Taking Liberties

Jill: Welcome back to Hashtag Sisters-in-Law with Kimberly Atkins-Stor, Barb McQuade, and me, Jill Wine Banks. Joyce will be back next week, and of course we will miss her this week. We will be doing a live show in Denver, Colorado at the Cervantes Masterpiece Theater on April 23rd. Tickets are available at politicon.com slash tour. We can’t wait to see you there.

And we will have more live shows that we’re going to be announcing very soon, so stay tuned. We have a lot of heavy discussion this week. We’ll be discussing a new salvo in fetal personhood laws, craziness at the Department of Justice. Well, I mean, it’s always been crazy, but it’s getting worse. And then we’re going to be talking about a case in which members of a so-called group, Antifa, have been prosecuted and convicted for protesting.

But before we get there, you guys know I don’t follow sports. But my alma mater, the Fighting Illini, have won their first round in the NCAA. So I was really curious because you guys may have some competition going within your own state. So Barb and Kim, tell me what you’re going to be doing. Who are you rooting for?

Barb (01:32)
Well, here in Ann Arbor, it’s nothing but Michigan. We are rooting for the Wolverines. Go Blue. Michigan also won its first round game. Men and women have very good teams this year. So we’re super excited about it. And I think we are facing St. Louis University in the next round.

Kim (01:49)
Yeah, so that, you know, I’m from Michigan, but my household is one of the St. Louis University Billikins. My husband is an alum. He went to both St. Louis High and St. Louis University. I know when you’re from St. Louis, you got to tell people where you went to high school. ⁓ So he is a Billiken through and through. By the way, it took me a long time to even understand what a Billiken is.

Barb (02:16)
I literally looked this up last night. What is thought, was it a person? What is a Billiken? Kim, go ahead, but I just read this last night.

Kim (02:25)
It’s like some little talisman. Like it’s changed its looks over the years. I will say to our viewers and our listeners and our viewers since we’re on YouTube now, some of the past incarnations have looked a little weird to me. I’ll let you all make your own ⁓ rulings on that. But they’re like a little talisman that stands for, I should know this off the top of my head. My husband will be mad at me. Like things are as they should be or something like that.

It’s not quite a good luck charm, you know, it’s what St. Louis has got. we are building.

Jill (03:00)
are you rooting for?

Kim (03:02)
I gotta root for the bills. I can’t, like, you know, my marriage is at stake. Wait, what?

Barb (03:07)
You’re rooting for the Billikins? What kind of Michigan person are you?

Kim (03:13)
You know, we’re

Barb (03:13)
It’s part of the state pride. Well, we’ll see you down the road, perhaps, Jill. We’re going to see the Billikens tomorrow. And ⁓ who knows if our paths may cross down the road.

Jill (03:26)
May it be in finals.

Kim (03:28)
You want to make it interesting, Barb? you know, we’ll send you some toasted ravioli.

Barb (03:31)
your price

Is that a St. Louis thing?

Kim (03:38)
Yes, toasted ravioli is a St. Louis thing. you can send a piece of Shield’s pizza or something.

Barb (03:43)
Well, you know, I got to go Ann Arbor. I’ll send you. Oh, yeah. I’ll send you like a Zinniarman’s deli basket. Yes. All right. All right. Game on.

Jill (04:02)
Bring us here and the longer days make our lives feel busier than ever. Add in more time spent outdoors being active and fueling up with quick nutritious meals is really critical. So when it comes to taking care of ourselves, we can’t let a busy schedule be an excuse. That’s why we wanted to tell you about Factor. Factor doesn’t ask you to meal prep or follow recipes. They deliver fully prepared meals.

designed by dieticians and crafted by chefs that are ready in only two minutes. There’s no planning and no cooking, just great meals.

Kim (04:38)
Y’all know I hate going to the supermarket. It’s really one of my least favorite things to do. And that’s why I love Factor. With Factor, the meals taste incredible and are packed with ingredients that you can feel good about, like lean proteins, colorful vegetables, whole food ingredients, and healthy fats. All the stuff you’d make if you had the time. Best of all, there are no refined sugars, no artificial sweeteners, and no refined seed oils. That means you’re getting the good stuff. Plus,

Factor’s meals are designed to fit your goals and schedule so you can eat healthier, manage calories, and get more protein.

Barb (05:17)
But my brother-in-law has become a Factor evangelist. He thinks everybody should be using Factor. It’s the greatest. It’s because Factor offers 100 rotating meals every week to keep things fresh and delicious with choices like high protein, calorie smart, Mediterranean diet, GLP-1 support, and ready to eat salads. They even have a new Muscle Pro collection. It’s perfect for strength, recovery, or getting back into a workout routine.

It’s great having easy snacks, smoothies and more ready to go when hunger strikes. In fact, after the show, I am looking forward to enjoying their Parmesan cream chicken with spinach, roasted potato and broccoli. No matter which one you choose, you’ll be amazed by how much time and money you can save.

Kim (06:04)
Factor is always fresh, never frozen, and ready in two minutes. And with no prep, no stress, no cleanup, and no mental load, you can actually stick to your goals. Head to factormeals.com slash S-I-L 50 off and use code S-I-L 50 off to get 50 % off and free breakfast for a year. That’s right, I said free breakfast. We all love breakfast.

This offer is valid only 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.

Alexia Moore is being held in jail in Camden County, Georgia. Her alleged crime? Taking Mifepristone, which caused her severe abdominal pain and led her to go to the emergency room where she told the security guard what she’d done and the security guard told police. Now she faces charges of murder because the fetus that was delivered

did not survive. This case is the latest salvo in what ⁓ has become, to borrow a phrase from UC Davis law professor Mary Ziegler, the new civil war over reproduction. So Jill, the facts of this case are really horrible, but they’re important for us to have the discussion about fetal personhood laws and what they mean for the rights of women. So can you tell us a little bit more about what happened to Alexia Moore?

