Finally, An Episode With Sports

Barb (00:11)
Welcome back to Hashtag Sisters-in-Law with Kimberly Atkins-Dore, Jill
Winebanks, and me, Barb McQuade. Don’t worry, Joyce will be back soon.
She is out on her book tour where she is talking about her new book,
Giving Up is Unforgivable. You really should read her book. It’s
excellent. And in fact, not reading Joyce’s book is also unforgivable.
⁓ You should check out our brand new Sisters Resistance hoodie as
well. is now available to order, designed by our very own Kim Atkins-Stor.
with a short and sassy look that she says is very in. So check it out
at thepoliticon.com slash merch store.
Jill (00:50)
It is so cute. Congratulations on the design, When it first came, I
thought, this looks a little weird proportion, but when I put it on, I
loved it. And the fabric is fantastic. It’s really cozy and warm. Good
job.
Barb (01:07)
Well, today we have planned for you a discussion of three big stories
in the news. One is the legal status of the National Guard in American
cities, Trump’s $230 million shakedown, and the NBA gambling scandal.
But first, I wanted to ask my sisters if you happen to see either in
person or online any good signs at last week’s no kings rally. And one
of my favorite things are these.
Very clever signs. Anybody see anything good?
Jill (01:39)
I saw so many good ones. I think my favorite was I was walking behind
someone in the march and I thought, that’s gotta be Elvis Presley. And
I looked and the sign that Elvis Presley dressed in the white leather
suit with the studs and everything and the cape, said, one said all
shook up about these politics and the other said on the other side of
it said that it was make America Graceland again.
not Mar-a-Loco. So I really love that one.
Kim (02:12)
Yeah, people were really creative. I was in New York City last weekend
visiting my stepson. And we saw, there were several, no Kings Reilly
happening simultaneously across Manhattan. And the one that we saw ⁓
in Midtown was really inspiring. And I think my favorite one, as
somebody who is an introvert and who gets freaked out by crowds, there
was ⁓ a group,
group of women with a sign that said something to the effect of
introverts against kings. And another sign said, even we’re out here
today. Which I just felt so deeply in my soul.
Jill (02:53)
That’s a good one.
Kim (02:55)
So I thought that one was pretty good. But so many signs were really,
really creative. I was hoping against hope that my sister-in-law by
marriage, Kathy, would somehow run into my sister-in-law by podcast,
Jill, in Chicago, because I know you were both there.
Jill (03:10)
Yeah, and we did run into each other at the June one, I think. ⁓
that’s great. Okay, My sign that I carried was so pathetic. thought,
it’ll be so easy to make a sign. And honestly, I’m humiliated by how
my sign came out. was like the W in where was like a third of the
space and there was nothing left to say where.
Kim (03:35)
Do
you know what’s good about that? Do you know what’s perfect about
that, Jill? that critics of it and people who were trying to claim
that it was some big conspiracy and it was paid protesters who got
specially made signs. It was clear. These were not professionally made
This was definitely the definition of the grassroots because these
were not fancy slick.
Barb (03:54)
Pretty obvious.
Kim (04:02)
all uniform signs that you see at a political rally. People literally
took out their markers and paper and did the best they could.
Barb (04:10)
I think it’s great. I happened to be in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania at
the time. I was doing some book talks in Pennsylvania last week. And
so I went into town, into Gettysburg, to their No Kings rally. And
there are a lot of great signs there, including they have a little
statue of Abraham Lincoln in town. somebody put a sign in his hand too
about, you know, no kings and that’s the truth. Honest Abe.
⁓ So that was a good one. But I also saw some other good ones that I
love the clever ones, you know, like the only monarchs should be
butterflies. Very joyful. And another one was ⁓ Vietnam veteran
against Agent Orange with a picture of. Yeah, yeah, it was good. But
what you know, what I really appreciated about it was just how joyful
the whole thing was. It was a celebration of American democracy. It
was not ⁓ angry. There were no.
Jill (04:43)
Yes, I saw those.
⁓ that’s a good one.
Barb (05:04)
you know, paid agitators that I saw, people, you know, dressed up like
Antifa just to make trouble. It was really a very joyful celebration.
And it was encouraging to see how many people, young people, old
people, and everybody in between were out there to show their support
for the America we all love.
Jill (05:24)
It was a joy and it was really energizing. Another one of my favorite
signs said, our huddled masses will defeat your fascist asses. Sorry
for saying that word, Barb, but I’m reading the sign. That was a good
one.
Kim (05:39)
We
have to bleep it, Joe. Barb’s here.
Barb (05:43)
I will acknowledge its cleverness.
Jill (05:46)
Yes, another really clever one that a friend of mine made said, ⁓ king
with a picture of Martin Luther King, the king with a picture of
obviously Elvis Presley. And then it said, not a king. And it showed
our current incumbent of the demolished White House.
Kim (06:15)
Running a small business can get crazy. And whether it’s a law firm or
a podcast, you want to focus on the cases, the show, or client
management. Unfortunately, there are a ton of hats to wear. You’re
spinning a lot of plates. As an entrepreneur myself, I understand how
that can happen. It’s distracting at best and can take the focus off
your mission at worst. So that’s why we wanted to tell you about
Gusto. It’s perfect for anyone who wants to take charge of their
business. And I know that in the
In to my sisters, there are so many law firms that would benefit.
Don’t make running a business harder on yourself. Try Gusto and see
what it can do for you.
Barb (06:54)
I love the idea of Sisters in Law podcast is sort of like The Office,
where we’re all sitting around the workplace and hijinks ensue. I
think Joyce would be Michael. What do you think? I don’t know. She’s
not here so we can make fun of her. Well, let me fill you in about
Gusto. It’s an online payroll and benefit software built for small
businesses. It’s all in one, remote friendly, and incredibly easy to
use.
I love the idea of Sisters in Law podcast is sort of like The Office,
where we’re all sitting around the workplace and hijinks ensue. I
think Joyce would be Michael. What do you think? I don’t know. She’s
not here so we can make fun of her. Well, let me fill you in about
Gusto. It’s an online payroll and benefit 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.
They have so many automated tools to help you save time that are built
right in. Imagine how much simpler your workload would be with quickly
accessible offer letters, onboarding materials, direct deposits, and
more. You can even get direct access to certified HR experts to help
support you through any tough HR situation.
Jill (07:46)
That can save you so much money, time, and worry. 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 pay a cent until you run
your first payroll. We’ve all heard Joyce talk about how this has made
her life and the process of running her LLC so much easier by using
Gusto. But don’t just take our word for it.
Gusto is the number one payroll software according to G2 for fall
2025, and it’s trusted by over 400,000 small businesses. It’s the
perfect compliment to running your business. I just wish I had heard
about it sooner so that I could tell you all about using it sooner.
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 of free payroll
at g-u-s-t-o.com slash sisters. One more time, gusto.com slash
sisters. And you can see the link in our show notes.
Since World War II, the National Guard has been deployed only 10 times
by presidents because they’re usually done by the governors. Mostly
those deployments have been in support of racial desegregation and the
protection of civil rights. And all but one of those mobilizations
came at the governor’s request. The lone exception before Trump was
President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1957 mobilization of the Arkansas
National Guard
to help desegregate schools in Little Rock over the wishes of the
governor, Orval Favis. Now, Trump is doing it everywhere, every day.
That is, everywhere there’s a Democrat in control, Los Angeles,
Portland, Chicago, and there are conflicting court decisions all
headed to SCOTUS. We’ve talked about the laws that can be invoked by a
president to call out the troops and why they don’t really apply to
what he’s doing. But today, let’s dive even deeper.
Barb, we’ve had some new decisions that have distinguished between
federalizing the troops and deploying the troops. Can you talk about
whether that matters and what the difference is?
