Sisters Named In The Epstein Files

Kim (00:00)
Welcome back to Hashtag Sisters-in-Law with Barb McQuade and me, Kimberly Atkins-Stohr. You know, due to the partial government shutdown, Jill and Joyce ⁓ were furloughed and we will see them back. No, no. ⁓ They will be back.

Sue, don’t worry, we miss them, but we’ll have to soldier on as a duo this week. In the meantime, show off some hashtags, sisters-in-law gear. You we got hoodies, we got t-shirts, got all kind of good stuff. Go to politicon.com slash merch and you can find the link in our show notes bar. You know, I was thought living below the Mason-Dixon line, I wouldn’t get a lot of use out of my hoodie, but man, have I been living in it this way. It’s been so

Barb (00:57)
It is nice and toasty.

Kim (01:00)
And we have exciting news if you haven’t heard already. We have launched a companion podcast called Sisters Sidebar where we’ll answer questions that we couldn’t get through on our main show. You we do say that the listener questions are our favorite part of the show and it’s true and we wanted more of them. So now we have another podcast. We dive deeper into our opinions on the news and share more about our legal journeys too.

It drops Wednesdays, so send in those questions and remember to tune in. On today’s show, we have a lot to talk about. We will talk about the search that was conducted in Fulton County by the FBI and the ongoing implications from that. We’ll also talk about Minnesota, which is just seeming like a terrible place to be if you’re a federal prosecutor. And also,

We’re going to talk about non-disclosure agreements when members of the government are ⁓ asking their employees to sign it. Most recently, that happened at the Supreme Court. So I found it crazy. We’ll see what Barb thinks about it. But first, Barb, ⁓ I don’t know how to say this, but I found out this week that I am listed in the Epstein files. ⁓

Barb (02:25)
Wait, what?

Kim (02:27)
I am in the Epstein files and Barb, hope you’re sitting down because you are too.

Barb (02:35)
Wait, what? I’ve never met the man in my life. In the words of many people who turns out have met the man in their lives, I’ve never met, I really have never met the man in my life. What are you talking about? What about you?

Kim (02:46)
And you know, Joyce is too, Jill Wine-Banks is not. Can I say that Jill Wine-Banks is not mentioned in-

Barb (02:54)
who should be in there. Wait, please do tell. Give me some context here. What are you talking about?

Kim (03:00)
So I was just tooling around on the Department of Justice site where they have put the Epstein files up and ⁓ put in a searchable tool where you can search names that are in it. It warns that it may be error prone. It’s not a foolproof tool. But I just started punching in the names of people. ⁓who I might know and lo and behold, there was mine and there was yours and there was Joyce’s. let’s be clear, none of us have been to Epstein Island. None of us, I can say for certainty, met the man, hung out on his private jet or hung out anywhere near him. But I think this says something, I want to get your view on this Barb, that among the, you know, 11,000,000 files that the government had to complained about having to produce. A lot of them include really routine and bland stuff like the ⁓ everyday, the DOJ press office puts together a little roundup.

Barb (04:12)
Oh yeah, yeah, the Attorney General news clips. I used to read this all the time.

Kim (04:15)
We clips from every day about things that were written about the Justice Department or matters before the Justice Department. And our names turn up because they include clips from my columns or Barb’s columns or our appearances on television. ⁓ And that’s why our names are in it.

Barb (04:35)
I’m looking at this now. had me worried there for minute. I see the… there’s an email to Steve Bannon where somebody shares an article that quotes me about Michael Cohen. That’s so funny. How interesting. Thank you for sharing that. Well, we’ll have to put this directory in the ⁓ show notes so people…

Kim (04:57)
so that our listeners can search for people too and see where we are. But to me, like when I saw this, I was like, okay, the Justice Department was bellyaching about how it’s so onerous to produce these files because there are millions and billions of documents, right? But these documents have nothing to do with Epstein. Like I feel like they loaded them with things that are not at all in attorney speak, not responsive to the court.

to the ⁓

Barb (05:30)
You’re saying maybe they created a haystack to make it harder to find the needles? Yeah. No, I’m looking at the stuff that you see, which is the most innocuous, you know, here’s the attorney general’s briefs of the day. It’s basically all the legal news that might relate to the Justice Department. Yeah, that’s really interesting. ⁓ Yeah, you know, I don’t want to make light of the Epstein files because obviously this is very serious business when it comes to ⁓ the survivors, but ⁓ it really feels like they have made a

Kim (05:34)
Correct

Barb (05:59)
poor, half-hearted effort at producing the stuff that people actually want and are required to see under the statute. And instead, they’ve got garbage like this for people to sort through.

Kim (06:10)
Yeah, no, I think that’s right. I think it’s the opposite of making light of it. think the thing that made me pretty angry about it is that we want to know what, you know, even if the Justice Department is announced that they’re going to do absolutely nothing about this, there’s Congress, there are the survivors themselves that may want to seek some sort of redress from the people, others who are culpable of the horrific crimes that were taking place.

that were orchestrated by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. And it just makes it so much harder with a search tool that is on by its own admission unreliable. Yeah, right. To make it so hard to find the information from it, I think is really a shame. ⁓ It really is a shame.

Barb (07:01)
Yeah, to clutter it up with a bunch of junk that’s in there with news articles.

Kim (07:05)
Yeah, so hopefully there are, well, I know that there are a lot of people, organizations, attorneys who are doing their own work and combing through this. And if there is some accountability to be had, hopefully it can be and people won’t be distracted by, you know, a citation to a column I wrote at some point. I think mine was about Chris Ray. Like it wasn’t even, it had nothing to do with Epstein.

Barb (07:31)
Yes.

I’m looking at the stuff that’s about like the Mueller investigation and stuff like that.

Kim (07:36)
It’s just so silly. So anyway, I am glad that I never definitively said that you won’t find me in the

Barb (07:43)
Yeah, that’s right! It’s free-fill!

Kim (07:46)
Turns out. All right, but good for Joe Whitebanks.

Barb (07:59)
Kim, you know how much I love Quince. I gave Quince sweaters to all of my sons for the holidays because I think their sweaters are fantastic, like so many of their products. It’s all about elevated essentials that feel effortless. Everything is designed for layering and mixing, and each piece helps build a timeless wardrobe made to last. They’ve got versatile silhouettes, thoughtful details. Quince offers styles you’ll wear again and again.