Jill (07:54)
But just in terms of the facts of the case, this is as bad as it can get. She was somewhere between 22 and 24 weeks pregnant. And she is from a state, Georgia, that has a total ban basically after six weeks and fetal heartbeat. So when she took Mifoprestone and ended up having

a delivery of a stillborn or I think the baby lived for a few minutes.

Kim (08:31)
According to prosecutors, that’s what the arrest warrant said.

Jill (08:34)
Right.

⁓ And there was a very similar case in 2015, but the law of Georgia was different back then. Back then, you could not prosecute the pregnant person for murder. That was the law. But after Roe, a new law that had been passed before Roe ⁓ was abolished by Dobbs, that law went into effect. And as a result of that, it was the creation of

fetal personhood, which meant that even a zygote, from the moment an egg is fertilized, it is given more rights or the same rights as any living person. In addition to taking Mifoprestone, she also took Oxycodone. And she has now been charged with murder and possession of ⁓ drugs that are illegal and was put in jail and has a defense lawyer from

I think legal aid of Georgia. So that’s where the case rests right now as we look at what the law used to be and what the law is right now.

Kim (09:44)
So, Barb, can you explain a little bit more about what these fetal personhood laws are and what states have them? And are there any carve-outs to these laws or are they really something that applies to everyone?

Barb (09:59)
⁓ So these personhood laws that you ask about, Kim, ⁓ these are laws that define humans and persons who could be the victim of a murder to include fetuses. So Georgia, for example, has a life act that was enacted in 2019 that grants natural person status to fetuses in utero. And so they have the same legal rights as any human even.

before birth and after birth for embryos. There are some limited exceptions under Georgia law for cases of rape and incest or when the life of the mother is at risk, but it does not recognize the need for bodily autonomy for the pregnant person. And so, you know, there was a time when ⁓ most other states will have a law making a crime to kill a person. Sometimes there are other crimes ⁓

⁓ prohibiting ⁓ harm to a fetus. You know, if you should ⁓ harm somebody while there’s a fetus in utero, that could be a different crime, but a recognition that that’s a different crime from murder because an embryo is not a person. Under Georgia law, that has changed. And I think the reason for the change, of course, is the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs. We previously had protection against criminal prosecution for abortion.

because of the substantive due process right we enjoyed from Roe vs. Wade. That’s gone now. so states are free to write their own laws. And I think we are still seeing the consequences of that Dobbs decision.

Kim (11:40)
Yeah, that’s really important to understand. This is a direct result from Dobbs. And a lot of these fetal personhood laws were passed after 2022 ⁓ because of Dobbs or there was a zombie law in place that was resurrected when Dobbs came down. So Jill, what about that? What about the rights of women? Do they factor in when it comes to states that have these fetal personhood laws at all?

Jill (12:10)
it certainly takes away the rights for what I would consider reproductive health to women. ⁓ But it also, mean, just in terms of what it means for a woman who is carrying, oftentimes a wanted pregnancy, but loses the pregnancy, even for those who decide for whatever reasons they ⁓ don’t want to carry the pregnancy to term, their rights are limited.

in comparison to the rights of the ⁓ unborn ⁓ fetus that they are carrying. And there’s a very powerful article written in The Guardian that talks about the horrors of this. if you look back, there was a case of a woman who was brain dead. She had blood clots and she was absolutely brain dead. And the hospital kept her alive against the wishes of the family.

in order for her to be an incubator for the fetus that she was carrying.

Kim (13:16)
My recollection is she was early in her pregnancy. wasn’t like she was nine months.

Jill (13:20)
for

like four months and then delivered early. I think because doctors finally decided that her dead body could no longer carry the pregnancy to term. And so they delivered ⁓ the child whose name is Chance and who did live, although he was in intensive care, neonatal intensive care for I think six months. ⁓

and custody has now been awarded to the father of the child. But imagine how the family felt with this human incubator being kept alive on ⁓ machines in order to deliver this baby. ⁓ interestingly enough, the attorney general of Georgia did not think

that it was mandatory to keep her alive, that it would constitute criminal abortion murder under Georgia law, but somehow the hospital thought so and kept her alive. These are really tough questions. for those of us who, for example, I’m Jewish and it is not considered a life until the first limb comes out of the birth canal. So for me, this isn’t a person and I don’t care what the state decides to designate it.

⁓ It’s creating problems and diminishing the rights of women.

Kim (14:49)
think that’s absolutely right. mean, that horrific case you talked about, her name was Adriana Smith. And I can’t imagine being a member of her family and being put through that. ⁓ And her wishes were not considered at all. I mean, we talk about human dignity. ⁓ Human dignity for who? mean, Adriana didn’t get any dignity in that sense. So Barb, I want you to put your prosecutor’s hat on now because…

⁓ despite these personhood laws existing in a number of states, there have been very few attempts to charge women for having an abortion or taking Miffl-Pristone, and the few cases that have been brought were largely dropped. I know that even politically when they were talking points about these really restrictive abortion laws, there was always this…

You know, this claim like, well, we’re not going to charge women. We’re focused on doctors and other people. No, they’re charging women now. So why do you think this case is being brought now and has gotten so far ⁓ as opposed to some of these other cases that were considered and dropped?

Barb (15:59)
Yeah, you know, it’s difficult to imagine exercising discretion to charge a woman under these circumstances. I think that when you think about all of the what’s in the best interest of justice and other factors, it’s difficult to justify filing charges against a pregnant person who chose to abort their pregnancy. But there are some facts about this case that are a little different from some of those other cases you mentioned, which were either we saw prosecutors decline to pursue charges.

or they started down that path and ultimately dropped it. In this case, one of the facts that might merit prosecution is the fact that the pregnancy, according to the allegations in the complaint, was at between 22 and 24 weeks. And I think members of the public are probably accustomed from the Roe decision of thinking as abortions of something that occur in the first trimester. And so remember that’s the way Roe kind of divided up the world that.

there was this absolute right to pregnancy in the first trimester and then after that, there’s sort of a sliding scale. So because this occurs in between weeks 22 and 24, I guess that’s what second trimester, and that this fetus had a heartbeat, we’ve now seen legislation across the country recognizing these heartbeat laws, perhaps that makes it a stronger case for prosecution than otherwise. We don’t have a doctor to charge in this case, so maybe that’s the reason.

