Weaponized: Abortion Pills, ICE Raids and the Cassidy Hutchinson Investigation

Barb (00:12)
Welcome back to #SistersInLaw with Jill Wine-Banks, Joyce Vance, Kimberly Atkins Stohr and me, Barb McQuade. In today’s show, we’ll discuss legal challenges to abortion drugs, more ICE incidents, and a reported criminal investigation into Cassidy Hutchinson. But first sisters, good to see you all. We’re all together again. Feels like the first time in a long time, and I am sick as a dog. Do you guys, I don’t know if you can hear it in my voice, but

Any any good like home remedies you have or or comforts you use when when you’ve got a bad cold? ‘Cause I I’m I’m looking for some help.

Joyce (00:49)
Well look, Barb, I’ll hop on a plane and come up and make you Jewish girl chicken soup. And it’s funny. I was just talking with this this morning about another woman lawyer who I won’t embarrass by explaining that we had this conversation. But you know, it’s what we do and I mean I like do it with the chickens and the bones and I put that in the pot with

Barb (01:11)
I’m sorry, the chickens. The chickens don’t know.

Joyce (01:14)
Not not my chickens. Chickens that come up from the grocery store. But I do. I get a whole chicken. Like I use the back and the neck. sometimes I’d I’ll be cooking chicken soup with a chicken under my arm, but that might be too much information. no, you know, this is good stuff because you strain the broth at the end, and I have these big oversized ice cube trays, and so I freeze it in like ice blocks. But you can pull it out. Yeah, you can pull it out as you need it.

And then you only have to make a batch once every couple of months. It’s magic. My grandma used to call it Jewish penicillin and it really works. Do you want me to come? Yep.

Barb (01:53)
I I’ll see you I’ll see you this evening.

Joyce (01:55)
I’m game, I’ve gotta fly through Detroit to get just about anywhere these days.

Barb (01:59)
I’ll meet you at the airport. It sounds pretty

Kim (02:01)
Sounds delicious, but I’m wondering if like your chickens have an eighth amendment claim.

Joyce (02:07)
You

know, it’s really sad. I’m gonna I’m gonna burst a lot of bubbles right now and just say that chickens are carnivores and they will eat anything including their own kind. It’s a little too much information, right?

Jill (02:20)
It is, but you are right about the chicken soup. You are absolutely right, Joyce. It is penicillin, and that’s what you need for sure. I don’t know that I could fly there to make it for you, but I certainly can arrange for a caterer to deliver it. And it’s probably the best thing. But I also like some of the individual remedies. I treat the symptoms. So I don’t take general medicines. I’ll treat if I have

Congestion I’ll just use a decongestion. If I have a sore throat I take a lozenge. So I that’s my advice. But in general I also take a lot of vitamin C at this season and I take coldies when I feel symptoms coming. And it seems to really shorten

Barb (03:04)
I use airborne. Our friend Carmen Ortiz turned me on to airborne. I think just like a big a big super potent dose of vitamin C. I’ve been I’ve been popping those.

Jill (03:13)
Yeah, that’s

what I use for vitamin C, but there’s also a thing called cold ease. And it’s little tablets that you take or like candies you suck on. And it seems to shorten the duration of a cold. I recommend that. All right. And they’re not a paid advertiser, but I’m recommending it anyway.

Barb (03:30)
I got my chicken soup and I’ve got I’ve heard can I you you had me at candy. How about you, Kim? You got any you got any things for me?

Kim (03:38)
So yes, while I normally am, you know, I’m a believer in science and fact and things that work, and it’s proven that there are, I don’t know what it is in chicken, but that actually does clear congestion. and that is proven that’s why chicken soup works, and I’m all for that. But I’m also for sticking with the home remedies that I’ve done since I was a kid, you know, that my family parents told me to do and their parents told them to do, and it works. And for me, when I get a cold.

I sweat it out, which means that when I go to bed, I put on like full length pajamas. I get in bed. I get a blanket. I put a blanket on top of that. And I, you know, tell my husband to stay away. I’m sweating this cold out and I sweat out the cold. And I swear that it shortens the duration. I’m sure there’s zero factual scientific basis behind this, but it’s an old wives’ tale that we’re telling me, listener, is anybody besides me?

Sweat out their colds, ’cause it it can’t just be me and my family. It has to be this has to be a real thing. I’m guessing it came from the south.

Joyce (04:39)
I mean, you know, Kim, th there’s use of saunas, right? Saunas are supposed to be really great for this. So I think it’s the same thing and there’s a lot of evidence from Scandinavia that it

Barb (04:49)
You’ll

find me in a spa later tonight in the sauna eating my chicken soup and sucking my coldies. So thank you. Thank you all for for the good advice.

There’s probably one or more tasks on your list you constantly push to next week because they’re just so tedious. For many business owners, another word for that is having to do payroll. Gusto is here to take that entirely off your plate so it becomes the easy part of your job instead of a dreaded one. Unfortunately, manually running payroll and filling out HR forms can take up more of your time than the stuff you actually get paid to do. And whether it’s a law firm or a podcast,

You want to focus on the cases, the show, the client management, instead of the busy work that takes your focus off your mission. That’s why we wanted to tell you about Gusto. It’s perfect for anyone who wants to take charge of their operation, and I know that in addition to my sisters, many small businesses would benefit.

Kim (05:56)
Gusto is online payroll and benefit software built for small businesses. It’s all in one, remote friendly and incredibly easy to use. So you can pay, hire, onboard, and support your team from anywhere. If you’ve ever had one of those days where filling out forms and handling logistics burned out all your time, Gusto is for you.

Speaking from experience, it can take up so much of your energy when all you want to do is focus on the work you actually enjoy.

Joyce (06:27)
Now the process of running a business is so much easier and more efficient thanks to Gusto. Imagine how much simpler your workload will be when you’re saving time with built-in automated tools that handle offer letters, onboarding docs, direct deposit, and more. It’s so easy to enter a flow state when you know you’re taking care of the things that actually matter. But there’s more. With Gusto, you can even get direct access to certified HR experts.

To help support you through any tough HR situations.