Barb (10:17)
So there is legal authority for the president to federalize the
National Guard. There’s a statute we’ve talked about already, Title
10, U.S. Code, Section 12406, which says that when the president is
unable to execute the law with regular forces, he is able to ⁓ take
operational control of the National Guard, although that request is
supposed to go through the governors.
And that is what has happened in ⁓ the states where we have seen the
National Guard federalized so far. It is in contrast, however, to
deploying the military forces, including the National Guard, ⁓ when
necessary for certain kinds of activities. What we’re seeing right now
is just a support function for federal law enforcement, ⁓ not the… ⁓
law enforcement activities. So they can stand and guard federal
property. They can help with crowd control and do other things. But of
course, we still have the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally
prohibits the military, including the National Guard, from engaging in
domestic law enforcement unless specifically authorized by law. And so
the Insurrection Act would be a notch higher and would allow the
president to ⁓ direct National Guard troops.
to actually engage in law enforcement activities. We aren’t quite
there yet.
Jill (11:46)
I hope we never get there, but Kim, ⁓ you know, the law sort of says
you have to have a rebellion or an inability to enforce the laws to
use this. And I live in Chicago. I can tell you there is no rebellion.
There’s civil protest against what we see as violations of our rights,
but no rebellion, no inability. And in fact, aren’t they arguing
against themselves because they’re boasting about how many
people they’ve detained, which would be the exact opposite of not
being able to enforce federal law.
Kim (12:21)
Yeah,
it’s really a mess. mean, some of the earlier calls for bids to send
National Guards were ostensibly made to protect federal property when
there were protests outside of ICE. But it seems even that pretense
has been dropped by the government. They are just trying to send
troops willy-nilly. There was a threat to send them to San Francisco,
and then they got pulled back, and it’s back and forth. So what the
actual standard is under ⁓
the US code is that ⁓ the National Guard can be federally deployed if
there is, as you said, to repel an invasion, ⁓ to suppress a
rebellion, or to execute the laws of the United States when they
cannot be enforced by regular forces, which means the local and state
police, which is law enforcement. That’s where law enforcement is done
by local and state authorities. And a good example of this.
the US code is that ⁓ the National Guard can be federally deployed if
there is, as you said, to repel an invasion, ⁓ to suppress a
rebellion, or to execute the laws of the United States when they
cannot be enforced by regular forces, which means the local and state
police, which is law enforcement. That’s where law enforcement is done
by local and state authorities. And a good example of this.
to contrast what is happening now is after the verdict in the Rodney
King case in Los Angeles when there was widespread, violent, ⁓ chaotic
unrest. And despite efforts by the governor and state and local police
and LAPD and more, they just couldn’t get it ⁓ fully under control. So
the governor requested that the president send National Guardsmen
to help them. And they ended up coming sort of toward the end of the
unrest. At that point, the police had started to get, and community
members had started to get a hold of it a bit, but toward the end,
National Guard sort of helped to finally put a final end to it. And
that makes sense, and that is a good exemplar of how it’s supposed to
work. It’s not supposed to be used as a threat. That’s clearly
political, aimed at democratic cities that are run by black mayors, I
will say. I’m happy that my hometown of Detroit
still hasn’t seen the smoke, I can’t, I gotta believe that that’s one
reason why it hasn’t. ⁓ But yeah, it’s nothing that is even close to
what is envisioned by the statute.
Jill (14:29)
Yeah. And, the president has asserted that basically his determination
that there is a rebellion, invasion, whatever he wants to call it, is
not reviewable. so even in cases where, as the district court judge
here in Chicago said, it’s untethered to facts that his analysis of
calling this a grounds for federalizing troops
just has no factual basis. And there’s a 200-year-old case, Martin
versus Mott, that ⁓ sort of has been, I believe, misinterpreted. And
anybody who reads Joyce’s sub stack knows that she certainly thinks it
was misinterpreted. What’s the deal? Is it reviewable by a court?
Barb (15:19)
Yeah, I think there’s a lot of moving parts that are going on here.
And Joyce has a nice discussion of this in her civil discourse
substack. This is an 1827 case. ⁓ is looking at the authority for
these things has changed over time with different statutes. And what
they said in that case was the authority to decide whether the
exigency has arisen, that is to call up state militias, belongs
exclusively to the president and his decision is conclusive.
upon all other persons. But that case was talking about whether the
militia itself could second guess the president’s decision, not
whether this was reviewable by courts. And that’s a very different
question. And so I think that that language has to be viewed through
that lens. I will also point out that the statute we’re talking about
specifically, which was not the statute there, is 10 United States
Code section 12406.
upon all other persons. But that case was talking about whether the
militia itself could second guess the president’s decision, not
whether this was reviewable by courts. And that’s a very different
question. And so I think that that language has to be viewed through
that lens. I will also point out that the statute we’re talking about
specifically, which was not the statute there, is 10 United States
Code section 12406.
And to the extent we have textualists on the Supreme Court who are
looking at these things, I think the text of the statute matters
because what 12406 says is the president can ⁓ federalize National
Guard troops when he is unable to execute the law with regular forces,
not when he deems or determines he cannot. It’s when he is.
And so if we’re looking at not just what the president has decided and
it is what the situation actually is, of course that’s reviewable by
courts. know, just to take the high law professors love to take
hypotheticals, you know, to point out the most ridiculous extension of
this. It’s sort of like the same thing that happens in sketch comedy.
Like let’s take an ordinary situation and create the most absurd
example of it. We can see what if the president said, I need to
federalize the national guard because
little green men have landed in Chicago. Everybody can see that’s not
true, right? And if we can see with our own eyes, that’s not true. Of
course there has to be some recourse for that. And so I think this
argument that is not reviewable is ultimately a loser. And I think
even our current Supreme Court, which has great deference for the
executive, some even follow this unitary executive theory, I think the
text of this statute means that it has to reflect the reality, not
just what the president determines is appropriate.
Jill (17:43)
Right. And so Kim, that raises the question in my mind about the court
has said great deference is owed to the president’s determination. But
that doesn’t mean that you are blind to the realities. And judges can,
we all know the theory of judicial notice. Any judge in Portland or in
Chicago can see for themselves that there is no rebellion against the
authority of the United States. can a judge take judicial notice?
There’d be any basis to Trump’s argument.
Kim (18:14)
Yeah, you know, one thing that’s important to realize is that the
judges, I’m talking about the trial level federal judges, the district
court judges who are the first to consider challenges to these orders
are the ones that are in these locations on the ground, looking at the
facts as submitted in these motions and making determinations based on
those realities, including what they can see with their own eyes. I’m
sure they will not ignore that.
and they see what is happening and they’re making these rulings based
on that. And you are seeing judges who were nominated by presidents of
both parties finding against Trump. What you’re also seeing though is
when it’s appealed on the shadow docket, the Supreme Court is
routinely lifting any injunction, not any, but many of the injunctions
that have been put in place.
and they see what is happening and they’re making these rulings based
on that. And you are seeing judges who were nominated by presidents of
both parties finding against Trump. What you’re also seeing though is
when it’s appealed on the shadow docket, the Supreme Court is
routinely lifting any injunction, not any, but many of the injunctions
that have been put in place.
and sort of substituting their own thoughts about this, the justices,
for the judges who are on the ground, who are doing the hard work, who
are going through the record and seeing what is actually ⁓ being
presented to them. And that isn’t just bad for determining exactly
when these standards ⁓ under 10 USC that Barb talked about are met,
but it’s also really causing a different problem than I’m hearing off
the record from current and retired judges.
⁓ that is demoralizing to them because that’s basically like the
Supreme Court telling them that that work doesn’t matter or that the
power that they have is being taken away from them. And that’s the
majority of our judicial system is these judges and at the trial and
appellate levels doing their jobs to the best that they can and to
have the Supreme Court say, okay, fine, but as this case continues,
we’re gonna let the president keep doing that based on this deference
just doesn’t make any sense. And to me, again, as Barb said, I don’t
think that’s the way the statute was meant to work.