Kim (08:27)
And you know what, Barb? They make really, really great gifts. Whenever I’ve given gifts from Quint to my husband or my stepdaughter or anybody else, they all really, really love it. And you know, I love it and I want everybody to know about it. Quint has wardrobe staples with qualities that’s made to last. You can refresh your fit with their 100 % organic cotton sweaters, premium denim made with stretch for all day comfort.

Luxe Cotton Cashmere blends perfect for the changing seasons and more. They have everything you need for a wardrobe that actually lasts.

Barb (09:06)
but it’s also affordable. We love that Quince works directly with safe, ethical factories to cut out the middlemen. So you’re not paying for brand markup, just high quality clothing. Quince uses the highest quality materials like 100 % European linen and organic cotton. That means not only is everything incredibly comfortable, it’s also built to hold up season after season. The stitching, the fit, the fabrics are excellent.

and you’ll keep reaching for quints. I actually have a quint sweater in just about every color they make. I wear them under my, you know, it’s been like sub-zero temperatures in Michigan, such a cold winter. And so I’ve been wearing them as an extra layer under my suit jackets. They are pieces you will reach for over and over.

Kim (09:49)
They really are. And one thing that I love about them is that they do last after wash, after wash, after wash. Like at the end of every season, I kind of go through when I’m switching out my clothes and I, you know, get rid of the things that are starting to fall apart. And I’ve had my coins pieces for like, they’re never in the falling apart pile. They always look so great. When you choose coins, you’re getting a wardrobe upgrade that feels smart, stylish, and effortless at prices you’ll love, as Barb said.

The cashmere is really cozy. Like that’s really what turned me on to Quince in the beginning of the cashmere sweaters. And, you know, especially right now when it’s cold and once you get inside, everyone needs Quince’s washable stretch silk blouse. I have a couple of those too. The material feels really amazing and the style is perfect for, you know, going out with friends or relaxing at home or taking care of business in the office. There’s nothing better for looking your best. And if fitness

is on your 2026 resolution goes well, let me tell you, the best workout motivation is the new active wear from Quince. I did get the leggings, the workout leggings with the pockets, Barb, there’s pockets. Pockets! Stop the presses and they’re great.

Barb (11:00)
Wait a minute.

Yeah, you can refresh your wardrobe too with Quince. Go to quince.com slash sisters for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. And we’ve got good news. Quince is now available in Canada too. That is q-u-i-n-c-e dot com slash sisters to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Again, quince.com slash sisters. The link is in our show notes.

Well, last week, dear listeners, you may recall that we discussed a search that was conducted by the FBI at the election office in Fulton County, Georgia. This week, Fulton County is firing back. They filed a legal challenge to that search. Kim, ⁓ let’s break this down. First, what is Fulton County seeking in this legal challenge?

Kim (12:04)
So Fulton County wants their stuff back. The FBI seized, not just to give you an understanding, when ballots are cast, not only are the ballots taken by the ⁓ election offices, but they are ⁓ archived. The material is archived in roles that are stored. And in Fulton County, these roles are stored within the

building itself in an archival way. So it’s not just the last election. It goes, it can go back some time and they, ⁓ you know, I think it’s meant to be cataloged and, know, in case there’s any future need for them. But the FBI just came in and like just swooped up all kinds of roles in documents and didn’t catalog. ⁓

what they even took. So Fulton County is asking for this information to be brought back because they don’t know what they took. They don’t know how far it goes. this is, I don’t think this is how the FBI should be working when they’re pursuing some particular alleged crime, which is the only reason why the FBI would be involved. But they did this in such a overly broad way.

that Fulton County officials are now going to a judge and asking, please make them return at least whatever they had ⁓ so that we have these documents for posterity because at this point Fulton County is no longer in possession of them, which is wild.

Barb (13:46)
It is what, you know, because they took, ⁓ according to the warrant itself, ⁓ ballots from prior elections, tabulator tapes, and also voter rolls. So the names of all of the people who are registered to vote in Fulton County. You know, it’s hard to imagine what is in the affidavit that was, you know, submitted to the judge. We haven’t seen that. On the public docket, we’ve got the warrant itself.

which shows us what crimes are allegedly being investigated. One is failure to retain documents. Well, here are the documents. I guess they’re trying to see it. But for 22 months, we’re so past 22 months, it’s really hard to imagine that the statute of limitations is still ⁓ valid for that one. And then the other one is a crime for ⁓ permitting fraud to be introduced into an election by election officials. ⁓ But you raised such a good point, which is if they are depriving

Fulton County of the records they need to administer elections. What does this do to the 2026 election? ⁓ I had a student today, I teach a course in criminal procedure, ask if law enforcement ever does a search warrant like just to mess with people. You know, maybe they’ve got just enough evidence to get probable cause. They have no intention whatsoever of bringing a case. so they’re just doing this to, you know, because people often say, this is all politically motivated. This is just a witch hunt. This is just to disrupt.

And I said, never. It’s such an ordeal to, you know, when I was a prosecutor, you know, you would get buy-in from your supervisor, ⁓ from your unit chief, from the agent you’re working with and their supervisory chain, because it’s going to take, you know, 20 agents, maybe 30 agents to show up to secure these things, to analyze these things. This is going to be a huge burden on both agencies, both the prosecutors and

the investigators. And so the idea that I’m just going to, you know, do this thing to mess with them is just unheard of. But then I thought about this search.

I said, you know, I like to think that people are operating in good faith that there’s this presumption of regularity. But of course, as we know, many judges have made these statements in Trump’s second term that DOJ is really losing this presumption of regularity. ⁓

Kim (16:10)
Yeah,

I think they’re getting pressured from their bosses who want to please their boss. Yeah. And doing things that are just completely out of the norm. I mean, can’t imagine for you as a former prosecutor what…

Barb (16:22)
It’s sickening. It’s absolutely sickening. And, you know, with regard to this request for return of property, you know, typically effort would be made. You know, obviously if it’s a gun that you took or drugs or child pornography, nobody’s getting that stuff back if it’s evidence of a crime and it could be used to endanger people. But usually with documents and other things, copies would be made. You would mirror image the documents, sometimes on site so you didn’t even have to take them for a search.

so that you weren’t dispossessing the true owner of their documents while you analyze them for evidence of a crime. So the idea that they have taken away the only copies.

