Stars & Stripes

Kim (00:12)
Welcome to hashtag Sisters in Law with Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuade and me, Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Joyce is out protesting in front of the DOJ. No, I’m just kidding. I’m just kidding. She’s busy this week, but she will be back. We miss her. and so we have to do the show without her, sadly, but we’ll be glad when she’s back next week. This week, there is a lot to talk about, even in these dog days of summer. We’re gonna talk about the

Pentagon’s war on the press and the Constitution. We’re also gonna talk about a really interesting mega trial involving meta over child issues of child safety and the internet. It’s really fascinating. And we’re also talking about threats to voting as the midterms approach, as the DOJ promises to send 1,000 election observers.

To the polls in cities that are mostly run by Democrats. We’re gonna get into all of that. But first I wanted to ask you guys about what sort of things you’ve been obsessed with lately. and I’m asking it just because I kind of wanna talk about what I’ve been obsessed with. It’s super random. It’s as random as it gets. So I am usually in search of something.

To watch a TV show or something that kind of makes me forget about the things that are going on or engages in the law in a way that is still kind of escapist. And I came across, I don’t know how, but on YouTube, I found a British television show from the early 70s. Like it it’s as old as I am, but it’s called Crown Court. Now I don’t know if people know this show, if they used to watch this show. I had never heard of it before.

But it’s like a mix of like Perry Mason and the People’s Court because it’s it’s a fictionalized show where there’s a trial every episode totally fiction fictionalized, acted by actors, but they bring in real people who are enrolled to be eligible for jury duty in England to sit as the jury and at the end of this fictional trial they render a judgment. It is

Fascinating. It is absolutely fascinating. And it’s e the the trials could be everything from like petty larceny to like murder. And like sometimes the topics are really like, you know, things that we would have to give a trigger warning to and stuff. I’m surprised that it was able to air in the early 70s on British TV. but it also has really good actors in it. Like some I saw one episode that had Sir Ben Kingsley as one of the attorneys.

Or you know, or another actor of mine who plays an attorney, Judy Parfit, who I know from Call the Midwife, like really good actors and really good acting, but I’m like watching these like normal British people like sitting there getting ready to render judgment in these cases. Anyway, it’s fantastic. You can find them on YouTube for free. It’s called Crown Court. I’m so obsessed with it. I’ve downloaded a bunch of episodes so that if I’m waiting in the

in the, you know, doctor’s waiting room or if I’m traveling or something, I can always watch one. So like, is there anything like that that has you guys in a chokehold that you’re obsessed with lately? What about you, Barb?

Barb (03:37)
can’t say I’m as passionate about anything right now as you have obviously are about this.

Kim (03:43)
Love that show.

Barb (03:44)
but I wish I were ’cause I felt the same way about did you watch that show called The Residence about the

Jill (03:51)
I feel that way about

Kim (03:52)
I’m so sad that it was canceled after one season. That was they

Barb (03:56)
Was it no more?

Kim (03:57)
canceled it after the first season.

Barb (04:00)
that’s too bad. Because couldn’t you see a similar th thing like at the Supreme Court in the halls of Congress. You could have f very similar. Well, that’s too bad. So, I’m gonna give you three answers, which is such a Jill move. Number one, I’ve been enjoying the new season of Ted Lasso, which has been fun. This year reboot

Kim (04:18)
Yeah.

Barb (04:19)
with the Richmond women’s team. so that’s fun. number two, this is the time of year when I study up on Michigan football.

So there’s this Wolverine magazine that puts out its annual fall preview and I try to memorize all the numbers of all the players so that when I go to the games I know who’s who and I can pretend like, I know who that is. Evan Link missed that block. You know, I can no offense, Evan Link. I’m sure you’ll make every block. so I’ve been reading up on that, Michigan Football Players. And then to the extent I have a weird little obsession like that, it is last weekend I was in New York and I went to see the musical called And Juliet. This is a fun show, but it’s what they call a jukebox.

musical. Yeah. Where it it it uses music. It’s the music of Max Martin, you know, who’s written just tons of these great pop songs. Yeah. And so I’ve been listening to the soundtrack, but also to the original versions of all these songs. There’s a bunch of stuff by like, you know, Ariana Grande, Katie Perry, Backstreet Boys, like all these, you know, pop poppy fun music from the nineties and early two thousands. So that’s my guilty pleasure.

Kim (05:28)
That’s great. I really love those you know, jukebox plays. I my husband and I saw Crazy Sexy Cool here in DC, which is the one about TLC. and I have to admit my husband did not really know a lot about TLC to my horror. To my horror. Like, how do you not know TLC? But it was so, so good and he enjoyed it too. Highly recommend seeing that. Here one is in the works for prints too, which was gonna be so

Barb (05:55)
Ooh, that would be a good one.

Kim (05:56)
good.

so Jill, what about you? What are you obsessed with right now?

Jill (06:01)
Well, if anything, I’m obsessed with trying to find something that I will be obsessed with watching and I’m gonna try Crown Court. I I do go through phases where I’m obsessed with a program and love it and I’ll watch like six or thirteen years worth of episodes. but right now I’m sort of like mm running in between different things and I haven’t found exactly the right one. But now that you’ve mentioned the residence in another

You know, Barbie said it’s typical that I’ll say I have three answers. I have to say that Kate Anderson Brouwer, who wrote The Residence, that was then adapted to become the TV show, i i her book is a serious look at the residents of the White House and the occupants, the architecture, the art, the people who work there, the butlers, et cetera. and she called to interview me because she’s working on a book now about.

Presidential secretaries. And so she called to interview me about Rosemary Woods. It’s it’s and so we we sort of became friends, we correspond, and she’s just she’s so exciting and lovely. So it’s another, you didn’t know this about Jill, but here’s here’s here’s another one for you is I know the author of that. So it’s kind of exciting. But anybody who has suggestions for something that will obsess me, please send them to me. And in the meantime, I’m trying the crown.

There are a lot of good British ones that we have been obsessed with. So I need a

Kim (07:33)
I do love a good British drama. And Jill, honestly, you are like five memoirs behind. I know like all of the things, all the books you need to write about your life. You better get with it. Chop chop.

Jill (07:45)
Here’s another one.

I bet I’m the only one who’s been on a aircraft carrier. So I I wasn’t on the USS Lincoln, but I was on I I mi I I have a possible name for the one I was on because one of my colleagues who I was with sent me the name, but because I’m not a hundred percent sure it’s the name, but let me tell you that conditions when they’re in good shape in dry dock are n

I mean, we’re talking about bunk beds that are f stacked four high. So you have this much room in between beds. If you’re a side sleeper, you will have a problem being on that boat. So anyway.

Barb (08:27)
too funny.

Kim (08:38)
When we’re baking in the summer heat, our skin gets drier and more sensitive. Add in natural changes our skin experiences as we age, and it can feel like it’s more than you can keep up with. You want something that addresses the root issues and doesn’t cover them up. That’s why we wanted to tell you about oak essentials. When founder Jenny Kane saw her skin starting to change in her 40s,

She began her search for real solutions without invasive procedures or a 12-step routine. That’s when she created what she calls magic in a jar, a moisture-rich balm that works with your skin at every stage. Once you try it, you’ll quickly see that it lives up to the hype and Jenny’s effortless and elevated standard.

Barb (09:24)
Well, Kim, I know that DC heat can be oppressive.

Kim (09:27)
Really can’t

Barb (09:29)
And it frankly is true everywhere around the country this time of year. Unless you do something about it, it’s easy to be home, dried, chafed, and crepey. Cover-up is easy, but addressing the root causes of skin issues doesn’t have to be hard. Packed with sea buckthorn, borrage seed, and coconut oils to help support collagen production, oak essentials, moisture-rich balm, deeply nourishes the skin and supports the skin barrier.

The first time you apply it, it feels so good. It is so creamy and smoothing. Once you try it, you know it’s going to be a foundation of your routine for life. Each time you put it on, your skin gets a healthy, dewy glow that makes you look like you’re shining bright after a full night’s sleep.

