and I’ve been using both the face and the body formulas for these last, really it’s several months now. So my skin feels a lot better, you know, it feels smoother. I look like I’m under less stress, but I have to say one other thing about using these products, which is that it’s easy.

And if you’re like us and you’re busy and your day is always over full, just being able to hit the pump on your bathroom countertop and put the formula on your face and then be ready for what comes next. It’s an incredible convenience. So this is something that works great with my lifestyle. Look, we’re telling you our experiences with OS1, but this isn’t just our experience. OneSkins products are backed by extensive lab and clinical data, including four peer-reviewed

clinical studies to validate their efficacy and safety on all skin types. Plus, they’ve got over 10,000 five-star reviews, including ours, they must be doing something right. They’ve been recently featured by Bloomberg as a leader in skin longevity. It really shows you don’t need a complicated routine to achieve healthier, younger-looking skin.

Jill (29:08)
I’m all about simplicity. Born from more than a decade of longevity research, OneSkin’s OS1 peptide is proven to target the visible signs of aging, helping you unlock your healthiest skin now and as you age. For a limited time, try OneSkin with 15 % off using code SISTERS at oneskin.co slash SISTERS. That’s 15 % off oneskin.co with code SISTERS.

After you purchase, they’ll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. The link is in the show notes.

Kim (29:53)
So we’ve talked before about ⁓ allegations that the government has lodged against Ticketmaster and Live Nation for virtually creating a monopoly for tying ticket sales and venues and essentially locking up the live venue market, something that antitrust laws are meant to prevent. Well, this week, a jury issued a stunning verdict against the companies, and we want to talk about it.

First, a little disclaimer. Some of the sisters, hashtag sisters in law live shows are done with Live Nation and Ticketmaster. But I wanted to get this out of the way because we’re discussing this objectively that has no bearing on what we say here. But Barb, it gets to the heart of this verdict, right? Because the whole idea is that it is really, really hard to put on any sort of live show and completely avoid.

Live Nation and Ticketmaster. So tell us about this verdict and your reaction to it.

Jill (30:52)
Yeah, really ⁓ stunning, I think, that there was a verdict against Live Nation and Ticketmaster. They’re a behemoth. ⁓ There was a merger between Live Nation, which is a promoter of concerts, and Ticketmaster, which of course is the seller of tickets to concerts and live events, in 2010. And in addition, Live Nation owns something like 70 % of the venues for live entertainment work. So they created really this monopoly.

And one of the things they said was that Live Nation even bragged about the fact that we’re this flywheel model that we’re just constantly going because we own all of the different components of this. And so as a result, we can bring in better margins because we can threaten any ⁓ venue that doesn’t want to use us that we will just ⁓ not work with them and they won’t be able to sell tickets to their event. so…

It was the jury found that they were in illegal monopoly that was stifling competition. It was hindering innovation and ultimately increasing the price of tickets for consumers. And so pretty big verdict that could have a real world impact on all of us.

Kim (32:04)
And one thing that I found really, really interesting, Jill, is the fact that originally, the antitrust case was bought by the Federal Department of Justice, all because of Taylor Swift. Remember, we talked about this. Swifties could not get their concert tickets. The site crashed, and man, they were angry, and they demanded answers. So the DOJ filed a lawsuit against them.

that allege and how did that end up turning out?

Jill (32:36)
Well, it pretty much alleged what Barbara laid out, which was that Live Nation controlled the live entertainment market. They owned the venues, they owned the ticket sales, they owned the marketing, and that they were using it to their advantage and to the disadvantage of artists and customers. That case was then joined by more than three dozen states, attorneys general. And that was…

set to go to trial, went to trial, and a week into the trial, the federal government accepted a settlement that many of the states did not find adequate and that consumers don’t find adequate. They accepted basically a penalty that was equal to, get this, four days worth of the revenue of Live Nation. Four days, they could make back what they were paying in damages.

So the states went on to trial and got a verdict.