But I will tell you, I really agree with Jill, and I keep waiting for the legal challenge to come from either members of the Jewish community or members of the Muslim community. And as Jill mentioned, in the Jewish faith, as I understand it, life does not begin until, you said, the first limb is out. ⁓ Life begins at birth. In the Muslim community, I believe, a tenet of Islam is that ⁓ life begins at insolment, which occurs somewhere at around the fifth month.

And so ⁓ why isn’t this a violation of the free exercise of religion? In fact, some of these laws talk about how a fetus is divinely created. mean, lots of shades of Christianity ⁓ in these decisions. And so, you know, certainly as a policy matter, we can make choices ⁓ backstopped by the constitution, but we should not be favoring one religion over another. You know, if you are a person of a particular faith and choose to exercise that faith and as

part of that faith choose not to get an abortion, that’s your choice. But to force that decision on members of all faiths, ⁓ I would submit is a violation of the Establishment Clause for various groups who have different religious views. ⁓ We’ve seen this court be very aggressive in protecting the Establishment Clause. ⁓ How about a little Establishment Clause for non-Christian religions?

Kim (18:46)
Yeah, I agree with you totally. I my gut would say, I think it also has constitutional problems in terms of just a liberty right for a woman to choose what she does with her own body. But I know this court, the majority of this court is not a really, I doubt that would be a winning argument for the conservative super majority of this court. But I think the religious right claim ⁓ is totally spot on. And I would expect there would be.

some sort of constitutional challenge to this law that would make its way to the court. Now, I also worry, you guys, that this is, I mean, we’re talking about Mifepristone here, which as you pointed out, is used when there is a miscarriage in order to complete the miscarriage. I’m worried also about, you know, birth control being next. Will you consider having an IUD as murder? Would you consider?

Other forms of birth control, I mean, I just feel like this opens a door. And if this prosecution goes forward, this opens a door so wide that it really puts reproductive rights at the most peril that they’ve ever been.

Jill (20:00)
You know, I would make one other distinction when you were asking how is this different. In addition to Mifoprestone, she did take or it is alleged and I think she admitted that she took oxycodone. And maybe I’m straining because I want to limit the results of this case and to say that if you do active things like take oxycodone, which could harm the fetus, but again,

That’s like saying you can’t smoke because it might hurt the fetus. You can’t drink because it might hurt. So, and I don’t want anyone to think that I am not absolutely totally in support of a woman’s right, not just need, but right to do with her body what she wants. My body, my choice.

Kim (20:51)
think that’s one reason this case is so dangerous because of the facts. think that this is that perhaps the test case that prosecutors were waiting for in order to push this because they think because the facts are complicated, and that maybe a jury may take it differently, that this is the test case to push this fetal personhood law to convict a woman for using methamphetrysone. I agree with you. It’s because these facts are difficult.

Barb (21:28)
Sleep should be simple. But if you’ve been doom-scrolling lately, you’ve seen all the expensive snake oil supplements, weird techniques, and complicated machines that make the process seem stressful instead of restful. Forget all that stuff and stick to the basics. The fastest, simplest way to get a great night’s sleep is upgrading your sheets with comfort and coziness in mind. That’s why we have to tell you about bowl and branch.

Kim (21:54)
You know, I’m a champion hercaldurkler here. Like I don’t just wake up. got a lounge in bed for a little bit, get my bearings, answer some emails on my phone. And Bowlin Branch signature sheets are made with the finest 100 % organic cotton and instantly make your bed feel more comfortable, breathable, and inviting so you can hercaldurkle even longer. They are so soft and soothing. When you’re wrapped in them, it feels like drifting away on a cloud.

With Bowlin Branch, you’ll get to enjoy sleep you don’t have to compromise on. And it’s a one-time upgrade that pays off every single night and morning. There’s no setup, no habit building, and no guesswork. Just noticeably better sleep that you’ll look forward to every night and morning.

Barb (22:44)
I used to think that sheets came in only two styles, regular and stretchy. I don’t know how wrong I was. Bowl and branch has definitely changed the game. Ever since I put them on my bed, I’ve been so snug. I haven’t wanted to get up. I’ve been hercla-dercla myself, Kim. They are buttery soft right from the start. They get softer over time and they help you relax the moment you lie down. I’ve become such a fan that I might need to get a second set to take with me when it’s time to travel.

I’m never going back to the old ones. You need to experience their unmatched softness for yourself. And once you do, there’s no going back.

Jill (23:20)
So I want to know, you hercal-dercal in the nighttime? Because I am someone who gets in bed and reads for quite a while. So everybody look up, can you? Okay, so then I’m a hercal-dercal, hercal-dercal. As well as you guys. And one of the things that I love when I get in bed to read, I really do snuggle up to the softness of Bowlin Branch. It’s really great. And they have over two dozen amazing colors.

Barb (23:33)
Cooler.

Jill (23:49)
that will compliment any room or style. My favorite color for my bedroom, which is a dark green, it’s an old fashioned sort of, I don’t know if you even guys know what it is, a chintz pattern with big flowers and it’s a dark green. So for me, the light green sage leaf was an easy choice. Even though I was tempted because there’s some peachy flowers in it, I thought, well, maybe I need the peachy ones too. It’s so much fun to pick them out for your family or as a gift.

They’ll love it. Don’t wait. Upgrade your sleep during Bole and Branch’s annual spring event. Take off 20 % site-wide plus free shipping at boleandbranch.com slash sisters with code sisters. That’s boleandbranch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D, branch.com slash sisters, code sisters, to unlock 20 % off. Exclusions apply. See the site for details.

The link is in our show notes.