Jill (06:58)
And using Gusto can save you so much time, money, and worry. Best of all, it’s quick and simple to switch to Gusto. Just transfer your existing data to get up and running fast. Plus, you don’t pay a cent until you run your first payroll. Join them and start optimizing your business. Try Gusto today at gusto.com slash sisters and get three months free when you run your first payroll. That’s three months of free payroll at

G U S T O dot com slash sisters. One more time, gusto dot com slash sisters, and the link is also in our show notes.

Today I want to talk about something that really is bothering me. After Dobbs, a lot of states, about half of all of our states, passed laws that were almost total bans on abortions. And I attended a lunch yesterday of the Illinois Personal PAC and heard about the consequences of those bans and learned more about a lawsuit, or actually two lawsuits that have now been filed.

That I think are worth our delving into. I I wanna get into those and find out about what you think is happening in these lawsuits. One of the cases was filed in federal court in Louisiana by three southern states: Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas. And they are the plaintiffs in both cases. The other was a direct filing at the Supreme Court, and they are challenging.

the the the laws of those states that provide shields to providers of abortion services in their states where it is legal. And they they are worth talking about. So Kim, let’s talk about the allegations first in the federal case filed in Louisiana. and that case was filed just this last week. Tell us what the complaint is, what are the grounds for the charges?

Kim (09:11)
Yeah, this is a complaint brought by Louisiana and Alabama.

Joyce (09:17)
Hi.

Jill (09:18)
Thanks, Joyce.

Kim (09:22)
And they are essentially alleging a couple of causes of action. One is that they are claiming that prescribing drugs out from outside of the state that land inside of the state, abortion drugs, amount to a violation of common law public nuisance protection. Now just to

To get a sense for people who may not be lawyers and understand what public nuisance claims usually come out of, it’s usually if there’s a situation, say, that you have a factory, and it doesn’t even have to be in your state, it could be outside of your state. But if it’s emitting pollution that is having an impact in a community, that the that community, that city, that town, that county,

or the people in it can file a claim claiming that what that company is doing amounts to a public nuisance. They are putting stuff in the air that’s affecting people. It can happen if you are polluting waterways. It could even happen if it’s unusually noisy. So we talk a lot about these data centers. I would imagine that there are a lot of lawsuits filed against these data centers saying they amount to a public nuisance because of the noise they make or because of the light pollution they may cause. That’s usually a public nuisance law.

not prescribing an FDA approved drug in the proper way, dispensed in the proper way and and and mailed out. there’s another there is another violation of unfair trade practices saying that somehow the issuance, the pr prescription of this is violating trade practices. Again, there’s nothing that I’ve seen in FTC or state trade

regulations that prohibit the prescribing of FDA approved drugs. But the one that really gets me is they’re claiming consumer protection statute violations. They’re there’s state consumer protection laws in Arkansas and Alabama and saying that they are violating those laws. Now, when I was a civil attorney, there is no cause of action that I use more when I filed lawsuits.

in my practice than violation of the consumer practice statute. It there it was the Massachusetts con consumer statute. 93A for you Massachusetts attorneys. most of the claims that I filed had to do with that. And that was usually in cases where a company claimed that they would deliver on some sort of promise, but by and large they did not do that. It was in cases where

Companies may be distributing a product that was proven to be ineffective or making claims about something that didn’t really amount to that. it was, I mean, it was things that were in the course of conducting business, you did something that was wrong or shady or nefarious in the conducting of that business that ended up hurting consumers. And states attorneys general use this

la use this statute a lot to do that. That does not amount to, again, not amount to prescribing a drug that has been FDA approved for decades, that has been proven safe, that is nothing wrong with it. You just don’t like it. You I could not file a ninety three A claim saying, you know what, what that company’s doing, I just don’t like it. I wouldn’t do it. That’s not a cause of action. I get thrown out in court. and which I’m hoping it’s what happens with these two. But in a nutshell, what

really this is all about is just to try to end run. They can’t stop what other states are doing. They don’t like it. So they’re trying to regulate the actions of other states, which last time I looked, we haven’t gotten to the SCOTUS case yet, is not something that the Supreme Court justice, justices look very highly upon, not even the conservatives. So I just find this all to be a bad faith, nefarious way to end run the legal protections that remain for abortion access.

Jill (13:46)
And also to impose their law on the states that have legitimized all of this.

Kim (13:52)
Exactly.

Jill (13:52)
So but you you raise a good thing and I wanna ask Joyce about that Supreme Court case, because usually you can’t go to the Supreme Court if you haven’t had a trial and an appeal at the intermediate court of appeals. But here they filed a direct claim at the Supreme Court. So tell us one, how they get to do that and two, what they’re claiming at the Supreme Court. What’s their their grounds for complaining?

Joyce (14:15)
Right. So this is a fun little piece of Jeopardy trivia to understand. the Supreme Court actually has some original jurisdiction where they act like a trial court. It’s very narrow and limited. We’ve seen it for instance, also involving Alabama in some of the water wars between different states in the Southeast. but here the case gets filed directly in the Supreme Court because it’s a controversy between states.

between states, much like the water wars, and that jurisdiction is established under I’ve got to read the statute because I don’t know it by heart, but it’s Article three, Section Two of the Constitution. There’s also one of the jurisdictional statutes, twenty eight USC twelve fifty one A, that provides for it. And it’s important to understand that this is both constitutional and statutorily crafted and long established that the court can hear these primary disputes between states. The thinking is

No district court sitting in one or the other of those states should take on the burden of handling those disputes. It might even give rise to an appearance of impropriety. So they go straight to the Supreme Court, which can act like a trial court if it wants to, because it’s up to the court to determine whether or not it wants to hear these disputes. I don’t believe it’s made that jer that determination yet here, at least it had not when I looked at this earlier today.

So it sets up a really interesting situation. This is much like what Kim was explaining. Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, they’re arguing that the other states are interfering with them, that they have established laws that make it impossible for the plaintiff states to enforce their own laws and that that’s interference with their sovereign authority. and they really object to out-of-state abortion providers who send drugs.

Into their states. You know, this takes us back to the Comstock Act, which we talked about a lot during the MiFAPristone litigation, where there’s this hundred-old, completely nutty statute that prohibits the mailing not only of equipment used for abortions or birth control, but even of information about birth control. So for instance, you just couldn’t put information about birth control into the mail if the Comstock Act came back into forth.

