Trump Threatens to Invoke the Insurrection Act

Joyce (00:10)
Welcome back to Hashtag Sisters-in-Law with Barb McQuade, Jill Winebanks, Kimberly Atkins-Stor, and me, Joyce Vance. If you’ve kicked off your new year with some Hashtag Sisters-in-Law gear, then you know there’s good stuff in the store. And if you haven’t, go and check out the hoodies and t-shirts. They’re available at politicon.com slash merch. You can find the link in our show notes. So on today’s show, it has been yet another one of these really serious weeks.

Kim and I are out on the ledge before we’ve even gotten started. We’ll have to see how it goes because this week we’re discussing the insurrection act, Trump playing dirty against the chair of the Fed, Jerome Powell, and DOJ’s very aggressive stance towards journalists, sort of a redo of prior policy which protected the First Amendment and the press. But now we’ve seen the execution of a search warrant at a journalist’s house and subpoenas to the Washington Post. But before we do that,

I have a dead serious topic to take up with all of you. There are weather reports that there will be snow in the deep south. Maybe I’m overplaying it. is the prediction that maybe there might be a small dusting of snow. But you know, we live for this stuff in the south. I mean, these are the moments that I dream about. know, forget the inconvenience of the power going out and not having the right clothing. I’m ready to pull out.

Kim (01:21)
Ha ha ha!

Joyce (01:39)
all of my favorite hand knits, put a batch of vegetable soup on the stove and go outside and play in whatever snow I can find with my dogs. But you guys get a lot more snow than we do, right? So I want to know what does your favorite snow day look like? What should I be thinking about doing? Barb?

Barb (01:56)
That’s fun. Huga, you should enjoy this. ⁓ snow days are the best choice because when there’s a snow day, it’s not just a day off. It’s an unscheduled day off. So all the things you thought you were going to have to do that day, like they just go away. You have to wait. You can’t do them. So instead, you’ve got this day to just play. I like to play in the snow. I’ll tell you, my favorite thing to do on a snow day truly is get on my cross-country skis and ski from my house to a local golf course and cross-country ski there. Super fun. The other thing you can do, if you can find a child to use as a pretext, you can go sledding. When my kids were young, I could use them as props. It’s harder now, but all you need is a hill. You probably don’t own any sleds. A sled is a great thing, but if you don’t own a sled, a cardboard box will do. Just break it down so it’s a piece of cardboard and you go sledding right down a hill. It’s a blast. I highly recommend playing or frolicking in the snow. Even shoveling the snow can be a lot of fun. You you pick up a snowball and throw a snowball or two, but just being out in it, walking and enjoying the beauty, there’s nothing like it. I love a good snow day.

Joyce (03:13)
You know, we used to go down Mount David on cafeteria trays when I went to college at Bates in Maine. And I have fond memories of that. Jill, what about you? Chicago gets a little bit of snow.

Jill (03:25)
We do, and this year we’ve had more than usual, although only one in a big dump. And I have to say mostly, I don’t like snow except the first moment you wake up and see it on the trees and it’s so beautiful. I do love that. But my favorite memory of snow was one of Brisbane’s predecessors. India loved the snow. She ate the snow. She played in the snow, she jumped around, she was so happy in snow that it really brought me joy. So I will have to just try to think of India in the snow.

Joyce (04:03)
Kim, what about you? Do you have the same take on snow days or are going to be a naysayer here?

Kim (04:08)
Oh, I think snowing in the South should be criminalized if that were possible. mean, listen, one reason, one benefit I thought I was going to get moving below the Mason-Dixon line, and yes, I am below the Mason-Dixon line. Yes, it’s a stone’s throw, but I’m still below it. Was that, oh, wonderful, no more snow, right? I’m officially in the South.

Joyce (04:25)
Barely though, come on.

Kim (04:35)
The snowy days are over. grew up in Detroit. I spent most of my young adult life in Boston and I was through. I’ve had my fill. I don’t like snow and I’m done with it. But no, we still get it and I don’t like it. So my favorite activity is staying in the house when there is snow. don’t like going out. Jill, used to have a dog, my late great dog, Boogie. ⁓

Jill (05:00)
We know boogie

Kim (05:04)
He would be so thrilled when it was snow, so I felt compelled to go out in it so that he could have a good time. Now Snickers is like me. She didn’t like it either. So it’s a perfect match. We’re inside, we’re under blankets, and we’re happy.

Joyce (05:18)
Fingers crossed all the snow is coming to Bama.

This episode of Hashtag Sisters-in-Law is brought to you by Wild Grain. If you haven’t heard, Wild Grain is the first baked from frozen subscription box for sourdough breads, artisanal pastries, and fresh pastas. Plus, all items conveniently bake in 25 minutes or less. Unlike many store-bought options, Wild Grain uses simple ingredients you can pronounce and a slow fermentation process that can be easier on your belly.

and richer in nutrients and antioxidants. There are no preservatives and no shortcuts.

Jill (06:03)
And besides that, all of the sisters love that Wild Grain’s boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their variety box, they have a gluten-free box, a vegan box, and now a protein box. No matter what you choose, it’s amazing how fast Wild Grain goes from the box to our table. My husband and I enjoy the breads, pastas, and the pastries, and so do all of my guests.

They are impressed and then surprised when I say it’s baked from frozen, not homemade. They often end up subscribing because they loved it so much at my house. And it is perfect for delicious meals, snacks, or quick food prep.

Barb (06:44)
Yeah, know, my kids were all home over the holidays and I emptied out the freezer with all my wild grain stuff. We had the chocolate chip cookies. We had the chocolate croissants. We had those orange cranberry biscuits. We just like cooked up the lot and they loved them. They were delicious. Having wild grain delivered is so convenient when life gets busy. And I love watching the color and the flavor come alive.

There’s the three cheese sourdough, if you tried that, that smells great. When the cold weather really hits hard, the giant snickerdoodle cookie are a delicious winter treat. And you know, that aroma coming from the oven is just incredible. The whole house has that warm, what’s the word Joyce? The Scandinavian word for cozy winter, higa. Higa, whatever it is, you get that vibe when you’ve got the, you know,

Joyce (07:33)
Is it hee-gee or hug-gee? You should really learn how to say that bar. Yeah.

Barb (07:41)
the aromas of the sweetbreads cooking. Just make sure you’ll get enough to share because you promise you, will never have to call anyone when the food is ready. They will come running with those delicious smells coming from the oven. You want to treat your family and wild rain is the perfect way to go.

Kim (07:58)
You know, when my stepkids are here, they tend to sleep like well into the afternoon. But one way to get them up is for me to put wild grain pastries in the oven. Works every time. There’s nothing like having an artisan bakery in your freezer to chase away the winter chill. So now is the best time to stay in and enjoy comforting homemade meals with wild grain. We highly recommend giving wild grain a try. And right now, wild grain is offering our listeners $30 off your first box.

plus free croissants for life when you go to wildgrain.com slash sisters to start your subscription today. That’s 30 bucks off your first box and free croissants for life when you visit wildgrain.com slash sisters. Or you can use the promo code sisters at checkout. And the link is in our show notes.

Jill (08:51)
you

Trump is threatening to use the Insurrection Act, so let’s explore what that could mean for us and for him. He tried using a provision with no acronym, Section 12406, to federalize State National Guard and deploy them in LA, Portland, and my hometown of Chicago. But last month, the Supreme Court in Illinois versus Trump ruled that he could not use that statute. And so now he’s threatening to use this other

law. They ruled President Trump likely needed to show active duty regular military forces were insufficient under 12406 before he could use the guard. It was a rare, but to me encouraging decision limiting the scope of presidential power and establish a precedent that reached beyond Illinois. ⁓ But I want to know what’s going to happen now that he’s threatening to use the Insurrection Act, although I want to note that just before we started recording.

I read online that he now says, well, it’s not time to use the Insurrection Act yet. I’ll emphasize the yet. So, Barb, should we all be scared if he does that? What were his powers under 1204 and does the Insurrection Act give him any greater powers in terms of allowable activity by the troops?