Okay, you guys all know how much I love Rizby. He is the leader of our household and he gets all kinds of special care. And I’m proud to say that in talking about him on this show, I mentioned that he had been getting acupuncture and infrared treatments and a listener who had a relative in the Chicago area reached out to me to get the name and her relative’s dog has also benefited from kindred spirits in Evanston, Illinois.

Now we have a quick message from today’s sponsor, the ASPCA Pet Health Insurance Program. We’ve all had so many fun times and amazing memories with our animal friends. And we know that your pet is part of your family too. Whether it’s a chewed up sock, a spur of the moment adventure, or an unexpected vet bill, they make life full of surprises. That’s why ASPCA Pet Health Insurance is worth checking out. Their plans are flexible,

easy to customize, and help you stay prepared for whatever your dog or cat gets into.

Kim (26:04)
and we have some good news. The best part is that there’s a special perk for signing up. When you enroll in an ASPCA Pet Health Insurance Plan, you could get a $25 Amazon gift card. It’s a little treat for you while you’re doing something great for your pet. The program offers customizable accident and illness plans, making it easier to get your pet the care they may need.

Barb (26:28)
You can tailor your plan to fit your budget, your lifestyle, and your pet’s particular quirks. To explore coverage, visit aspcapetinsurance.com slash sisters. That’s aspcapetinsurance.com slash sisters. Eligibility restrictions apply. Visit aspcapetinsurance.com slash Amazon terms for more information.

The link is in our show notes. This is a paid advertisement. Insurance is underwritten by either Independence American Insurance Company or United States Fire Insurance Company and produced by PTZ Insurance Agency Limited. The ASPCA is not an insurer and is not engaged in the business of insurance.

Well, this week, the Department of Justice had a wild ride with a variety of cases where there seems to be this through line of the Justice Department abusing some of its authority. And I wanted to talk about a few of those and, Jill, get your take on one of these. ⁓ Judge James Boesberg, he is the chief judge of the District Court in the District of Columbia. You may remember him from such roles as ⁓

telling the Department of Homeland Security to turn the planes around and not send them into Venezuela and holding Justice Department officials in contempt. Well, this week, he quashed some grand jury subpoenas that were issued by the office of US Attorney Jeanine Pirro against the Federal Reserve. Jill, tell us about that and how unusual it is for a judge to quash a grand jury subpoena.

Jill (28:19)
So first of all, let me say what quash, a subpoena means because.

Barb (28:23)
Watch is

Kim (28:26)
Sounds like automotive Pia, but it’s not.

Jill (28:28)
Well, it sounds like squash and this is squashing a subpoena. It’s invalidating a subpoena. So the US attorney has a right in a grand jury investigation to issue its own subpoena without a judicial intervention. And then a party can go to court and say, wait a minute, this so far exceeds anything that is under relevant investigation or it’s so burdensome that you have to stop this. And it’s very rare.

There’s a great deal of deference allowed in an investigation by a grand jury. But this case, the judge basically said, hey guys, this looks like it’s clearly done to pressure Jerome Powell. It’s part of a political witch hunt against him. And so he said, no, you don’t have to comply with this subpoena. And that’s what he did. He quashed the subpoena.

Barb (29:25)
Yeah, I actually teach ⁓ grand jury practice in my criminal procedure class. And we talked about this earlier in the semester. So I sent my students a copy of an article about this case. the standard, the legal standard to quash is you have to show that the subpoena was unreasonable or oppressive, which is a pretty high standard. Because the standard, ⁓ a prosecutor may issue a grand jury subpoena as long as there’s any reasonable possibility.

that the category of materials to be produced will be relevant to the general subject of the grand jury investigation. That’s from this case called United States versus Our Enterprises. And in fact, Judge Boasberg cites this Our Enterprises case to say, and you know, what I always say to the students is like, this is such a broad standard. It’s almost impossible.

Jill (30:16)
It’s a very high burden of

Barb (30:18)
Yeah, it’s like it never happens, which is why I sent them this article. so Kim, reading Judge Boasberg’s opinion, he cites our enterprises and he says, even under the standard of our enterprises, I find this to be unreasonable and oppressive. Can you tell us about that opinion or what stood out to you about that opinion?

Kim (30:34)
Yes, what stood out to me about this opinion is rather than starting with a recitation of facts or the procedural history, this is literally how the opinion starts. Jerome, too late, pal, has done it again. He is too late. How do you read all caps? He is too late and actually too angry, too stupid and too political to have the job of Fed chair. Of course, that is a truth social post from the president.

of the United States. That is how this opinion starts, just to show why this case surpasses that very high bar for quashing a subpoena. What I love about this approach in writing the opinion is I feel like so many of these opinions, if you were just to read them, you really don’t get a sense of just how absurd some-

the things that are happening. The Europeans themselves, because they’re in legalese and they’re stayed on paper, it almost works to normalize what the president is doing and trying to pressure this independent board to bow to his wishes. And Judge Boasberg was having none of that. He started out showing just how not normal this is to prove the point that this subpoena was issued, not in order to…

⁓ effectuate good law enforcement or to determine if some crime was taking place or some misfeasance. It was just meant to bully the Fed chair, ⁓ which is just not what a president is supposed to do.

Barb (32:13)
Yeah, this quoting his own language back at him is a pretty persuasive way to make the case. What Judge Boasberg says is there’s a mountain of evidence to suggest that the real goal here is either to get the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, because that’s what Donald Trump wants, or to get Jerome Powell to resign. And that they have fabricated and are using as a pretext this idea that he testified before Congress about cost overruns at a renovation at the Federal Reserve building. ⁓ And that the only thing…

the Justice Department could come back with in response was to say there have been cost overruns. And Judge Bogosburg says, yeah, building overruns happen all the time. That doesn’t mean there’s a crime was committed. There’s just no predication to suggest that. So that was a really interesting case and a real ⁓ unusual but appropriate, I thought, judicial intervention against an effort by Jeanine Pirro at the US Attorney’s Office to abuse her office to punish or intimidate.

the Federal Reserve. But we see this occurring not only in DC, but also in Florida, where this week we saw the Southern District of Florida issue a grand jury subpoena to Jim Comey, ⁓ of course, the former FBI director in what they’re calling the grand conspiracy. Jill, tell us about this. What is the grand conspiracy?