Kim (16:59)
The physical stuff may hold out. I mean, at the time it was happening, the election officials were saying this. were like, this is not, you know, this isn’t a thumb drive of data. They took the actual original stuff, which to me, it’s also a lesson to election officials right now, wherever you are, digitize your stuff, like to find ways to protect it or put it in a ⁓ vault or something that if there is an FBI search.

⁓ that it won’t leave you with nothing in the way that Fulton County was done.

Barb (17:35)
Yeah, and although a judge could order that copies of this stuff be returned, we’ve now lost kind of that chain of custody that makes us know that these are the authentic real documents and who

Kim (17:47)
knows what they’ll get back. And it’s so sad, again, that we can’t trust the federal government to actually, even if there is a court order by a judge saying you would need to return the stuff, we can’t even trust that. They’ll do a full, I mean, look at what they did with the Epstein files as we just, as they just talked about. It’s really, it’s appalling.

Barb (18:06)
Yeah,

it is. And, you know, of course, we still don’t know what evidence was presented to the judge who found the probable cause and authorized the warrant. I’d love to see that thing at some point. But we do know some interesting reporting this weekend was that President Trump spoke by phone to the agents who conducted the search and to Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, who was also present at the scene, which is bizarre to me because, of course, the director of national intelligence is looking to threats to the national security from foreign actors. So what do you make of

Trump’s involvement in this case and Gabbard’s involvement in this case.

Kim (18:41)
You remember, like recall too that when, you know, something that involved ⁓ national security and international actors say ⁓ the nabbing of the Venezuelan president, Tulsi Gabbard was nowhere to be seen. Like she, I was like, where is Tulsi Gabbard?

Barb (19:02)
know where she was? She posted on social media that day. She was in Hawaii, and she posted herself doing yoga poses before the sunrise.

Kim (19:09)
Yet somehow when the FBI is reading the elections office of Foley, she just happened to be, yeah. This seems to me and the fact that she was the one who orchestrated this call between Donald Trump and the agents involved in which Donald Trump praised and thanked these agents. Of course, later he was saying, I had nothing to do with this. This wasn’t me. I didn’t even know what happened. He thanked and praised the agents who conducted this.

search on this warrant ⁓ says a lot. says that, know, Tulsi Gabbard, who before was not a Warhawk, she actually was trying to, you know, her position when she ran for president was that we need to de-escalate these international conflicts. Didn’t want to be, didn’t want to touch Venezuela, but was willing to still do Trump’s bidding in a domestic matter that is completely outside her realm of authority.

mean, that in itself, if there is not an impeachment article written for her, I just don’t know why we even have the impeachment power anymore. This is such a just gobsmacking.

I don’t even know what to call it. Derelection of duty doesn’t seem to do it justice. ⁓ It’s outrageous.

Barb (20:32)
Yeah, Mark Warner, ⁓ is, I don’t know what they call it in the Senate, not ranking member, vice chair maybe of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Yes. He said, ⁓ there’s two possibilities, both of which are shocking and unacceptable. Either this is a purely domestic criminal case, in which case the director of national intelligence just should not be there based on her job description. this is a violation of her

Kim (20:42)
I believe it is vice chair for that.

Barb (21:01)
duties and an overreach and abuse of her power. ⁓ Or alternatively, she’s there because there is some foreign nexus, in which case she has a duty to brief the ⁓ Intelligence Committee chair. Yeah, so he said, and we have not received any briefing on this. ⁓ it’s, I’m not sure the reason it’s wrong, but all I can tell you is it’s wrong. Also, there were photos of her there and she’s wearing like, you know, a ball cap and like the whole.

Kim (21:13)
That’s right.

Barb (21:29)
costume stuff it almost it feels like It was intentional that should be photographed, right? Yes, like just to create this impression that there’s some sort of foreign intrigue here So the whole thing is just bizarre

Kim (21:42)
Black, yeah. It’s really, it’s… Just when you think that things can’t get weirder, they do.

Barb (21:49)
Yeah, I will tell you that Kim, when I was serving as US attorney, never once did I dress in raid gear. Although I like baseball caps and I do own several baseball caps. Didn’t wear them on you going around. I didn’t wear a vest. know, were dressed in jacket. Yeah, maybe I should have done that. One last thing I would ask you about all of this is also deeply disturbing. ⁓ This week. ⁓

Kim (22:03)
Going around like Kristi Ngo. ⁓

Barb (22:15)
President Trump appeared on the podcast of Dan Bongino. Remember, he was the deputy director of the FBI, the number two official at the FBI for about a year. And now he’s back podcasting where he was before that. Trump shows up on the show and he was interviewed. And during that interview, President Trump said, we should nationalize elections. We should put Republicans in charge of elections in at least 15 places.

take to nationalize an election and what do you think the risks are if we were to do that?

Kim (22:49)
So first of all, he’s calling for, mean, just what he’s calling for just belies what he’s trying to do. Republicans to nationalize, not federal officials to nationalize, Republicans to nationalize election. ⁓ Excuse me. An election cannot be rigged by one part. You know what that is? You know where that happens? Russia.

I’m using air quotes because we’re a podcast, where there are elections. That happens in Turkey where there are elections. No, that’s not what happened. So how to nationalize elections, what that would take? A constitutional amendment because the constitution sets out very clearly that it is states who have the responsibility of administering elections. There is a role for Congress to make some rules with respect

to federal elections, Congress, Senate, the presidency. They can set up some rules with regard to that. But the way the elections are carried out, the rules, where elections are done, what equipment is used, how the votes are counted, all of that, that is up to the states. So unless you amend the Constitution, which I don’t think is happening anytime soon, thankfully, that can’t happen. Well, what I think he’s really calling for, though,

is for Republicans to do everything they can to throw wrenches in the system. And that we’ve already seen that. We’ve already seen that with the mid, the new invention of mid, mid decade redistrict, which wasn’t the thing before. You had a census and you had new congressional lines drawn. And then 10 years later, we did it all of a sudden now, suddenly in 2025 and 2026, it’s just so imperative that these congressional maps be redrawn now.

It’s things like that. It’s the, you know, sending ICE agents to polling stations. That’s what they’re talking about. I feel like it’s more of a, I can’t even call it a dog whistle, ⁓ a foghorn. It’s just saying that he wants Republicans to try to suppress voting and obstruct the election in any way that they can.