Joyce (10:14)
Thanks

Barb (10:15)
Yeah,

I’ll answer that in a second, Jill, but in light of your recent update, I think this is so paradigmatic, if that’s how you say the word, of the way Donald Trump operates, right? It’s about leverage. So he wants to inflict pain or a threat or intimidation in order to coerce compliance or behavior or control. So he’s dangling this idea of the Insurrection Act out there, like, don’t make me use my big stick.

because I will, but I think they are laying the groundwork. Todd Blanch, the Deputy Attorney General, used the word insurrection in a tweet the other day. So they’re definitely sort of dangling this thread out there, but it is different. As you mentioned, what we’ve seen before is Title X, Section 12406, which we’ve often said is the statute with no cute name, clever nickname, acronym. So it’s sort of a clumsy title. And it’s kind of a…

⁓ a less powerful version of the Insurrection Act. That is what allowed the president to call up state National Guard troops. Although we saw the Supreme Court rein that in by saying that there had been no showing that the president was unable to enforce the laws with regular forces, which the court said likely means military forces. ⁓ The Insurrection Act

takes those things off the table, those checks, because there are a couple of very significant differences. So number one, in addition to the National Guard, the president can call up active military troops. This is a much larger number of troops than just the National Guard. The other big difference is that the Insurrection Act, unlike 12406, has an exception.

to the Posse Comitatus Act. You may all know that the Posse Comitatus Act is the statute that forbids the military from engaging in law enforcement activity. So under 12406, the National Guard could support military. They could help ⁓ defend federal property, for example. They could help with patrols. They could ⁓ help with crowd control. But they could not engage in law enforcement activity, arrests, searches, seizures.

questioning those kinds of things. Under the Insurrection Act, the military can do that. So this really would look very different with members of the military directly enforcing the laws on the streets.

Jill (12:53)
And Joyce, let’s get into some details because there are three sections that spell out when the president can use the Insurrection Act. So let’s talk about those three circumstances that allow him to call up the troops.

Joyce (13:09)
You know, that’s a ⁓ really great question. I’m a huge fan of always starting with the statute when you’re going to talk about the law. Sometimes you’ll just hear people pontificating about what the law says without ever looking at the statutory language, which is of course the correct place to start. So I’m glad to have the chance to do that. There are three different provisions in the Act that a president can use, in essence, to do what Barb was talking about, to get around the Posse Comitatus Act.

and to call up the troops. So we start with section 251. That allows the president to deploy troops if he’s asked to by either a state’s legislature or by the governor if the state’s legislature is out of commission. And that’s essentially a request for federal aid to suppress an insurrection in the state. But the two other provisions don’t require consent by the state, even though that has been the practice for almost 60 years.

It’s not essential. Section 252 permits deployment in order to, quote, enforce the laws of the United States or to suppress rebellion. And so this is pretty much what it sounds like, a standard provision that’s meant to be used in the face of extreme violence against the state. But then there’s Section 253, which is most likely what Donald Trump is eyeing. That allows the president to use the military and estate to suppress, quote, any insurrection

domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy,” close quote, so long as it hinders the execution of the laws in that state so that some of the inhabitants are deprived of constitutional rights and state authorities can’t protect the right any longer. That’s the part of 253 that Kennedy and Eisenhower used during the civil rights era. But it goes on a little bit further and it permits the president to

deploy troops to suppress any insurrection, domestic violence, etc. That, think, is where Trump’s fertile little mind has landed.

Jill (15:17)
Yeah, I’m afraid that that is, but I do want to point out that even that power isn’t limitless. ⁓ The goal of the deployment is supposed to be to restore order so that control can be returned to state officials.

Joyce (15:35)
And Jill, can I ask you, because you’re a military expert here, my understanding is that the federal government has the obligation to do that as quickly as possible. That from the moment of deployment, the goal is to restore order and return control to the state. So Trump can’t go in Venezuela style and say, I’m going to be here for a couple of years. I’m now technically the ruler of California. Right? You can’t do that.

Jill (15:58)
Exactly, and he shouldn’t be doing it in Venezuela, but you’re right, he can’t in America. ⁓ But Kim, let’s look at ⁓ your being our SCOTUS expert, what the court said and is it likely to stick with it about judicial review of a president’s determination that facts exist that justify his invocation of the Insurrection Act? Because that’s what scares me is that this uncontrolled, unhinged person would say,

Yes, it’s an insurrection. I must go in. And what are the facts that he would rely on? And has the court said, yeah, we can’t review that. Once he says it’s an insurrection, that’s it. We’re done.

Barb (16:41)
you

Kim (16:41)
So

one problem, Jill, and I share your concern about how this might play out. ⁓ One of the problems here is that there is so little case law on the Insurrection Act because this is not normal. People, I know we say that a lot, but this is not something that has happened over the course. And think about it, the course of our nation’s history, we’ve had wars, we’ve had all kinds of things. ⁓ Protest has been.

an inherent part of our democratic system since the beginning. We are celebrating 250 years of a protest that led to ⁓ independence. So this is such a natural and crucial part of our society, and it always has been since the nation’s founding. The idea that protests amount to something that would give the president the power to invoke the Insurrection Act just seems to…

It just seems to defy common sense. But what we do know is that the Supreme Court did, back in 1827, rule that invoking the Insurrection Act is a power that rests exclusively with the presidency. So we’ve talked about other powers that the president has that’s not reviewable. The clearest example is the pardon power. If the president pardons somebody.

Nobody can appeal that nobody the courts can’t come in and say, no, you can’t pardon that person. That’s a power that rests with the presidency. And in a case called Martin V. Mott, the court said that invoking the Insurrection Act two is up to the president and that it is his exclusive domain. Now, there has been at least one other case, ⁓ one called Sterling V. Constantine, ⁓ which said, well, OK, yes, this is a

a right that rests exclusively with the president. So for example, Congress can’t say, we’re going to invoke the Insurrection Act in this way. It’s a presidential power. there are, as explained in this act, ⁓ limits to it. There are criteria in there. And in determining whether or not the underlying conditions are legal to qualify for this, of course courts have.

the ability to come in and determine that. If you don’t, then you’re just handing the president a blank check to call the military into cities at any time. And then that’s not what this really is. Given our current Supreme Court, ⁓ they have seemed to like having the power to come in and decide what the president can and cannot do. Now, often they’ve said can a lot more than they’ve said cannot. ⁓

I find it really hard to believe that this court’s majority would just be like, nothing we can do, can’t look at it, hands off. I just think their own ⁓ hubris and their own, shouldn’t say hubris, but I will say there, think, you know, sometimes they do express hubris, but ⁓ I think the fact that they like to be the decider of these things makes it real hard for me to believe that judiciability, the fact that.

whether a court can review this at all is going to be the thing that this turns on. I think it’s going to turn on whether or not these protests rises to the level of a governor and the National Guard stopping students from being able to attend school after a court rules that they can. I think there’s a big difference between that.

Jill (20:08)
Yeah, I agree with you. the case you mentioned, Sterling v. Constantine, was one where they did say that judicial review is allowed about once they’re deployed, did they act constitutionally or did they violate constitutional rights? So there is at least that promise ⁓ from a more recent case than the 1872 Mott case. ⁓ And Barb, let’s look at whether this is

on the slippery slope to martial law. Because a lot of people are saying once he invokes the Insurrection Act, that it could lead to martial law. And I want to know what rights, if any, the president has under martial law that he doesn’t have under the Insurrection Act.

Barb (20:55)
Yeah, this is such a good question because I think people often conflate all of these things. We talked about 12406, the Insurrection Act, and this term martial law gets tossed around. Martial law is, you know, the nuclear option. It is the replacement of our civilian government by military rule. And it means that all of our civilian legal processes are suspended and the military is just taking over.