Jill (33:35)
So before I move to Florida, I just want to say also about Judge Boasberg. In addition to quashing the subpoena, he issued a new rule about grand juries because we’ve seen in DC under Jeanine Pirro the use of grand juries to try to indict people who have committed no crimes. And grand juries are having none of it, just like Judge Boasberg is having none of it. And so he has required now that any time a grand jury refuses to indict, it has to be reported.

⁓ So, it’s just the Department of Justice that you and I love and we’re proud to go into court and say on behalf of the United States and know that we had credibility just because we said that no longer exists and there is no more credibility. But on to Florida where the same thing is actually true. ⁓ Yeah, the US attorney has created a conspiracy that may allow something that

Obviously, the statute of limitation has run on the 2020 election. There’s just no way that it isn’t over and done. Five years is the statute. We’re in 2026. But in conspiracy law, if you do something in furtherance of the conspiracy, even though it started and ended before the five years has expired, if you do something after that, and in this case, they’re saying there was perjury committed

not by Comey, but by someone else ⁓ in 23, so that the statute would now be extended to 28. So he was subpoenaed for some documents, and now we’re back in court as to whether this conspiracy exists, whether he’s going to have to produce anything. And the investigation is, again, back to something that has been disproven over and over and over again.

⁓ And it is aimed at what Donald Trump sees as his enemies who have investigated him, intelligence officials, enforcement officials like Comey, like Brennan. ⁓ And so that’s where we are. It’s back to his assessment in 2017, right after Donald Trump was elected. Remember, Comey was the one who was elected to tell Donald Trump about the Russia investigation.

Donald Trump has never forgiven him for being the one who spoke on behalf of the intelligence community. So that’s where we are.

Barb (36:09)
Yeah, so this investigation of the Russia investigation from 2016. Now, Kim, correct me if I’m wrong, but haven’t we already had the Mueller report, an inspector general’s report, and an investigation led by John Durham, appointed by William Barr, who have already… …revealed the origins of the Russia investigation. What could possibly be left to investigate? And if there’s not anything legitimate left to investigate…

Kim (36:25)
Republicans, Republicans!

Barb (36:37)
What do you think is really going on here?

Kim (36:40)
Is it an effort to try to both change the narrative of the election as well as get back at Jim Comey who wasn’t just the one in charge of Speaking on behalf of the intelligence community was also the one who was asked. Hey, can you see it through to let my buddy? To let my funny buddy general Flynn go because he’s a good guy, right? And

Barb (37:07)
The loyalty dinner? Yeah. He invited Jim Coney

Kim (37:13)
Something out of a mafia movie. yeah, Jim Comey has been ⁓ on ⁓ Donald Trump’s perceived enemy list since basically since Donald Trump took office the first time. So it’s no surprise. It should still be shocking and outrageous to everyone that he is trying to go after him and using the levers of the government to do so. But that’s exactly what’s happening here. I think it’s just as obvious as it is.

⁓ in the case with Jerome Powell that Judge Busberg so clearly outlined. I think that there is a host of truth social and Twitter posts that whoever the judge who writes this order can quote from as well.

Barb (37:57)
Although,

you know, it strikes me that there may be little forum shopping going on here, right? This investigation is in the southern… Yeah, they are conducting it out of Fort Pierce where the only judge is Judge Aileen Cannon. So if they file these motions to quash, instead of getting a Judge Boesberg, who will look at the law objectively, we’re going to get Judge Aileen Cannon, who has the history of ruling in favor of Donald Trump. So strikes me as no coincidence that they…

Kim (38:03)
Dean Judge Cannon!

Barb (38:26)
chosen to put the case down there. All right, well, so those are two examples, but we’ve got one more this week where the Justice Department, don’t know, again, you know, in the old days, the Justice Department had this presumption of regularity and we would let these things, you know, see their way through to the grand jury system, the court system, and we would presume that the Justice Department’s acting in good faith. we had this other incident this week with this guy, Joe Kent.

who’s the head of the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center, a total Trumper, who resigned in his letter over the war in Iran. ⁓ you know, he doesn’t blame Trump. He says something like, Israel misled him. And that’s why Trump declared this war in Iran. But as soon as he resigned, we suddenly learn that he is now under investigation.

for leaking classified information. Jill, what do make of that? Is it he left because he was under investigation or he’s being investigated because he left and split with Donald Trump?

Jill (39:32)
So if I were a betting person, I’d put my money on he’s under investigation because he said Donald Trump did not have a legal reason for invading Iran. But we don’t actually know because we know that the investigation started before his resignation, but we don’t know if it was like a minute before his resignation.

And ⁓ when I say we know, it is reported. I don’t know that. haven’t seen the document that starts the investigation. So we’re going to have to wait and see whether it was a thing that started it or that followed it.

Kim (40:16)
Well, I was just going to make a quick point that even if it began before he left, I got to believe that his leaving and his resignation letter were not the first time that he expressed some skepticism over what was going on. yeah.

Jill (40:29)
I agree with that. I also want to point out that Joe Kent is not the perfect person to come forward ⁓ with this information because he is a well-known conspiracy theorist. He’s made a lot of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic remarks. And so he isn’t the most credible witness for this. And I would say despite that,

Whatever his past is, it doesn’t mean he’s wrong about this allegation that there was no imminent threat from Iran. And I also just out of coincidence, it fascinates me how things come around and go around. Chris Miller, who some of you may remember, was the ⁓ person appointed to be the acting Secretary of Defense after Esper resigned at the end of Trump One. Chris Miller

was in the same position before that. He was the head of the same organization that Kent was the head of. And like Joe Kent, he was a retired Green Beret. So it’s just sort of funny how people from one place get to another. ⁓ At least he didn’t get to be the Secretary of Defense, Joe Kent. ⁓ So it’s just an interesting set of facts. as I say, it may be true that there was no ⁓ credible

imminent attack because that’s what the intelligence community has made clear.