And as crazy as it sounds, there was some conversation around the Project 2025 topics and early on in the history of this Justice Department that seems to have backed off. We have not really heard about that lately. But I think that these lawsuits have the potential to re-up that issue. So the claims that are being made here, they rest on principles of state sovereignty and federalism, the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause.

And then of course the contention that facilitating the distribution of abortion medication is a public nuisance. Kim did such a great job of putting that one to rest, and I wanna adopt all of her comments. This is just not a public nuisance.

Jill (17:21)
So I have some questions for you because a as I was reading this case and what the allegations were, I honestly don’t think I’d ever heard of the dormant commerce clause. Yeah. and so that they I did some research and it seemed to me that the argument they’re making is that they contend that shipping these prescription drugs across state boundaries creates a public nuisance and interferes with lawful commerce. I I don’t see how I it seems to me that

The objection is what’s interfering with commerce, that they’re stopping commerce from happening if they if the three states that have been sued can’t ship things. So isn’t it like a the wrong argument to be making? What do you think?

Joyce (18:07)
mean it’s really interesting because it depends on what side of the debate you’re on. These arguments can be made from both sides, right? I mean New York can say you’re interfering with us. Alabama can say you’re interfering with us. The problem with dormant commerce clause is, bless its heart, may it remain dormant. It’s whatever you want it to be. And in the hands of this Supreme Court in this particular context, I think the plaintiff states

are taking a gamble that they might be able to persuade the court. I mean, this argument at first glance is nutty and you sort of read it and think, why did they bother to raise this? Their other two arguments are better. This diminishes their credibility. But this is the Roberts Supreme Court and so we should all be, you know, we should all be concerned about what might happen here.

Kim (18:53)
But

you know who do you know who can’t stand the dormant commerce clause? Clarence.

Joyce (18:57)
Really tell us what

Kim (19:00)
He just says it doesn’t exist. Like there’s he does not like reading things into the constitution and I will say he stays pretty you know, he stays pretty consistent with that and he has been like just openly adverse to torment commerce clause claims. So

Joyce (19:16)
You

gotta give him the consistency, right? There’s no pen number of individual rights that would lead to abortion, but he also doesn’t believe in dormant commerce clause.

Barb (19:25)
But I agree with Jill on this one because what the dormant commerce clause says, this is going back to like first year of law school, is that states cannot pass legislation that discriminates or excessively burdens interstate commerce. And so, you know, if they’re passing legislation that says you can’t send these drugs into our state, it seems like they’re the ones who are violating the dormant commerce clause, right? So

Jill (19:48)
I I’m I’m for that argument. I I was more concerned honestly about the full faith and credit argument where under the Constitution every state has to give full faith and credit to the laws or the judgments of another state. a judgments as in court decisions. And so that made me a little concerned that that that could be something good. But they’re challenging basically the SHIELD laws. And we have Shield laws not just

for the doctors and providers of abortion, but reporters have SHIELD laws and rape victims have shield laws. You can’t question a rape victim about what she was wearing or her prior sexual conduct. So I I mean the the shield laws are something that really are an important part of our litigation system. So Barb, let’s talk more about the nuisance. Kim talked a lot about what normally it is

It’s historically been used in cases of like water pollution and environmental damage, societal harms like tobacco was another use. But how does prescribing a safe, long approved drug by the federal government fit into that framework? What what possible argument are they making that or is it just such nonsense we should forget about it?

Barb (21:10)
I think there’s a legal argument here. Now, you know, you’re right in that most of these things are things that are inherently dangerous, like tobacco or pollution or opioids. even social media sometimes has been challenged on the basis of a public nuisance, a thing that is, you know, inherently dangerous or illegal, and it is preventing me from enjoying my rights. You know, the the loud music means I can’t get a good night’s sleep because my neighbor blasts the music, right? That is a public nuisance.

And so I think as I hear Kim’s argument, which makes some sense to me, this is an FDA-approved drug, so how can it possibly be a nuisance? But to the extent that my state bans abortion and this drug enables abortion, then this is a thing that is being sent into my state and causing harm to public safety. If I think it is in the public good to stop all abortions, then states are sending this this drug in that is allowing it. You know, imagine a state that prohibits marijuana.

And another state that permits it. So, you know, say Michigan, we pr permit recreational marijuana and I’m shipping it into Ohio. Can’t Ohio stop that shipment of marijuana? And you might say, well, it’s inherently dangerous. Well, is it or isn’t it? And who gets to decide? And you would say the state sovereign gets to decide that thing. So I think this is a novel issue. this idea of full faith and credit also says we should respect the laws of other states. But I think where this gets difficult is we’ve got a face-off. We’ve got

Two laws that deserve full faith and credit. On the one hand is the law of the state that says we don’t do abortions in our state. and other states should respect that by not sending these drugs in. On the other hand, we’ve also got these shield laws that says if a doctor does this thing, they are protected from criminal prosecution and extradition and and the like. So which of these two in the face-off will prevail? And that’s why I think this case is probably destined.

for higher courts just to resolve this conflict between, you know, two it you know, I know we all we all we we all disagree with the goal here of preventing Mifepristone from getting in the hands of people in states, but if you are looking at the issue of state sovereignty and states after Dobbs, it’s fair game to have bans on abortion, then the real question is, can one state override the policies and laws of another?

Kim (23:33)
Can I just make one point on that though? And that Barb is absolutely right in everything that she said. But there’s still the fact that you have to make your case. And for a nuisance claim, you can’t just say, I don’t like this thing. I don’t like the fact that pollution’s coming into my town. You have to show the damage that this pollution is doing. You can’t just say, you know, I don’t, I don’t like this thing bugs me. You have to actually show for a court to be able to act, it has to be able to grant some sort of real relief.

to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have to show actual injury to even bring the case. With miphopristone, I think that the statement of the case is something like, well, if you let miphopristone into our state, then it’s our doctors that have to respond in the situation of an emergency if something goes wrong. That is so tangential and that courts have found that to be such a tangential non injury that doctors who have tried to challenge these laws

have failed in court because they don’t have standing because they can’t show any cognizable re If in the future at some point you suddenly there’s all these ER cases in Tennessee of or or in Louisiana of people who have taken Miphoprist, then maybe. But they don’t they’re not showing any actual damages here. So I I just think that this is this is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Barb (24:54)
Could could the argument be a different one? And that is we have banned abortion in our state, and yet last year, you know, seventy seven thousand abortions occurred in our state. And it’s because of this nuisance, this drug that is coming in. And we think that abortion is the loss of human life, and we think it’s bad whenever there is an abortion and that harm

Kim (25:14)
Yeah,

but that’s a policy.