It is something that’s intended to be very minor. There’s no specific statute. There’s no provision for it in the Constitution. But legal scholars have said, you know, it has to be inherent in the president’s powers as the chief executive. And in fact, it has been declared at times in the country’s history, but very rarely. For example, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii,

went under martial law, not the whole country, but just Hawaii where the military said, we’re taking over. They could make orders like everybody go inside. There’s a curfew. There have been others after major disasters like the Chicago fire in the late 1800s and the San Francisco earthquake. Most recently, Joyce, you may know, in Montgomery, Alabama, when there was mob violence against freedom riders, there was ⁓ martial law declared. But it is

rare and one of the things it can allow is the suspension of the right of habeas corpus, which is something in the Constitution, the suspension clause that says that ⁓ it’s sort of the rare opportunity when habeas corpus can be lifted, which means the right to be brought before a court to show that your confinement is legal. it’s supposed to be very limited. It is rarely invoked.

and there really isn’t any specific basis for invoking it, but it is recognized as a right the president has.

Jill (22:57)
So

Joyce, because we’re on this slippery slope, I want to know what are the rights that citizens retain under the Insurrection Act?

Joyce (23:08)
Yeah, so, you know, the Insurrection Act is not martial law. That’s the important thing to know here. And it does not suspend constitutional protections. Troops that are deployed under the Insurrection Act are governed by the safeguards that the Constitution provides for. Although, as Barb notes, the president can do things like suspend habeas. You know, that would not be the case under martial law. In that setting, for instance, your First Amendment right to assemble, to protest, those

those rights can be curtailed, that would be an entirely different and very unprecedented environment.

Jill (23:43)
And Kim, again, you mentioned earlier about being on the ledge and this does sound scary. ⁓ So Kim, let’s talk everyone off the ledge. The Insurrection Act has been used only 30 times in our 250 years of history. What are the basic rules for using it and what are the limitations on what it can be used for? Because there are some limitations that should make us feel safer.

Kim (24:12)
Yeah. think about it in this way. It can be used when a state asks for help. I think Rodney King is a good example of that at the time ⁓ of the unrest after the verdict for the police officers. Those police officers who beat Rodney King were acquitted. ⁓ After a period of time, the governor asked, I believe it was President Bush at the time, to

for help in federalizing the National Guard. Incidentally, by the time the National Guard got there, ⁓ local law enforcement had gotten the situation under control, so it wasn’t that much for them to do. And then they were withdrawn ⁓ soon after. There wasn’t a situation like this where they were there perpetually in Los Angeles. ⁓ Or when a state is impeding federal rights. A great example of that is in the South.

when governors and local officials were preventing black students ⁓ after desegregation orders, still preventing them from attending classes. ⁓ George Wallace, today, tomorrow, forever. So that’s another situation. And when there is just lawlessness, where civilian law has completely broken down and there is just plain old anarchy, I can’t even think of an example of that happening in America.

But that’s it. It is not when there are a lot of protests. It is not when the president is mad In many in Minnesota governor walls hasn’t given no indication that law enforcement is unable to work there that the laws cannot be enforced state federal or otherwise This is not a situation for the insurrection act. I also think and this sort of gets to Barb’s point Donald Trump likes to rattle the libs and this is his favorite tool. I think you

He likes saying this. likes threatening this thing. And I understand it’s important for us and like we’re doing to explain to you exactly what it is and is not. But I also…

I’m sore, maybe I just have one foot on the ledge here because it’s sort of like, you know, like really shut up. Like he’s doing this in a way to try to draw attention and to grab headlines and he’s getting it, it’s working. And I just don’t think he really believes that this is what this is all about, but you know, this is sort of a game that he plays. So no, is this something that is really called for in this instance? No, not even anything close to it.

most of the, I mean, a lot of the violence that we’re seeing is actually being committed by the federal officials, by the federal agents here, not by the protesters themselves. So I would urge all of us to take a deep breath and sort of, you know, just remember what our principles and our laws provide. And it’s not for what Donald Trump is claiming they do.

Jill (27:00)
And to that point, ⁓ I’ll put in our show notes a sub-stack article by Robert Hubbell, which goes through the things that it would be allowed and the things that it absolutely would not allow. And it’s very comforting. So everyone, I urge you to get off the ledge by reading that article. And I also want to mention when you talk about the use of it, one of the uses was when James Meredith was trying to enroll in Ole Miss.

And James Meredith was one of my law school classmates. is he? Yes, he was. ⁓ that’s it.

Kim (27:32)
was

Joyce (27:35)
That’s insane. This is the newest Jill Winebank story. Legendary. You have never told us this, Jill. What’s the deal?

Jill (27:43)
And well he he came back. I mean he obviously took some years off because ⁓ he’s more than ten years older than the rest of the class ⁓ but yes, we were I’m not sure what he did in the interim. But yeah, anyway, yes, we were all very proud to have had him as a classmate and that’s still our so that it is incredible and so I’m glad that we had this conversation because to me it summarizes what we

Kim (27:54)
She’s in the Air Force, I believe.

Jill (28:11)
as citizens all need to know about the laws that may be invoked at any time and will encourage us to resist peacefully because you don’t want to give him even the slightest grounds for even having some remote claim to invoke the Insurrection Act or heaven forbid, martial law. And ⁓ that would, as we’ve said, allow the military to completely oust civilian government. So everyone,

Resist peacefully.

Kim (28:52)
2026 is the perfect time for wardrobe upgrade. In the winter, it’s a great time to have warm, stylish, and comfortable shapewear that works with your body and fits perfectly in all the right places. That’s why we have to tell you about our favorite independent female founded brand called Honeylove. Their founder, Betsy, leads a team of women who bring their talent and experience to design every product with your body and needs in mind.

And the results are amazing.

Joyce (29:22)
I love how comfortable the leggings are. They’re a great go-to for everything from pilates to running errands. And that’s because the shapewear is designed to move with you so it doesn’t roll down or bunch up when you’re active. When I saw how Honeylove works with my body instead of against it, I was really won over. The targeted compression truly enhances the way you look instead of suffocating you. And with Honeylove, you’ll never have to feel like you’re shimming into or out of your outfit.

Whether you’re looking for athletic wear or a compliment to your favorite dress, the stylish design details and high quality fabrics really take your look to the next level.

Jill (30:01)
And even if you’re a longtime Honey Love fan like us, they are always releasing exciting new pieces you’ll want to add to your collection. Recently, they launched their new Crossover Contour Bra, which features their best-selling wireless crossover design with built-in molded light foam pads for extra support and beautiful contoured shape. But you also need to check out their new Cloud Embrace. It’s a modern wire-free t-shirt bra

that delivers the same benefits as underwire with foam padding as soft and comfy as a cloud. Don’t wait in case it sells out again. Luckily, HoneyLove’s bonding technology means everything is supportive and lightweight and wire-free. So there are tons of options that make a wonderful foundation for any outfit.

Barb (30:53)
I’m so glad you’re here today, Jill, because as you know, I’m contractually prohibited from saying the word bra. So I’m glad you were here to say it. did it. You can start every outfit with Honey Love and elevate your style. Treat yourself to the most advanced foundational garments and shapewear on the market. Use our exclusive link to save 20 % off Honey Love at honeylove.com slash sisters. That’s honeylove.com slash sisters. After you check out, they’ll ask you where you heard about them.

Joyce (30:59)
just

Barb (31:22)
Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Experience the new standard and comfort and support with Honey Love. The link is in our show notes.

Joyce (31:40)
We love cats and those of us who have them can’t say enough great things about smalls. As far as I can tell, mine have absolutely no interest in politics, but when it comes to food, tofu and our other cats are very opinionated. It can be hard to get their vote, but smalls wins it every time. As soon as I put the bull out, the race is on. And now that I’ve made the switch, they have so much more energy and their fur seems softer and more luxurious too. If you’re a cat parent,

there’s no better time to try smalls than right now.

Jill (32:13)
Boy, you make that sound so good, Joyce.

Joyce (32:16)
We love

our cats and our cats love smalls.

Jill (32:19)
Well, I’m not a cat parent, at least not now. My husband used to be many, many years ago with Rupert. ⁓ But we love.