Barb (42:00)
Yeah, you the other thing I’ll say, having been a national security prosecutor, it seems to me that if they really were suspicious that Joe Kent were a source of leaks, they would have removed him from his position when they first became suspicious of that. And the timing of this, you know, suddenly now we’re going to say he was under investigation really does strike me as it feels more retaliatory than, ⁓ you know, that this was all legitimate and was going on all along. And the reason he’s leaving

is ⁓ because of this investigation. You don’t keep somebody in a very sensitive position like that as head of the NCTC if you think they are a security risk.

Jill (42:39)
As I said, my money in a bet on that would be that he was under investigation because he had made it clear that he was of the view that there was no credible imminent threat.

Barb (42:55)
Kim, let me just wrap up by asking, you we’ve talked about the Boasberg quashing of these Jeanine Pirro subpoenas. We’ve talked about the Comey subpoena and this grand conspiracy. And now we’re talking about the Joe Kent investigation. ⁓ I worry as somebody like Jill, who spent a good part of my career at the Justice Department, who enjoyed this presumption of regularity, and we always thought we wore the white hat. How does this end for the Justice Department? Do you ever see this ⁓ ability to regain? You know, there’s going to be this…

narrative that the Justice Department was weaponized and the Trump administration says, well, that’s just because the Biden administration weaponized it. How do we ever get back? How do we the pieces back together so that the public can have confidence in the work of the Justice Department?

Kim (43:38)
That’s really hard to answer because it’s just been, ⁓ I mean, a sledgehammer has been taken to the reputation of the DOJ. I think this is just one of a thousand things that have been thrown on the pile of the withering of the DOJ’s reputation. think just the way that ⁓ Attorney General Pam Bondi has conducted herself even in public hearings makes me ⁓ lose all trust in that this is…

a department of actual justice as opposed to just an arm of Trump’s retribution campaign. It will take another administration to earn that trust back, but I don’t know how long it will take because there’s so much distrust among citizens and it’s hard, it’s really not hard to understand why.

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

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

Jill (45:23)
And as you already said, Kim, it’s serious science that fits easily into anybody’s routine. And that’s one of the things we love about OneSkin. So many products rely on slick branding or filler ingredients, but not OneSkin. Every time I use OneSkin, I give my skin a clear signal to repair damaged cells, support collagen production, and strengthen my skin barrier. Now I can’t get enough.

Neither can my husband who steals a lot of mine. Whenever I get dried out on planes or while I’m out in Chicago’s wind, I use OneSkins’ OS-1 Face Topical Supplement to fight back against dryness. It’s the perfect supplement for making your skin look fresh and keeping it ready for anything the elements throw at you.

Kim (46:12)
With OneSkin, my skin feels so much smoother and way less stressed. Best of all, OneSkin’s regimen works fast and the formulas feel amazing to apply. This isn’t just our experience. OneSkin’s products are backed by extensive lab and clinical data, including four peer-reviewed clinical studies to validate their efficacy and safety on all skin types.

Plus, they’ve got over 10,000 five-star reviews, including ours, and have been recently featured by Bloomberg as a leader in skin longevity. It really shows you don’t need a complicated routine to achieve healthier, younger-looking skin.

Barb (46:53)
Born for more than a decade of longevity research, OneSkin’s OS1 peptide is proven to target the visible signs of aging, helping you unlock your healthiest skin now and as you age. For a limited time, try OneSkin with 15 % off using code SISTERS at oneskin.co slash SISTERS. That’s 15 % off oneskin.co with code SISTERS. After you purchase, they’ll ask you where you heard about them.

Please support our show and tell them we sent you. The link is in the show notes.

Jill (47:36)
When selecting topics this week, as always, there were too many to choose from. All were frightening, including the ones that I have chosen to talk about today, which is the trial and conviction of protesters as domestic terrorists and Brendan Carr’s threats to pull FCC licenses from channels that don’t cover the war the way Donald Trump wants them to, and to enforce the now-defunct

equal time rule. So let’s dig into that. And Kim, start us off by talking about what the facts ⁓ of the conviction of the protesters are. They were labeled as Antifa. ⁓ What law did they get indicted for violating?

Kim (48:23)
So I really, one thing that I found difficult to even ascertain is how they were, how these protests were, why they were considered to be Antifa and also what the definition of Antifa was with respect to their prosecution. ⁓ So this is worrisome to me in a lot of ways, but these nine defendants, as you pointed out, were prosecuted as a ⁓ Antifa cell.

And they were found guilty in Fort Worth, Texas ⁓ of a bunch of charges, including providing material support for terrorism, ⁓ for attending a demonstration outside an ICE facility last summer. ⁓ So that’s the kind of charge that was once levied against people like the Boston Marathon bomber or somebody

someone who would give support to an actual terrorist ⁓ attack, not someone who was present at a protest, no matter what happened at that protest. ⁓ And so, anyway, the long and short of it is that it’s quite a victory for the Trump administration, who has long sought to tag anybody who opposes administration policies, particularly when it comes

to immigration, the ⁓ effort to swiftly deport more people than ever, ⁓ the law and the Constitution be damned ⁓ as terrorists, as enemies of Americans, as opposed to people who are trying to ensure that justice is done. I we’ve seen even in Minneapolis, in the case of people who are doing nothing but videotaping what ICE was doing and shot in the street.

They were labeled as terrorists by this administration. So I think this is a very, very dangerous outcome in this case.

Jill (50:26)
But do you or Barb, do you think that there were guns which makes this a little different or maybe a lot different? Do you think it does make a difference?