Barb (25:06)
Yeah, I think to some extent there’s some disinformation going on here, right? Trying to create this false narrative that our elections are rife with fraud. One of the things President Trump said in either this interview or another one this week was that ⁓ they, I assume they means the Democratic Party, they are bringing in immigrants. I don’t know that the Democratic Party is bringing in immigrants. They are bringing in immigrants to vote for Democrats because they can’t win elections otherwise. So creating this false narrative.

that the whole reason that Democrats care about the rights of immigrants is not because of treaties that permit ⁓ asylum claims or compassion for human dignity. Yeah, it’s because it’s all about winning an election and trying to get these ⁓ ineligible voters to vote. Of course, there is no evidence of widespread election fraud, no evidence that immigrants are voting in elections, let alone voting for Democrats.

Kim (25:46)
I was gonna say basic humanity.

Barb (26:04)
So I think this is about planting these false seeds, casting doubt on the legitimacy of elections, and then creating a path to do these drastic things like have the National Guard at polling places or ICE at polling places to protect the polls from immigrants who want to vote illegally. So I think it is paving the way, all of this, the search and all of these things, for the 2026 and maybe the 2028 election.

We all have this image of our perfect day where we get all our tasks done and eat better. The problem is that when the winter cold hits, things pile up and it feels like you have zero time and zero energy to spend cooking. At least I know I do. That’s why we want to tell you about Factor. Factor doesn’t ask you to meal prep or follow recipes. It removes the entire problem. All you have to do is heat it up. It takes two minutes and you have delicious, real food ready to enjoy.

Kim (27:11)
Yeah, you know, I have a lot of jobs and as such I have lot of deadlines and I’m usually pretty busy during the day. And sometimes the last thing I want to do is cook and I certainly hate the supermarket. I’ve said on the show many times how much I detest going to the supermarket. And you know, it takes up time we don’t have and that’s why I love Factor. It’s made by chefs, designed by dieticians and delivered to your door.

and heat it up for two minutes and boom, dinner is ready. The meals taste great and are packed with ingredients you can really feel good about, like lean proteins and colorful vegetables and whole food ingredients and healthy fats, all the stuff that you’d make if you had the time to do it yourself. And best of all, there are no refined sugars, no artificial sweeteners and no refined seed oils.

Barb (28:05)
Factor offers, get this, 100 rotating meals every week. 100, 100 Kim. And you can choose your categories. Maybe you like high protein, calorie smart, Mediterranean, GLP-1 support, ready to eat salads, and their new Muscle Pro collection for strength and recovery. All you have to do is pick what fits your goals, whether it’s healthier eating, calorie management, more protein.

Kim (28:10)
100

Barb (28:34)
or whatever you’re actually trying to do. It’s great having easy snacks that are healthy, smoothies and more ready to go when hunger strikes. In fact, here’s what I’m planning today, Kim. Are you ready for this? On this cold Michigan day, I am going to enjoy their three bean vegan chili with cornbread casserole and tofu based crema to ward off the cold. Doesn’t that sound amazing? So no matter what you choose, you’ll be amazed at how much time and money you save.

Kim (28:57)
All that sounds so good.

Factor is always fresh, never frozen, and ready in two minutes with no prep, no cleanup, no mental load, no must, no fuss. You don’t need motivation to eat better. Just eliminate the reasons you don’t. Head to factormeals.com slash S-I-L 50 off and use the code S-I-L 50 off to get 50 % off your first FactorBox plus free breakfast for a year.

This offer is only valid for new Factor customers with the code and a qualifying auto renewing subscription purchase. Make healthier eating easy with Factor and look for the link in our show notes.

Well, Barb, as we’ve been discussing, it’s a tough time to be a federal prosecutor right now, especially if you’re in Minnesota. Much of the news that came out this week regarding the surge in ICE operations happening in and around the Twin Cities is related to the Justice Department’s prosecutors who were tasked with handling the flurry of litigation surrounding it. It’s important to realize when we’re seeing all these actions take place, they don’t just end with these acts. It’s really the beginning of a process.

that really has been taxing ⁓ federal prosecutors, whether it’s with respect to habeas claims or it’s respect to ⁓ people who are harmed, who are not a part of these operations. So I want to get your take on it, as a former prosecutor. Let’s start with my hero of the week. And her name is Julie Lee. Please tell us about her, Barb, and what she did and what happened then.

Barb (30:56)
Yeah. So ⁓ Julie Lee is a lawyer who works for the Department of Homeland Security. She got detailed to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota because we’ve seen so many career prosecutors resign from that office. They’re way down and so they just needed bodies. And so they brought her in, along with others, from the local office of the Department of Homeland Security on a detail starting in January.

And she was assigned some cases to respond to what’s called an order to show cause, why the administration should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with court orders, including several orders to release some people who had been detained. And so this is the day, like show up. So the judge says, show up, lawyer for the government, and ⁓ please explain to me. And he kind of goes through, here are the four defendants.

I’ve been asking for updates on all of them and I haven’t received any. What is the update? And that’s when she said, what do you want me to do? The system sucks, the job sucks. In fact, it was when she said, would you please hold me in contempt for 24 hours so at least I can get some sleep? I’ve never, were true or words said in a courtroom. I mean, she explained quite candidly about what she’s up against. She said, I’ve been trying really hard.

to provide that information for you, Your Honor. I go back and I talk to people and I ask them, where is this person? They tell me one thing and I file a brief with the court. And then I find out that, you know, they tell me the person is in custody here in Minneapolis. I file my brief at 2.30 and then I find out that at 1.30 they were moved to Texas. So now I got to refile and find something else. So it’s a moving target. I can’t get answers from these people. And I think reading this transcript is really enlightening because the judge shows

some empathy, I think, toward this prosecutor. But what he says, and he even says, I adhere to the unitary executive theory. I buy into all this stuff. But what you can’t do, and I buy into immigration enforcement. You can absolutely enforce the immigration laws. But what the government can’t do is arrest so many people that you don’t have the capacity to provide due process to all of them. Like, you can’t just lock people up and not share with the court where they are. Or once they’ve been ordered released, you can’t,

lose them, you have to be able to do these things. So I think this transcript is really incredibly important because it provides this wake-up call. What about her makes her your hero?

Kim (33:32)
Well, that, that, the fact, and I want to say, when I was laughing right now, it was not at her or at this situation at all, because it’s tragic. It’s tragic that we’ve gotten to this point. But as somebody, was, I was not a prosecutor, but as somebody who argued before judges many times and they’re asking me questions about the, I can’t imagine the amount of frustration and resignation that you must have in your heart as an attorney arguing in front of a judge.

that brings you to the point where you are saying, you know what, Judge, hold me in contempt, please, I would love it. Like, this point.