Kim (33:39)
So Joyce, to Jill’s point, the state stepped in and said that where they were not having the fact that the DOJ just dropped this matter, entered the settlement, which Ticketmaster and Live Nation felt pretty good about. What about that? Isn’t antitrust enforcement usually a federal matter?

Joyce (33:57)
It usually is, you know, federal law is more robust. Federal prosecutors specialize and have great resources. But there’s an interesting dynamic here, of course, because of the election and the new administration and a different approach towards antitrust. And so we see the state’s attorneys general become a part of this lawsuit. And it’s pretty interesting, Kim, because it’s not, you know, we’re used to these cases where all of the blue state AGs get together and bring a lawsuit.

that’s not what happened here. You’ve got Vermont and Texas, you’ve got California and Florida, right? And a bunch of different AGs come in on this one. They’re in the case because they’re able to rely on state antitrust statutes in some cases. And so it’s a huge shock to them. know, there’s actually in the trial transcripts,

It appears as though DOJ perhaps didn’t act with total candor towards the court because they’re in the courtroom, they’re taking witnesses, acting like nothing is wrong. And then all of a sudden, DOJ discloses to the court, hey, we’ve settled, we’re out. And the states tell the judge, DOJ was the lead trial counsel. We’re not prepared to go ahead without them. We didn’t know this was in the works. And the judge says, sorry, we’ve got a jury in the box. Let’s go.

And so that’s what the states do. And the trial continues for five weeks. The jury deliberates for four days and renders this verdict. And I think it’s a testament to how outrageous the case is. I’ll just say, ⁓ when I read the complaint, I was struck by something really smart that the plaintiffs did, because this is a little bit complicated and difficult to understand. I always hated getting involved in an antitrust matter. It was always complex.

So what they did here was they used charts. And if anybody’s interested in understanding ⁓ the model that was used here and how they used their ability to produce and own venues and sell tickets and advertise, how that all meshed, there are these really great interactive charts that show the model and they show the trajectory of sales over time. And they in essence demonstrate the monopoly through pictures, which I suspect is something that made it

possible for these state AGs to convince the jury to rule in their favor. But you know, course the case is far from over, right? This is just one phase in the trial, but a great outcome.

Kim (36:25)
Yeah, that’s really interesting about trial practice. It’s also interesting to know that there are Swifties in red and blue states. If they’re ever going to build a coalition. the Swifties. She’s national. So Barb, to Joyce’s point, this isn’t over yet. What are the states seeking? Because they just found, the jury just found that there was this monopoly. So now what do the states want? Because we go to the penalty phase.

Jill (36:50)
Yeah, so there’s going to be a penalty phase where the judge will address remedies. So certainly one of the things that the states are asking for is money damages. That’s money that could be returned to victims who are the consumers who purchased tickets at an overpriced value. But in addition, Attorney General Letitia James in New York has made it very clear that one of the things they’re seeking is to divest these companies of each other, just as

Ma Bell got broken up into the Baby Bells because of that monopoly power. They are seeking ⁓ a break of Live Nation and Ticketmaster and also a breakup of some of these venues that Live Nation owns. As we said, they own like 70 % of the venues in the country. And so I don’t know that the judge will agree to that, but… ⁓

that if you’ve got a monopoly, that seems like a potential remedy. So that would be a pretty drastic remedy, but that’s what we’ll be looking for as they enter this remedy phase.

Kim (37:56)
And Jill, most importantly, I think what our listeners want to know is, are ticket prices gonna drop? Because I tell you, I don’t even go to concerts anymore because man, those tickets are extortionate.

Jill (38:07)
Well, you do go to Sisters-in-Law.

Kim (38:09)
Well, course. But I skipped Beyoncé the last time because my goodness.

Jill (38:15)
Unfortunately, Kim, it’s not going to happen anytime soon, if at all. And Live Nation can make up any loss. As I said, they’ve agreed to a settlement that’s like days of their revenue. And even if it was doubled, so it’d be a week of their revenue. ⁓ But yeah, they have plenty of ways to make up the difference. And prices aren’t going to go down soon, first of all.