Kim (10:12)
One of the best parts about it is that you can feel it working immediately. Before trying it, it’s easy to end up with a shelf full of products, many of which you don’t use anymore. I’m guilty of that. And it makes you feel like, you know, a guessing game rather than whenever you try to do your skincare, rather than it being something that’s quick and easy, which is what you really want. But after finding out about Oak Essentials, moisture rich balm, which I love, the

The the moisture-rich balm is the balm. Like it’s really, really good. I love using it on my hands and my elbows and any place that I’m feeling dry. It’s the perfect go-to for healthy, moisturized skin without needing to hunt through stacks of jars and bottles. It’s just, I I pop it, I keep it in my bag. I keep it in my handbag, honestly. It’s a must-have because no matter what we do, skin naturally loses moisture and collagen. Oak Essentials moisture-rich balm replenishes both.

Sealing hydration in and giving your skin what it needs to look and feel its best right now. Don’t cover things up. Find a solution that truly lasts.

Jill (11:17)
You know, Kim, in a one-week consumer study, 100% of participants said their skin felt instantly hydrated, deeply nourished, and noticeably softer. So it’s no surprise that the moisturized bomb is Oak Essentials bestseller. Once you try it, you’ll love it. So go ahead and head to oakessentials.com and use code SISTERS for 15% off your first order at checkout. That’s 15% off your order at

oakessentials.com with promo code SISTERS. After you purchase, they’ll ask you where you heard about them. So please support this show and let them know we sent you the link is in our show notes.

We frequently talk about what DOJ is doing wrong, how they violate the law, how they violate the Constitution. And this week I want to talk about how DOD, the Department of Defense, that Donald Trump and Pete Hexeth want to call the Department of War. And maybe that’s an appropriate name because they have now declared war not just on Iran, but on the Constitution. So I want to talk about that.

Let’s look at, for example, Kim, I want to start with a bunch of questions for you about the First Amendment and DOD. And there’s been a lawsuit filed, and actually I just my my watch just vibrated and it was Joyce. Six p.m. now it’s talking to me, sorry. Joyce just tweeted or on some other website said that the editor of Stars and Stripes.

has now been fired. He announced his resignation, effective in January, and there were rumors that DOD was going to fire him before his resignation. Joyce, she’s not here with us, but she is with us. Still

Kim (13:23)
She’s still participating.

Jill (13:25)
participating. So I’m amending my question to say he’s been fired. but let’s first of all I want to just say Stars and Stripes is a daily military newspaper.

Which was set up so that our service members, particularly those overseas, or on, for example, the USS Lincoln, could get facts, not propaganda. That was its purpose. And it was granted independence of editorial content that was incorporated in the Code of Federal Regulations. But because the Trump administration, Pete Hexeth, think that there’s too much woke.

Content, they’re changing the regulations, they’re taking it away, a lawsuit has been filed to challenge it as a First Amendment violation. And so Kim, could you tell us about the lawsuit and what’s going on there?

Kim (14:25)
Yeah, so it’s really a big mess. So the lawsuit was filed not by the newspaper itself, but by two board members of it. They’re both journalists, they’re both polit surprise winning journalists. And they sued over the move by the Pentagon to try to essentially change the regulations governing Stars and Stripes without going through the proper procedure. So what the Pentagon tried to do is remove

From the Code of Federal Regulations, a provision that preserved the independence of it, because it’s it’s the Stars and Stripe is a part of the Pentagon. I’m I’m just gonna keep calling it the Pentagon because I’m not gonna call it the Department of War. It’s a part of the Pentagon. and it it governed its operations, which ensured that it had editorial independence. And this is something that has been going on.

Since the 19 teens, in in practice, and since the Eisenhower administration as codified in federal law, right? So they tried to change it, and this lawsuit was filed by these board members saying that the change without seeking public input first violated the administrative

Procedures Act, which we’ve talked about many times before. There are a lot of APA lawsuits surrounding this administration that have been filed in recent years because the government tends not to like to follow rules. Generally speaking, what you do is when you propose a rule change, you have to file it. It gets posted in something called the Federal Register. and then public the public has a chance to comment on it and give their input. That’s the point of it.

But they sort of sidestepped this. the Pentagon said that going by f by the rules was unnecessary because it was an internal decision that had no impact on the public. And by the way, you know where I got all this information from? A Stars and Stripes article that was written by Corey Dixtein. you can still read it now. They’re still doing news, but that’s the problem. The reason that they did this.

Is not because there was anything wrong with this regulation. Of course, it’s as Joyce said, Pete Hexeth thinks that coverage, actual coverage of the Pentagon, is something that is woke and should be stamped out. We’ve seen that in his moves to try to remove journalists from the Pentagon press room. I have friends who have to report from on Pentagon business from outside of the Pentagon, literally outside because they’re not allowed in. They’re still doing it because they’re dedicated journalists, but it’s really outrageous.

Pete Hexeth always denigrates the press, says all they want to do is make President Trump look bad. But still, stars and stripes. This publication reported on the situation aboard the USS Lincoln. They reported on the fact that our military arsenal is depleting. They reported on the fact that some of our military allies are are having rocky relationships with the United States. They’re reporting on the facts, they’re still doing their jobs.

as journalists and that’s what is bothering this administration in my opinion and why they are going after the press in a way that to me seems to clearly violate federal federal law.

Barb (17:54)
Can I just chime in here? Please. And sometimes the press is a pain in the neck. You know, they’re they’re reporting on things that are unfavorable. Sometimes they get some details wrong and you have to try to correct it, but you know, you can’t always speak about things because of privacy rights or grand jury secrecy and other kinds of things. But not only do we sort of accept them.

We embraced them, right? It it wasn’t even a necessary evil. It is, of course, in a democracy where the public needs information to be informed and to take action on it, we can’t stop them from doing their jobs, nor should we want to. And so this idea that, well, we don’t like it because Stars and Stripes is saying things unfavorable to the Defense Department. Well, yeah, because Pete Heggseth is not in charge. The people are.

And if he’s screwing this up, the people have the right to know that.

Jill (18:52)
You know, it’s especially important when you think about one of the main audiences for this are service members who are not able to get coverage from other sources because they are out of the country. They are in countries that don’t speak English, they’re on board ships where there’s no newspapers being delivered there and stars.

Kim (19:14)
Regions

where the, you know, other news organizations are suppressed, right?

Jill (19:19)
Or our propaganda, total propaganda. So this was intended to stop the propaganda. But let me ask you a follow-up question, which is that the First Amendment, of course, guarantees freedom of the press, but half of the budget for Stars and Stripes comes from the Pentagon. So although they have traditionally enjoyed this independence of editorial content, do the new restrictions

And they are restricting it. I mean, you just had the publisher who was there for nineteen years fired. Yeah. Hot off the press as we are speaking. do they violate the First Amendment?

Kim (19:58)
I think they do. I mean, that is not a charge that is in this lawsuit specifically, but I think they absolutely do. Federal employees have First Amendment rights just like everyone else. And if the federal government acts and takes detrimental action against them on the basis of of that speech, of the exercise of that speech, that violates the First Amendment. I think that there would be a very strong case. I would be interested in see in seeing why.

these plaintiffs who are represented by Democracy Forward did not make a constitutional claim. I’m sure they have their own strategic reasons for doing that, but I think it’s absolutely viol violative of the letter of the First Amendment, not just the spirit of it.

Jill (20:41)
Yeah, I think the procedural claims that they’re making are actually very good because if there had been public comment, there would have been outrage and

Kim (20:54)
Because

yeah, I mean Stars and Stripes may not be a widely disseminated publication, but it is a greatly loved publication. And for for example, one of the things that happened before these firings was that the the Pentagon was trying to restrict the things that appeared in it. And so they passed a rule that said no syndicated content, which took out the comics.