Joyce (32:30)
that name

Barb (32:30)
Wait, we need to hear about Roots!

Joyce (32:34)
Rupert, tell him- ⁓

Barb (32:35)
about Rupert. Who’s Rupert?

Jill (32:37)
was his cat when he lived in Ireland and Rupert used to walk around the bathtub that had a ledge and splash, according to my husband. didn’t, I wasn’t with him at the time, so I don’t know.

Joyce (32:50)
Anyway,

would have loved Smalls. ⁓

Jill (32:53)
You

absolutely would have, and so have my friends who are cat parents. And I’m so glad that I was able to tell them about this because this podcast is sponsored by Smalls. And now that it’s 2026, you shouldn’t be feeding your cats last century’s burnt out kibble, especially now because for a limited time, you can get 60 % off your first order plus free shipping when you head to Smalls.com slash sisters.

Your cats will love how Smalls uses protein-packed recipes made with preservative-free ingredients you’d actually recognize from your own fridge. And it’s delivered right to your door. Getting started is easy. Just share info about your cat’s diet, health, and preferences. And Smalls puts together their personalized sample.

Kim (33:45)
Now, I don’t have a cat. So, I mean, how do know your cat’s preferences? I would, you know, do they really let you know?

Joyce (33:52)
They’re cats. They make it very, very clear.

Kim (33:56)
All right, well, it’s easy to see why cats.com has named Smalls their best overall cat food. So stop wandering the aisles and guessing at the pet store. Smalls has food that actually satisfies your cat’s cravings. The results speak for themselves. After switching to Smalls, 88 % of cat owners reported overall health improvements. And that’s a really big deal. But don’t just take it from us.

Forbes ranked Smalls the best overall cat food and a BuzzFeed article reported that my cats went completely ballistic for this stuff. I’ve even had people tell me that it makes their breath smell way better too. So, you know, good fresh smelling cat breath. can’t, you can’t, ⁓ can’t beat that barb.

Barb (34:43)
Who doesn’t love fresh smelling cat breath? Well, the team at Smalls is so confident that your cat will love their product that you can try it risk-free. That means they’ll refund you if your cat won’t eat their food. Make 2026 your cat’s healthiest year yet. Take advantage of their New Year’s special and get 60 % off your first order, plus free shipping when you head to Smalls.com slash Sisters. One last time, that’s 60 % off your first order.

plus free shipping when you head to Smalls.com slash Sisters. The link is in our show notes.

Kim (35:29)
Well, this week kicked off with a battle between two people who have no love lost between them. That’s President Trump and Fed Reserve Chair, Jerome Powell. Powell made headlines at the start of the week by announcing that the Fed had received subpoenas from the Justice Department and that he was under criminal investigation for allegedly lying during a Senate hearing of

about the renovations that are happening at the Fed headquarters on Capitol Hill. Like, you really can’t make this stuff up. But, you know, something tells me that this isn’t just about the renovations, Barb. So why don’t you tell us a little bit about this investigation into Powell by the Justice Department? And why does it make me think of James Comey?

Barb (36:22)
Yeah, you and me both. It’s, boy, because both seem baseless. think that’s why it reminds us of that case. You know, this is a cross between the James Comey indictment alleging false statements before Congress and remember Operation Whirlwind when Ed Martin was the ⁓ interim US attorney in Washington DC. And he was sending out these letters saying, I just have some

Questions I want to ask you. So it appears that the US Attorney’s Office in DC reached out to Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, with some casual emails saying, hey, we just want to talk to you. We just have some questions about this building project that you’re doing to renovate the headquarters of the Federal Reserve. And, you know, they didn’t call them back. And the next thing that happened was they got some subpoenas.

for records about that. Now, Jerome Powell has testified before Congress about this project as the head of the Federal Reserve about some of the cost overruns of the project. And he now views it as if he is ⁓ facing these subpoenas under criminal investigation. That is the clear implication of sending a grand jury subpoena. That means that a criminal ⁓ investigation has been opened.

It really has that vibe of this is done to harass, to intimidate, and to pay back against Trump’s political rivals. As we all know, President Trump has been pushing for Jerome Powell to lower interest rates. Why would he do that? Because it is in the best interest of a political candidate facing midterm elections next year for interest rates to be low because that means ⁓ borrowing is easy and people invest.

and it gives short-term boost to the economy and everybody feels like the economy is booming. Of course, what the Federal Reserve actually does and what it is bound to do is to use their best independent judgment as economists to set interest rates for the long-term interests of the economy because even though the interest rates may boost the economy in the short term, it can also lead to really damaging long-term inflation. so, Jerome Powell has not.

done what the president wants to do and done his bidding. Instead, he has executed his job in ⁓ his professional judgment the way he believes is appropriate. And Donald Trump clearly wants him out. He’s ⁓ mused aloud about firing him, about replacing him. He’s fired one of the governors, Lisa Cook, because he wants his people on board. And so this really, Kim, has the feel.

of the same way of I’m going to punish my rivals, I’m going to get them off stage by pushing out some BS criminal investigation out there.

Kim (39:21)
Yeah, and this whole idea that the DC’s US Attorney’s Office, which is like, hey, let’s just chat, know, drop us a line. just want to talk to you. Knowing that one of the lawmakers from that hearing, Congresswoman Luna, filed a criminal referral to DOJ about his testimony back, I think it was back in, it was during the summer. So they already knew that this criminal referral had been made. I’m sure Powell knew that too.

⁓ According to some Washington Post reporting, he had already retained outside counsel. He knew that this is what the Trump administration does and what they threaten. So this whole idea was like, we just wanted to chat. He knew that they didn’t want to chat. So of course he didn’t respond. He got his attorney and he braced for what was coming. And it’s just really ridiculous. He also…

I thought it was really remarkable, his statement. He made a video statement, y’all. He did not issue a piece of paper. He got on camera and was like, look, and I’ll read a little bit of it. He says, this new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. It’s not about Congress’s oversight role. And he goes on to say that they are, quote, a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public rather than following the preferences of the president.

And he says, this is about whether the Fed will be to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by the political pressure or intimidation. Too long, didn’t read. said, come at me, bro. Like, I know what my job is and you are not going to intimidate me. So Jill, here’s the thing. The timing of all of this is pretty terrible. Tell us why.

Jill (41:08)
my gosh, that’s such a great question, Kim. And there are so many reasons why it is stupid, dumb. I love being able to say that this is like crazier than most of his crazy stuff. So ⁓ first of all, let’s say you just mentioned about what the real reason is according to Jerome Powell. And I have to add that before I answer your full question, that Trump just did something even stupider.

which is to say the quiet thing out loud. He has said recently that he’d back off if Powell would lower interest rates like Trump wants. I mean, he said that. actually…

Kim (41:51)
You can buy that.

Jill (41:54)
my God, it’s unbelievable. Anyway, what this does is it gives more evidence that this is political retribution, that it’s not legitimate. The evidence adds support to federal ⁓ members. Lisa Cook’s current case, which will be argued next week in the Supreme Court, and she’s claiming that she can only be fired for cause, as the law says, of course.

And that there is no cause because the criminal referral, as with the criminal referral of Jerome Powell, came from, well, in her case, came from a Trump loyalist, Bill Pulte, who heads the Federal Housing Finance Agency. And she hasn’t had any charges against her, let alone a conviction. And so there is no cause. And that this just shows that it’s retaliation. And, you know, the Solicitor General is going to argue

that the cook firing is legitimate. But yeah, I mean, it just doesn’t look legitimate. And what he’s doing here with threatening Jerome Powell is just more evidence that will hurt their argument in the Supreme Court. And then add that, you know, yeah, I’ll back off if he will lower rates like I want. ⁓ it’s ridiculous, but also the timing is stupid because Powell’s

term as chair ends in May. But he still has two more years left as a member of the reserve. And so he could stay on. And this may motivate him to stay because he is basically an institutionalist who thinks that this must be an independent agency. And so he’s not going to go away quietly. So I think the timing is really, really dumb.