There will be appeals. Second of all, ⁓ trial of the remedies is yet to happen. And so we don’t know what the actual remedies that will be awarded as a result of the verdict of guilty of monopoly. So we’ll have to wait and see what happens. I know you and I and everyone else are hoping that eventually there will be some control on the pricing so that things go down to a more normal level.

Kim (39:14)
Joyce, you are our appeals expert. What do you think the chances are for Live Nation and Ticketmaster?

Joyce (39:20)
Well first let me just say that the remedy that I want is I want my Taylor Swift tickets.

Jill (39:25)
Thank

you. ⁓

Joyce (39:27)
⁓ But once we’re past that, Jill makes, think the point that feeds into appeals is that the process isn’t quite over. So we’ll have the remedy process, then there will be post trial motions where Live Nation will try to convince the judge to roll back the decision. And then we’ll get to the appellate process. And so much of this depends on what the judge does remedy wise. The evidence at trial was stunning.

utterly compelling when witnesses are on the stand, and particularly in regard to threats that were made to venues if they didn’t use the appropriate process and that they would be strangled. So I think the monopoly holding is as firm as a monopoly holding can be, but the appeal will be as complicated as the trial. And as Jill says, we’ll wait and see. It’ll be long and drawn out before there’s finality.

Jill (40:35)
This episode of Hashtag Sisters-in-Law is brought to you by Wild Grain. If you haven’t heard, Wild Grain is the first baked from frozen subscription box for sourdough breads, artisanal pastries, and fresh pastas. Plus, all items conveniently bake in 25 minutes or less with no thawing required. This is right up my alley, Unlike many store-bought options, Wild Grain uses simple ingredients you can pronounce.

and a slow fermentation process that can be easier on your belly and richer in nutrients and antioxidants. You’re right, Barb. All of the sisters love that Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their variety box, they have a gluten-free box, a vegan box, and a new protein box. No matter what you choose, it’s amazing how fast Wild Grain goes from the box to the table. And it’s always a treat.

My husband and I enjoy the breads, pastas, and pastries, and so do my guests. They are impressed and then surprised when I say it’s baked from frozen, not homemade. They often end up subscribing because it’s perfect for delicious meals, snacks, or quick food prep.

Joyce (41:49)
You know, I like to bake. I make my own bread. I make cakes from scratch. But having wild grain delivered is so convenient when life gets busy. And I have to say, at first I was a little bit hesitant. You know, would it measure up? The answer is absolutely, 100%. It’s just great. And I really like watching the colors and flavors come alive when things are baking. Right now, a favorite in our household is the Bavarian pretzel buns.

They go really well with the slow churned French truffle butter that comes in my boxes. This is one of the things you have to order. It’s amazing. When it’s been a long day, the chocolate lava cakes, they’re the perfect indulgence. The aroma that comes from the oven when they’re baking is incredible and the whole house just has a warmer vibe. So look, make sure that you can get enough to share because you aren’t gonna wanna let people have yours. We promise you’ll never have to call anyone when the food is ready.

they’ll come running because you can smell it baking in the oven. When you want to treat your family, wild grain is the perfect go-to, but I’ve come to love it for every day as well.

Kim (42:56)
Imagine having fresh bakery quality bread, pastries, and pasta at home without any trips to the store. And don’t just take our word for it. They have over 40,000 five-star reviews and have been voted the best food subscription box by USA Today for three years in a row. And this is where I get to put those five years of French to work. For a limited time, while grain.

is offering our listeners 30 bucks off your first box plus free croissant for life when you go to wildgrain.com slash sisters to start your subscription today. That’s 30 bucks off your first box and free croissant for life when you visit wildgrain.com slash sisters, or you can use promo code sisters at checkout. Croissant. The link is in our show notes.