Joyce (25:15)
That

that does not work for the reasons that Kim is articulating.

Kim (25:19)
That’s pol that’s a political decision.

Barb (25:23)
Legal,

it’s enough if it’s illegal.

Joyce (25:25)
It it’s but public nuisance really t has traditionally required an unreasonable interference with a right that’s common to the public, like public health. And so, you know, as Kim is speaking, I’m thinking I feel like we’re in the middle of a South Park episode. I can’t do an imitation of Mr. Mackey. But it’s like abortion’s bad, okay? And that’s really I I hear the argument that you’re making. I think that they’ll make that argument, Barb, but I think it trends into

We don’t like this, so it’s a nuisance. And well, there are a lot of things that I don’t like that that could become a nuisance. For instance, I don’t really like it. I was gonna use cigarette smoke, but I guess that one’s come and gone. But take your pick. You know, I don’t like it when people drink pink lemonade in front of me. pink lemonade’s not

Kim (26:14)
When I lived in Virginia.

Barb (26:17)
Couldn’t shoot.

Joyce (26:18)
Yeah. I mean, there are all these things so so I hear what you’re saying, I think that they will make that argument, but based on how public nuisance has traditionally worked, it shouldn’t be a a tenable argument.

Jill (26:30)
Yeah, and you know, they have argued a a lot of things, including analogizing it to well, if if they were shipping fentanyl in, we could certainly ban that. And the thing is, fentanyl is a dangerous illegal drug and the mipoprestone is a safe, effective, long approved, legitimate drug. And

Barb (26:53)
You think abortion is murder?

Jill (26:55)
Well that’s that’s

Joyce (26:57)
But

this is not about abortion, right right? This is about Miphapristone. Right. And you have to separate the two to have a a s really a successful public nuisance and

Jill (27:08)
This

is a way of them avoiding punishing the women who use it. And you mentioned statistics. Let me just say you you were guessing pretty correctly. Despite all these bans, since the bans in the in 2025, there were ninety-one thousand abortions via telehealth to patients residing in the three states that are suing. And that’s up from 74,000 the year before. So they put in these strict bans and

Abortions are actually going up. Ninety one thousand in those three states. Right. And you would be depriving and and honestly, at this personal pack lunch, the consequences of forcing people to have unwanted births. and dangerous. I mean, people are, we know, dying in their car outside the emergency room because doctors won’t treat them. And there are serious consequences to this. So I think we have to really look at this.

And I hope no attorneys general from those three states are listening to you, Barb, because you’re making a better argument

Barb (28:08)
No,

no, they’ve already filed the brand

Kim (28:11)
I just want to make one last point. Because Barb is making good points. Barb is making points though that have already been made and failed in court. Like that’s why they’re bringing public nuisance and violating consumer protection statutes and all these other nonsense claims now is because when they made these claims that basically said, no, abortion is illegal here. We don’t want it to be happening. We don’t want these pills to come in. They either lost on standing or they lost on the merits. So they can’t

They couldn’t do it this way. So that’s why they couldn’t do it that way. They tried it. So that’s why they’re trying to do this in run now. That’s even worse than the first one. But you know, you have these attorney gen the attorneys general and these parties, the GOP parties, who are heavily funded by anti-abortion groups and who had told them you need to do something. They, you know, they are heavy, heavy donors in these states and they keep pushing them to do something. And that’s why you’re seeing this kind of suit.

come up in any way possible in any sort of Frankenstein form. So I think really the takeaway of this is politically there’s always going to be an appetite to try to use the courts to block abortion access, even in states where they’ve done everything they possibly could do legally and legislatively to stop it. They’re going to try to plug up any potential hole in that so long as you have donors like pro abortion organizations demanding that they do it and or you have lawmakers who want to keep that

portion of their of their base happy. So I think that’s really what the I mean, g it is important that we parse the legalities of this, but we also have to look at this in terms of the real world and what is actually going on here.

Jill (29:51)
The helpful thing is that the Supreme Court last May did rule in another case brought by Louisiana in favor of nationwide access to the abortion pill Mifepristone. it’s still permitted while the case is pending, and I’m hoping that that is some grounds for hope that they will also view this case in a similar light of making it available.

Joyce (30:16)
Jill, I adore you, but you’re way more optimistic than I am on this one. And you know, I think what Kim is saying about interests that are pushing these state AGs on the abortion issue, the goal here is not to make abortion illegal and unavailable in Alabama and Arkansas and Louisiana, because it largely already is. The goal is to put a nationwide ban on abortion in place.

And Mifopristone, I I forget the numbers now. Is it about sixty, seventy percent of abortions nationwide or medication abortion? So what they’re really trying to do is knock out MiPhopristone. And of course we all remember, you know, the Supreme Court case you’re referring to, the one where the court held that the plaintiff doctors didn’t have standing because they were too tangentially related. But this case is coming back, maybe in the form that we see in front of us.

And look, I think we should never conflate arguments that we don’t like, ’cause I don’t like these arguments, with bad lawyers. These guys are good lawyers. Alabama’s attorney general is an exceptionally fine lawyer. I would look for him to to do the best that he can with these arguments. And so we need to all take this seriously.

Barb (31:26)
And we’ve got a Supreme Court with an appetite for limiting abortion wherever they can. So

The holidays are coming up and that means hosting friends and family. Sometimes things stay calm, but with kids, pets, and hordes of people coming in, it can lead to a little chaos. We’ve all looked up from tending to our guests to find that cranberry sauce spill, heavy traffic, or dirty shoes have taken out a beloved rug. As a result, we end up either babying a nice rug all season or not bothering to have one out there during the holidays at all. Instead, you want a great rug and

That can transform your entire space. One with style, a beautiful design, and ready for anything a lived-in home can throw at it. Unfortunately, a lot of the overpriced stuff out there can’t handle the wear and tear of daily use. And the cheap options might be washable, but they’re basically temporary. You need a rug that looks fantastic and can still survive whatever the season brings. With tumble rugs, you can finally have both.