Barb (34:07)
Yeah, she said until 2 30 last night working on this.

Kim (34:10)
That

would be relief at this. The last thing you want to do as an attorney is to be held in contempt for anything. When you are begging for it, listen. So that is what the fact that she basically said it. Like she told the truth as opposed to, you know, being given the lawyer ease. Yeah. The core, right? Trying to get out of the situation. She told the truth. Yep. And she put herself as a human first in that position.

Barb (34:28)
or lying to

Kim (34:37)
and a lawyer second, and I say hats off to her. That’s why she’s.

Barb (34:41)
And I’ll add, I think she also put herself as a lawyer first, right? Candidate to the tribunal. Instead of trying to lie or dance around or make excuses, she explained what was going on. Now, of course, she was fired shortly after this. I think she was just sent back to DHS. don’t think…

Kim (34:56)
I think she was just removed from that detail.

Barb (34:59)
She’s probably no one happier than she is.

Kim (35:01)
Which, yes, it’s just like the relief that she saw. So the struggle is real, Barbara, as we were talking about. The prosecutors are leaving the Minneapolis ⁓ US Attorney’s office in droves. As a former prosecutor, what must it be like in that office right now? And what are your biggest concerns about this situation?

Barb (35:23)
Yeah, I can’t imagine what it must be like to be working there. I’m sure the morale is horrible. I’m sure even those who are staying are really torn because this is a dream job for a lot of people. And I can imagine people trying to say to themselves, look, if I can just stick it out for three more years, we’ll have a normal US attorney and I can stay here for the rest of my career and do incredibly important work. But at the same time, I’m sure there are others who are saying, but there are certain things that I’m just not going to do.

like Julie Lee was asked to do, right? They’re going to say, before I would go into court and lie or make representations that ⁓ I’m not proud of, ⁓ I will resign. And so we’re seeing instead ⁓ people like detailees like Julie Lee who only got there January 5th and had to handle these cases. F-2026, yeah. When I started as a prosecutor,

Kim (36:15)
2026.

Barb (36:20)
I think about the kind of training that I got. I got to go to training courses on federal practice, ⁓ trial practice, grand jury practice, rules of evidence, ethics, appellate practice, and then a whole lot of subject matter courses. ⁓ And then before I was allowed to do things in court, I had to shadow somebody. ⁓ I had to be second share with somebody. I had to do those things at least three times before I could do it myself.

So all of those things help make sure that people are getting adequate training and ⁓ you don’t have surprises. Now it just sounds like anybody who has a bar license, they’re throwing in court regardless of the training they have. But aside from that, even if these are legal superstars, if you don’t give them the information they need to provide answers to the court, then it doesn’t matter what kind of trained lawyer you are, how good you are at your job, you’re just not going to be in a position to do the job effectively.

if members of the agency aren’t giving you the information you need.

Kim (37:23)
Yeah. So meanwhile, it seems that the Justice Department is trying to respond by rapidly assigning prosecutors with prosecutorial experience for what is called as ⁓ emergency jump teams to Minneapolis. Which, you know, would seem reasonable. They would want to reinforce that office if it’s being ⁓ so badly depleted, but…

And Barb, it turns out it’s only for some kind of cases and in some places. ⁓ Tell us about that and if that is the best use of the DOJ’s resources.

Barb (38:02)
my gosh, can you imagine the nightmare? They said, you know, each office of each of the 93 US attorney’s offices has been asked, I guess 94 US attorney’s office has been asked to ⁓ provide two volunteers to be on the jump team. Can you imagine like, you know, they’re coming around and you like hide under your desk. God, please, please don’t call me. on the jump team? I don’t want to be on the jump team. anything but that. ⁓ know, next week you might be deployed to Minneapolis and the week after that you might be sent to Maine.

Just some sense of how bad it is, Chad Mizell, is the former chief of staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi, posted on X, if you’re a lawyer and interested in being in AUSA and you support President Trump, DM me. It’s that bad. Oh my gosh, really? This is how we recruit?

Kim (38:49)
This was once one of the most prestigious positions that you could ever want. And he’s out here saying, it’s sort of like those text messages that you get. It’s like, work from home, get $4 an hour to DM me.

Barb (39:07)
Unbelievable. And the other thing a lot of prosecutors are objecting to is not only is it like a sign of desperation for bodies, but if you support President Trump, which, know, these are supposed to be nonpartisan jobs. ⁓ You’re not supposed to be, you know, hiring based on whether somebody supports a particular president or not. These are career jobs to outlast any one administration. And you asked like, is this an efficient use of resources? Absolutely not. For one.

Every district has local practice. There are local rules. ⁓ Each judge has their own ⁓ idiosyncrasies. And to throw people from other districts into that community and ask them to practice is just not going to be effective. ⁓ In addition, you are uprooting them from their own districts where they’re working on other cases. Maybe they’re working on corruption cases or armed robbery crews or whatever it is. No, we’re going to throw you into the fray in Minneapolis where

We have a situation of chaos of our own creation. So it strikes me as incredibly ⁓ foolish use of resources.

Kim (40:12)
And on top of that, according to reporting by Bloomberg Law, they’re sending them to places to deal with the cases of alleged assaults or obstruction of law enforcement. Like it’s not to help administer all of these ⁓ additional cases from the increasing caseload in the number of people who have been detained. It’s to focus on places where they’re trying to crack down and give more prosecutions.

of people who have allegedly assaulted or obstructed law and, where we see from the way that ⁓ the high profile cases have been handled and the way they, that the top officials in the justice and DHS departments have categorized these folks. You can only imagine some of these cases that are being brought by people who are just filming, who are just.

know, blowing whistles or, you know, just doing things that are not against the law, but that’s who they want to prosecute. that. Ugh. ⁓

Barb (41:16)
Yeah, you know, I am all in favor of protecting law enforcement officials. No one should assault a law enforcement official. And if that happens, they should be prosecuted. But the statute requires for even for obstruction, forcibly obstructing. That means hands on. So, you know, video recording somebody or blowing a whistle is not going to qualify. And as you say, Kim, even in these high profile prosecutions, we’ve seen some pretty ticky tack things. So I think ⁓ I don’t know to the extent to which they will actually prosecute and to what extent.