Joyce (44:01)
Well, we know at this point in the Trump administration, it’s not a full week at hashtag sisters in law if we don’t talk about ICE and what they’ve been up to lately. And here we go again, because ICE may be off the front pages of the newspapers, out of the top of the news cycle. That doesn’t mean though that there’s nothing happening. The agency has not quit on Stephen Miller’s mission of deporting more and more people.

And we all know that that’s an effort to meet quotas, right? This is not at this point very clearly about getting dangerous, violent criminals off the streets. It’s about arresting and detaining grandma and the five-year-old. It’s about picking low-hanging fruit. I don’t mean that to diminish the people involved. I mean about the cases. ICE is doing what’s easy. They’re getting statistics. They’re not making us any safer. ⁓ And some of…

Those cases involve American citizens or people with protected immigration status. But you know what? is like the honey badger. ICE doesn’t care. So Thursday night, ICE’s director, Todd Lyons, announced that he was resigning. He’s only been in place for a year. And the time that he’s been in office, ICE has shot and killed at least two American citizens who were involved in peacefully protesting on American streets. ⁓

but Lyon says it’s time for him to spend more time with his family. And it feels frankly as though the agency is trying to go underground a little bit and get the spotlight off of the agency and what it’s doing. And that means we’re gonna take a hard look at them this week. So Kim, let’s start by talking about the agency’s resources.

ICE, you know, they used to be this tiny little sliver of an agency at DHS, sort of some legacy customs guys. They did great work, but they weren’t particularly well resourced. What does that look like one year into the Trump administration?

Kim (45:58)
And consider, the immigration enforcement was completely, done completely different before 9-11, when the Department of Homeland Security was created after that, and immigration enforcement was folded into that. But 10 years ago, the budget of ICE was somewhere in the neighborhood of $6 billion. You know what it is today? It is $85 billion.

Joyce (46:26)
It’s a B, right? Not an a B.

Kim (46:28)
Be as in boy, dedicated for immigration and customs enforcement. I mean, that’s really in itself astonishing. But when you think about it, to put it into context, I’m going to quote the Brennan Center’s Lauren Brooke Eisen, who noted that ICE is now funded at a level, quote, larger than the annual budget of all other federal enforcement agencies.

combined. And that is not ⁓ by accident. Again, when we’re talking about the coalition that Republicans campaign to try to appease, they believe and not without reason that their supporters really, really wanted more increased immigration enforcement. And Donald Trump believes that that is one of the aspects of his agenda that is actually most popular with his supporters. So

⁓ I do not expect that to change anytime soon.

Joyce (47:30)
You know, it’s just unbelievable. For comparison, the FBI made a 2026 budget request for just a little bit under $11 billion.

Kim (47:40)
The FBI, like the FBI, the people who-

Joyce (47:43)
ROEF mission, right?

They’re doing national security work. They’re doing counterterrorism work. They’re doing all of the crimes. They’re doing civil rights. But ICE, ICE trumps everybody. So make of that what you will. I know what I make of it. Jill, you know, what are we getting for our money as Americans? ICE is getting all of these resources. Are they cleaning up? Have we seen an end to stuff like what happened in Minneapolis? I know there’s a great Chicago example,

Jill (48:11)
there are so many examples. One of the worst in Chicago was a dramatic opening scene of any action movie where helicopters had people rappelling down from them and knocking down doors and windows of an apartment building in the south side of Chicago, Lakeshore Drive, beautiful views of the lake and probably related to

the landlord wanted to get some squatters out. It had nothing to do with the allegation of the federal government that in fact there were members of Tren de Agua, ⁓ which I’m mispronouncing of course, sorry, all you Spanish speakers, and wait till I get to the French name that I have to say. ⁓ Sorry to you that it’s not Kim saying the name. ⁓ They pulled children out. They pulled naked people out of their…

bedrooms and into a cold freezing. This was during the winter in Chicago. People in night clothes, but people with no clothes on at all, separating children from their parents. And of course, almost all of the people arrested after their homes were ransacked, doors broken down, were released because there was nothing that justified their being detained. Some of them were US citizens, some were legal.

residents, it was horrible. And I don’t know if you want me to go on to talk about some of the detention centers, but they’re not spending the money to take care of those places either. Those places do not have clean water or toilets that work or showers. The conditions are horrendous. So when you’re asking about the budget, they’re spending it on agents who are ill-trained and who are making warrantless arrests.

despite the fact that warrants should be required, ⁓ it’s an abysmal, sad situation that we have to be afraid of federal enforcement officers.