Jill (20:07)
And it’s also completely contrary to everything we’ve ever seen where
the Supreme Court or even the Court of Appeals will say, you know,
great deference on the facts as found by the district court, not as to
the law. They are more supreme in the law, but not as to the facts.
And if you listen to the argument that was on this case, there’s one
point where the court is saying, well, are you saying that this is in
perpetuity?
that the decision that there is a rebellion can never be reevaluated
even when things on the ground change. And honestly, Trump’s lawyers
said, yeah, it’s for perpetuity. it’s really, it’s just really
reviewable. But then that leads to the question of, so if it’s not
reviewable according to Trump and if heaven forbid, the court agrees
with that, what’s gonna happen? What’s next, Barb?
Barb (21:03)
Well, I think that it’s going to, we’re going to see different
opinions in different ⁓ circuits around the country. I think
ultimately this goes to the Supreme Court. As I said, I think
ultimately this is reviewable by courts and there has to, I think
they’ll get great deference, but I think there has to be at least some
support factually for these things to happen. And I think, you know,
one of the things that you had indicated you wanted to talk about,
which is the interplay between the first amendment and the 10th
amendment here.
And I think the 10th Amendment is one that doesn’t get a lot of
attention. It is the one that says,
Jill (21:39)
⁓ Anything not given, yeah.
Barb (21:41)
Go ahead. the states have the power that is sort of residual of
anything that’s not specified and assigned to the federal government.
And that’s a lot, right? ⁓ There are enumerated powers that are given
to the federal government. And then the state government kind of gets
everything else, and it includes the police powers. That’s why we have
this Posse Comitatus Act. And what’s so interesting is that for
decades, Republicans have been the one urging states’ rights in the
10th Amendment. I think that, you know, as a relic of the civil rights
era when
They didn’t want the feds coming down and telling them what to do in
the Jim Crow era. And so we had this whole states rights movement. But
now suddenly, ⁓ now that Trump is in power, we hear silence from
Republicans about states rights. But ⁓ our constitution envisions a
situation where we have a federal ⁓ system and state systems that
operate cooperatively and they’re supposed to each respect the role of
the other. And so this idea that the president can just sort of storm
in and
throw troops on every street corner and start enforcing the law is
unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment.
Jill (22:45)
you
you
It’s starting to get cold, especially in Chicago. There are a lot of
drawbacks to the cold, but one of the best parts of the season is
being able to build out your wardrobe and create style complete with
layers that compliment you while being built to last. That’s where
Quince comes in. It’s our go-to for quality essentials that feel cozy,
look refined, and won’t blow your budget.
Barb (23:18)
You know, I told you before I love their Mongolian cashmere. I think I
have one now in every color. ⁓ It’s my ⁓ perfect go-to for warmth,
comfort, and style, especially as we’re heading into the colder
weather here in Michigan, and especially when the price is $50. They
also have premium denim that fits like a dream, and luxe outerwear you
will wear year after year. These are the pieces we turn to time and
again, and you’ll find that they quickly become an essential part of
your fall uniform.
Kim (23:48)
You know, it’s really true, Barb. I ⁓ started, I found quints during
the pandemic when I just, I felt like somehow the cashmere would serve
to protect me against the virus.
Barb (24:01)
I think that’s a scientific fact.
Kim (24:03)
Yeah,
know, really… And now I have a sweater in almost every color too, in
part because the ones that I bought then, you five years ago, they
still look beautiful. They’re machine washable. It’s really great. And
so now I’m in their wool coats because I love a coat. I think, I don’t
let my husband hear this because our coat closet is like 5 % his coats
and 95 % mine and I don’t need any more coats, but they’re so nice.
and I like being warm. They look designer level, but cost a fraction
of the price. And the quality, listen, it’s just so good. I’ll fill
you in on their secret. Quinn’s partners directly with top tier
ethical factories and cut out the middleman, which is how they can
consistently deliver luxury quality pieces at half the price of
similar brands.
So when you choose Quince, you’re getting a wardrobe upgrade that
feels smart, stylish, and effortless, and at a price you’re gonna
love. I have to say, once you get inside the office or the classroom
when the heater is running, everyone needs Quince’s washable stretch
silk blouse. I wore it for a war one for a TV hit, and I got a ton of
compliments on it. They really feel as amazing as they look. The style
is perfect whether you’re on TV or giving a speech or.
just seeing your friends or just running errands. I say wear the
clothes you have in your regular life. Wear that blouse to the grocery
store and feel good and know that you are getting high quality things
and you’re wearing them. There’s nothing better than looking your best
wherever you are. And if you’re prioritizing fitness as we head into
the holiday season or anytime, I gotta tell you, the best workout
motivation is
new active wear from Quince waiting in your drawer. Like that totally
is for me. Like if I know I have some cute active wear that I have,
it’ll make me want to put it on and then, okay, fine, I’ll work out.
Barb (26:04)
It’s so funny the different ways that Kim and I think about clothing.
She’s like, get cute and excited about her outfits. I am like all
about functional, like the uniform, where is it? It’s reliable. I can
put it on. One of the pieces I got recently is this ⁓ like no iron, no
wrinkle silk blouse. Like those adjectives are music to my ears. Like
I can just wear this thing without worrying about it. And it’s
fantastic. Find your fall staples at Quince. If you want to take
advantage of these items as well, can go to quince.com.
It’s so funny the different ways that Kim and I think about clothing.
She’s like, get cute and excited about her outfits. I am like all
about functional, like the uniform, where is it? It’s reliable. I can
put it on. One of the pieces I got recently is this ⁓ like no iron, no
wrinkle silk blouse. Like those adjectives are music to my ears. Like
I can just wear this thing without worrying about it. And it’s
fantastic. Find your fall staples at Quince. If you want to take
advantage of these items as well, can go to quince.com.
That’s qince.com slash sisters to get free shipping and 365 day
returns. Again, that’s quince.com slash sisters. The link is in our
show notes.
Kim (27:06)
When the seasons change, it also means it’s time to mix up your makeup
routine. And that’s why we are so glad we discovered Jones Road
Beauty. We have high standards when it comes to the products we use on
TV because when we don’t look good, we hear about it. And also in our
professional lives, whether it’s in the courtroom or in front of a
classroom, the last thing you want is to not feel your best or to have
makeup that feels caked on and artificial looking with.
low skin breathability or something that takes forever to apply. And
one thing I really like about Jones Road is their ⁓ mini balms. I call
it a super makeup product because it’s so easy. You could put it on
your face for a little bit of a highlight. You can use it as an
eyeshadow. I even used ⁓ one like plummy color as just an easy ⁓ lip
balm that gives just a little bit of color but not too much. And it
instantly just brightens the face and makes you look
more put together, more awake, and as easy as can be.
Jill (28:05)
I wish everyone could see how you were talking about that, because you
were so expressive with your hands and pointing to your cheeks and
your lips. was fantastic to watch. I know. And it’s really, I’ve seen
their ads on TV for Jones Rose, and I was so excited when they came to
us and we could try their products, and it’s been fantastic. We love
especially that their products contain no-tholates, sulfates,
petrolatum, PEGs, EDTA, ⁓ or
BPA, talk about a tongue twister. It’s just clean beauty. It’s a no
brainer. I was so surprised how easy it was to apply the mini miracle
bombs and the eye shadow stick in the perfect smoky colors for fall
with their Bobbi Kit 5.0. They keep updating their game and it just
keeps getting better and better. There are no brushes and no
complicated routine. That’s the best part. You just use your finger.
Who needs all those brushes? And you go.
Many people have told me that the Miracle Balm has enabled them to
skip multiple steps in their routine. I agree, and their products give
your skin a natural look, but better with a warm captivating glow in
under 60 seconds.