There were no more comics in Stars and Stripes, and people lost their stuff. Like they could not they’re like, What do you mean? There are no more comics. And I mean, people care so much about this publication. people in the military, their families, veterans care so much about this publication. So the fact that they’re attacking this is crazy, but we should have seen it coming. Look at what the administration tried to do to Voice of America.

A lot good friends of mine lost their jobs there who had been you know, built a career in reporting there. So it it’s just this animosity toward the press that is so it’s not just illegal and unconstitutional. It’s so short-sighted in the impact that it has on people that you would think this administration would want to keep the support of.

Jill (22:10)
just wanna also mention you said fire rings and there is more than the publisher, the Ombudsman was also fire.

Kim (22:17)
The

Ombudsman was fired. Yeah. You knew things were bad when the person who was meant to stand as the voice of the reporters were one of the first people who were fired. I saw it a she was interviewed on a podcast a couple months ago and you know, it’s just it’s really it’s tragic.

Jill (22:34)
She wrote an op-ed sort of foretelling what’s happening. But Barbara, I want to look at another possible First Amendment violation. And because you’re a law professor, I’m going to give you a set of facts as a hypothetical. And then you tell me if there are any constitutional rights that have been violated, or maybe just societal values that have been diminished and what can and should be done. So let’s say that these are the facts.

Secretary of Defense Hegseth removes female and black officers from promotion lists for what appears to be no legitimate reason, certainly no stated reason, and he has fired officers in those two categories, that is, female officers and officers of color. Again, in my opinion, no legitimate reason. And he and his spokesmen have offered no reason. These people who have been fired include

The first, I’m sorry, the second African American to serve as chairman of the Joint Chiefs. that was General Brown, and the Admiral Lisa Franchetti, who was the first women woman to head the Navy, and also a three-star Navy Vice Admiral, Nancy Lacor, who was the commander of 60,000 sailors, but is now

The candidate, the Democratic candidate in South Carolina for Nancy Mace’s former seat. after she was fired, she entered politics. those stricken from the promotion lists have been vetted and were selected by the boards that are charged with that responsibility. And under Pentagon rules, the Secretary of Defense can only remove people from that list because of physical, mental, or professional failings that raise questions about their.

ability to lead. And in our hypothetical, which is actually real, the net result of his removal and intervention here is that the people promoted have been, guess what, almost 100% white and male. And they do not represent the broader face of the military. They have disproportionately targeted women and minority officers.

So

What do you think?

Barb (25:08)
Well, I don’t know that there’s a first amendment violation here. I think this sounds more like a fourteenth amendment.

Jill (25:13)
I’m sorry. That’s actually of course what I meant to say. I have another First Amendment question for Kimberly, but sorry, I meant 14. Yes. Yes.

Barb (25:22)
you know, it’s not a hard one to spot. If you put this as an issue spotter on a law school exam, everybody would ace it. It wouldn’t it wouldn’t be a a a good enough exam to differentiate from, you know, the A’s and the B’s and the C’s because everyone would spot this issue. I I will say this in in in defense of this move, which is when it comes to personnel decisions, it is sometimes difficult to assess what’s happening because you don’t know what you don’t know.

because of the privacy act, people who have had, you know, misconduct or problems at work, that that information is private and is not known. But it just seems that with this track record, you know, if there were one person who is fired, maybe you would say, well, there maybe there’s we give them the benefit of the doubt. There’s something we don’t know about this person’s past or history or conduct. Maybe they’ve engaged in misconduct and and this is fine. But when you see this going across the board.

And the thing that everybody has in common is they’re either a woman or a minority. there there really does seem to be a pattern here. And of course, the Fourteenth Amendment has the equal protection clause that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race or gender, among other things. And it really feels like that’s what’s going on here. So you know, what do we do about it? It really seems like this cries out for congressional oversight. these individuals could file their own lawsuits.

alleging violation of their constitutional rights, seek back pay and reinstatement. but it when it comes to leadership positions, there’s a lot of discretion allowed because of the sensitive nature of these positions. And so it’s easy to come up with a pretextual reason. But I wouldn’t mind seeing Pete Hagzeth called before Congress and asked some hard questions about this pattern that he is using because

It you know, it’s gotta have a demoralizing effect on the troops. One of the great things about our military was how strong it had become through diversity. You know, back when the the big affirmative action case was Gruder versus Bollinger, affirmative action at the University of Michigan, one of the key amicus briefs that was filed in the Supreme Court came from the military.

And they said that the diversity of the military had really become their strength. And so the the idea of affirmative action was critically important. but regardless of how these people got their jobs, the fact that they are now being removed strikes me as something that when you have this kind of a pattern establishes maybe at least a prima facie case of race and sex discrimination.

Jill (28:11)
Absolutely, especially because these are people who have been fully vetted. If you look at their service records, they are unblemished leadership. They are the ones who made it through to the promotion list after a thorough review. And so taking them off without any commentary that would explain it. and in the percentages that we’re looking at makes it look like a violation to me. So Kim, back to the first amendment.

Because you’re our journalist and First Amendment person, as opposed to the 14th, which you’re also an expert at, I’m sure. But let’s look at the Pentagon new curriculum for schools on military bases. Pete Hagseth has announced that he wants to focus on Western civilization and Christianity. And in that he claims that Christianity is so much less violent than Islam.

Which seems to be right there. I mean yeah, I mean it’s nauseating. So what’s your view of whether this is something that meets constitutional standards to offer

Barb (29:18)
Yeah.

Kim (29:18)
Yeah. How many different clauses of the First Amendment does that violate? Well, let’s start with the establishment clause, where which is a clause in the First Amendment that prohibits the government from favoring a religion over another. I think that’s definitionally what you just described, this idea that they can set the school curriculum

to be based on Christianity. Now I give I give you, if you are a little skeptical and you say, well, this sounds like the something the Supreme Court may like. The Supreme Court has been increasingly turning away from and vigorously enforcing the establishment clause in the way that it used to. you know, by, for example, letting the the was it the football coach? Yeah, the coach. Football coach pray.

court and you know, allowing parents to object if like books that have the audacity to feature LGBTQ characters in it appear in a school and, you know, giving people the right I mean, I I again I’m just reading the text of the actual First Amendment and it sounds like this it says this is exactly what you can’t do. That’s just one part. Then there’s let’s go to the free exercise part, which the Supreme Court loves to enforce.

The free exercise. There are Muslim members of the military. So this says what? That they don’t have the freedom to exercise their religion. It extends beyond that. What about the ability to speak? I would be worried about people who are wearing Muslim guards, have covering Yes. Or yamakas, yes, or you know, any other religion expressing it.

that’s both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. This liter this could be a hypojill in a first amendment class again. In all the ways that it violates the First Amendment. It’s absolutely nuts.

Jill (31:11)
Okay, and Barb, a last question for you. Secretary Heath announced a new mandatory annual testosterone screening for all have active duty service members and reserve troops who are aged 30 and older, they have regular health assessments every year, but now they have to have a testosterone test. And then if they are considered

Low testosterone, because that he says means they are not war fighters. They’re not lethal enough. God help us. And I don’t even believe in God, but okay, maybe I don’t. Anyway. The testosterone replacement therapy that would solve what he sees as a problem is voluntary. So they’re not mandating, they’re mandating the test.

But they’re leaving it up to the service member whether they will have the testosterone infused in them. And at the same time as they’re saying that service members who are trans men and want the infusions cannot have them. But those who are cisgender can. So, okay, what do you think?

Kim (32:32)
Like what like what?

Jill (32:33)
Where

yes. Okay, that’s another comparable. So Barb, talk about this horrible thing.

Barb (32:42)
where to begin? First let me begin with this, Jill. you said you don’t even believe in God, which is a a a viewpoint I certainly respect. But I also want to mention, just because it seems that these days it’s so difficult for so many people to hold two ideas in their head at the same time, that I will say this, I do. I am a practicing Christian. And it still offends me that we would teach Christianity in schools. That is for your church, your family, yourself, your reflection.

the as Kim said, the establishment clause says that there is not one favored religion in this country and or any religion at all. And so everybody has a right to choose their own beliefs. So it deeply offends me that they’re pushing Christianity, even though I am a Christian. I don’t I don’t want my faith to be exploited by the by the state. but this this idea of this testosterone thing is wrong on so many levels. I mean, as Kim says, there’s lots of women in the military.