Joyce (50:17)
You know, it’s hard to keep track of everything because it’s so diversified across the country. That’s Chicago, where the federal government lied last year when they raided that apartment building. And we just learned this week that it was a lie, that it was actually done because, you know, they wanted to go in and shoot video and they were helping the owner clear squatters from the building.

As you say, Jill, the conditions at facilities across the country are inhumane. There was news last week about alligator alcatraz. I mean, the reality is we cannot cover for you every single one of these instances. It’s important for you to know that out of the spotlight, because we don’t have ice on the streets in Minneapolis, things are happening in a much more diverse, diffuse fashion, which makes it difficult to track and all the more important for us to be aware. You know, Barb,

Prosecutors in Hennepin County, that’s Minneapolis, Minnesota, are trying a new strategy for holding ICE accountable. This has just happened. And I’m wondering what your reaction is and whether you think this might have potential.

Jill (51:24)
Yeah, so, ⁓ you know, it’s ⁓ difficult for state court prosecutors to criminally charge federal agents. ⁓ And that’s because they enjoy a limited immunity. But contrary to some of the claims we’ve heard from people like JD Vance and Stephen Miller, federal agents are not absolutely immune from state court prosecution. ⁓ It’s an uphill battle because the Supremacy Clause says that

federal agents have a job to do and we don’t want states preventing them from doing that job. But the test is to look to see whether the conduct was within the scope of their duties as a federal agent and whether that conduct was necessary and proper to performing their duties. If so, they’re entitled to immunity and we’re done. But if not, that can open the door for criminal prosecution. And the facts here are really quite egregious. This was not ⁓

you know, even an overzealous agent who got in the middle of a situation that escalated, which is often what we see in these kinds of cases. Instead, what happened in this case is that agents were driving in an SUV down the shoulder of the road and a motorist was driving and saw these guys coming and said, what is this guy doing coming down the side of the road? And he kind of edged into the lane, into the shoulder to block them. And in response, the agent,

pulled up alongside the motorist and pulled a gun and waved it at them. Now, you know, this is maybe some sort of road rage incident, some sort of, ⁓ we’re angry at each other, but it is not what federal agents do and certainly not within the jurisdiction of ICE agents to conduct, you know, any sort of traffic stop, let alone pull a gun on a motorist because they didn’t like the way they were driving their car. ⁓ this is a case where I think it will be actually fairly easy.

to overcome that immunity because there’s nothing about this agent’s duties that required him to point this gun at these motorists. And there’s nothing that suggests it was necessary and proper for him to do so.

Joyce (53:33)
It feels like good strategy to bring this case before you prosecute the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretty, right? Good facts make good law. mean, six seconds is a long time. And what I’ve seen in their video that they will have as evidence is that the gun is pointed in the face of the motorist for six seconds. And then the agents, they never report the incident to their supervisors. And that’s really good evidence that they knew something was wrong. So look, this

topic feels a little bit scattered to me. That’s because what’s happening with ice is in fact scattered. But we are committed to keeping our eyes on it and bringing it to your attention because it’s something we all need to stay involved with.

You know, it’s always a good time for a closet makeover, but for me that happened not by choice this week. I have persistent problems with various of my children swiping things that come to us from our advertisers, but never before had that happened with Honey Love. Well, guess what? My daughter borrowed a couple of things and the next thing I knew, they were gone. So I’ve had to reorder from mama. And look, that’s just how good Honey Love is.