They are trying to create a narrative either for deterrence or, ⁓ you know, we’ve got the back of law enforcement because we’re the pro law enforcement party. ⁓ Because Trump’s MO has always been to just make an announcement of something, even if you don’t intend to follow through, right? That’s true. Vladimir Zelensky, I need you to announce, I need you to go in front of a microphone and announce that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are under investigation for corruption. said to DOJ, just announce that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me.

So just creating this impression ⁓ is all that he cares about. So I don’t know if this is really happening or if this is just an announcement, but whatever you do, if the recruiters, dear listeners in US attorney’s offices, when the recruiters come by, ⁓ maybe you dropped a contact lens on the floor and you need to get down behind your desk and look for that so ⁓ they don’t spot you sitting at your desk when they’re looking for the people they’re gonna send and these jump teams.

Kim (42:49)
⁓ Barb, when the weather is this cold, I am all about keeping my skin moisturized because nobody likes cracked skin. And whether you’re freezing out in the wind or baking under the heater, winter is the roughest, it’s the toughest time of year. Add in the start of the year stress and just the events of the world, and you wish you could relax on a warm tropical beach somewhere.

But even if you’re not there, I have the next best thing for you. With Osea Malibu, I feel like I’m in paradise when I incorporate their products into my regimen. Right now, I’m really enjoying their dream collection, It’s a serum and a moisturizer. It smells like lavender, and I slather it on at night. It’s the perfect way to create a feeling of warmth on dreary winter nights. Have you tried it, Barb?

Barb (43:43)
Yeah, and to fill you in, Osea’s Dream Night Serum and Dream Night Cream are clinically tested formulas powered by bioretinal and designed to reduce the visible effects of stress on skin while you sleep. It’s a one-two combo. So first you put on their Dream Bioretinal Body Serum. I was excited to try it out. It feels great. It smells great. It’s a brand new full body restorative treatment that visibly de-stresses the skin.

with a holistic blend of bioretinal red seaweed, magnesium, and lavender. After savoring that scent, you can follow it up with the night cream. Both products are so nurturing, and I now wake up with firmer, more moisturized skin, as opposed to my normal sandpaper skin. It glows wherever I apply it. It doesn’t just visibly firm and improve skin elasticity. It also smooths lines and wrinkles with less potential for irritation.

than the traditional retinol of other brands. Thank you. Maybe that should be my new nickname.

Kim (44:43)
You’re looking very smooth, Thank you. You can tell that it is working.

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

You can ask Greg, it’s always a treatment for my one night. I’m just gonna, once he’s sleeping, slather it on him too, because I know he’ll like it too. They’re so efficient and lead to a real transformation in your body and wellbeing.

Barb (45:33)
There really is nothing better for promoting a restful night while visibly firming and improving skin elasticity. We also love that everything’s vegan, cruelty-free, and comes in sustainable packaging. So don’t wait, give your skin a rest with clean, clinically-tested skincare from Osea. And right now, we have a special discount just for our listeners. Get 10 % off your first order, site-wide, with code SISTERS10 at oseamalibu.com. That’s O-S-E-A, Malibu.

The link is in our show notes.

Kim, I want to ask you about a topic you wrote about in your newsletter, The Gavel. If you’re not subscribing to The Gavel, you’re doing it wrong. Kim posts a newsletter every Wednesday with a deep dive on some interesting things, usually about the Supreme Court, what’s going on there. And you wrote ⁓ this week about non-disclosure agreements in our federal government, not at the White House, which we have seen before, but at the Supreme Court. Yeah, go ahead. Tell us about this.

Kim (46:41)
Yeah, so I…

Well, picture it. You know, the head of a branch of government calls in some employees in a room, presents them with a non-disclosure agreement because he wants to stop leaks from the building, and tells them to sign it right then. That sounds like something Trump would do, right? This is something, according to reporting in the New York Times…

by Jody Cantor, who has been doing some really incredible reporting inside the Supreme Court. That’s what Chief Justice John Roberts did last year to employees, I believe that they’re clerks, who work for other justices too, not just his clerks, all the clerks, because he wanted to plug up the leaks that were coming out of the building, recall that the Dobbs decision got leaked, recalled later on that Jody Cantor wrote a

pretty detailed story about the deliberations behind Trump’s immunity ruling. So clearly the Chief Justice didn’t like that, but the fact that he resorted to non-disclosure agreements given to these employees, I found that to be really outrageous.

Barb (47:57)
Yeah, you know, I think for people who work in the private sector, it may seem like no big deal, right? mean, people get nondisclosure sometimes when they leave, they get non-competes ⁓ when they leave certain organizations. What’s different about it in the public sector?

Kim (48:13)
Yeah, so when you are in the government, any effort to priorly restrain or gag someone for speaking about what they saw and what they did while an employee of the government is presumptively ⁓ violative of the First Amendment. Remember when Donald Trump, he was using non-disclosure agreements in his first term.

Don McGahn, his White House counsel at the time, first he tried to convince Trump not to do that. It’s like, dude, you can’t do this. It violates the first amendment. You are the government. When it says, shall make no law, that’s talking about you. You can’t do this. It violates, it’s unconstitutional. You won’t be able to enforce it. Trump wanted him anyway. So when Don McGahn drafted and handed out to employees this non-disclosure agreement, he told them, this is not enforceable, but the boss wants it. So could you please sign it?

Don McGahn was 100 % right. It is unenforceable because it’s presumptively unconstitutional unless you have a really good reason. So for example, if you’re working in the intelligence space, yeah, of course you can’t disclose classified information. The government has a compelling interest to keep classified ⁓ information classified. And so the least restrictive means would be to restrict the people who are in possession of that from disclosing it. That would pass constitutional muster.

What the Chief Justice is doing, not so much. And it’s particularly galling because he’s the top judge in the-

Barb (49:47)
Country! He knows!

Kim (49:50)
This is constitutionally dubious. Also, we also learned in law school ⁓ that contracts signed under coercion are as a matter of public policy, non-enforceable. So you’re going to drag a law clerk in and the chief justice’s sign this. Do you think that law clerk is going to say, hey, maybe I should have a lawyer look over this or maybe I should think about this?

Barb (50:13)
Chief Justice, I think this is… I refuse! Yeah… No!

Kim (50:19)
So if that is not coercion, what is? And it also, I think the biggest reason is that at a time where people are demanding greater transparency and accountability from the court, right, they want cameras in for oral arguments. They want justices to disclose when they have connections with people who have business before the

Barb (50:21)
Yeah?