Joyce (32:39)
Tumble rugs look like beautiful designer rugs, but they’re actually built for real life, not a museum. We’ve all had rugs that are too delicate and a nightmare to clean, but spills, muddy paws, and accidents are a part of life. That’s why Tumble makes everything spillproof and machine washable. So hunched over scrubbing is a thing of the past. Instead of relying on elbow grease and a flexible back, you can let the washer take care of it. Even the largest ones are machine ready.

Plus their proprietary spill proof surface causes liquids to beat up on top of the rug so that you can wipe them up in seconds. I’m still surprised by that every time.

Kim (33:19)
Finding a fashionable rug with an in-house design that suits your personality and the space puts the f perfect finishing touch on any room. I love how fantastic tumble rugs look. right now I love the Amara light blue in ivory that’s in our kitchen. The hand illustrated patterns are mesmerizing, and it’s such a classic.

modern fit for the space. You’ll love exploring all of the styles and they’re perfect for living rooms, kitchens, entryways, hallways, even kids’ rooms. Basically anywhere life gets messy this time of year. And thanks to Tumble’s cushion non-slip rug pad that tucks into hidden corner pockets underneath it, everything stays securely in place and doesn’t slide around. No velcro, no fuss. And not only that, all tumble rugs are

O E K O Tech certified with non toxic materials so they’re safe for your animals and your little ones. I I especially appreciate tumble rugs this time of year when there’s pollen because that gets into your house and if you can wash that out, that is really, really helpful.

Jill (34:28)
And I love your selection of style. It’s the same one that I have in my kitchen. So but you don’t have to just take our word for how great tumble rugs are. Hundreds of thousands of other homes have already switched to tumble rugs, and they have over thirty thousand five star reviews, including ours. They make an amazing holiday gift for the people you know with kids, pets, or who just made a big move. So don’t wait. Get machine washable rugs made better.

For a limited time only, our listeners get ten percent off plus free shipping at tumble living dot com slash sisters. That’s T U B L E Living dot com slash sisters. After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them our show sent you. The link is in our show notes.

Barb (35:30)
The internet is still the Wild West, and it’s full of stalkers, scammers, and hackers. You know you should protect yourself, but how? It’s easier than you think. Here’s what you do. Go to www.joindeleteme dot com slash sisters and enter code SISTERS get twenty percent off DELETEME.

Kim (35:51)
Delete me removes your personal information that can be sold online, which is why you really need to get it. In the age of AI, we’re all especially vulnerable to scammers using your personal data that’s floating around on the internet against you. Have you ever Googled yourself and found your home address, your phone number, or the names of your family members? It’s really unsettling, and there’s a lot worse out there. The good news is Delete Me can help.

Jill (36:18)
Delete Me does all the hard work to wipe your personal information from data brokers’ websites and you can get an individual plan for a little over $8 per month. 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 kids in your family, Delete Me is a must. Once we got started with them, the peace of mind was such a relief.

I trust them to help protect me, my sisters, and my loved ones, and I know that they can help keep you and your family safe too.

Joyce (36:54)
Take control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for DELETEME. Now at a special discount for our listeners, get 20% off your DELETEME plan when you go to joindeleteme.com slash sisters and use promo code Sisters at checkout. The only way to get 20% off is to go to www.joindeleteme.com slash sisters, and then you enter code Sisters at checkout. That’s www.

Dot join delete me dot com slash sisters code sisters The link is in the show notes.

Kim (37:39)
Well, you know, the actions of immigration and customs enforcement may have dropped out of the headlines. We don’t see as much about it anymore, but it has not dropped off in terms of intensity. In fact, there are a lot of communities in which ICE operations are only ramping up under President Trump and his administration. it seems that, you know

ICE agents have not slowed down in violating not only the legal rights of people, but in many cases also common decency. The case this week of a man in New York City being shot in his car while his five-year-old was in the backseat witnessing the whole thing is a prime example of that. But we can do a whole episode on ICE and the intensity that it’s still using in these Draconian immigration

Operations, but I want to parse two specific ways that ICE is still running amok. First, there is an MS Now report that ICE has violated the Posse Comatatis Act. Now, our listeners know what that is. That is the prohibition of the use of military personnel in a law enforcement capacity on US soil. Barb.

Tell us what apparently happened in California and give us your take about that.

Barb (39:06)
Yeah, remember last summer when President Trump was directing that the National Guard be activated to help in immigration enforcement, and Gavin Newsom was opposed and they were going back and forth. But based on an after action report issued by the military, we have now learned about some activity that the National Guard act ac actually was involved with. There was a a law enforcement operation last July in Camarillo, California.

Which is about 50 miles from Los Angeles, and it was at a cannabis farm where there were reportedly lots of undocumented immigrants working. And so to bolster the resources, in addition to border patrol personnel and ICE personnel, National Guardsmen were sent to assist in this operation. And hundreds of people were arrested. In fact, one immigrant died after falling from a roof while trying to flee.

and the reports indicate that the National Guardsmen may have been involved in law enforcement activity, which of course is prohibited by the Posse Comitatas Act. You know, sometimes National Guardsmen are called to sort of keep the peace if there’s civil unrest. They can be brought out to you know, pro protect against wildfires and floods with sandbags, and they can help just sort of you know, be out on the streets to deter criminal behavior.

But what they can’t do is conduct arrests, conduct searches, transport prisoners, and there is some reporting that indicates they did just that. now in a statement, the military denies that they engaged in any law enforcement activity or violated the Posse Comitatus Act. but based on this report, it really suggests that they did just that. You know, I noticed the reporting uses words like suggests. It doesn’t specify exactly what they did, but it sounds like this.

After operation report specifically talks about how, you know, and this is an internal document designed to help them in the future, that there was very little planning, that they were kind of dragged into this without clear assignment of roles, really putting their officers at risk of not really having a clear operational plan. So that’s what the reporting is, and that this may have been in violation of the Posicomitatus Act.