Mm, I’m guessing that their t levels of testosterone are lower than the males in the military.

Kim (33:46)
Well I guess maybe the maybe the menopausal and perimenopausal ones have a look.

Barb (33:50)
Yeah, maybe not. Maybe not.

Kim (33:53)
Jesus. This is all so stupid. I’m sorry to make dumb jokes, but

Jill (33:57)
It’s also dangerous because if they take

Kim (33:59)
It’s very dangerous. Dangerous,

illegal, unconstitutional, all the things, but it’s all but we’re dealing with it that we cannot let the stupidity pass. Like we can’t let that go unnoticed.

Barb (34:12)
Another

reason it’s stupid. So many of the jobs in the military today are not like infantry where being, you know, su super strong and super fit matter. It is you know, intelligence jobs, intelligence analysts. It’s people

Jill (34:28)
Yeah.

Barb (34:28)
right, drone operators, people sitting in submarines, ro operating nuclear submarines. very little of the military remains this sort of, you know, I need to be this he man. But

Heightset seems fixated on this idea, you know, you you use these terms. He loves to use the word warfighter, which is a bizarre phrase. He loves to talk about kinetic strikes. He loves to talk about lethality. It’s all part of this vocabulary of of of macho manly stuff. It’s really strange to me. But it’s deliberate.

Kim (35:00)
He

goes with him doing pull ups on trees.

Jill (35:04)
But so from a legal standpoint, this this issue has now come up in a lawsuit. Not directly, but in a very interesting way in a case called Talc Talbot versus Trump. can you talk about that case, Barb?

Barb (35:20)
Yeah, you know, it’s interesting. This is a challenge to this idea that on the one hand, you have ordered this testosterone testing and offered testosterone replacement therapy for those who request it. At the same time, you are banning transgender troops, and one of the arguments is that the cost and medical logistics of hormone therapy

Is negatively impacting combat readiness. And so the judges says, isn’t this kind of a double standard? That you on the one hand, you’re pushing testosterone replacement, on the other, you’re stopping it. And what it really seems is that you’re discriminating on the basis of sex. Back to our 14th Amendment issue. And so that’s the claim here. It’s an interesting one. And I think it really calls out this double standard.

Jill (36:14)
Yeah. The the lawsuit is challenging the the omission or the exclusion rather of trans troops. And i they have argued that it costs too much to give them hormone therapy. And now they’re offering it to all the cisgender troops. So

Kim (36:34)
Can’t even do their discrimination well. Like they can’t even do it in a way that doesn’t contradict themselves.

Jill (36:41)
Right. Absolutely. So everyone will have to watch for what happens. Judge Reyes in that case has asked both sides to weigh in on the the the dis discriminative policies involved and whether they can justify, yeah, you can do it for one but not for the other. So we’ll wait and see what they say in response to that.

Summer may be ending, but there’s still time for some final cook-offs and patio dinners while the sun stays out. It’s the perfect reason to finally upgrade your kitchen because these last few weeks of summer are made for easy dinners, last-minute guests, backyard meals, and soaking up every warm evening with cookware that can keep up with all of it. So if you’re going to upgrade anything this season, make it your kitchen with Hex Clad’s revolutionary cookware.

The last thing you need is to be stuck inside scrubbing out of date burnt out pans at the sink. Make an upgrade that will take your cookware and your meals to the next level. If you’ve been hanging on to the old ones for far too long, as I was until I got my hex glad, then you’re in for a treat. Do what I just did. Give them to goodwill and get hex glad because you deserve the best. Plus,

Having shiny new tools that liven up your kitchen make the effort that you put in so much more enjoyable and more delicious too.

Barb (38:22)
Yeah, we’ve replaced all of our pots and pans with hex clad. You know, we we we sometimes get samples, dear listeners. Yeah. And we tried them and they were fantastic. So we replaced our pots and pans. And then my daughter just moved into an apartment with three other young women and got a set of hex clad as a housewarming gift from her parents and is the most popular girl in her apartment now with this set of hex clad.

These are beautiful designs. They combine the performance of stainless steel with the convenience of nonstick. So it’s really the best of both worlds without the drawbacks. We all know how fast non stick pans can get scratched up and worn out, and stainless steel does great until it’s time to clean up, then it’s a mess. That’s why you’ll love how Hexclad’s revolutionary features deliver on both performance and convenience. Not only are they oven safe to 900 degrees with stay cool handles.

But the heat control is unmatched. The searing is spectacular, and the cleanup, what I especially like, is easy every time. Instead of scrubbing stuck on, burnt-on food, all it takes is a quick wipe down and a move to the dishwasher. Now you can actually relax and enjoy your culinary creations on a nice summer night. It’s easy to see why Gordon Ramsey cooks with Hex Clad at home and in his restaurants. And he’s the toughest critic on the planet.

Thanks to Hexclad’s lifetime warranty, this is truly the last set of pans you’ll ever need.

Kim (39:51)
Literally texting my husband right now to ask if my stepdaughter needs some pots and pans because she’s going to move. So that’s a great idea. it’s no surprise that HexClad has over one million customers and over 50,000 five-star reviews, including ours. Make the most of these last weeks of summer with cookware that’s built to keep up. For a limited time, our listeners get 10% off with our exclusive link. Just head to hexclad.com.

com slash sisters. Support our show, cook great food, and check out HexClad at h excla d com slash sisters. Make sure to let them know that we sent you. And the link is in our show notes.

Barb (40:43)
With summer travel, coordinating plans and making sure you don’t fall behind at work, one of the first things to get dropped is our meal prep and diet planning. Between going to the store, finding the recipe, and waiting for the meal to cook, it’s a huge time commitment. Before you know it, you’re eating fast food or grabbing an unhealthy snack. Luckily, you don’t have to when you can have real delicious meals from Factor. Factor makes chef created, dietitian designed, ready to eat meals.

So you don’t have to choose between real food and convenience. And once you get started, you’ll wonder why you waited so long.

Kim (41:20)
Every Factor meal is designed around what supports a healthier lifestyle and nothing that does it. Plus, they are ready in two minutes and require no prep time, no cleanup. So even on the days your schedule is completely out of control, eating well is still achievable. Once you get started with Factor, every week you’ll find over 100 nutrient-dense menu items to choose from.

Plus new options like salmon burgers, I love a salmon burger, shredded pork, collard greens, and more. They even have add-ons you’ll crave like pumpkin flavored cheesecake and protein shakes.

Barb (42:00)
Join us in hitting your nutrition goals without the planning, grocery runs, or cooking. We love that Factor’s meals are fresh and never frozen, and there’s always something new to look forward to. After the show, I’m looking forward to enjoying their pesto shrimp cava tapi with tomatoes and honey garlic carrots. Best of all, it takes only two minutes. Then I can get back into action. Now day-to-day life is much more convenient and it’s made a healthier change in my meal choices.

Jill (42:28)
You know, Bob, I love cooking, but sometimes you just don’t have the time. And factor is clearly the answer. And ninety-seven percent of users agree that factor meals help them live a healthier life. Although I can’t even imagine who that 3% is, because it should be a hundred percent. Anyway, you can feel confident that you’re doing something good for yourself with every meal when you use Factor. Don’t wait. Let’s eat real. Head to factormeals.com.

com slash sil fifty off and use code SIL fifty off to get fifty percent that’s fifty percent off and one free breakfast item per box for one year while supplies last until october thirty first, twenty twenty six. That’s code SIL fifty off at factormeals.com. Again, SIL fifty off at factormeals.com.

See their website for more details and you can find the link in our show notes.