Barb (50:37)
Can I say have a different take on this case? I think there’s a legitimate case here that has been spun by Trump’s DOJ as being part of this Antifa cell thing. There are two different terrorism statutes. The one we most often use for material support is providing material support to a designated terrorist organization. And there’s a whole process for how an organization gets designated. It’s through the State Department.

and it has to be a foreign terrorist organization. And that’s because of First Amendment concerns about labeling domestic groups as terrorists. So you can be convicted of providing material support to ISIS or Hezbollah or some other designated group because the State Department has determined that that group engages in terrorism and terrorist activity. That’s one brand of material support statute. There’s a different material support statute.

that can be used for purely domestic cases, but it’s a little different. It’s not about providing material support to an organization that’s been designated. It is providing material support to an individual that you know is going to use that material to conduct a terrorist attack. For example, in the Timothy McVeigh case, ⁓ I was one of the Nichols Brothers or something, who gave some of the materials to Timothy McVeigh.

could be a legitimate use of this other material support statute. That’s 2339A, but the one we use most often for these designated groups is 2339B. But the Trump administration did a little magic trick here because they issued an executive order designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. Now, this just isn’t a thing under the law.

Kim (52:28)
It doesn’t exist. That’s what I meant. And to be clear, I’m not, I don’t have the prosecutor experience that you have, but that’s what I meant by saying, I didn’t understand how they defined Antifa, how they determined that that was something that could be the basis of terrorism charges.

Barb (52:44)
Absolutely

right. Yeah, yeah.

Jill (52:46)
And

you set up my question for Barb, which was to have her explain whether Antifa could even possibly be a legitimate target of the statute under which they’re charged.

Barb (52:59)
And so just to flesh it out for our listeners, you can only be convicted of a crime when Congress has passed a statute. And Congress has passed a statute saying it’s a crime to provide any kind of material support to these designated foreign terrorist organizations. But it’s not a crime to provide it to somebody. So all the Antifa references are surplusage. They’re just irrelevant facts that are thrown in there to dirty up the concept of Antifa. So if they proved, and it appears they did to a jury,

that these people had the knowledge and intent to provide firearms and training and support to this attack. That’s a legitimate conviction. But all this spin about Antifa, that is just irrelevant political propaganda.

Jill (53:42)
And I think the facts aren’t going to support it in terms of whether they knew each other or just showed up to protest what was happening at this ICE facility. And I want to because next Saturday, a week from now, it’s going to be the No Kings March. And I want to make sure that everyone who attends the No Kings March isn’t worried that they’re going to be deemed a terrorist and put in jail. So it’s really important that we understand

what this is and that it will be appealed, I’m sure. Both of you, do you think it’s going to be reversed on appeal? And will it be on First Amendment grounds or on some kind of trial error or some factual ground? What do you think?

Barb (54:27)
So I don’t know that it’ll be reversed on appeal, Jill. I mean, I didn’t follow the trial, but if their theory is the one I explained 2339A, that they proved that there was intent to provide support to what they knew would be a violent attack, that’s sufficient. So that’s sufficiency of the evidence and we’ll see. All the Antifa stuff is, as I said, just propaganda outside of ⁓ the essence of the charges. So the facts will matter here in determining whether there’s a successful appeal.

Jill (55:03)
The Frisbee and all of the sisters’ dogs and all of yours deserve the best of everything. So don’t feed them burnt-out kibble year after year. Imagine if you were stuck eating the same thing every week. You’d go crazy. That’s how our canine family members feel about their usual store-bought stuff. We knew there had to be a better way, but we were paralyzed by all the options until we discovered the Pets Table. It’s personalized dog food from the

team behind HelloFresh. So it was an easy switch. They offer both fresh human grade and gently air dried options, or you can mix them to see what your pet prefers.

Kim (55:46)
As if Snickers needed another way to be spoiled, she is clearly a puppy princess now with nine recipes to choose from from the Pets Table. There’s so much variety. Each one is formulated with an on-staff board certified vet nutritionist. So you know it’s the good stuff. The air-dried plan is shelf stable and needs zero prep. Unlike Kibble, that’s highly processed at high temperatures.

The pet’s table is minimally processed to preserve actual nutrients like protein, vitamins, and antioxidants that your dog needs to support gut and immune health, a healthy coat, and an active lifestyle. Then they have the human grade. Honestly, it looks table ready and just like the food we’d all recognize on our plates and in our kitchens.

Jill (56:37)
With choices like fresh beef stew with carrots or turkey casserole with broccoli, your dog will be living their best life. Either one is the perfect savory meal on a rainy spring day. And based on how excited your dog will be when you set it out, I know you and your pet are going to be big fans. You’ll feel so much better knowing that he’s getting real food designed with his health in mind. He even will have better skin.

and more energy. And that’s something we’d all like to see.

Barb (57:10)
You know, Joyce isn’t with us this week, but I heard she’s like going up to Bella and saying, you gonna eat that? It’s good enough to eat. Each plan is customized for your dog’s specific needs based on their age, weight, activity level and more to keep them lean and healthy. With allergen friendly and seafood options, there’s something for every pup. Plus they back it with a 100 % money back guarantee.

on your two week trial, so there’s zero risk. Help your dog live their best life with high quality food from the Pets Table. Take advantage of this limited time offer to get 55 % off your first box, plus 10 % off your next two at thepetstable.com using the code SISTERS55. That’s thepetstable.com, code SISTERS55. The link is in our show notes.

Jill (58:12)
It’s our favorite time of the show answering your questions. And if you have a question for us, please email sistersinlaw at politicon.com or tag us on social media using hashtag sistersinlaw. If we don’t get to your question during the show, we will try to answer them through our social media sites or during our new show, Sisters Sidebar, which will come out every Wednesday. So tune in for that.

Our first question is for Kim, and it comes from Caesar. Caesar asks, when the Constitution was written, the oldest American politician was probably Ben Franklin, who was 81. Is there a legal argument to be made that lifelong means until 81, because that was the original meaning of lifelong? What do you think?