Kim (43:45)
And to that point, I mean, there’s a lot of speculation that Trump has threatened to fire Powell and people, including Republicans in Congress, who’s like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, no, you can’t do that. The Supreme Court has already given an indication that they don’t think that the Fed is the same as other agencies that they let the president fire people from. So it’s already starting from, you know, when ⁓ Solicitor General Sauer has to go before them, he’s already on the back foot, right?

without his terrible client messing it up even more. But what is Trump gonna do? Fire Powell? Nope. Powell and Cook will still be on, I make this bold prediction, J Powell and Lisa Cook will both still be on the Fed ⁓ beyond his chair in term. So I just think it’s all just so silly. So Joyce, Trump has pushed to oust other agency heads while I mentioned, talk about what the Supreme Court has said about

the federal reserve. haven’t made a merits ruling on the ability of Trump to fire them yet. But why do you think my prediction is right? And if so,

Joyce (44:53)
Yes, you are dead on the money. Look, the Supreme Court is not supposed to decide cases and controversies that aren’t before it, but it has pretty much prejudged the situation with the Fed, right? I mean, it has like, just in fact, Justice Kagan in a dissent calls out a majority that just says, but by the way, the Fed is different. was it, it was one of the earlier cases. I can’t remember now if it was Slaughter, the FTC case or another one. Yeah.

Kim (45:21)
That

it.

Joyce (45:21)
But here’s the deal. I’ve always wanted to just be very real about what’s going on with the Supreme Court and the Fed and just to acknowledge that legally there’s no reason that the Fed is different from these other quasi-independent agencies. I mean, what’s different is what the Fed does and the position that it holds. ⁓

Jill (45:42)
Exactly!

Joyce (45:44)
Exactly. And so let’s not pretend that this is about legal principle. You know, the Fed’s purpose is to maintain independence from political mood swings, right, when it comes to economic stability. And that’s what we’re going to watch play out here. This court has showed really a hesitance to let even this president, who in many ways they’ve championed, control the Fed with Commissioner Cook. She got to stay in her position.

while her case was being litigated. Unlike others, Inspectors General, Rebecca Slaughter, the FTC commissioner, folks at the MPSB. You know, these folks, the handwriting was on the wall because when the cases were heard by the court on the shadow docket, the court let Trump go ahead and fire them. And that did not happen with Cook. So look, the Fed is different because the court says it is and for no other reason.

Kim (46:38)
Yeah, they sort of indicated it’s like, well, you know, the history and tradition of national banks being independent.

Joyce (46:44)
I’m on! ⁓

Kim (46:47)
There’s a history and tradition of all of these agencies. I just wanted to close, and if any of you have thoughts, please share them, is that one thing that is really concerning is that this is a part of a pattern of practice with this administration, which is using political pressure from the Justice Department and the threat of criminal investigation and prosecution to settle political differences. I mean, we see this with…

And not just the Justice Department. We see this with the Pentagon going after Senator Mark Kelly, trying to take his rank away. We see it with members of Congress who have stated that, you know, just stated the truism that ⁓ troops are not required to follow unlawful orders. They’re getting criminal investigations lodged against them. I mean, just as three people, three veterans of the DOJ, like just how dangerous is this? Anybody?

Barb (47:41)
Well, I’ll chime in with one thing that is incredibly dangerous. It’s a witch hunt. Trump loved to use the phrase hoax, witch hunt, weaponize, but that’s exactly what this is. Since Watergate, there has been a policy at the Department of Justice in both the Attorney General guidelines and in the ⁓ domestic investigations operations guide used by the FBI that requires what’s known as predication.

You can’t just open an investigation on somebody and go on a fishing expedition and hope you might find something. You have to have a good faith factual basis to believe a crime has been committed. you know, these ⁓ mortgage fraud findings, that was clearly Bill Poulty. Let’s look through everybody’s mortgage documents and see what we can find. As Robert Jackson, who once served as Attorney General of the United States, later became a Supreme Court justice.

said in a famous speech to federal prosecutors, US attorneys gathered in the great hall of the Justice Department in 1940 for a famous speech known as the federal prosecutor, know, prosecutors across the country post on their walls as, you know, the sage language of the attorney general. was, ⁓ your job is to investigate crimes, not people. And this is a perfect example of what goes wrong when you investigate people instead of crimes.

Let’s just look at everything about them and see what we can find that might stick. That is a terrible way to run investigations. And we should all be afraid because it means that anybody who ends up in Trump’s crosshairs could find themselves subjected to one of these kinds of investigations.

Kim (49:19)
Yeah, and the words of Justice Robert Jackson are wise. He was also a prosecutor at Nuremberg. So he knew what he was talking about.

Joyce (49:28)
Well, you know, and speaking of international stuff, because obviously the domestic and the foreign are inextricably intertwined at this point, Trump is using these same sorts of tactics abroad. This afternoon, he suggested that any country that didn’t agree with his takeover of Greenland, he just slapped tariffs on them. I mean, this isn’t how presidents are supposed to…

Kim (49:49)
hasn’t even issued the tariffs rule yet. Like he keeps doing this. Like does he think that’s gonna make things better?

Jill (49:57)
And in terms of bad timing, it’s really dumb timing to be threatening tariffs based on retribution. ⁓ This is so dangerous because as you pointed out, Kim, it’s not just the Department of Justice, it’s Homeland Security, it is the Pentagon. And we are in the situation of being so overwhelmed that we can’t focus on any one thing. And we need to really start resisting each and every one of these so that

as what happened with the Nazis. It didn’t happen all at once. It was one little thing and then one little thing and then one little more thing. And we’ve seen it now. We have to start resisting every action that’s taken, that takes away our rights.

Delete Me makes it easy, quick, and safe to remove your personal data online at a time when surveillance and data breaches are really all too common. It makes everyone vulnerable. Privacy is important to online safety, and Delete Me is the perfect tool to up your digital security.

Kim (51:09)
It’s scary out there. In 2026, it’s easier than ever to find personal information about people online. Unfortunately, having your address, phone number, and family members’ names hanging out on the internet can have actual consequences in the real world, putting everyone at risk. With Delete Me, you can protect your personal privacy, your family’s privacy, and the privacy of your business from doxing attacks before sensitive information is exploited.

Consider it like your personal warrior protecting your data, autonomy, and privacy.

Barb (51:44)
Even if you’re not a public figure, in the internet age, all of us are potential targets for malicious actors, blackmailers, and worse. Especially if you have children or other minors in your home, delete me is a must. Once we got started with them, the peace of mind was such a relief. I trust them to protect me, my sisters, and my loved ones. And I know they can help you and your family feel safe too.

Joyce (52:08)
Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for Delete Me, now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20 % off your Delete Me plan when you go to joindeleteeme.com slash sisters and use promo code sisters at checkout. The only way to get 20 % off is to go to joindeleteeme.com slash sisters and enter code sisters at checkout. That’s joindeleteeme.com slash sisters, code sisters.

and the link is also in our show notes.

Barb (52:50)
Earlier this week, the FBI executed a search warrant at the home of a Washington Post reporter. It’s not the first time this has ever happened, but in light of Cash Patel and Donald Trump’s prior comments about the media, it certainly caught our attention. Joyce, can you fill us in on what happened? Is this reporter the target of the investigation?

Joyce (53:13)
Yeah, so Hannah Naitenson is a reporter at The Post and she does pretty amazing work on federal employees and the bureaucracy. She was not the target. She’s at home when the agents show up, they search her home, her devices, they seize her phone, they take two laptops, one of which is her personal laptop. But the target of the investigation is a government contractor who’s accused of illegally retaining classified government materials.

That sounds like a familiar charge, but I guess that’s not the point of this topic. Anyhow, his name is Aurelio Perez Lugones, and he’s a system administrator with a top secret security clearance. So, you know, these are not unusual cases, retention, illegal retention of classified information. We all know a lot about those statutes. ⁓ But typically cases like this when they involve a reporter aren’t made using the reporter.