Kim (43:42)
Well, you know, there have been so many studies and so many lawsuits alleging all the dangers that teens and children face from using social media. And they’re really serious. I mean, everything from depression and anxiety to eating disorders and thoughts of self-harm are exacerbated by constantly doom scrolling. And so far, despite

Most of the lawsuits that have been filed so far, social media companies like Meta, the the parent company of Facebook and WhatsApp and Instagram or Google or Apple have been able to use a federal law to shield them from any liability or responsibility for what their products create. But that’s starting to change a little bit. And a new trial this week.

That started against Meta may be a big test for that. So Jill, to understand what’s happening, we have to explain exactly what section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is and what it’s done for social media companies.

Jill (44:58)
i it’s a great thing to start with. section two hundred thirty is a law from I think nineteen ninety-six that gave a free hand to publishers. this is of course before there was social media in the way that we know it, but it would apply to them as well. And they are claiming in this lawsuit that they’re exempt from any liability because of section two thirty, which was intended

To allow freedom of the press. Section 230 is publisher immunity, and it allows exactly that. You’re immune for the content that you publish or that third parties post on your website. It could be a letter to the editor of a newspaper, or it can be an ex-posting, whatever, a tweet, or a posting on threads, or anywhere else.

And if you are the host owner of that website, you are immune because someone else said something. There are limits to the protections of 230, so it’s not a total immunity. it it’s not absolute. And there is still a possibility of civil lawsuits if courts determine that the platform helped develop or create an illegal content in any way.

And they also exempt, for example, sex trafficking or theft of intellectual property and a violation of federal criminal law. So that’s pretty much the narrow exemptions from the limit of protection.

Kim (46:46)
And I can understand broadly the importance of section two thirty, right? I mean, if you are, say, an internet service provider, you know, you’re s you’re providing Wi-Fi, it would be unreasonable for the service provider to be held liable every time somebody, you know, pirates some music using it or or does something illegal online, you know, illegal sales or something like that online to hold the internet service pr they’re not doing that thing. They’re just providing

This platform by which other people may do wrongdoing. So you should go after the people doing the wrongdoing. I get that. But these social media companies have been using it to avoid all liability for what their platforms do. And it’s been really successful, but that’s changing, Barb. In the past few years, there have been plaintiffs who were making a different argument in an effort not

to ha be blocked by section two thirty. Some of those plaintiffs are state attorneys general, which we talk about a lot on this podcast because they are doing a lot of really good work. They’re taking a different tack. So what cause of action are they claiming now?

Barb (47:58)
Yeah, this is a completely different strategy. This is not about the content that is online for which these platforms are immune, but instead it is about conduct of the platforms themselves in designing the very platforms. So for example, they say that Facebook, Meta, Instagram were designed for the purpose of becoming addictive to young people with some of their design features, like the infinite scroll model, where you can just keep scrolling, scrolling, scrolling.

Counting the number of likes and counting the number of friends. These are things that they know have a harmful effect on teens as they assess their own popularity and yet they continue. In fact, a lot of this is based on the revelations of a Facebook data scientist who left and became a whistleblower. Her name is Frances Haugins, and she testified before Congress a few years ago, and I think it was her testimony.

That has really sparked this strategy because she talked about the fact that they were aware of these harms to young people and how Facebook and Instagram and other things were were working, and that they deliberately designed these features to cause people to stay on the platforms longer, because the longer people stay on the platforms, the more ad revenue they could generate. So all of these features were for.

you know, good for business for Facebook and Meta and and Instagram. So it’s that th those deliberate design choices that they made that are the subject of this litigation. And that is a very different theory and strikes me as something that is very separate from the protections of section two thirty.

Kim (49:44)
Yeah, it really is. And Jill, that brings us to California and this trial that opened against Meta, which is alleging that very thing, that the scrolling and the the way that the algorithm engages teens and makes it hard for them to literally put their phones down. Anybody with some I mean, it it’s hard for me to put my phone down, but anybody with a kid who is an adolescent right now knows the way.

that they would die if they were separated for their phones for more than twenty minutes, right? They really do. And that’s by design, right, Jill? So talk a little bit about this trial in California.

Jill (50:24)
And who isn’t obsessed with I maybe I should have said this in answer to your first question about obsessing who isn’t obsessed with dog videos, really, on Instagram? I mean I

Kim (50:35)
my goodness, dogs and babies get

Barb (50:37)
Dogs

and babies. I’m a sucker for dogs and babies.

Jill (50:39)
Once you see one, your feed become my God. It’s and even though most of them are AI now, I mean the one of I forgot the dog’s name, he’s a husky with a baby and he won’t give up the baby and the owners are saying, That’s my baby. You give me back that a baby.

Kim (50:56)
It’s a dog and a baby.

Jill (50:58)
my god.

Kim (50:59)
I’m obsessed with Cashew the dog. Cashew the dog.

Jill (51:02)
I’ll

have to send you the name of this stock. It’s fabulous. But anyway, the current case in California that is now underway against Meta is you know, trying to hold them accountable for exactly this, for consumer protection, for creating this algorithm. And the trial is underway and a whistleblower within Meta has been testifying now for well, as we were recording this, he’s in his second or third day.

of testimony. And he’s saying, yeah, you know, they don’t care about safety. What they cared about was increasing revenue. And so they have taken away the ability to create any kind of risk reduction. And they have not been successful because the ones they put in are doomed to fail because they don’t want them to succeed. They want to keep people on. They want the financial benefit of that. And you know, California in this particular case,

There are several other. There’s state cases as well. There are one in Nevada, and these are all raising the same issue of consumer safety, children being abused, children being taught self-harm, eating disorders. And it’s a very interesting question about, you know, and par parental control is one of the defenses. Well, it’s up to the parents, not up to us to protect them.

It is up to them not to create something that makes you scroll incessantly, stop doing your schoolwork and just watch these videos that automatically play.

Kim (52:39)
Yeah, and it it makes sense. I mean, if if you have, say you own property that is all dilapidated and dangerous and easy to access, and someone goes in there and it’s where, you know, criminals hang out and that person is assaulted. The building owner is not responsible for the assault, but the building owner can be held responsible for creating this nuisance that

Barb (53:05)
Yeah, attractive nuisance. Yeah.

Kim (53:07)
That draws some danger to it. So I it’s a similar theory, right? The social media site may not be putting on the content, but they’re ensuring that whatever gets on there is fed nonstop to them. And the more they click on something, if somebody clicks on some content, that’s so so called thin spiration, which I learned is a thing. Yeah, I don’t

Jill (53:30)
What is that? I don’t even know that word.

Kim (53:33)
it’s about looking very thin in a way that

that can exacerbate someone’s eating disorder. Once they’re

Barb (53:40)
Right.

Kim (53:41)
looks maxing, once they click on it, then they keep getting more and more and more of that content, right? And it can send someone in a spiral. If you are purposely creating a product that does that, I would hope that there would be some accountability.

Jill (53:54)
Of course, Meta is arguing, going back to section 230, that 230 gives them immunity, and they wrote something that I thought was really powerful. They said online publishers like their pro print media precursors must constantly make editorial decisions about how to display third-party content, such as whether to provide a continuous stream or a limited selection of content to target a particular audience or to prioritize short form form over long form material.

So, you know, they’re just saying, Well, we’re just like a newspaper and you can’t go after a newspaper because they publish something that is, you know, distasteful to you. But I I don’t think it’s the same.

Kim (54:37)
So these are still early days, Barb. There have been some rulings. One was by the Ninth Circuit, that said, nope, you can’t use two thirty to dismiss these charges at an early stage. there was another case, the first the the highest court in Massachusetts ruled the same, saying that it allowed a lawsuit by the attorney general to move forward, that they could not throw it out at the pleading stage. But it’s still early days. No court has said ruled that this

a a cause of action exists, they just allowed these actions to move forward. So what do you think the outcome of this trial might be? And Meta has also asked the Supreme Court, hey, we want you to weigh in on this. Can you stop these two? what do you think the jury in California and or the SCOTUS will do? First Barb and and then Jill can chime in.