Kim (29:19)
And Jones Road doesn’t just have their famous miracle balm. They’ve
built a full lineup of effortless skin-first staples like they’re just
enough tinted moisturizer. It’s lightweight, non-comedogenic formula
that’s smooth and even skin tone with a soft touch of coverage. Not
only does it hide redness, it looks so natural and it feels like
nothing on the skin. Plus it’s packed with skin-friendly ingredients
to keep skin moisturized without clogging.
The one thing I don’t like is when makeup feels very dry, especially
in the cooler months. So this makes it a truly winter essential. And
whether you’re out in the cold or under the heater, which is, that’s
where I would be, under the heater, it’s perfect to keep you from
drying out.
Barb (30:05)
It’s makeup that won’t even feel like you’re wearing it, which is a
win for me. So embrace modern day makeup that’s clean, strategic, and
multifunctional for effortless routines. And for a limited time, our
listeners are getting a free cool gloss on their first purchase when
they use Code Sisters at checkout. Just head to jonesroadbeauty.com
and use Code Sisters at checkout. 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 (30:43)
So the news never stops and that includes a report by the New York
Times this week that Trump is seeking $230 million from the Justice
Department to compensate him for two federal investigations into him
before he took office for the second time. The report noted that there
is no historical parallel for this situation. A presidential candidate
under federal investigation wins the election and then takes over the
Justice Department
that had been investigating him. ⁓ let’s get down to the nitty gritty
of exactly what Trump is doing here. He has since ⁓ confirmed this and
has talked about it to reporters at the White House. there are two
complaints that Trump filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Help us
understand what that is and to give us an idea of the process and how
strong you think these claims are.
Jill (31:40)
Let me start with the easy question. These are really ridiculous and
absurd. There’s an administrative procedure before you actually go to
court. So this is not in court right now, which makes it even more
ridiculous.
Kim (31:57)
lawsuit.
Even though he keeps calling it a lawsuit and it’s like, not a
Jill (31:59)
It is not yet a lawsuit. And unfortunately, I’m going to divert a
little here. If the Justice Department before he was inaugurated for
the second time had refused to settle this, he would have had to file
a lawsuit. It would have been over. It can’t be re-reviewed. ⁓ And
unfortunately, I think that’s what they should have done, but they
didn’t. And so now it falls to his former lawyers, who are now the
Justice Department officials,
to say, yeah, you want it, you can have it. Because of course they say
he can have anything he wants anyway. And he’s saying that I was
really hurt because you investigated me for Russia. And I was really,
really, really hurt because you raided, his favorite word, my private
residence at Mar-a-Lago. And you searched me and this was all
malicious and…
it was politically motivated. We know that there are proper predicates
for all of this. And the process is he files these standard forms and
then it gets reviewed and justice can say, okay, you can have it. And
they just pay him our money. They pay him our taxpayer dollars. And
that’s the end of that. Or they could, if they were being honest, say,
I’m sorry, but there is no grounds for this.
we’re going to deny it, and then he would have to file a lawsuit and
go to court. I would love to see that happen, of course. I certainly
would like to see some pressure brought to at least have a special
counsel appointed to negotiate with him if the Justice Department is
going to go ahead in the same way that we don’t let the Justice
Department prosecute the president that they are serving under.
that’s why we have special counsel, you need someone independent to
look at this. You can’t have his appointees saying, yes, sir, you want
that, you can have it. ⁓ And I would love to see some of the facts
that would come out in this. We would see the predicate that happened,
how a court gave a search warrant, and it would be such an interesting
thing to review.
memorandum attached to his administrative complaint includes a lot of
out of context remarks from FBI agents and others who were afraid to
go in. you know, going back to Watergate, we didn’t subpoena the
president until we had made a letter request for the White House tapes
because Archie Cox was a man of great integrity and he felt that the
president should be asked.
Well, in this case, the president was asked, let’s go to the Justice
search warrant, he was asked to cooperate. He had plenty of time to
cooperate. And before he destroyed the documents, they had to go in
without warning. If they had given him warning, we already saw proof,
video, that he was moving stuff and hiding it, it would have been
destroyed. So there’s every justification for what happened.
Kim (35:18)
And as you pointed out, mean, one thing that’s awful about the
administrative process is unlike a lawsuit, there’s no transparency.
Like they could have cut it. They could have already come to a
settlement about what they’re going to pay him. And we wouldn’t have
any way of knowing that. So Barb, the Federal Tort Claims Act is an
important law that allows people who’ve been harmed by the government
to seek redress. But how is this claim different than what most people
filing claims under this act go through?
Barb (35:45)
Yeah, so, you know, the Federal Tort Claims Act actually has a smart
process, which is before you file a lawsuit and bring upon both
parties all of the demands that comes with it, right, the expense, the
time, the risk and all of those things, they created this preliminary
method to shortcut all of that. First, like, come to us, tell us what
your claim is.
before you go to court and make us respond and we all spend a lot of
money, because we might agree with you. When I was serving as US
Attorney, we got claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act from time to
time. Maybe somebody got into a car accident with a postal truck, for
example, and they said, had physical injuries, lost work, and I’m
seeking $50,000. We would look at it. We would assess the claim. We
would decide whether we thought it was worth $50,000. Maybe our own
independent assessment was that it was worth
$40,000 and so we’d offer that. And if it could be settled before
going to court, that’s a win-win, right? Everybody saves the money,
the time, the risk and all those kinds of things. Makes perfect sense.
What’s unusual here, of course, is that number one, it’s the president
of the United States. So that creates a conflict of interest. Number
two is this is a kind of claim that would absolutely fail in court. As
Jill has said, President Trump is claiming malicious prosecution. One
of the elements in that
is that the case be resolved in your favor. Both of these cases were
dismissed not on the merits, but because of procedural concerns
relating to the appointment of the special counsel in the Florida
case. Well, I know. That’s what we’ve all heard. Hard to believe. And
with ⁓ the Mueller Russia investigation, there was never any charge at
all. that’s.
Kim (37:21)
It wasn’t a complete exoneration?
Barb (37:35)
wasn’t even a prosecution. So these cases, in my opinion, would be
doomed to fail in court. But of course, they may never get there if
the Justice Department simply says, you bet, Mr. President. ⁓ poor
you. $230 million. Why, that’s a ⁓ fair sum for all of your pain and
suffering, sir. Let me write that check today. So it may never get to
court where it can see the light of day and we could analyze it.
wasn’t even a prosecution. So these cases, in my opinion, would be
doomed to fail in court. But of course, they may never get there if
the Justice Department simply says, you bet, Mr. President. ⁓ poor
you. $230 million. Why, that’s a ⁓ fair sum for all of your pain and
suffering, sir. Let me write that check today. So it may never get to
court where it can see the light of day and we could analyze it.
But the conflict of interest is one of the things that’s so strange
here because obviously the drafters of the statute never envisioned a
scenario where the claimant would be the president of the United
States. so we’re going to see.
Kim (38:15)
Yeah,
that gets me to the question I wanted to ask Jill because one reason I
wanted to talk about this topic is that we got a lot of questions from
listeners about this, especially the point that, you know, the people
in the Justice Department who will determine whether to cut that check
are also the people who were his former personal attorneys, people
like Todd Blanch ⁓ in the Justice Department. And people were asking,
wait,
Is this really how this works? this, and even Trump himself, when
asked about this in the White House, I think it was yesterday or the
day before, he said, quote, I have a lawsuit. Again, it’s not a
lawsuit. We explained that. I have a lawsuit that’s doing very well.
And when I became president, I said, I’m sort of suing myself. It sort
of looks bad. I’m suing myself, right? So I don’t know. But that was a
lawsuit that was very strong, very powerful. Okay, again, not a
lawsuit. But.
Jill (39:13)
not very powerful.
Kim (39:15)
Not very powerful, but the people making the decisions have clear
conflicts of interest, Jill. Like, make it make sense.