Kim (59:08)
I see what you’re doing there, Caesar. We talk a lot about the history and tradition when it comes to ⁓ analyzing constitutional provisions. In this case, that doesn’t come into play here at all. First of all, Ben Franklin was not actually an elected official. He was one of the framers of the Constitution, but he was not holding federal office. He held office in Pennsylvania. And I feel like I’m an expert on Ben Franklin because I just went to Philly last weekend.

and went to the museum and learned all about him and all of that. So yes, he was an elder statesman at the start of our nation. But the reason that we say ⁓ people get lifetime tenure in some positions, namely judges, get them, federal judges, is because the only way to remove them is if they resign, retire, or are impeached.

There’s no other mechanism to limit their terms because those are the only ways for their terms to end. So that is effectively lifetime tenure. And if you’re trying to think in terms of a limit of on the presidency, for example, I we’ve already had presidents, we’ve had two presidents who are older than 81 while in office, Joe Biden and it will be Donald Trump should he serve out the full term.

⁓ So I think but but I think this brings up an important point because I think there is a mechanism particularly for judges that if there is the political will to do it to phase in term limits in a way that makes brings more surety to ⁓ an office like a judge and that can bring so many benefits with it if you have a limited amount of time someone can be a judge you can say okay for that period of time they can take no ⁓ donations no bribes no luxury trips no anything

beforehand or after, live it up. Like do whatever you want. But while you have this position, we’re gonna limit you as to what you could do. No outside employment, no other influence at all. And the term is limited so you will have to nominate people who are 12 to try to keep them on the bench for as long as possible. There’s so much good that can come out of it. it just requires the political will in Washington, which we don’t have.

But I think that people need to remember that the power is with them to demand that. So I think this is something that we should constantly be talking about and thinking about how we want our Constitution to work, how we want to change it, how we want to pass laws that really makes the Constitution work better for our people. We don’t have to be limited to trying to figure out history and tradition. And I think that sort of gets to the spirit of what you’re asking about.

Jill (1:01:54)
So the next question is for you, Barb, from Fran in Portage, Michigan. So another Michigander is asking a Michigander a question. All right. Fran says, the Democrats may win majorities in both houses of Congress in November. If so, would congressional impeachment and finding of guilt hold given the SCOTUS immunity decision?

Barb (1:02:19)
great question, Fran, in Portage, lovely part of our state. ⁓ Yes, it would. And in fact, this really gets to the crux of what Chief Justice Roberts was writing about in that opinion. What he said is, impeachment should be the only remedy for misconduct in office. That a president, because they have so many responsibilities, should be able to be bold and fearless and not worry about looking over his shoulder.

that his successor, the next administration and their Department of Justice might charge them with crimes. It might cause a president to shrink in his duties or responsibilities. But the best way and the appropriate way under our constitution to deal with presidential misconduct is through the impeachment process. so impeachment in the House, conviction in the Senate, which could include removal from office and also on a second vote, whether the person may be barred from ever holding federal office again.

⁓ If there should be a change in leadership in the House and the Senate, impeachment becomes once again a very viable possibility.

Jill (1:03:26)
And this question is actually addressed to me by a listener named Kathy in Vacaville, California. Alexander Butterfield passed away this week since you are the Watergate girl. I was wondering if you had ever interviewed him over at any time or knew what he would say about the Watergate tapes that Nixon had in place. And the answer is yes, I have interviewed him both

when I was a prosecutor in Watergate. But more recently, I had a show ⁓ called IGEN Politics, and Victor Sheehan and I interviewed him then. I also saw him at the opening, ⁓ the premiere of Robert Redford’s movie, All the President’s Men Revisited, in which both he and I had roles. And we talked at that time. And I’ve talked to him since just by phone to say hello. He was a man of great integrity who decided that

if he was asked the exact question in the right way that he was going to admit that there was a taping system. He wasn’t going to volunteer the information, but that if asked the right question, he was going to answer, and he did. That led to the discovery that there were tapes. That led to the subpoena of those tapes, a court case, the turnover of the tapes, which proved the president’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

And I don’t have to wonder what he would have said about them because he did say about them. He knew the guilt was there.

Kim (1:05:00)
that’s lovely, Joe.

Jill (1:05:02)
Thank you, thank you. He was a terrific person. So, ⁓ before I turn to the end of the show, I want to just say we got one more question we don’t have time to answer, but I want to read it to you. And that is from North Carolina, Donna. She says, I love your shows and excellent informative discussions. Thank you very much, Donna, from all of us. I’m sure that you guys want to chime in too.

I also enjoy your humor and your camaraderie. Have you all considered doing YouTube videos or Sisters-in-Law sidebar? It would be so great if we could actually see you and see your facial expressions as you discuss your topics and questions. Your wish is our command, We are going to go on YouTube very soon. So stay tuned and watch us. Yay.

So thank you, Donna, for that question. And thank you all for listening to Hashtag Sisters-in-Law with Kimberly Atkins-Stor, Barb McQuade, and me, Jill Winebanks. We hope to see you at our live show in Denver, Colorado at the Cervantes Masterpiece on April 23rd. Tickets are available at politicon.com slash tour. So make sure to get yours before they sell out. And we have…

in all of our past live shows sold out. Don’t forget to pick up Sisters in Law merch. For those of you who might be seeing this on YouTube, look at Kim and look at me. We’re wearing our Sisters in Law t-shirts. You should be too. Anyway, also make sure you tune in to our companion podcast, Sisters Sidebar on Wednesdays. And please show some love to this week’s sponsors, Factor, Bowlin Branch,

ASPCA, One Skin, and the Pets Table. The links are in the show notes. Please support them because that’s how you get this podcast for free. See you next week with another episode, hashtag Sisters-in-Law.

Barb (1:07:15)
Yes, me too. Okay, we can agree on that.

Jill (1:07:17)
Well,

wait a second. Aline and won their game yesterday. Hooray, hooray. So there you am so fine.

Kim (1:07:23)
So there we go, basketball.

Barb (1:07:25)
basketball

Jill (1:07:26)
Always know basketball? Yeah. Wait, day one. That’s what we were talking

Barb (1:07:29)
Yeah,

it is! ⁓

That’s be Dakota.