Barb (55:28)
I think at the trial level, what’s gonna matter is the evidence. I think that this is an interesting theory, but you have to be able to prove it. So I imagine we’ll hear from people like this data scientist for Facebook. I imagine we’ll also hear from Facebook employees who will say that’s nonsense, or you know, Instagram employees, that’s not what we did. And ultimately a jury will decide who they believe and, you know, what these designs were all about.

having read that book, Careless People, have you guys read that? It’s such a good book. No. It’s about it it was written by an early Facebook employee. In fact, it was th it’s it’s in litigation whether she can reap the proceeds because she signed a nondisclosure agreement and she spills the tea about how Facebook was just so desperate for profits that it did a lot of you know unscrupulous things.

So I think it’s gonna depend on what the facts show. But at the Supreme Court level, you know, they’re there on appeal, courts are generally quite deferential to fact finders in court because it was the jury who was present, who observed the witnesses, who listened to the testimony, who got to see the demeanor. But at the appellate level, appellate jud judges, or in this case Supreme Court justices, do review the law de novo, which means anew. So for legal questions.

They don’t care what the lower courts decide. They’re gonna take a look at this and make their own decisions. But of course, this court has prided itself on being textualists. And so I think they will look at the text of section two thirty in deciding whether this conduct is covered. Kim, you wrote a great column about this in the Boston Globe, and you talked about how section two thirty has a component that is referred to as the twenty-six words that invented the internet because it creates this safe harbor. And the those twenty-six words are no provider.

Or user of an interactive computer service, which has been held to include social media, shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. So basically it’s saying what we said before, the information that’s there, you know, you can’t I’m just I’m just the telephone lines, right? I’m just I’m a conduit. And what they say, I’m not, I can’t be held responsible for that. But as we already said, the theory here is very different. I think if you’re a textualist and you look at that language,

You say, okay, that’s all true, but that’s not what you’re being sued for. You’re not being sued for someone else’s content. You’re being sued for your own design choices. And so I think that the textual Supreme Court will buy into this theory. I think as long as the plaintiffs can produce the facts, this should be a solid legal case.

Kim (58:22)
Alright, I have to admit this summer I spent some time on the beach. I love the beach beach person, but you know what? I didn’t worry about my skin because I took one skin sunscreen with me and I use one skin product, so I knew that even after some time in the sun, my skin would look great. And that’s because one skin is nothing like your typical skincare brand. That’s why we keep coming back to them. Most anti aging skincare is built to react so that.

They only smooth over lines and wrinkles after they show up. Not one skin. One skin started somewhere different by working to address how skin ages in the first place. Founded by four PhD longevity scientists, they studied skin at the cellular level and found that visible skin aging starts deeper. When certain cells stop working the way they should and begin affecting the healthy cells around them, they need a little extra love. So they engineered OS1.

their proprietary peptide to work with skin’s biology, targeting those dysfunctional cells instead of just sitting on the surface.

Jill (59:29)
OS1 is the foundation of every product they make. And what you see over time with their products is firmer, smoother skin, more even tone and radiance, and visibly fewer lines. One skin is for skin that both looks and acts younger. Now, whenever I get dried out on planes or when the AC is blasting, I use OneSkin’s OS1 face topical supplement to fight back against dryness.

It’s the perfect way to make your skin look fresh and keep it ready for anything the day throws at you. And during the summer, OneSkin’s Face SPF is the perfect way to defend against sun damage. It’s got those same skincare benefits from the OS1 peptide while also giving you mineral SPF protection from UV exposure. Plus, it feels great to apply, and I start my day looking and feeling fresh with it.

Barb (1:00:24)
Yeah, I c I can actually attest that Kim did indeed use the OS one skin. She she texted us all from the beach, you know, a an action shot of I’m dutifully applying my OS one peptides.

Jill (1:00:40)
With our children.

Barb (1:00:41)
showing Yeah, yeah. All you could see was like just a little bit of skin. So it was and and water, you know, the beautiful water.

Kim (1:00:49)
And

the beach. That was the most important.

Barb (1:00:51)
Yes, I can’t attest. It’s true. so this product was born for more than 10 years of longevity research. One skin is helping you unlock your healthiest skin now and as you age. For a limited time, you can try one skin with 15% off using code Sisters at oneskin.co slash sisters. That’s 15% off. One skin dot C O with code Sisters.

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

Well, this week brought some concerning news that the Department of Justice will be sending more than 1,000 monitors to polling places during the midterm elections in mostly blue cities. I want to dig into this a little bit. Jill, what are poll monitors and is there a legitimate legal role for them?

Jill (1:01:57)
Poll monitors actually have been around for a while and have been used in both Democratic and Republican administrations. So there is a legitimate reason for them. They are generally sent to observe, only to observe. That’s all they do. And they are looking at places that they think there might have been some problem with disability access, language access, or

Places where there might have been voter fraud. And that one gets a little tricky in this administration where they see blue as voter fraud. If you are a blue leaning district or blue voting district, it’s automatically considered to be voter fraud. And you have to view past use in two different ways. One is in terms of the volume, and it’s hard to do a comparison because past reporting has been how many jurisdictions have had.

monitors and not how many monitors. This time they’ve announced 1,000 monitors will go, which sounds like a huge amount and probably is, because in the past, and I I have somewhere I wrote down, during Biden’s term, DOJ sent monitors to 86 jurisdictions for the presidential election, and to sixty-four for the midterms. During Trump’s term,

In the past, he sent in 20 44 jurisdictions. Now, did he send 10 to each jurisdiction, one to each jurisdiction, a hundred to so it’s hard to know when we say a thousand, how many more that is. But you also in in the other hand have to view this in terms of past statements by the government, which is Donald Trump saying, we have to nationalize elections.

The federal government has to take over. And so when you say a thousand monitors are going to be sent out, it raises suspicions that their purpose is to suppress the vote, is to interfere with the election, not just to gather data or to assure that the disabled community has full access to polling places.

Barb (1:04:18)
Yeah, you know, the the mere fact that these poll observers are going out does not concern me. When I was in the US attorney’s office, we had them come out almost every election. And as you said, I can remember, for example, they went to a community outside of Saginaw, Ms. Michigan, that has a large Hispanic population. And in the past there had been inadequate Spanish language materials at polling places there. So they went out to make sure that there was compliance.

That they had remediated that concern. Similarly, we had a polling place in Flint, Michigan. It was at a church where they didn’t have mobility access. So if you showed up with a wheelchair or a walker, you couldn’t get in because all they had were steps. And so, you know, that was the kind of thing. So that’s the kind of thing they were looking for, making sure people were able to vote. And I think the concern now is they’re going to be used for the opposite purpose of preventing people from voting. Kim, what do you what do you think the concern is if

You know, this is a routine practice. We’ve seen it in lots of administrations. Why are people being very alarmist about this?

Kim (1:05:24)
Yeah, well I y that’s absolutely right. Election monitors should be sent, dispatched, and to make sure that there are enough support for people who need language assistance, enough support for people who need mobility assistance, as you pointed out, to ensure that there is enough polling, there are enough ballots in a place and so that everybody has access to it, that there is sufficient number of booths. That there was a a

I remember when I lived in Virginia, which is in a district that was formerly covered by Shelby County, which used to be a pre-clearance district. in the two thousand eight election, for example, there were people who waited, I think, close to three hours to vote because there were only four booths inside of the polling place, even though we were using paper ballots. They could have put fifty booths in there.