Jill (39:23)
Well, it doesn’t make sense. goes back to what I said, which is you
cannot allow Todd Blanche, who’s one of the two people who could sign
off on this, or Pam Bondi to sign off on something in which they’re
representing their own client from the past. And when they were being
confirmed, they both said, our obligation, our attorney-client
privilege goes on forever. And so they cannot.
There’s no way that they could claim they don’t have a conflict of
interest in judging the merits of this. They must either recuse, and
you know how Donald Trump feels about recusals. He will never forgive
anyone who recuses, like the Attorney General Sessions. ⁓ So there’s
no way to make sense of this. He is suing himself. He can’t be doing
that. He also, by the way, says that if he collects this money, he’s
going to give it to charity.
There’s no way that they could claim they don’t have a conflict of
interest in judging the merits of this. They must either recuse, and
you know how Donald Trump feels about recusals. He will never forgive
anyone who recuses, like the Attorney General Sessions. ⁓ So there’s
no way to make sense of this. He is suing himself. He can’t be doing
that. He also, by the way, says that if he collects this money, he’s
going to give it to charity.
Yeah, that’s just like sure, gonna pay for the wall, right? ⁓ Or I’m
not going to hurt the East Wing. It’s just gonna be an addition. And
now you see that he has completely demolished the East Wing. Okay, so
we can’t believe it’s gonna go to charity either. But yeah, you
definitely need recusal, a special counsel. You need something. This
is not at all ethical. It’s meritless to have brought the case anyway.
Kim (40:49)
And Barb, just a little reminder that the money Trump is seeking, you
know, again, take this fact that he says he’s going to give it to
charity with a grain of salt. That’s taxpayer money. I mean, you know,
under the FTCA, we may not even be informed, as I said, when a
settlement is reaching how much, and that is taxpayer money that he is
seeking, not to mention he’s seeking it at a time when the government
is closed, federal workers aren’t being
You have air traffic controllers who are moonlighting as Uber drivers
at night, which doesn’t seem like a good idea. ⁓ Just what are your
thoughts on that?
Barb (41:29)
So $230 million, ⁓ this is money that will come out, as you say, of ⁓
the general treasury funds for judgments. It is money that is not
going to be used to send for social security checks. is money that is
not going to be used to ⁓ improve ⁓ public infrastructure. It is money
that instead will be directed to the charity of Trump’s choice. And
what’s the charity of Trump’s choice? I don’t know.
How about the White House ballroom project? ⁓ So it’s really
disgusting. It’s ethically bankrupt. ⁓ It is ⁓ just another example of
his failure to follow government ethics. But you know, I think there’s
one more thing at work here. And that is something that I think is a
theme throughout many of the things he does. And that is an effort to
rewrite history.
Because if he can get a judgment from the Justice Department, even if
he doesn’t keep the money, he can say, the Justice Department made a
finding that I was maliciously prosecuted over the Trump Russia
investigation and the Mar-a-Lago case. See, it was all ⁓ rigged all
along in the same way his pardoning of the January 6th defendants, the
firing of all of these people who worked on these cases, the
indictment of Jim Comey. It is all part of an effort to rewrite
history with him.
not only is the victim, but the hero.
Jill (42:58)
So when Jim Comey is acquitted, think about how much money he can
claim in damages from the Justice Department.
Barb (43:05)
for malicious prosecution. well, he might have to wait for another
administration to collect his judgment.
Kim (43:22)
Hey Jill, guess what turned up at my house this week? Croissants! ⁓
Jill (43:27)
I am so not surprised.
Barb (43:29)
I just like to hear Kim say it.
Kim (43:33)
and everything bagels and muffins and all kinds of other good things.
And that is why this episode of Sisters in Law is brought to you by
Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first baked from frozen subscription box
for artisanal breads, seasonal pastries, and fresh pastas. Plus, all
items conveniently bake in 25 minutes or less. Unlike store-bought,
Wild Grain uses a slow fermentation process that’s easier on your
belly.
richer in nutrients, antioxidants, and made with simple ingredients
you can pronounce. Wild Greens boxes are fully customizable and
they’re constantly adding seasonal and limited time products for you
to enjoy. I am looking forward to the cheese tortellinis that is
waiting in my freezer to become dinner. And in addition to their
classic box, they now feature a gluten-free box and a plant-based box.
Jill (44:29)
So, all right, Kim, guess what my husband took for lunch today and
what we’re having for dinner tonight? No, because I can’t say it the
way you do. I wouldn’t, even if it was, I wouldn’t say it. No, he took
the ciabatta bread with some cheese. is really good. Although his
favorite is probably the baguettes. loves that. And we’re having the
Tonarelli pasta for dinner with the…
Kim (44:36)
croissant.
Jill (44:56)
pasta sauce that comes from them frozen and you just put it in hot
water and it’s ready to eat.
Kim (45:02)
You know what, my husband is in Chicago as we speak, so I’m sending
him to your house.
Jill (45:06)
Where is he? Tell him to come for dinner.
It’s amazing how fast wild grain goes from the box to the table or as
this, in this case, to my husband for lunch. My husband and I enjoy
the breads, pastas and pastries, especially the pastries. And so do my
guests. They’re always impressed. And when I say that it’s baked from
frozen, not homemade, they’re really surprised. And many of them have
ended up subscribing. It’s perfect for delicious meals, snacks or
quick and delicious food prep.
Barb (45:40)
Well, I love watching the color and smelling the flavor come alive
when those pumpkin cinnamon biscuits are heating up. Have you guys
tried those? yeah. The aroma coming from the oven is incredible. I
want to put those things in there and just leave them all day. Just
the smell.
Jill (45:48)
yes.
Kim (45:58)
No,
it’s almost terrible because you smell it doesn’t take very long for
them to bake but the whole time you’re waiting and you smell them like
I am my mouth is watering Snickers mouth is watering like it’s it’s
it’s like a short period of torture before you can actually eat them
Barb (46:11)
Yeah, but it’s a great like household smell for the fall. is. And have
you tried that apple caramel galette? That was amazing. Well, you’ll
never have to call people when the food is ready. They will come
running. So this fall, treat yourself and your loved ones to warm
sourdough breads and seasonal baked goods from Wild Grain. Rumor has
it they have apple cider donuts and pumpkin cinnamon biscuits.
Jill (46:17)
Yeah. Yes, it’s huge.
Barb (46:38)
So get them before these seasonal items sell out. Have you guys tried
that, the apple cider donuts? Yes. thought I heard you talking about
them. I don’t even.
Kim (46:45)
donuts are
Jill (46:49)
like
donuts, but I love these. I don’t. It’s one of those sweets that I
can.
Barb (46:52)
Wait, you don’t like- Yeah.
Stop, Jill, just stop. Sacrilege, I don’t want to hear it. For a
limited time, Wild Grain is offering our listeners $30 off the first
box, plus free, say it Kim, in every box when you go to wildgrain.com
slash sisters to start your subscription. You heard me, free, what is
it Kim? In every box and $30 off your first box when you go to
wildgrain.com slash sisters. That’s wildgrain.com.
Kim (47:01)
We love you anyway, Jill.
croissants.
croissant
Barb (47:26)
slash sisters, or you can use promo code sisters at checkout. Don’t
miss their seasonal products and look for the link in our show notes.
All right, listeners, I’ll bet you’ll like this topic. See what I did
there, Kim? Yes. ⁓ At long last year, listeners, I have prevailed upon
my sisters for the first time to discuss a sports topic. Actually, it
was Kim who suggested we discuss this week’s news of a sports gambling
scandal because it does have ties to our beloved Chauncey Billups, the
former Detroit Pistons player.
Jill (47:55)
time.
Barb (48:08)
now head coach of the Portland Trail Blazers. I take no joy in
discussing this. Chauncey Billups is one of my all-time favorite
players. ⁓ But this is a significant story that happened this week.
And Kim, there were actually two indictments that came out this week,
⁓ one that includes him and then there’s another. Can you tell us
first just about the indictment that includes Chauncey Billups?