Here the government alleged that the defendant or the putative defendant was sharing classified information with Naitenson at the time of his arrest. And so they went ahead and searched her home. ⁓ Look, these are serious crimes. I don’t want to, know, dissuade people from believing that they are. But very often in our criminal justice system, competing values sort of knock heads. And here we’ve got freedom of the press knocking head with protection of national security.

This administration is taking a decidedly different path.

Barb (54:42)
Yeah, I think that’s a really great way to frame it. It’s not that it’s illegal to search a reporter. It’s just that most often there’s a choice not to do that because of our deep respect for the rights of the free press. So Jill, tell us about the law on this. Do journalists have any special privilege against searches of their sources?

Jill (55:05)
It’s an interesting question and in a way they do. They have a law that applies to them, the Privacy Protection Act, which was passed in 1980 after the Supreme Court issued a ruling that maybe threatened the rights of journalists. And the law protects journalists and authors and scholars who plan to disseminate information from the government.

and it protects them from government searches and seizures of their work product and the materials that they have. The law requires that law enforcement use a court-approved subpoena first and not a search warrant first. The reason for that is that they want to protect journalists from prior restraint and also from invasion of their secret sources, which are very important to journalists.

And subpoenas would safeguard the First Amendment rights because that would allow the journalist to go to court and say, whoa, there’s no reason for this. And I can tell you why they’re coming after me, and this has nothing to do with anything. So it would protect the journalist or the author or whoever is being searched who has this information and protects the damage before it happens. Once they’ve done a search warrant, they have the information.

And so the damage is already done. this is like analogous, remember when we had ⁓ Michael Cohen’s records being seized, which had attorney-client privilege protections. This has certain First Amendment protections. And the court said, you you can’t just use it. They appointed a special master to review what stuff was protected by attorney-client privilege. And I think that’s important to keep in mind. The Privacy Act,

does allow exceptions and they’re very limited. If there’s probable cause that the person is committing a crime related to the materials that are being sought, except for having the information itself, then the search warrant can be used. And also if there is some imminent threat of bodily harm or death or revelation of some ⁓ security information,

then you can go ahead with a search warrant. None of that seems to be ⁓ relevant here.

Barb (57:38)
Yeah, you know, my thought is they may have tried to use this national security exception. We don’t have any explanation, but in light of their investigation against the leaker, ⁓ maybe that was the basis or maybe they just don’t care. ⁓

Joyce (57:53)
Bye.

Kim (57:57)
You’re being so generous.

Joyce (57:58)
That’s

the best take, Barb. That was good.

Barb (58:01)
Well, Kim, you’re our journalist. Tell us, like, you know, big picture. What about this search makes it concerning for reporters?

Kim (58:08)
Yeah, this is very concerning ⁓ because even though the limitations that we’ve been talking about and laying out are there, there is a fear, particularly now with this administration that, like the first term labeled journalists the enemy of the people and have been on the attack with journalists and ⁓ bringing lawsuits and otherwise bullying news organizations and such, that if

You know, if there is a search that is conducted, let’s say they make a good faith effort under one of these exceptions. If it were me as a journalist, I would not trust if they came and got my computer and got my phone. I wouldn’t trust that they wouldn’t go through every single bit of my information and turn around and use it against me, use it to target me, to say, oh, look, she, you know, she recorded this podcast and said this thing about, you know, just going through everything about, oh, look, they’re

their third cousin gave to Democrats based on that. I mean, they’re going, these are literally going to turn into witch hunts. And knowing that, journalists are already doing everything they can to protect themselves. And I will say, I work at a large news organization, a couple of large news organizations who have attorneys who have, when we’re hired, we get training on the sources and what laws protect them and what to do if

or subpoenaed, or if we get some sort of court order, journalists do that. Not all independent journalists or people with sub stacks or things like that, I’m not sure they get that kind of training or they have that kind of support. So particularly for independent and smaller news organizations, this could be really devastating. mean, that can put them out of business retaining lawyers and going through the fees and the cost of litigation. If this comes up, it’s a really, really big threat to the freedom of the press.

Barb (1:00:02)
Mm-hmm. Joyce, when Attorney General Merrick Garland was running the Justice Department, he had a policy that prohibited the use of court process for reporters’ records, I think, to address some of the issues Kim just discussed. It had some exceptions for national security and threats and other kinds of things. But Pam Bondi lifted that policy, I think, in April after she became the Attorney General. What’s your view? You talked about an interesting point. said…

when values sometimes knock heads. I talk about competing values all the time in my law school classes that the law is all about line drawing and drawing the line between competing values. We want to protect the values of the free press on the one hand, but also protect ⁓ private information and public safety and national security. And especially in today’s world, where Kim mentioned we have some of these smaller journalists.

How do we even define journalists, right? Like, does Julian Assange count as a journalist? And so how do we think about drawing that line in terms of policymaking?

Joyce (1:01:08)
Yeah, well, Barb, I’m sure that when you discuss with your students that you guys struggle about the issue of where lines should be drawn, especially when there are important priorities at stake. But this administration really doesn’t do that struggle at all. They just draw one clear line. They do whatever will protect the president. Because I think what we’re seeing here is all about firing back at government employees.

who might disclose information that could portray Donald Trump in a bad light. I predictably, that’s what this administration did when it rolled back the Merrick Garland policy. They’re paranoid about leaks. They don’t want their hands tied at making it clear to government employees that they will be punished. If they talk to the press at all, I mean, we don’t know here, right? The allegation is…

that the putative defendant here did have national security information that he was in the process of sharing with a reporter. And if you take that at face value, that’s very serious. Of course, there’s also the Pentagon Papers case as an example ⁓ of where you might have competing values. So the administration under Did Garland’s policy, which I think was fairly consistent with prior administrations,

You know, the balance has always been the absence of solid justification and a very high level of internal approval at DOJ. DOJ doesn’t go after journalists. They’ve gotten into trouble in the past really for engaging with journalists that happened during the Obama administration in a way that many people felt was too restrictive on the First Amendment. But this is not an administration that’s about balance. And especially as you point out,

In this era of new media where there some people it’s difficult to know whether they’re journalists or not, with an administration that’s focused only on its own internal security and the avoidance of scrutiny, we could be in an era that has just fresh damage to inflict on transparency about government practices.

Barb (1:03:13)
Yeah, and you know, there was probable cause here because they got a search warrant. So a judge, we don’t know what that affidavit says, but a judge must have read it and found that there was a probable cause to believe that on her devices would be found evidence that was useful in this investigation of a crime about this ⁓ purported leaker. ⁓ But it does concern me, Jill, Joyce mentioned earlier that this particular reporter, Hannah Natanson, has been

reporting about the chaos inside the federal government. In fact, she calls herself like the federal worker whisperer or something like that. ⁓ Is there concern that this is all just a pretext to find out what these insiders are telling her?

Jill (1:04:01)
Of course there is and well there should be. And I want to point out that even though ⁓ there may have been probable cause that she had some information, the Privacy Protection Act says that you have to use the least invasive methods. You don’t start with a search warrant. And there’s no evidence that they contacted her and said, please, would you give me this or ⁓ I’m going to subpoena you.

They didn’t do that. They went straight to a search warrant and there was no cause for that. she is the federal workforce whisperer. She has been covering the federal workforce ⁓ in her recent reporting for the Washington Post about how Trump is reshaping the federal government. And she had contact with over 1,000 whistleblowers who were willing to talk to her through a ⁓ secure ⁓ messaging app.