This spring, you can add in stylish and comfortable shapewear that works with your body and fits perfectly in all the right places. And for that, you’ve just got to start with our favorite independent female founded brand, Honeylove. Their founder, Betsy, leads a team of women who bring their talent and experience to design every product and the results are amazing, even if you’re my 26 year old.

Kim (55:17)
You know, now that the weather is warm, I, like many people, are focused more on being active. And that means you want sportswear that looks stylish, wears comfortably, and gets the job done. Unfortunately, so many sports bras and other fitness wear we’ve tried in the past just didn’t cut it. You either feel trapped or suffocated, or you’re constantly rearranging it, instead of it seamlessly moving with you. And that’s why you need to try Honey Love’s CrossFlex activity with its easy hook and eye bath.

And in its cloud-fuse bonding, there’s no digging, poking, or pressure points. With all the support and coverage of a sports model in a design that is made for all-day wear, whether you’re exercising or not, when I’m taking a fitness class or out on a walk with Snickers or just looking for a compliment on one of my favorite outfits, it’s my new ultra wearable go-to.

Jill (56:09)
You know, Kim, I know I’m going to make Barb uncomfortable, I just got… Closing my ears. Stop talking. So close your ears. Don’t listen. Everybody else listen up though, because I just tried the cross slacks. ⁓ God. It’s going to be TMI, isn’t it? I’ll be over here. And I have to tell you that it is the first sports bra that I love as a sports bra, but I love it so much that I want to wear it under all my clothes. It is comfortable and the shape is fantastic. So…

Even if you’re a long time Honeylove fan like we are, they are always releasing exciting new pieces you’ll want to add to your collection. And this new one that they launched, the Crossover Contour Bra, which features their best selling wireless crossover design with built-in molded light foam pads for extra support and a beautiful contoured shape is absolutely perfect. If you like how that sounds, Honeylove is now offering a Crossover Triple Bra Bundle.

So if you want a big wardrobe upgrade, you can get huge savings by buying three at once. Honeylove has so many other things to offer. They’ve built a full line of tanks, body suits, and foundational wear, featuring supportive structure, smoothing fabrics, and premium finishes made for any occasion. You need to check them out. Treat yourself to the most advanced undergarments and shapewear on the market. Use our exclusive link to save 20 % off Honeylove.

at honeylove.com slash sisters. That’s honeylove.com slash sisters. After you check out, they’ll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Experience the new standard in comfort and support with Honey Love. The link is in the show notes.

Now is our favorite time of the show where we answer your questions. Please email us at sistersinlawatpoliticon.com or tag us on social media. And we will get to as many questions as we can during the show and then watch us on our social media feeds because we answer other questions there during the week. And we have a new show where we answer only questions from you. It’s called

Sisters Sidebar, and it’s released every Wednesday, so you can send us questions there. And we especially like when you send us a voice question for that one. We have some great questions this week, and I’m going to ask you one, Barb. And it comes from Eric in Denton, Texas. Our state officials are expressing grave concerns over Sharia law. Can it or any other flavor of religious authority

Oh, Eric, you are so dead on with your political theater instincts. I have been hearing this argument about Sharia law for decades now. I live near a community called Dearborn, Michigan, with a very large population of Arab Americans. And they’re constantly being criticized that

either accused of following Sharia law or you know the next thing they’re gonna do is they’re going to impose Sharia law. Sharia law is a religious set of beliefs. In the same way I’m a Christian, ⁓ my religion follows the 10 commandments, but they don’t supersede the law on the books, right? We have laws that are passed by our Congress, laws that are passed by our state legislatures and laws that…

ordinances that get passed by city councils. But this, just because we have perhaps a Muslim leader who is a mayor or a city council member, doesn’t mean they get to impose their religious laws on the people. I you know, imagine someone being concerned that, well, that city has a Christian mayor or a Christian majority on their city council. The next thing you know, they’re going to make it illegal to covet your neighbor’s wife or your neighbor’s cow. It is not happening.