Kim (48:31)
Yeah, this pained me too, Barb. I am also a lifelong Pistons fan and I
actually have somewhere a framed picture because I worked at a
newspaper in 2004. So my editor framed the front page of the Journal
News of Sean C. Billups holding the championship trophy after that
championship. And I used to hang it in my office. It really hurt my
heart. But yes.
Yeah, this pained me too, Barb. I am also a lifelong Pistons fan and I
actually have somewhere a framed picture because I worked at a
newspaper in 2004. So my editor framed the front page of the Journal
News of Sean C. Billups holding the championship trophy after that
championship. And I used to hang it in my office. It really hurt my
heart. But yes.
The scheme in which ⁓ Billups ⁓ was charged for wire fraud and wire
fraud conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy had to do with a
poker ring ⁓ that involved every New York crime family that seems to
have ever existed. The crazy thing about this is I didn’t realize the
mob was still mobbing like this.
Barb (49:23)
Wait wait wait what? That can’t be no crime family! Wait what?
Kim (49:27)
What? Like they’re still around, they’re still doing
Barb (49:29)
And now they’re ⁓
Kim (49:31)
Right. So essentially the charge is that these high-stake poker games
were put together with people who had deep pockets and they would be
lured into these poker games by famous folks like Sean C. Billups,
know, of the Portland Trailblazer and, you know, championship,
championship player from the Detroit Pistons. And yeah, who why
wouldn’t you want to go play poker with folks like this? Well,
The poker game was not in any way clean. was technology being used
from x-rays ⁓ to other, special glasses that players were using in
order to see markings on the other players’ cards. All kinds of high-
tech ways of cheating in this poker game and fleecing these
unsuspected players out of a total of upwards of $7 million. In fact,
one player alone left
$1.7 million lighter from these poker games. And these rings were
operated by New York’s crime family, a collection of New York mafia
types who were taking a cut off of all of this by fleecing people. And
Chauncey Phillips was a part of this. it’s so, it’s so dis… I mean,
innocent till proven guilty, of course, but it’s so disappointing that
he could be involved in something like this. It didn’t involve…
betting against his own team, like we’ll hear about, but this was
pretty, pretty bad.
Barb (51:04)
Yeah, I was really struck by the idea of these high-tech poker games
where they could use like chips in the cards to know who had the best
hand and like, you know, whether you should continue to bet high on
your own hand or you should fold. Really interesting. ⁓ And, you know,
all of these kinds of things, wire fraud, other things, require
knowledge and intent. I’m going to hope that maybe John C. Billups was
just a dupe himself, right? He got a chance to…
make a lot of money he thought with a celebrity appearance and he just
played along. you know, the fact that he’s indicted means there’s
probable cause that a grand jury found that there was evidence of all
of the elements of the offense.
Kim (51:43)
Yeah, and not everybody involved in these schemes were indicted. So
you got to believe that there’s pretty good evidence on him.
Barb (51:49)
Yeah, presumed innocent for now, but you’re right, it is a disturbing
charge. ⁓ Jill, there’s a second indictment that may be even more
serious because it threatens the integrity of the game. And I was
actually pleased to see that Chauncey Billups was not named in this
indictment because I think this really is even worse, ⁓ maybe less
sophisticated, although I don’t know. It also is a very modern kind of
crime. Can you please tell us about that one?
Jill (52:15)
So it’s not actually that modern. In a way, it’s almost like bribing a
player, except this seemed to be a player who was like, I’m gonna
volunteer to do this. Let me tell my friend that I’m gonna leave the
game early. And then they can bet on my not making the scores that I
normally make because they know I won’t be playing long enough. And it
does affect the integrity of the game because it’s basically throwing
a game. And…
I have to say when you suggested we talk about a sports thing, I was
like panicked because I don’t know anything about sports, although the
Bulls and Michael Jordan, I do know. so basketball is maybe one of the
places I could actually feel comfortable. And just so you know, one of
my early trials was a sports bribery. ⁓
Barb (53:01)
look at you! of course it was! was a- was it the- was it the black
sock scandal? the 1919 black sock scandal?
Kim (53:03)
Yes it was.
Jill (53:05)
A boxing case?
No,
God, yeah, right. That was it. I was in puberty at the time, but yeah.
No, it was a boxing case where one of the fighters agreed with a
boxing promoter to throw the fight so that they could bet on the other
guy winning. And he did.
Barb (53:12)
Just kidding,
Did you go undercover to the fight as one of those like fight dames in
the big fur coat? Or were you the girl who walks through with the car
with the brown…
Jill (53:39)
Okay, ⁓ make fun. ⁓ I love it. one of the witnesses, a character
witness came in, ⁓ Sugar Ray Robinson, who was a real big name. I’m
telling you, the jury was like jumping out of the box to get his
autograph. And it’s like, my God, this is the worst thing that could
happen to me. Anyway, yeah, it was, was, was.
Barb (53:51)
name
Jill (54:05)
and the defendant, Sam Silverman, and his cigar, which he would leave
on a ⁓ fire hose holder outside the courtroom, and in between breaks,
you could still smoke in courthouses, he would come out and puff and
smoke, and then his wife attacked me in the ladies’ room ⁓ because
she, anyway. ⁓
Barb (54:24)
Wait,
wait, I’m sorry, wait, wait, wait, wait,
Jill (54:27)
This is most interesting kiss.
Well, because his name was Silverman, he was Jewish and so was I. And
she said, thought you’d want to protect your own kind. Really bad.
Really bad. yeah. So that’s my connection to, and I forgot what your
question was. Did I answer your question?
Barb (54:36)
God
How interesting. Well, that’s fascinating.
Kim (54:49)
The second is I.
Jill (54:52)
was for throwing a game basically or for allowing people to bet. And
this was for defrauding the official betting companies. ⁓ And so
that’s what it’s about. it does, again, you know, we don’t know until
trial, but the indictment lays out some pretty convincing evidence
that ⁓ the player said, have a bad foot when he didn’t and that he
would only play for a limited period of time and that therefore,
was for throwing a game basically or for allowing people to bet. And
this was for defrauding the official betting companies. ⁓ And so
that’s what it’s about. it does, again, you know, we don’t know until
trial, but the indictment lays out some pretty convincing evidence
that ⁓ the player said, have a bad foot when he didn’t and that he
would only play for a limited period of time and that therefore,
I had to look this up, a prop bet, which is a bet about the over-under
of how many points someone will score. It’s not about the outcome of
the game. It’s about a specific thing. ⁓ That’s how much I know about
betting is I had to look up what a prop bet was. people made a lot of
money betting that he wasn’t going to make his normal score. And so
that was bad. And he, of course, told his best friend and the mafia
and everybody else.
Barb (55:48)
Yeah, super interesting. See, I think that’s where there is some tech
involved here because with these prop bets, you know, is player X
going to score more than five points tonight? If he knows that’s the
bet, comes, you know, minute three of the game when he’s at four
points, he says, my foot is injured. I have to come out now. ⁓ But the
technology can detect that there’s like a highly unusual number of ⁓
bets on that factor. ⁓ And so there are, you know, like ⁓
algorithms that can detect this stuff. So super interesting.
Jill (56:19)
Yeah, but that only means you get caught. It doesn’t mean that people
didn’t bet and don’t collect.
Barb (56:24)
Yeah, well, you know, maybe after this they’ll realize that these bets
are a little more transparent than they thought they were. ⁓ Kim, I
want to ask you this bigger picture on all of this. I was actually
just discussing this at dinner with our daughter the other night. She
was asking questions about why is it I see all of these ads for
FanDuel and SportsKing all of a sudden? I don’t remember that more
than a few years ago. And now suddenly it seems like I see that every
year. Why is that? What changed?