Before that, she covered education and she has won a Peabody for a podcast series. So of course, we’re all jealous that she got a Peabody. I guess that’s only for journalists though. And she also was awarded a Pulitzer for public service coverage. And she has lots and lots of honors. She’s a graduate of Harvard. And although the investigators have now, as you mentioned, alleged that she’s not the target, ⁓ but that she was

being messaged by the target at the time of his arrest and that the chat that they were engaged in contained classified materials. We of course don’t know that. And we do know that he’s not as yet charged with anything other than retention, not transmission. So it’s just like Donald Trump was charged with retention of documents, not dissemination of them. So it’s unlikely that she published something that she got from him because if

she had, then it would have been the sharing of it that was part of the case. So I think it’s important she didn’t get a subpoena or a request and that as Barb, you said, now there is a risk to the thousands of people who contacted her from the federal government as part of her regular journalism work. And they are now in danger, as is she. So I think it’s finally interesting that there was a subpoena issued

after the search to the Washington Post. say they received a subpoena in the morning that she was searched. So, you know, they knew they should have used a subpoena and not a search.

Joyce (1:06:42)
No kidding.

Barb (1:06:43)
but now they’ve got the stuff. Last question for our reporter, Kim. ⁓ I know that a lot of reporters are using encrypted apps like WhatsApp and Signal. And in fact, this reporter, Hannah Naitenson, think posted, like wrote an article or posted online and said, hey, federal workers, if you’ve got anything to share, here’s my Signal number, ⁓ please reach out. And she was inundated, like she was stunned at how much she got. ⁓

I think most of us think of signal chats as being protected. And I know I have read that a lot of reporters use these because they can’t be hacked or obtained. ⁓ is that true? If someone has, the FBI has now seized her phone, do they have access to all of those people she was talking to and all the things they had said to her?

Kim (1:07:35)
So probably not. Generally speaking, they won’t be able to access that because Signal does have end-to-end encryption. Now, I’m not a tech expert, but that’s the reason that a lot of journalists do use it. Now, that isn’t to say that there isn’t any information that they will be able to get off their phones. They’ll be able to get things like ⁓ metadata, which is not the content.

of what was shared on these chats, but they may be able to know things like when she was using Signal, at what times and in what locations. This is data that the phones keep stored locally that the FBI would be able to get to. But unless she gives them access to the content or someone else who was on the Signal chat does so, they won’t be able to access that content now.

Could they try to pressure her and threaten her with charges of obstruction or something if she doesn’t do it? Maybe there have been journalists who have been pushed to reveal their sources, for example, and when they have not done so, they’ve been jailed at times. So are they gonna play this kind of hardball with her? I hope not. But they can’t access it without her cooperation.

Barb (1:08:52)
Yeah, well, I wonder about that. ⁓ You know, if she’s got a phone that’s passcode protected, there’s differences about whether it’s biometrics, like if your face or your thumb opens it, versus whether it’s password protected, which gets Fifth Amendment protection. So that’s a really interesting legal question.

Kim (1:09:11)
Yeah,

it’s interesting. Actually, journalists have been advised to not do facial recognition. It would still be an illegal search if they put the phone up to the face without consent. That’s not consent, right? you’ll have to fight that in court. It’s possible. It’s possible. for that very reason, I think in general, no matter who you are these days, just what’s going on,

Barb (1:09:28)
Warrant. They might be looking at…

Kim (1:09:40)
Take face recognition off, put your code in, because it really opens up some, it at least can allow for some nefarious, even if not illegal ⁓ practices that can go against you.

Barb (1:09:55)
And this is such a great tidbit. teach this to my criminal procedure students who are sometimes stunned at the difference because it seems like it should be the same, right? But the law is that you can’t be compelled to be a witness against yourself. And that includes the content of your mind.

Kim (1:10:10)
Your face is around in the world. Yes, exactly. So that’s not protected.

Barb (1:10:14)
So dear listeners, if you want to protect yourself from ⁓ legal process, a passcode is better than a biometric like your face or a thumbprint. The other thing I will say is if you use Signal or WhatsApp or something like that, I think that you can time them to delete after a week or a day or whatever it is. So even if someone can get into them, think they can be deleted. The messages can be deleted after a certain

short period of time. I imagine journalists are engaging in those sort of best practices. ⁓ But nonetheless, we find ourselves in a place where the administration does not ⁓ give at least the same verbal recognition about the importance of our First Amendment.

2026 is already in full gear. So if any of your resolutions include eating better, saving money, or creating meals that you’re proud to serve, it’s time to upgrade your cookware with hex clad. Ditch those scratched up pans that make cooking frightening and cleanup impossible, and replace them with tools that are as stylish as they are practical. Once you make the switch, confidence in the kitchen comes naturally with how easy it is to cook delicious meals

and have everything ready to go for the next one.

Kim (1:11:42)
You know, I this week made shrimp pasta primavera in my hex clad pan. And Greg was actually shocked at how quick, I did it in like 20 minutes because the pan heats so evenly and you put the ingredients in and you get your, your ingredients in, it gets a nice sauce, it cooks evenly. And with shrimp, it’s so easy to overcook. But with hex clad, it’s so, so easy and quick. So I love my hex clad pans. It really completely changed the way we cook.

Their pans combine the durability of stainless steel, the convenience of nonstick, and the versatility of cast iron, all in one beautiful design. You don’t have to choose between great performance and easy cleanup anymore. You get a real sear, even heat, and when you’re done, it wipes clean and goes into the dishwasher, which is my favorite part. When I first heard the sound of, really, like I was not able to make salmon

with the crispy skin, I tried and tried and tried and couldn’t do it. And when I got the hex clad, I finally was able to do that. And that was such a game changer for me because I really love eating that. So since getting hex clad, I’m never going back. Aren’t they the best choice?

Joyce (1:12:58)
You

know, I wish I knew Kim. Sadly, I don’t because my oldest son was on the verge of getting his first home of his own when mine arrived. And he promptly swooped them up, made off with them. And I am assured that they are great, that they cook really, really well. But I don’t know. I really need to get a set for myself. You know, no matter who uses them, it’s great knowing that their oven’s safe up to 900 degrees. My oven doesn’t go quite that high. And the state-cooled stainless steel handles.

make it so that they’re safe and easy to cook with. know, Robert tells me that after experiencing them in the kitchen, he can tell why Gordon Ramsay cooks with hex cloud at home and in his restaurants. And thanks to their lifetime warranty, this is truly the last set of pans that he will ever have to buy now that he’s taken mine away from me.

Jill (1:13:49)
You know, I love that story. And I have to tell you that my husband actually used one of our hex clad pans last night to sear a steak. And then he took our sharpest knife and cut it in the pan. To my horror, said, you can’t do that. You’ll ruin the pan. And I swear to you, I have studied that pan and he didn’t even scratch the surface. It is still washes away. It looks perfect.

It’s, don’t recommend anybody else do that. informed him he was never to use a knife in the pan again, but the steak really came out well. And no matter how much you use or abuse them, they always manage to look brand new. It’s no surprise Hexclad has over 1 million customers and over 50,000 five-star reviews, including ours. So don’t wait. Take back your kitchen with a new mantra. New Year.

new you, new cookware. And for a limited time only, our listeners get 10 % off their order with our exclusive link. Just head to hexclad.com slash sisters. Support our show and check them out at H-E-X-C-L-A-D.com slash sisters. Make sure to let them know we sent you and bon appetit. Let’s eat with Hexclad’s revolutionary cookware. The link is in our show notes.

Joyce (1:15:27)
So y’all, guess what part of the podcast it is? Does everybody know? I mean, it’s our favorite part. Absolutely. Questions. And this week, I have to say to our listeners, your questions were more important than ever. There was so much news to cover that three segments really didn’t do it all. And your questions did a great job of letting us know just how aware you are of everything that’s going on and how insightful the questions are.

So if you’ve got questions for us, please email us at sistersinlawatpoliticon.com or you can tag us on social media using hashtag SistersInLaw. But when we don’t get to your questions during the show, if you’ll keep an eye on your feeds during the week, we try to sneak in and answer as we can throughout the week. We try to get to as many of your questions as they can because they’re smart ones, they’re good ones, and it’s essential for all of us to help each other stay educated at this point.

Barb, I think the first question this week is for you. It’s from Kathy in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and it’s a great question. She says, how will people assigned to the Renee Good case be able to determine which photos and videos are legit and which might be altered by AI?