But they did it was a democratic district, there were four, and there were monitors there that were raising concerns about that and seeing if they could get more people accommodated at a time. That’s what people should be doing. But this president still doesn’t believe the 2020 vote results. He’s still railing against that. Everyone in his administration, who are now bound by, you know, loyalty oaths, and which includes, as far as I could see, Harmid Dillon, who is the head of the civil rights division.

are still claiming that there are fraud, that there’s fraud taking place on a widespread basis and that they’re gonna bring charges against them. So I do not believe when they show up, as Dylan said they will, particularly in places where there are a lot of foreign speakers. I I my fear, given what we’ve seen from the administration, is that they will be there to intimidate people who speak a different language and try to keep them from showing up to the polls. I don’t hold my breath that there will be a lot of people who need

Access because of their disability, getting aid there. And first of all, let’s talk about this number a thousand. I’m not sure there are a thousand people in the civil rights division right now. Where are they getting these people? Who are they? How are they vetted? Where do they come from? Do we even know? So, the you know, given the way that the government has been purged, I certainly don’t believe that these are people who are highly trained and understand.

Some of the issues that we’ve been pointing out here. So I have a lot of concern about this. this is coming from a president who threatened to send the National Guard to polling stations. This is coming from a president who supported sending police officers to, you know, police cars to polling stations, which in itself can be seen as a deterrent. Given the ICE operations, I think seeing people, any sort of federal government person at all will discourage even citizens who are in mixed.

immigration households from gu I mean I think that’s the point. That’s the point. Is to make it harder and scarier to vote.

Barb (1:08:13)
If you are you know, it you’re a US citizen, maybe you’re a naturalized US citizen, maybe English isn’t your first language. Remember we already we know that these Kavanaugh stops say that law enforcement can det stop you and interrogate you just solely on the basis of your language, your accent, your physical location and your job. So you you know

Y is it worth it to go vote? Like to put yourself in harm’s way? Maybe people will reach conclusion, not really. So that’s that’s a concern. Well, Jill, there was also a report this week issued by the Commerce Department that more than twenty thousand non-citizens voted illegally in the twenty twenty presidential election. What do you make of the report? Does it is it long the the proof that Donald Trump has been promising for these six years?

Jill (1:09:05)
No. It’s Balder Dash. I would use harsher language, but because I’m answering you, Barb, I’m being careful. Balderdash

Barb (1:09:12)
That’s the right.

Jill (1:09:13)
seems like y a word I could use with

Barb (1:09:20)
Yeah.

Jill (1:09:21)
Definitely. yeah, it is a really bad situation because there is no evidence being presented. Let’s just say the Census Bureau is part of commerce. But this report isn’t from the Census Bureau. It’s actually from a right wing organization that used private information that is incorrect. It’s not the proper stuff. It’s not the

information that you would normally use to say. And if we look at the number of cases and the number of possible voting by non-citizens, it comes down to 0.0001%. Hardly an amount that would affect the outcome of any election. It’s totally meaningless. It just doesn’t matter. So

and we have actual facts from reliable sources as opposed to the source that they’re using. the CEO of Fair Fight has said that this is a total lie. Mark Elias, a totally reliable source, has said it’s dodgy. And he also said the analysis the president cites relies on an incomplete commercial voter file.

And record matching methods that raise serious concerns about the accuracy of its conclusions. So, you know, if you look at reliable sources, if you look at NPR, they say the same thing that it’s the America First Policy Institute that did this study, not the Census Bureau.

Barb (1:11:05)
Yeah. I I I’m I’m so glad you d debunked it i in that way. But you know, this is such the Trump MO, isn’t it? Try to find some third party to legitimize a claim he is making. Remember when he told the Justice Department to d just say there was fraud in the election, leave the rest to me? Or he

Kim (1:11:22)
The rest of me. Yeah.

Barb (1:11:23)
he asked Vladimir Zelensky just to get in fr this was Gordon Sand remember Gordon Sandline? Was that his name? The Sandl the guy who was

A State Department official during the whole Ukraine gate that Trump’s first impeachment. You gotta go back to season one to remember this all. Right.

Jill (1:11:41)
Remember he testified.

Barb (1:11:42)
And

then what what what what he really wanted was just for Zelensky to make an announcement that there was an investigation into Biden and his son about corruption. You don’t have to actually really do the investigation. You just have to make an announcement. I this is how he rolls, right? So now he’s got this legitimate third party to kind of launder his lies and give it some patina of of credibility. And I worry about this, you know, this idea that

you hear it now from the third source and people like, Wow, that sounds pretty good. Twenty thousand people, that’s that that’s legit. Kim, do you have any thoughts about techniques the public can use to distinguish between accurate reporting and studies and what is just pure partisan propaganda?

Kim (1:12:27)
Say when it comes to the election, I think there’s two things. First of all, l listen to your election officials about what the requirements are for you to vote and make sure that you are meeting all of them. Check to make sure that you’re on voter rolls, your registration that you haven’t been purged. Check to make sure I

Some of the rules that are being imposed in many states on voters, I think, are onerous and terrible and meant to suppress. And those are being fought tooth and nail. But in the meantime, make sure you have what you need to conduct those elections and listen to your local and state officials, because by and large, local and state officials in across the country, regardless of their the party of whoever is in the governor’s office, have been putting out

information that they verify. They have to verify and certify these elections. It’s not gonna be perfect in that, but make sure that your vote counts and make sure that you talk to people in your life about their votes count. I think that’s the most important thing now. Know that there will be efforts led spearheaded by the president of the United States, sadly, to discredit the election unless they go wildly in favor of Republicans, in which case I’ll say it’s great.

take claims of fraud at lodged at Democratic wins with a healthy grain of salt and see what is happening in your communities. Volunteer. You can volunteer to be a poll worker, to do something, get involved in the process so that you can see it yourself. but just don’t take all of this at face value.

Barb (1:14:09)
Yeah, I love the advice to get involved as a poll worker. Everyone who I’ve ever talked to who’s done it has said there’s just no way to commit fraud with all of the yeah the checks, all of the precautions they take, all of the matching requirements they do. My son did it a few years ago and he just came out like it’s impossible to commit voter fraud. So that’s good. Well not in a

Kim (1:14:33)
Widespread

way. It maybe s here and there somebody and even in in situations where it’s like, okay, a non citizen voted. It’s probably because they might have been on the path to citizenship. They were mistakenly sent to ballot. They didn’t know. It’s never some it’s there’s never been proven some wide conspiracy to cast, you know, to to sway an election. It’s individual people who broke a rule b most of the time ’cause they didn’t know and they the punishment is severe for that.

Jill (1:15:02)
It’s usually someone who has a green card and thinks that they have a right to vote because they have a green card. They just made a mistake and the number is so small that it’s infitesimal and it doesn’t have any impact. I would add to all the great advice that Kim had that facts matter. And so trying to be prepared is really important. And that means asking the right questions and looking at a variety of sources.

So that you get the information. If you read this report that says 24,000 people voted, you’d go, wow. Although think about how many people voted in total, and 24,000 is not going to change the outcome. But it could in a local election. So you have to look at that and be concerned. But then do some research and find out, wait, this little group that did it is not a legitimate source. They are a paid source from the right wing, and you can’t believe it. So

You know, like with anything else that’s if it’s too good to be true, probably follow your gut and say, Yeah, it probably isn’t true. So also if it’s too bad to be true, if it’s so awful, you have to ask yourself, could it possibly be true? And look around for other information so that you are not misled.

Barb (1:16:27)
Ugh, the Lola blanket. I gotta say, of we love all our sponsors equally, but we love Lola especially equally. After work, after a long day, there is nothing better than snuggling up under a Lola blanket. They are so warm and comfortable that your worries and stress vanish in their soft embrace. My kids love it, my husband loves it, I love it. Add in your favorite movie for me. It’s putting the tigers on.

curling up under the Lola, maybe having a little cup of tea, but however you like it, with your loved ones, your, your, your favorite movie, a tasty snack, whatever it is, it can be the highlight of your week. After discovering them on Instagram, our Lola has been part of so many memories. It’s why we decided that the next gift we bought was going to be one. Whether it’s for a holiday, a birthday, or just a treat, Lola’s make it easy to recreate those treasured moments with something that you enjoy every day.