Kim (50:46)
These are things that the court has been largely resisting. I mean, they now give audio streaming of arguments, which is a little tiny step. For the most part, they’re still on the honor system when it comes to their own ethics rules. So to have the Chief Justice then try to make it more, like, to make it less transparent. read the room. You wonder why the reputation of the Supreme Court is tanking.

Barb (51:08)
Get over

Kim (51:16)
This isn’t a way to help it.

Barb (51:18)
Yeah. they’re not lawful. They’re ⁓ against public policy. And what is it you’re trying to hide anyway? I I get it that the Dobbs opinion leaked. And I get it that justices should say to their clerks, ⁓ don’t disclose work before it’s published. I think there’s a famous quote by Justice Scalia who said, if you ever ⁓ disclose anything, like, I will eat you alive or something like that. Yes!

Kim (51:44)
I will hunt you down and I will ruin your career. You know who said that? Amy Coney Barrett, who was his clerk. And he said that to her. And she said that at an event. And that’s another important point, is that generally speaking, most clerks at the US Supreme Court would never, would never disclose what they do because they know it would ruin their career. And the careers that the former US Supreme Court clerks have are lucrative. Yes.

Barb (51:48)
Is this clear?

Kim (52:14)
They go on, if they go to a big firm, they get signing bonuses that sometimes are as high as half a million dollars. The signing bonus of half a million dollars aside all the millions that they’ll make in their salaries. They go on to prestigious jobs like U.S. Solicitor General. know, somebody who I knew. Court. Yeah. go on to be federal judges or Justice of the Supreme Court. My former…

colleague, we were both interns together at the Boston Globe. Elizabeth Prelogger was the last, was the Solicitor General under Joe Biden and she got a clerkship. She clerked for Elena Kagan. They’re not going to want to mess up their careers because legal circles are small. People are not going to want to hire somebody who snitches about what they did at the Supreme Court. They’re really not. So there’s always already a disincentive. And again, if you, if that still doesn’t keep people

From leaking, I think the thing for the Chief Justice to do is to ask himself, okay, what’s wrong with this institution? That there is so much problem with leaking. Maybe if we are more transparent, it will be harder for reporters, good reporters like Jody Cantor to get these scoops because we’re being transparent in the first. I think that is what he ought to do. And the fact that he is doing it this way, it just gives me one more reason to believe that he is not a court.

institutionalist that he has long had the reputation of being. Yeah.

Barb (53:44)
circle the wagons, share nothing, disclose nothing, deny everything, admit nothing, and make sure nobody ⁓ shares anything out of school. you know, if one of the values of transparency, of course, is it gives public the trust that things are on the up and up. ⁓ if people have the ability to disclose problems, they have the freedom to do that. If you have NDAs, like what, you know, it just raises the question, what is it they’re trying

Kim (54:13)
What are you hiding? That’s exactly right.

Barb (54:25)
I can remember a time when I wasn’t concerned about microplastics, but now I am. And if you aren’t concerned about microplastics in your cleaning products, maybe you should be. They are not good for us or our families or our pets. And even as we reset our habits for the year ahead, many people don’t realize they’re bringing them into their homes every day. That’s why we’ve made the switch to Blue Land across all the cleaning products we have in our homes, especially at the start of a year when we’re rethinking our routines.

and trying to build more sustainable habits at home. Certified by Cradle to Cradle, Blue Land products meet the highest standard of clean. They’re effective yet gentle on people and the planet.

Kim (55:08)
From cleaning sprays and toilet bowl cleaner to dishwasher and laundry detergent tablets, Blue Land’s 100 % microplastic-free EPA Saver Choice Certified formulas are safe to use around my family and Snickers in the house. I love not having to choose between the safe option and what actually gets my house clean, and you will too.

Barb (55:32)
BlueLand is on a mission to make it easy for everyone to make sustainable choices. Like us, they believe that hardworking, clean products can be the norm, not the exception, so that you can do better for your family and the planet at the same time. It feels great knowing that I’m incorporating sustainable practices into essential everyday activities. I’m always amazed by how well their dishwasher tablets work. They’re proven to perform no matter how intense the baked-on or burnt-on stains get.

you won’t even need a rinse aid. And when you’re stuck inside cooking during the cold weather, it’s a lifesaver when the dishes start to pile up.

Kim (56:09)
Everything is independently tested to perform alongside major brands, and the formulas are free from dyes, parabens, and harsh chemicals. Plus, Blue Land is a certified B-core and certified cruelty-free by Leaping Bunny. Can I just add also that the containers look really cool? Like, like, and they’re simple, you know, they’re labeled, like.

know, glass cleaner, kitchen cleaner, bathroom glee. Like sometimes, like sometimes you just need to cut through it and you’re like reading the like, okay, what can I use this on on the other? They just tell you and I appreciate that. I do. Their formulas are even EPA Safer Choice Certified. All the good stuff. And many have received the Gold Material Health Certificate from cradle to cradle. Their products are trusted in over a million homes, including ours.

And Blueland has a special offer just for our listeners. Right now, get 15 % off your first order by going to blueland.com slash sisters. You won’t want to miss this. Blueland.com slash sisters for 15 % off. It’s a great deal. That’s blueland.com slash sisters to get 15 % off. And you know where you can find the link,

Barb (57:26)
Would it be in the show notes, Kim?

Kim (57:28)
It will be in the show notes.

So now we have reached what is truly our favorite part of the show, and that is questions from our listeners. If you have a question, you know what to do. The email is sistersinlawatpoliticon.com. The hashtag is Sisters In Law on social media. Ask us your questions. We will do as many as we can during this show. We will also answer some in our new show, Sisters Sidebar. And when we can’t get to them at

either one of those places, we will try as much as we can to answer them right in the feed. So keep an eye out on all of those places. So, Barb, I’m going to first ask you a question from Truman in Austin, Texas. We have had some good times in Austin, Texas. We have. is place. So I love that city. Truman asks, what do the sisters-in-law think of electing a U.S. Attorney General, much like many states already do? Further.

Would it make sense to have that election occur separately from the presidential election cycle? What do think about that?