Kim (41:29)
Yeah, and you know, to that last point, Barb, it’s really infuriating to me that you have, National Guard personnel, people who have volunteered to act valiantly in protecting their country, many of them thinking that the operations that they would be on were of the kind that you laid out, but you have some of them just suddenly being deployed to an ICE operation, or so many of them

here in Washington DC walking around looking bored for the better part of a year now, because th you know, away from their families during the holidays and more. I mean, this is just the wastefulness of this in addition to the potential danger that it puts them into, and in and in positions that they didn’t really sign up for is also something that we should remember. But Jill, why is posse comitatis important? Like why why do we I think we

We talk a lot about what the law is and what it calls for, but not enough about the why we have them in the first place. Why is this an important principle to keep?

Jill (42:35)
So, you know, I first became familiar with Possi Comitatis when I was general counsel of the army and had to be alert to any possible violations of laws that affected the military. And barring the military from civilian law enforcement, I mean, folks, just think about how you would feel if your streets were being patrolled by men and women in uniform carrying heavy arms and

The fear that it would engender in you. I if you’ve ever visited a country, mostly they’re not democracies where that happens, although there are countries that are democracies, it’s just a terrifying environment to live in. So it’s just it’s wrong on that level. But it’s also wrong because you do not want to create a force for a single individual, the

President of the United States to be able to deploy randomly to carry out his agenda. If this is okay for them to and let me go back to something Barbara said, which is this after action report. After action reports are really important to analyze what did we do right, what did we do wrong, what could we have done better, how can we do this in the future? And they identified some seriously troubling episodes of lack of planning, lack of direction.

They were called to be involved and then they were canceled, and then at the last minute they were called back. But a and we can post on our website, on our show notes the the actual document. But you know, unless you’re really familiar with the lingo of the military, you’re not gonna be able to read it because acronyms abound and you’d have to be looking up every third word to be able to read it. But basically it is it’s not a hundred percent clear.

whether military vehicles and military personnel detained people and transported them. They were transported apparently in military vehicles, but we don’t know who the driver was. But it seems like they were military from what I read. Because it says we arrived at the same time as ICE agents and the base, they were transported to a naval base.

wasn’t really ready to receive us both simultaneously. So it does sound like they were involved in detaining and transporting immigrants. That can’t be right. It’s wrong. It’s wrong. It’s as wrong as the fear that we all have now that those armed guards are going to be sent to polling places. And that i and we’re setting up a and you know, you mentioned what’s going on in DC, where they’re wandering around doing nothing. And

If that’s okay, then it’s okay to use them anywhere and you’ve enabled the president to act like Kim Jong-un or any other dictator who has a military at his disposal to carry out whatever he wants to to hurt the population. So that’s why it’s wrong. It’s just bad. It’s bad policy and can’t be allowed.

Kim (45:49)
Yeah, as somebody who was screamed at by an armed you know, military person in Tiananmen Square when I took a picture, I guarantee you I concur that that is not the kind of country I want to live in.

Barb (46:01)
Wait

s wait a minute, that big picture with the tank, is that you?

Kim (46:05)
Well, you know, I try to keep a low I try to keep a low key. No. It was not quite that bad, but it was scary, let me tell you. Yeah.

Jill (46:12)
Happened to me in Russia.

Kim (46:14)
And these are the places we’re talking about.

Jill (46:17)
They took my film out and unveiled it. Wow. It was like an old Cold War movie. He grabbed my camera. I took a picture of the wall, the Kremlin wall. And he grabbed my camera and the next thing he knew, he opened it and unveiled the pictures, you know, the film to ruin it. And it had in the beginning of the role, very personal wedding photos of my best friend’s wedding. And I was just devastated. I kept that

Roll with me, tried to get it developed, and it was ruined.

Barb (46:49)
Wait a minute. Were you were you working as a spy, Jill? Just another job we didn’t know about? This microfilm?

Jill (46:55)
That’s one job I haven’t had. No, I I was working for Motorola at the time.

Barb (47:00)
Sure. Waterola. You get it.

Kim (47:02)
So so Joyce, the passe comitatis violations isn’t all that ICE is doing. according to a ProPublica report, they’re also detaining and in some cases allegedly abusing American citizens. Wasn’t it a Justice Kavanaugh who said if Americans confr are confronted with an ICE agent, they have nothing to worry about because even if they’re detained, they’ll promptly be released. Is that what’s happening, Joyce?

Joyce (47:30)
You

know, just leaving aside the even if they’re detained language, which you sort of read that and I don’t know about y’all, but that was better than a triple latte for me. I mean, that woke me bolt upright. You know, I can be detained. look, Propublica is doing unbelievable reporting in this area. And and their report reveals that more than a hundred and seventy American citizens have been detained, at least twenty of them kids.

And one of the reasons we don’t have accurate numbers, and I find this to be astonishing. No, not astonishing. I mean I find it to be par for the course with this administration, but profoundly disturbing is that the government is not tracking these incidents. And what that means is we have an administration that is profoundly unconcerned with violating the civil rights of American citizens. So you can be arrested, people who have been

you know, detained is the polite word for an arrest here. But once you’re not free to go, you’re under arrest, even if it’s briefly. These people have discussed being beaten, being abused, being denied access to family members. You know, this is a full panoply of violation of civil rights. And predictably it’s not folks who look like me who are being detained. it’s, you know, folks who appear to be

Darker skinned people from Central Latin American countries, Mexico, primarily or where this is happening, in communities that are populated by Hispanic citizens. This is what happens when going back to Justice Kavanaugh, you know, he he allows Kavanaugh stops and racial profiling and then has to walk it back because ICE is apparently an out-of-control agency that will just go far further than.

anyone would expect that they would if you give them that first inch. look, I I think this reporting raises serious questions about and and I I say this as someone who used to work very closely with ICE, especially with the legacy customs agents. These were people that I did a lot of trafficking cases with. They were great agents. They were responsible agents, but culture

is a top-down sort of a value proposition. And there is no leadership now in these agencies. We’ve read reports about training, especially with the guys that they’re bringing over from local law enforcement to work with them on their task forces, not getting training. And this is how we see it play out, quite frankly, an agency where the leaders say we don’t need to track whether or not we’re arresting American citizens. And then we find out that they’re in fact doing that in large numbers.

And if they are willing to do that to American citizens, then what do you think that they’re doing to people who aren’t citizens?