Jill (1:17:24)
Lola blankets are really exactly what you’re describing, Barb. They really are just so comforting, but they also are beautiful. And I love color. I mean, you wouldn’t have red walls like I have if you didn’t love color. But that’s one of the things I love about Lola, because they come in tons of colors and beautiful designs, so you can find the perfect fit for any home or personality. They not only make your space warmer and more put together.

But their softness is on another level. Each one is so luxurious and there is no pilling or shedding, just pure comfort. Speaking as a true blanket lover, Lola’s and Lola was my mother in law’s name, so I really love it in addition. But Lola’s are the best. They’re crafted with ultrasoft luxury faux fur and a signature four-way stretch that somehow makes them both plush and light at the same time. They’re machine washable,

Double hem for durability, and even after countless washes they look brand new. A wow factor that makes them a truly special gift that will last for years.

Kim (1:18:33)
You know, here in DC the temperature dipped below it dipped into the sixties, which means it’s blanket weather for me. Like if if it’s if the temperature starts with a six or less, I am under a blanket and I love my Lola too. Lolas are perfect for people who are impossible to buy gifts for. They’re always so thankful and surprised ’cause it really is good. Like once you try it, you really do love it. And

Everyone loves a cozy blanket, which is why Lola has over 20,000 five star reviews, including ours. I have them in the house, I have them in my office, I have them in the living room. You know, once you feel it, you’ll know why. There’s a reason it’s called the world’s number one blanket, but the story behind it is what makes it even more special. Lola was founded by two brothers inspired by their mom, who found comfort in her favorite blanket while living with breast cancer.

Later, she gave blankets like hers to her children so they’d always feel that warmth and love. To us, that makes each gifted blanket so much more special.

Jill (1:19:38)
And once you touch a Lola blanket, you’ll know you’ve got a blanket for life. And for a limited time, our listeners can get 40% off select Lola Blanket products with code SISTERS at checkout. Just head to LolaBlankets.com and use code SISTISERS. After you purchase, they’ll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and let them know we sent you. Wrap yourself in luxury with Lola Blankets.

And one last time, get 40% off select Lola Blanket products with code SISTERS at checkout. The link is also in our show notes.

Kim (1:20:26)
Right, and now we have reached the point in our show that we love the most, which is listener questions. If you have a question, you know what to do, but I’ll tell you anyway. Send it to us. You can send us via email at sisters in law at politicon.com and don’t just type your questions. We really, really love when viewers send us voice notes so that you can ask your question in your own voice and we may play it in our s Wednesday podcast, Sisters Sidebar. So

Grab your phone, hit a voice note, tell us what you want to know, and then send that on in an email at sisters in law at politicon.com. You can also type in your social media using hashtag Sisters in LawTheal Way. So let’s get to it. Our first question is from PS in Southern California, who asks, if Judge Sullivan holds DOJ in contempt of court in the Katie Fang case, what does that mean? Can DOJ just shine them on and ignore it?

Or are there tech actually consequences that would cause them to rethink their current actions in that case? Barb, what do you think about that? This is the case over the Epstein files.

Barb (1:21:34)
Yeah, so there are consequences that a judge can impose on lawyers who appear before them. and that includes, you know, if there’s a a finding of contempt, some of the things that are done are fines. You know, I will fine you X dollars per day until you comply with this order. They can even order someone to be jailed until they comply. Now, certainly the Justice Department is required to prosecute someone.

For criminal contempt, but when it’s civil contempt, that’s a very different animal. It is using some sort of leverage, whether it’s a fine or jailing somebody, as an effort to encourage them to comply with the order. So, you know, the joke used to be: if you’re going in front of certain judges, bring your toothbrush because he might hold you in contempt, and that might mean you are spending the night in jail. And so

You know, people are so reluctant to do these things. I think judges are so reluctant to do these very draconian things that I think it’s more likely that we would see something like a a fine, but he has the power to impose jail time until they comply. I imagine such an order would be appealed, but a failure to comply with a court order is a contemptible ki act.

And civil contempt is an appropriate response to it.

Kim (1:23:07)
Right. so we have another question from Alan in San Diego who asks, What protections do our sailors and other members of the military have amid deteriorating conditions? And are things handled internally or can they file a civil suit? Jill, you are our military law expert. What do you think?

Jill (1:23:29)
I was so excited to see that question because in my first months as general counsel of the army, a case arose that introduced me to the Ferris doctrine, which says, no, you cannot as a service member, an active duty or reserve, sue the federal government for damages based on anything that was incident to your employment. In the case that I was involved in.

A service member was literally cut in half by a tank. And it was a such a horrible situation. The government wanted to find a way, and we ended up having to work with Congress for a private bill to provide compensation to him and his family. But under the Ferris doctrine, the Supreme Court has said you cannot sue the federal government if it’s incident to your work. And so

Being on board the USS Lincoln and having these horrid conditions that are driving people to consider jumping overboard just for the relief of getting off the ship, which thank heavens is now heading back to shore is being replaced after the longest deployment on a ship with horrible conditions. I don’t think they’ll have a right to a civil suit.

Kim (1:25:00)
All right. And our last question this week comes from Loretta in Lancaster, Penn, Pennsylvania, who asks Since the Trump administration demolished the East Wing for his ballroom, if decided by the courts this was done without permission and the ballroom cannot be built, can he be ordered to restore it to the East Wing as it was? That’s a great question, Loretta. the answer is no.

And the current lawsuit that is seeking to stop the ballroom from being built, it’s brought by the National Trust. that is a a congressionally chartered organization, a private organization that is tasked with preserving historical sites. And what the lawsuit is seeking to do is to stop construction on the site. They are not seeking

To have the construction that is already done be removed. Because what they are claiming essentially is that only Congress has the right to change the construction of a federal building like the White House. The White House was constructed based on an act of Congress, and it can only be changed by an act of Congress. So Congress theoretically in the future would have the right to change that, but given the fact that

according to the filings from the federal government, that this project is now sixty-five or so percent complete because the administration has not waited for this as this litigation moved forward. It’s actually rushed this project. And as we were recording this just a couple of hours ago, the Supreme Court, which had been asked to weigh in after a lower court judge halted that construction be stopped, but stayed that order until the Supreme Court could weigh in.

The Supreme Court weighed in s basically saying they need more time to weigh in and they allowed construction to continue until they finally decide to weigh in. So I think whatever happens in the litigation and over this at this point, we’re gonna get some constructed or half constructed or mostly constructed building on the site. And it will be up to a future Congress to decide what to do with it afterwards. but there is no restoring the East Wing to what it was, unfortunately.

Thank you for listening to hashtag Sisters in Law with Barb McQuaid, Jill Wine Banks, and me, Kim Atkinstor. Joyce will be back soon. We miss her already. If you enjoyed this podcast, don’t forget to give us five stars, a thumbs up, subscribe, tell your friends, do all the things on whatever platform you’re listening or watching us on so that this podcast continues to grow, meet more people, and you never miss an episode.

And don’t forget to join us every Wednesday too for Sister Sidebar where we answer even more of your questions every week because we really, really love doing that. And don’t forget to go to politicon.com slash merch to get totes, hoodies since the temperatures are starting to drop soon, all the good stuff that has resistance on it. Show your support for the podcast.

Buy some stuff. It’s all really great. And don’t forget to give love to this week’s sponsors who are Oak Essentials, HexClad, Factor, OneSkin, and Lola Blankets. They are the folks that allow this podcast to happen. So please show them some love because they show us love. See you on Wednesday and next Saturday on hashtag SistersIn-Law. Can I tell y’all something stupid? I’ve been like, why is this tea not good?

I forgot to put the bag in. I have been sipping hot

Barb (1:28:42)
So you’re just drinking hot water?

Kim (1:28:43)
I’ve been sipping I’m like, this isn’t very strong. Like I don’t like

Barb (1:28:47)
Yeah.

Kim (1:28:47)
how I didn’t even put the tea bag in. It’s what a week this has been. I’ll do it.