Barb (1:16:39)
⁓ that’s such a good question. Now, when it comes to stuff that you find on social media, I think that it is wise to always be skeptical as to whether what you are seeing is accurate or has been altered. But when investigators are looking at material and thinking about evidence in a case, they will look for authentication and a chain of custody. So for example,

There’s been video from a body camera. They will get that body camera. They will look at the actual footage that’s on the camera, not something that’s been posted online. There are also some other images from ⁓ individuals who had their cell phones. They’ll go take it off the phone, the recording. They won’t look at what got uploaded to social media or a newspaper.

There’s even a shot that’s from some distance, and I don’t know what that one comes from, but it looks like some stationary camera that is ⁓ positioned some distance away. So they’ll authenticate it. And then at trial, a witness would actually testify about where they got it and whether that accurately reflected what they observed at the time. So the witness who was videotaping it with their camera, they’ll say, does this fairly and accurately reflect?

what you saw that day. Yes, it does. So I think those are some things that are there that can help safeguard. But you are right that as we enter this brave new world of AI, I think that we’re going to have to do ⁓ more work to authenticate photos and videos and other things so that jurors are satisfied that what they’re seeing is authentic.

Joyce (1:18:21)
So that’s a fascinating question that’ll, I think, linger and have sort of legs in many other cases moving forward because of the predominance of AI these days. Kim, a different sort of question for you about the same case, and this is one that I think is really interesting. Most people have by now seen the video and heard the utterance that takes place.

after Renee Good has been shot. Many people have attributed it to the ICE agent Ross. So this question comes to you from Erin in Idaho. And she asks a very sophisticated legal question. What is a spontaneous utterance and would ICE agent Ross’s profanity be an example? How might it impact the charges, trial and jury?

Kim (1:19:12)
This is a great question. It does show a sophistication. It also touches my procedure-loving heart ⁓ because it deals with a rule of evidence. So every state and federal law all have rules of evidence about what can and cannot be admitted in trial, both criminal and civil. And one rule of evidence that a lot of people are familiar with from watching Law & Order or

know, Perry Mason or whatever, is the rule of hearsay. Basically, if you hear, if someone else heard something someone else said, the fact that they heard it cannot be admitted to prove the truth of what was said, unless they saw something with their own eyes. If I said to Jill, Frank stole that apple.

Jill can’t testify that Frank stole the apple because she only heard it from me. And you can’t admit that as evidence that Frank actually stole the apple. But there are exceptions to the hearsay rule. And that’s what a spontaneous utterance is. That is somebody exclaims something like after seeing it or based on some sort of situational that you can tell that they did not think it through. They did not plan and strategize what they were saying.

you see something explode and you go, my gosh, that’s a spontaneous utterance. And so after ⁓ agent Ross shot Renee Good, it can be heard on video him calling her a profane name. But in this case, that wouldn’t, you wouldn’t even need a rule of evidence because that evidence would be admitted not to prove the truth of what he said.

it would be admitted for other things such as showing his state of mind. And then that would not violate the hearsay rule. wouldn’t be hearsay at all. It would be evidence to something else. the fact that you asked this question is a good one. It’s all but certain that that would be admitted into evidence because it is something that goes to his state of mind, perhaps his intent in that. It’s not proving what he said is true or false.

Joyce (1:21:26)
Thanks

Barb (1:21:27)
I knew Frank stole the apple.

Joyce (1:21:32)
Okay, last question is for you, Jill. Same situation, but this time it’s a question about civil cases and it comes from Anil and Craig. Is there a strong case for Renee Good’s family to receive a civil settlement? Would the officer pay ICE or does it fall on the entire government taxpayer? And this of course goes to the core of the dispute over qualified immunity. So it’s a great question for us to take up.

Jill (1:21:58)
It is, and I love that our listeners are still interested in last week’s news, despite the horrors of this week’s ⁓ And the answer is that you can file a civil lawsuit against a federal employee, like an ICE agent. ⁓ You have to file the claim within two years, and there’s a standard form. And in that, you have to prove that your injury, in this case, death, resulted from

an officer’s negligence or wrongful act or intentional tort. Those are essential, ⁓ that it be one of those. Then if your claim is denied, you get to sue under the Federal Tort Claim Act because normally there is sovereign immunity and you can’t sue the federal government. But under the Federal Tort Claim Act, you can. And let’s look at some past history. ⁓ George Floyd collected

$27 million from the city of Minneapolis. He was not a federal employee, so he didn’t have the federal, ⁓ according to JD Vance, absolute immunity, which he does not have. He does not have absolute immunity. If you can show that he acted wrongfully, not within the scope of his ⁓ job, then you can go after. The damages in George Floyd’s case were paid by the city.

not by the ⁓ officer who kept his knee on his neck, but that officer, Derek Chauvin, ended up in jail. And the same thing is true, you we mentioned in this ⁓ episode, Rodney King, he got 3.8 million from Los Angeles for his injuries and medical bills, even though the officers were acquitted of the crimes that they were charged with.

⁓ It makes it harder if you’re not convicted of a crime. And in this case, there’s no way that the federal government is going to sue ⁓ Agent Ross. So there probably won’t be a criminal conviction. But the city of Minneapolis and the state of Minnesota may bring criminal charges against him. And there’s a lot of debate now about whether they can or can’t. So I think there is a good chance that particularly we were talking about the videos and

I don’t know if you all saw, but the New York Times just released a multiple view ⁓ simultaneously showing from different viewpoints. And it is so clear to me that the agent, ⁓ Agent Ross, put himself in danger by walking in front of the car, but that he was well past any danger when he shot the first shot and he was far enough away that he was not hurt. You can see him clearly walking away despite the government now saying,

Well, previously saying that she ran him over, that he was lucky to be alive, that he was in the hospital recovering, when in fact he walked away from the episode. And as Kim just referenced, using an obscenity to refer to her as he walked away and her car was out of control and crashed. They’re now saying that he suffered internal bleeding and had to go to the hospital. There is no evidence of that.

We’ll have to wait and see if they produce some evidence of that.

Joyce (1:25:25)
You know, this video compilation is so good that it makes me wonder if they’ve got some retired FBI guys from the team that enhanced video doing the work because this points to something, Jill, that I think is so important. know, something I learned doing excessive force cases is it’s great if you’ve got one video, but you don’t decide the case based on one video. You’ve got to get it from as many angles as possible. And also sometimes there can be a difference if you’re close in or if you’re further out.

It might look like an officer is engaging in misconduct if you’re very close in. Sometimes when you pull further back, you can see circumstances that justify it. Here, this video compilation is very intriguing. And something else that it points out is what a dangerous world we’re in, where it’s news organizations doing this and not the FBI doing an authoritative version.

Lots of different feelings about that one, but I know that this isn’t the last time that we’ll talk about that case. Thanks to all of you for listening to Hashtag Sisters-in-Law with Barb McQuade, Jill Winebanks, Kimberly Atkins Storr, and me, Joyce Vance. Follow Hashtag Sisters-in-Law wherever you listen, and please give us a five-star review. It really helps others find the show. Don’t forget, there’s still time to ring in 2026.

with some of your favorite Hashtag Sisters-in-Law merch and other goodies at politicon.com slash merch. And please show some love to this week’s sponsors, Wild Grain, Honey Love, Smalls, Delete Me, and Hexclad. The links are in the show notes. Please support them both because we love them and also because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode, Hashtag Sisters-in-Law.

Jill (1:27:15)
Well, what I want is actually someone saying it.

Joyce (1:27:18)
You are looking at Julian’s pronunciation guide where we look at how to pronounce better some of the most mispronounced words we are looking at how to pronounce. Exciting. word for a mood of coziness and comfortable conviviality. How do you say it? Hooger. Hooger. Hooger. What? Hooger.

Barb (1:27:27)
It it sound very-

Hahaha! ⁓

Kim (1:27:47)
Jill, you’re gonna have to clean your cookies after this!

Barb (1:27:52)
Ooga! ⁓

Joyce (1:27:54)
It’s real!