Kim (50:22)
So I want to wrap up by asking y’all what can be done, because that’s the most important thing. I mean, I ICE or the Department of Homeland Security, which ICE falls under, has an i ex inspector general’s office. And they are at least somewhat active. They recently did a scathing report about what used to be al Alligator Alcatraz, about the absolutely heinous conditions there, and they issued that report. So

Barb, anybody i is there something that can be done? It i will anything come of that report about ICE detentions or or is this only k is this up to the voters to bring in a different administration?

Barb (51:04)
I I think ultimately, Kim, you may be right, but this report is really quite scathing. It’s an internal report by ICE’s Inspector General, and it talks about really deplorable conditions at what was known as alligator Alcatraz. But these conditions exist in other detention facilities as well. You know, insects in the showers, inability to take showers on a regular basis, lack of clean drinking water because everybody gets just one cup.

And even putting some detainees in cages that are the size of phone booths as a calming measure, though some there’s some indication that they were used for punishment. And so, you know, the inspector general can reveal these things, but it doesn’t seem that the Trump administration is in any hurry to do anything about it. I think maybe the best short-term remedy is a Congress that conducts meaningful oversight hearings and makes all of this very public.

shines the light of day on it so that the public can understand what we’re doing and what it says about us as a nation by dehumanizing these detainees. We’re really dehumanizing ourselves.

Jill (52:12)
You know, I th agree with Barb that first of all with you, Kim, voting is crucial. Removing this administration is critical. and congressional power would be a very good thing to have investigations. Again, if we have a Democratic Congress, they have the power of the subpoena and they can do that. and I think we have to do more than that. It’s not enough because we’re watching this and I think again, there’s power in the people.

And we have to start protesting. We have to be involved in this and take serious concern. And one way to support it is to support the reporting that has brought this to light. So all of these organizations are mostly nonprofits. And whether it is the Better Government Association did some reporting in Illinois about the use of punishment devices, ProPublica did this reporting.

Support those organizations that do this reporting so that we will know what’s going on so that we can take action against it.

Kim (53:23)
As we go into the colder months, there’s nothing better than having a cozy fall bed to snuggle into when the weather changes. But when the heater is blasting or we get one of those late fall heat waves, you also need sheets that are soft, breathable, and ridiculously comfortable. For that, you need to join us in getting the best sleep of your life under the soft embrace of bowl and branch.

The wrong sheets can be scratchy or even worse, they can trap heat, which makes it impossible to get the rest you need when you’re tossing, turning, and kicking off the sheets. But with bowl and branch, you get the experience of enjoying the cool side of the pillow, but everywhere.

Barb (54:04)
Their bedding options are breathable, lightweight, and designed so you can layer up for those colder nights without feeling trapped under a bunch of heavy, heat-holding bedding. It’s seriously like sleeping on a cloud because their 100% organic cotton sheets are woven specifically for airflow, not just softness. Synthetic cooling technology or chemically treated fabrics are a band-aid, not a solution. With bowl and branch, the cooling is structural.

Because of how the cotton is woven, giving you a cozy fall and winter bed without getting overheated. Amazingly, ninety four percent of Bolin Branch customers say their sheets get softer with every wash, and we have to agree.

Joyce (54:46)
Bowl and branch is a real game changer. Your bed is your sanctuary. And you know, ever since I put my bowl and branch sheets on my bed, I’ve been snug, so snug some mornings I just don’t want to get up. They’re buttery, soft, and and they feel that way right from the start. They help you relax the moment you lie down. I have become such a fan of their signature sheet sets that I have gotten them for my entire family now. That tells you how much I love my kids. But these sheets have an incredible feel, and they’re breathable.

The temper regulation is top-notch, we’ll never go back. You really need to experience Bowl and Branch’s unmatched softness for yourself.

Jill (55:26)
And they have amazing colors that will complement any room or style. And if you’re like me, you’ll have a lot of fun picking them out. While you’re shopping, you need to check out their supportive pillows, cozy blankets, and luxurious comforters too. Upgrade your sleep with Bolin Branch and get fifteen percent off your first order plus free shipping at bowlandbranch.com slash sisters with code sisters. That’s Boland Branch.

B O L L A N D Branch dot com slash sisters code sisters to unlock fifteen percent off. Exclusions apply and the link is in our show notes.

Joyce (56:16)
Okay, y’all. I mean, this has been sort of a depressing day. Here we go again. There is some new reporting that our beloved Justice Department is seeking yet another revenge indictment. This time Cassidy Hutchinson, the former Trump White House aide who provided some of that. I mean, do y’all remember I remember it so clearly, her dramatic testimony about events on January sixth? Yeah.

I mean the whole country stopped and watched her. I think that was the moment when those hearings hit home. So look, the new reporting is that prosecutors are presenting evidence to a grand jury, apparently focusing on whether Hutchinson made false statements, maybe talking about a civil rights controversy, because the case is being handled by DOJ’s civil rights division, which is sort of unusual. You would expect to see a case like this in investigation.

handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia. But we have to be honest and say that their record has not been very good on Trump adjacent cases. but you know you never know, right? Sometimes these cases are are real, sometimes they’re not. I thought it would be helpful for us to try and parse whether or not this is a legitimate investigation. So Jill, maybe you can start with the most updated reporting on what crime Cassidy Hutchinson is supposedly being investigated for.

And what evidence prosecutors would need to prove it.

Jill (57:44)
So let’s start with what reality is, which is this is a revenge case. There is nothing there, in my opinion. there there’s claims of perjury, and if that were the case, obviously they’d have to prove a false statement, which remember Cassidy only said I s was told something. one of the key points was

That Trump tried to grab the steering wheel to get to go to Capitol and he was told he couldn’t go and he’s like, I’m the he said, according to her, she was told, he said, I’m the effing president and I’m going there. And when

Kim (58:29)
This was on January sixth. January sixth when after his rally where he ginned up everybody to go to the Capitol, he allegedly wanted to go there too.