Barb (58:40)
I love this question, Truman. You know, I’m working on a new book called The Fix, where I explore some ways we could put guardrails into the system to prevent some of the abuses that we’re seeing now. And of course, the lack of independence of this attorney general from the president, I think, is very problematic and is politicizing the Department of Justice. So this is actually an idea that ⁓ I explore in the book. Why couldn’t we directly elect a US attorney general? You know, one of the suggestions that’s been made is that

The attorney general would be in a separate department from the president, insulated from politics altogether. But there is some value, I think, in making an attorney general accountable to the people through an election and perhaps impeachment, because otherwise they might pursue priorities that are out of touch with the preference of the people. So there is some value in political accountability. And I think this would create it with election and reelection.

I think the challenge with it is that we currently have a system with three branches of government, the executive branch, which is led by the president, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. This would sort of essentially create a fourth branch of government. ⁓ There’s a famous case called Morrison versus Olson where they explored the independent council and they talked about the fact that a fourth branch of government would be unconstitutional. They ultimately found that the independent council

had enough connections to the Justice Department to make it within the executive branch, I think this could create a separate branch of government. Now, I’m not saying it’s a bad idea. I think it’s actually a good idea. But I think it would require a constitutional amendment, which could be a very difficult thing to achieve, at least in the near future. But down the road, if we’re thinking big and breaking the mold, I like this idea.

Kim (1:00:29)
Yeah, I’ve grown, with every passing day, I am more on board with the idea of big structural changes that are needed to our laws and constitution. So I would be willing to consider this as my only question would be like, okay, then do we elect the secretary of state? Do we elect the secretary of agriculture? You know, it opens a Pandora’s box, but I’d be willing to explore it. So our next question comes from Colleen.

who asks, would raise judicata or collateral estoppel prevent the government from filing suits regarding Georgia and its voting situation? Colleen, are you a law student? Because I have to say, I haven’t thought about collateral estoppel in since I was Yeah, that’s a good But this is actually a good question for those of our listeners who have not been to law school.

Barb (1:01:14)
That’s a classic lost in question.

Kim (1:01:23)
The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are similar in that they hold, ⁓ they stand for the proposition that once a case or an issue has been litigated by a court and a ruling rendered, that issue cannot be litigated again. So ⁓ one is with regard to parties. So if Barb breaks my window and I sue Barb,

for damages for breaking that window. And that case is either settled or there is a judicial determination that Barb broke the window, she’s at fault, and she has to pay whatever penalty. Then I can’t later look at the replacement window and say, I don’t like this replacement window. I’m going to sue Barb again because she broke the window in the first place and she should replace this replacement. No. The issue has been resolved as between you and Barb in the broken window.

That’s race judicata. Collateral estoppel is when someone makes a claim that has already been adjudicated in a way, even with other parties, but that the facts of them are exactly the same. They can’t bring this claim again. The court has already held that they can’t make that claim. so they’re stopped. With respect to the Georgia election situation, what the Trump administration is doing now has not been done before, certainly not by a federal

executive branch. So neither race judicata nor collateral estoppel would apply to these cases because there has not been a ruling, for example, that there was definitively no election fraud happening in Georgia or that are really about anything about it. There has been a lot of litigation about it. So it may feel like it’s already been adjudicated, but it actually hasn’t. But Colleen, I like the way you think.

Barb (1:03:16)
Yeah, that was a very good, very geeky review of race, gender, color, and collateral self-fulfilling. You are a procedure girl.

Kim (1:03:23)
did love procedure. Our last question comes from Deb in North Carolina. And Deb asks, with all the technology supposedly identifying protesters, why can’t the government track and stop the people who produce death threats to politicians? interesting. Judges, et cetera. Can we assume that threats are coming from an organized small group of people? Interesting question, Barb. What do you think?

Barb (1:03:48)
I think the answer is Deb that they can. ⁓ To the extent that these are on servers online that are coming from within the United States, they can and they do. They take them pretty seriously. From time to time, we would investigate threats to all kinds of people. Sometimes they’re coming from overseas and then it can be very difficult. The trail goes cold sometimes if threats are coming from a foreign country and we don’t have a treaty with that country.

to obtain evidence. But many times a threat is posted on social media or it comes over the phone. And there are electronic surveillance ⁓ techniques that can be used to identify some of these people. ⁓ Sometimes ⁓ the threat is not what’s called a true threat. It’s just something that is ugly and mean and despicable. A true threat requires an intent to cause a person to be concerned about harm.

⁓ through some sort of act of violence. And so just saying, know, I wish you were dead or some, know, this should happen to you typically is not considered a true threat. And so some of those don’t materialize into criminal cases. But I think that these kinds of cases are pretty aggressively investigated and are pretty aggressively prosecuted. So the question about our threats coming from an organized small group of people.

I don’t have any reason to believe that. think that one of the narratives of the Trump administration is that Antifa is some kind of organized group that is ⁓ organizing against the federal government. We’ve seen that in some of these executive orders. I have not seen evidence to suggest that. of course, Antifa is not itself a group. Antifa is more of a philosophy like feminism or conservativism. You don’t join a group ⁓ that is ⁓ the conservative movement or

the feminist movement, it’s a philosophy, not a group. So I think that might be a little bit of a false narrative out there. But certainly there are people who are self-described Antifa members or anti-fascist, fair to call them, I suppose, Antifa adherents. ⁓ But it’s not a crime, of course, to even label yourself. What’s a crime is the conduct. And if somebody communicates a true threat over the phone, over the internet, social media,

I think they should expect to be prosecuted and often are.

Kim (1:06:13)
Well, thank you for listening to Hashtag Sisters-in-Law with Barb McQuade and me, Kimberly Atkins-Store. We miss Joyce and Jill. We can’t wait for them to come back. Follow Hashtag Sisters-in-Law wherever you listen and please give us a five star review because it really helps others find our show. Yes, there are people who still don’t know about us. It’s crazy, but it’s true. Don’t forget.

to pick up some Sisters-in-Law merch and other good stuff from politicon.com slash merch. And make sure on Wednesday you listen to our new companion podcast, Sister Sidebar. We can’t wait to see you there. Please show some love for this week’s sponsors because they really are the reason we’re able to bring this podcast to you. Quince Factor, Osea Malibu, and Blue Land.

We truly love them all and we would love for you to support them too. See you next week with another episode. Hashtag Sisters-in-Law.

Barb (1:07:17)
How funny is it that it’s the three of us, Yumi and Joyce, and not Jill? Like of all the people, I would expect to be in the world of intrigue.

Kim (1:07:27)
Still is in the obscene files. I searched with and without the hyphen and everything.