And, you know, as we’ve just been discussing with Jill, I can remember
a time when sports betting was considered a very bad thing and the
teams really frowned upon it because it was considered a threat to the
integrity of the game. I joke about the 1919 Chicago Black Sox
scandal, but remember the movie Eight Men Out? It’s about, you know,
players actually caught, were caught taking money from gamblers to
throw the World Series. So what has changed in the past several years?
that we are now seeing this explosion of these online betting
companies.
Kim (57:23)
Yeah, it’s a good point. mean, just personally, I’m not a gambler
either, but I used to play fantasy basketball. I remember when I was a
lawyer, that would be my stress relief. I would go and like make my
little trades. But I stopped doing that after a couple of years, even
though it was fun with my friends, because I just hated the idea of if
somebody on my fantasy team was playing against the Pistons.
Yeah, it’s a good point. mean, just personally, I’m not a gambler
either, but I used to play fantasy basketball. I remember when I was a
lawyer, that would be my stress relief. I would go and like make my
little trades. But I stopped doing that after a couple of years, even
though it was fun with my friends, because I just hated the idea of if
somebody on my fantasy team was playing against the Pistons.
And then now all of a sudden I have to like kind of root again. Like,
no, this feels awful. Like, I don’t want to do this. Like, this is,
this is cruddy. Why would people want to do that? So yeah, add a lot
of money to that and you see why people do it. But you asked what
changed. Well, shockingly, the nine justices, the US Supreme court
entered the Well, the majority in 2018 entered the chat.
Jill (58:04)
Not nine of them.
Kim (58:10)
and ⁓ struck down a 1992 federal law, the Professional and Amateur
Sports Protection Act, which had banned betting on professional sports
in most states. And what has happened since is that it has been
legalized on ⁓ a widespread, I remember when Massachusetts was
debating legalizing and eventually did, and I just felt like it was.
It was such a bad idea for so many reasons. One, it’s one of many
reasons why I paid zero attention to the NBA anymore, because I just
can’t take it. It just feels like such a different game to me. I also
worry about betting as a, generally it just doesn’t seem, nobody who I
know who gambles regularly is not feeling ill effects of that. I just
think that societally it’s a terrible vice to have. But that’s the
reason, Justice Samuel Alito.
wrote in the majority opinion that the way Congress went about the
gambling ban violated, wait for it, the 10th amendment, which protects
the power of the
Jill (59:12)
No.
Barb (59:14)
I love how it comes full circle like that. so, you know, that case
comes in, it overturns this federal law, states pass all kinds of laws
to embrace gambling, ⁓ and now we have sports gambling in most states,
and so then, of course, technology comes along. And so now we have all
these apps. You don’t have to go to, like, find an illegal bookie
anymore. You don’t have to even go to Las Vegas anymore. You can just
get on your phone.
Kim (59:44)
And the QR code that comes up on the televised game, you can just use
that. ⁓ It’s awful.
Barb (59:49)
Yeah,
well, Jill, let me ask you about that. I mean, I suppose the good news
is that these people were caught and they’ve been charged and again
presumed innocent, but we’ll see how that goes. And FanDuel has said,
you know, it is its technology that allows it to identify these
unusual trends in betting. And so people are not able to get away with
it. I remember there was a Detroit Lions player who was caught ⁓
making a bet on one of these things at the Lions practice facility.
Like they could even tell where he was when he made it. that kind of
technology leaves an electronic paper trail. So is the solution you
think to ban sports gambling or is the solution finding ways to
prevent cheating?
Jill (1:00:36)
Well, I would say that neither of those is going to work. Sorry.
Neither. You know, we can’t ban sports gambling because it used to be
done, as you pointed out, you know, with bookies who were, you know,
corrupt themselves, but it was done off record. Now there’s state-
sponsored gambling and people want to gamble. I’m sort of like with
Kim.
Barb (1:00:41)
You’re so wise.
Jill (1:01:06)
The only time that I was ever in Las Vegas was for depositions ⁓ in a
mafia case. And when we got there, my partner said, ⁓ let’s go to the
blackjack table. And I’m like, okay. And then we went to the roulette
wheel and he was putting money down and losing big money. And I was
like getting really upset. And I finally said to him, you know, I’m
going to just, I’ll wait until dinner. I’m going to my room. Let me
know when you want to have dinner. Cause I couldn’t stand to watch.
this loss of money. But people do it. And so I don’t think you can ban
it. It’s not going to work. And preventing corruption, if I learned
one thing as an organized crime prosecutor is no matter what laws you
pass, criminals are smart and they will find a way around it and they
will do it anyway. So I don’t know that you’re going to be able to
prevent a corruption unless you could find people who have ethics.
elect them to office and they set an example maybe. But I just, I
don’t know what the solution is. If more and more people are caught
and prosecuted, because as we talked about before, yes, they have the
technology to spot these unusual trends and they can report them to
law enforcement and law enforcement can investigate and arrest people
if they find the evidence, but that’s a long way and a lot of work and
it’s not going to really
elect them to office and they set an example maybe. But I just, I
don’t know what the solution is. If more and more people are caught
and prosecuted, because as we talked about before, yes, they have the
technology to spot these unusual trends and they can report them to
law enforcement and law enforcement can investigate and arrest people
if they find the evidence, but that’s a long way and a lot of work and
it’s not going to really
work, but if it gets to a point where enough people are caught and
prosecuted and convicted, maybe people will stop throwing games. That
doesn’t mean you’re going to stop gambling on legitimate, let’s just
bet on the outcome of a game based on I’ve studied the statistics kind
of thing.
Barb (1:02:53)
Which is fine. Yeah. Which is fine. You know, I am a big believer in
deterrence. You know, think about the way people drive. You know,
other people, of course, not myself. But the way people drive, they
might speed from time to time on the freeway. But you wonder like, oh,
why are all those brake lights ahead of me? It’s because people are
slowing down because they see a police car there and they don’t want
to get caught. So I think if fan duel or sports kings were to let
people know, look, we have the ability to track your unusual bets,
maybe that would help deter crime.
Jill (1:03:31)
The pressure to make the most of the final months of the year is real.
If you woke up today thinking of all the things you should be doing,
please stop shoulding and know you’re doing the best you can. More
importantly, when the shoulds or bad news pile up, calm is the tool
you need to reach for. It will release your stress and help you find
space to breathe, even on the busiest or most stressful days.
We even use it to center ourselves on the days when things are going
well, but still need to take a moment out of our busy lives to
refresh, reset, and get back on top of our game.
Kim (1:04:08)
If you haven’t heard, Calm is the number one app for sleep and
meditation, and it’s here to help you feel better. When you’re feeling
like you could use some support navigating life’s ups and downs, get
the relief you need with Calm’s sessions. No matter what life throws
at you, Calm is perfect for every moon and moment. There is every type
of program that you can imagine, like guided meditations designed to
help you work through anxiety and stress.
boost your focus and build healthier habits and take care of your
physical well-being. And I just find, Barb, that just knowing that the
app is there also just helps remind me to take that time every day.
And it does really make a difference.
Barb (1:04:52)
Yeah, there are also sleep stories, sleep meditations and calming
music that will help you drift off to restful sleep quickly and
naturally. It’s so relaxing. It’s the perfect end to a stressful day.
But when you’re feeling overwhelmed, we also recommend you try their
grounding exercises to help you relax and reset. There’s one that’s
about like, I don’t know if you’ve heard this one, it’s about like for
people who are afraid to fly. I’m not necessarily afraid to fly, but
it’s a really good one.
Yeah, there are also sleep stories, sleep meditations and calming
music that will help you drift off to restful sleep quickly and
naturally. It’s so relaxing. It’s the perfect end to a stressful day.
But when you’re feeling overwhelmed, we also recommend you try their
grounding exercises to help you relax and reset. There’s one that’s
about like, I don’t know if you’ve heard this one, it’s about like for
people who are afraid to fly. I’m not necessarily afraid to fly, but
it’s a really good one.
when you’re feeling out of control because it just talks about like
putting your feet on the ground and feeling solid things and things
that aren’t moving and making you feel confident in your space. It’s a
good way. Yeah, Calm has powerful expert led talks designed to help
you handle grief, improve self-esteem, care for relationships and
more.