It’s ridiculous. It is fear-mongering and you’re absolutely… Yeah, exactly. There you go. It’s just political theater. And we have another great question, this time from Ali, and it’s for you, Kim. ⁓ Is there a limit to the number of times a president can be impeached by Congress for the same conduct?

Kim (1:00:28)
Look out your eye for another eye bar.

⁓ that is a really, really great question. So, Ali, I think what you are thinking about is ⁓ the double jeopardy doctrine, which holds that in criminal proceedings, a person cannot be convicted twice for the same conduct or they cannot face jeopardy twice for the same conduct more specifically. So if you are tried and even if you are acquitted for doing something and later there is new evidence that you did that thing, too bad, so sad, you can’t

be tried again for it. But impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. It is a political one. So it does not have double jeopardy ⁓ implications. So yes, ⁓ an official who is subject to impeachment can be impeached. Again, there’s no limit to the number of times that can be impeached for that ⁓ same conduct. Now, I don’t know what impeachable public official you had in mind. The one that I’m thinking of, there are…

To me, in my opinion, there are a plethora of things that could lead to impeachment. So I don’t think you need to do it for the same thing, ⁓ but it is possible.

Jill (1:01:55)
Great answer, Kim. And for you, Joyce, I want to ask a question from Robert in Canada. He asks, following the next midterm election, can a different Congress with different powers amend the immunity powers granted by the Supreme Court? I am wondering how this could be done.

Joyce (1:02:15)
You know, this is a great question. Thank you, Canada, both for your neighborliness and your great questions for hashtag sisters in law from time to time. It’s an interesting answer too. I mean, I think that the answer is they can try, right? Congress could try to get us out of this horrible immunity decision from the Supreme Court, but that decision is grounded in the Constitution. And so it would have to be done very cleverly.

I think many of us believe that there’s actually some wiggle room in the Supreme Court’s decision. They’ve said that you can’t prosecute a president for official acts. And maybe Congress could come back and clarify the distinction between, say, a president and a candidate, or a president and a private businessman. But ultimately, that would be tested in court. Sort of the final wrinkle here is we would have to have another president who got indicted and charged before a judge.

attest to this theoretical statute could make its way back to the Supreme Court. So I think the answer is fun to speculate about. I would love for us to be in the position of having a Congress that would be thinking in a heads up fashion about passing laws like this. Maybe that’s the best part of the question, that it’s a very hopeful question. And the answer is, we’ll wait and see.

Kim (1:03:36)
I would also like to thank Canada for Poutine.

Joyce (1:03:39)
Thank yes, absolutely. Thank you, Canada. We love you.

Jill (1:03:45)
And thank all of you for listening to Hashtag Sisters-in-Law with Barb McQuade, Kimberly Atkins-Dorr, Joy Spance, and me, Jill Winebanks. We definitely hope to see you in person at our live show in Denver on April 23rd at the Chavantes Masterpiece Theater. And even more, get your tickets now for our show in Atlanta at the Buckhead Theater on May 3rd.

Tickets are available at politicon.com slash tour. So make sure you get yours before they sell out. And don’t forget to pick up Sisters in Law, hashtag Sisters in Law merch and other goodies at politicon.com slash merch. And make sure you check out our new podcast, which is a companion to hashtag Sisters in Law called Sisters Sidebar.

We release that show every Wednesday, so just a few days from you’re listening to this show, you can listen to us answering your questions. And please show some love to this week’s Blue Land, Helix, One Skin, Wild Grain, and Honey Love. The links are in our show notes. Please provide support for them because they are the reason we can record this show and listen to you and talk to you every week.

See you next week with another episode of Hashtag Sisters-in-Law. Although you’ll never need that return policy because you’re going to absolutely love the pots and pans. But with Helix, ⁓ God.

Joyce (1:05:30)
Best ad ever.

Jill (1:05:32)
So good. Who doesn’t sleep in their pots and pans?