Jill (1:05:41)
The Calm app puts the tools you need right in your pocket so that
stress and anxiety relief are always within reach. With over 2 million
five-star reviews, that’s 2 million five-star reviews, Calm can help
you stress less, sleep more, and live mindfully. So don’t wait. Calm
your mind and change your life. Calm has an exclusive offer just for
our listeners of this show. Get 40 % off a Calm premium subscription
at com.com slash sisters. This is an amazing value. Go to calm.com
slash sisters for 40 % off unlimited access to com’s entire library.
Again, that’s com.com slash sisters. Tell com you heard about them
from us and look for the link in our show notes.
Barb (1:06:42)
comes the part of the show we really like the most, the part where we
answer your questions. If you have a question for us, please email us
at sistersinlawatpoliticon.com or tag us on social media using hashtag
Sisters In Law. If we don’t get to your question during the show, keep
an eye on our feeds throughout the week, where we’ll answer as many of
your questions as we can. Our first question is an amusing one, I
suppose, from Anil. Here’s the question.
⁓ What would you do if Donald Trump called you up and said, hey, I’ve
been listening to your podcast for some time now and really admire
your legal prowess. Would you be willing to take me on as a client to
represent me in case X? Jill, that has your name written all over it.
What would you do if you got that call?
Jill (1:07:32)
You know, that’s an easy question because I’d say no. And I believe
everybody deserves a defense. They just don’t deserve a defense from a
specific lawyer. ⁓ I would first of all be worried that he would not
be honest with me, that I couldn’t rely on what he would say or that
he would testify truthfully if it ever came to that. then I would also
think about the fact that
How many of his lawyers have been dispired because they get into bad
things? So I would have to say, no. I did have one experience where I
was observing ⁓ the last of the Holocaust trials. ⁓ It was of Klaus
Barbie in France. ⁓ I was supposed to interview his lawyer afterwards
and I decided not to do it because it would be normal to shake hands
with someone.
How many of his lawyers have been dispired because they get into bad
things? So I would have to say, no. I did have one experience where I
was observing ⁓ the last of the Holocaust trials. ⁓ It was of Klaus
Barbie in France. ⁓ I was supposed to interview his lawyer afterwards
and I decided not to do it because it would be normal to shake hands
with someone.
Barb (1:08:19)
wow, I remember that.
Jill (1:08:31)
and I couldn’t shake his hand because I thought what he was doing was
so abysmal. And so I just don’t want to be in that situation. So I
would say, no, ⁓ you’re crooked and I’m not gonna do it. All right.
Barb (1:08:43)
Our next question comes to us from Karen Joy. She asks, where does
Trump get the authority to tear into the East Wing of the White House?
Kim, what do you think? Do you have any thoughts about that?
Kim (1:08:56)
So that’s an interesting question. ⁓ So construction on federal
buildings, including the White House, has to go through an
organization called the National Capital Planning Commission, the
NCPC. They have jurisdiction over construction, renovation, ⁓ anything
like that to the building. Well, the White House has determined
that the ⁓ White House is exempt from those requirements to go through
the NCPC ⁓ for permitting ⁓ under their interpretation of the statute.
I won’t bore you with all of the details, but this makes a big
difference because among the things that the NCPC would require is to
review the entire renovation plan completely before any work can
begin, like before the shovel breaks ground.
all of the plans need to be in place of exactly what’s going on. Now,
it seems that the White House themselves are changing the plans as
they go. First, was just a renovation to put in a ballroom. Next thing
you know, you look and the East Wing is gone, ⁓ which is why people
are saying, you know, take pictures of this, keep the evidence of what
is actually happening. And the White House also has determined in
their ⁓ interpretation of this statute that demolition is not included
in construction plans.
So they are operating on the assumption that they can tear it down,
but they only need to put forth a plan, which they still don’t have. ⁓
There’s still no plan in existence yet for how the construction is
actually going to go. But in the meantime, they just went ahead and
tore it down. So I’m gonna see, I have a feeling that there will be
some challenges surrounding this. Exactly who can enforce ⁓ these
rules? I think that’s gonna be questions. It’s a lot of-
Yes, yeah, all these, I mean, this has not been done before. That’s
literally what this, it’s like the perfect, ⁓ you know, symbol of what
this administration is doing. They destroy things and then figure out
the legalities and the rules later. This is a perfect example of that.
So I think this is stuff that we will have to wait and see how it all
shakes out.
Yes, yeah, all these, I mean, this has not been done before. That’s
literally what this, it’s like the perfect, ⁓ you know, symbol of what
this administration is doing. They destroy things and then figure out
the legalities and the rules later. This is a perfect example of that.
So I think this is stuff that we will have to wait and see how it all
shakes out.
Barb (1:11:10)
Move fast and break things. And our final question comes to us from
Kathy, who has kind of a follow-up to the last question. And her
question is, where’s the money coming from for the ballroom being
added to the White House? ⁓ Great question, Kathy. Initially, the
projection was that it would cost $200 million. Now we’re hearing
suddenly $300 million at a time when the government is shut down and
federal workers are not getting paid. So where is all this money
coming from?
Kim (1:11:12)
Yep. Literally.
Barb (1:11:39)
Donald Trump has pledged to put up some of the money himself. He has
not said how much. You know what, a quarter? ⁓ I don’t mean one
fourth. I mean a quarter. I don’t know. We don’t know how much. That
has not been disclosed. But what we do know is he hosted a dinner
event to thank his generous supporters who have made donations for
this ballroom. And they included companies like Microsoft and Apple,
Palantir.
⁓ Lockheed Martin, and companies that have a real stake in government
activity, right? These are companies that are sometimes subject to
enforcement actions, companies that are sometimes interested in
government contracts, could find themselves ⁓ in regulatory ⁓
situations. And so the idea that they are ponying up money at Trump’s
request strikes me as ⁓ something that
presents a real conflict of interest. The idea of private fundraising
in government is really something that is antithetical. It seems to me
that Congress is the organization that appropriates funds. And if
Congress deems that this is an appropriate use of funds, they should ⁓
expend these funds. And otherwise, we should keep the White House
perfect the way it is. Or was.
Well, thank you for joining us here at Hashtag Sisters in Law this
week with Kimberly Atkins-Stor, Jill Winebanks, and me, Barb McQuade.
Follow Hashtag Sisters in Law wherever you listen, and please give us
a five-star review. It really helps others find the show. And please
show some love to this week’s Gusto, Quince, Jones Road Beauty, Wild
Grain, and Calm. The links are in the show notes. Please support them
because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with
another episode, Hashtag Sisters in
Jill (1:13:34)
you
Barb (1:13:36)
So, Jill, when you were investigating this boxing scandal, were you ⁓
undercover? Were you smoking a cigar in the front row? What was your
role in the investigation?
Jill (1:13:49)
One, I didn’t smoke a cigar until I was general counsel of the army. I
can send you a picture of that. But no, this was actually a case
investigated by the US attorney in Boston. And then because Sam
Silverman was so popular, boxing was a big sport deal in Boston back
then. They didn’t want to prosecute him. And so they called Washington
and said, we need someone to come from Washington to do this.
Barb (1:13:53)
Wait,
Jill (1:14:19)
got involved.
So that’s how I got involved. So it had already been indicted when I
Barb (1:14:23)
They
sent in the closer.
Jill (1:14:25)
Yeah, and was also in the early days of Title III, and we had tapes.
there was, I mean, it was a pretty clear-cut case of you could hear
them planning to throw the fight. It was like an easy, easy case.
Barb (1:14:39)
It was a knockout and so was.
Jill (1:14:40)
Jill. ⁓ that’s so good. I love that. Yes, it was a knockout.