Joyce (58:38)
all she’s doing as you say, Jill, she’s repeating the story, somebody else

Jill (58:41)
That someone else told her. Now, that person can say, I didn’t say that, or it didn’t happen. She didn’t say it happened. She said, This is what a named person told me. and you’d you know, it’d be her word against his. He’ll say, I didn’t tell her that. She’ll say, He did tell me that. And there were two people to the conversation. So she was so credible in her testimony. And I’m sure we can all remember her standing there with her hand up.

and how she testified and i I I I would put my money on her being believed. And so they fail in a perjury case just there on proving that it’s false. And that it was knowingly false they would have to prove. I don’t see any evidence that they can do that. The civil rights violation, I mean, there has to be something or the civil rights division couldn’t and shouldn’t be involved in anything presented to the grand jury.

I can’t even fathom what civil rights she might have violated. And I also want to point out this is being presented in DC, not by Janine Pierrot’s office, but by the Civil Rights Division. and we’ve seen the power of grand juries going, no way, you haven’t given me enough evidence. Get out of here, we’re not indicting. So I don’t think it’s going to go anywhere. But that’s not the point. The point is the cruelty and the process and making her.

that is Cassidy Hutchison suffer through this. And, you know, all the power to her for her her standing up for this and not being cowed by it. This is intended to stop other witnesses against Trump from coming forward because they might be subjected to this. This is this is just you know, you said our beloved Department of Justice. It used to be, but I think you’re now calling it the Department of Unjustice.

And that’s what it has become.

Kim (1:00:42)
Can I just say something? It’s a it’s a little it’s a little beside the point, but A, I wonder if they couldn’t get anybody in the USA’s office in DC to take this case given the fact that they’ve had so much trouble with the Hams. I mean, I g I mean, after the reflecting pull case, I wonder if they were just like, you know what, g go step. Like I’m we’re not doing this again. That’s question number one.

But also this whole idea that they’re so angry that she told this story about the president after ginning up and sicking his supporters on the Capitol on January 6th, that as the his car, the beast, went to take him back to the White House, instead, you know, he tried to grab the wheel because he wanted to go to Capitol with his people. Honestly, for him, that’s the better narrative, right?

That he actually was dra because if in actuality he got all these people who he knew to be armed and he sent them to the Capitol and they took his well protected Secret Service protected self back to the White House bunker where he was safe, but everybody else, including his vice president, was in danger. That makes him look like a coward. I don’t know. Why bring so much attention to this? I

Joyce (1:01:56)
And why raise January sixth ahead of the midterms too? I mean this makes all of that live, so politically it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Kim (1:02:05)
It’s it just shows you that yes, they’re angry they’re furious at Cassie Hutchinson, who, by the way, was a supporter, worked in the White House, was down with the policy like she was an an enthusiastic member of their staff who actu actually happened to have a moral backbone and at the end of the day, once January sixth happened, was like, Whoa, this is not what I signed up for. to go after her so hard just because she testified.

as part of that congressional hearing and not even think about anything else. They just want to attack her with anything they can. All they found was maybe she committed perjury when she recounted this secondhand story, which she didn’t. But the fact that it makes them look so much worse in 18 different ways doesn’t even cut that we’re living in we’re living in a we’re living in I was going to call it a sitcom, but it’s too tragic to be a

Joyce (1:02:58)
You know, I’ve investigated a lot of 241 cases, civil rights conspiracies. I’ve indicted far fewer than I’ve investigated, even cases that I really felt like a crime had been committed in, because these are difficult cases to bring. And if the theory here is going to be that Cassidy Hutchinson and others were part of a conspiracy, you know, if the the January 6th House Committee was a conspiracy to violate Donald Trump’s civil rights, well,

Good luck with that. But when Donald Trump is is directing prosecutions, right? You get that stuff. I think this investigation, I’m I’m curious about where it’s headed. You know, they could be investigating her testimony. They could be looking at her testimony to Jack Smith. He took testimony from her, but regardless of what it is, they’ll have to prove, you know, a a false statement or a a perjurious statement.

They’ll have to prove that she knew it was a lie, they’ll have to prove it was material. So there’s some serious requirements here. And and Barb, I’m just curious, you n you know, when you think about whether this is a legitimate criminal case or another revenge agenda effort to punish a Trump enemy, I I guess you have to think about the legitimacy of the process. So imagine that you’re the prosecutor. Do you think that you could get an indictment out of the grand jury?

And if you could, do you think you could get a conviction after that?

Barb (1:04:25)
Yeah, it’s really interesting in terms of kind of the the attitude of jurors in Washington, DC and what they think about what’s happening here. So, you know, first, the role of the civil rights division. I think either Janine Pirro says, go away, we don’t want anything to do with this, or President Trump has lost confidence in her because she ultimately backed down. Remember he called her a full she fold folded like an umbrella. Send it to Harmie Dillon. Harmony Dillon will indict anybody.

So here we are over at the the civil rights division. I also think that the conspiracy against rights could be, bear with me here, that it was the rights of the voters that were denied because they didn’t get their voting wishes fulfilled because of course they all voted for Donald Trump and their vote

Kim (1:05:13)
It’s

like a reverse Jacksmith.

Jill (1:05:15)
Yes, exactly. my god.

Barb (1:05:17)
So that’s the theory, right? It’s the opposite of what Jack Smith actually alleged to Donald Trump did. So it’s all far-fetched. It’s all, you know, baseless. but you know, as Jill said, you’d have to show we don’t know the facts. Maybe there is some fact that Dineshi testified to that is false, but it it seems quite far-fetched. But but this other question you’re asking, Joyce, I think is very interesting, which is is it is a grand jury and then a jury in Washington, D.C. at this point going to be willing to return an indictment.

You know, we have seen these instances where grand juries have returned indictments where the evidence has been quite thin, like the Reflecting Pool case, the eighty-six forty-seven Seashells case, the Broadview Six case, the mortgage fraud case against Letitia James, the false statement against Jim Comey. And in all those cases, it seems that there was at least some allegation of prosecutorial misconduct, you know, prosecutors sort of vouching for the witnesses or saying,

Don’t worry, we’ve got more evidence for this came from, even though we’re not showing it to you. All you need to find is probable cause. and of course, the standard for indicting a case isn’t just probable cause, although that’s the standard the jury has to find. Prosecutors ethically, under the justice manual, principles of federal prosecution, are not supposed to even seek an indictment unless the evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. But I could see a grand jury or a trial jury or both engaging in what’s known as nullification here.

Either we don’t believe you, we don’t think the evidence is sufficient, or even if it is, we just don’t think this is in the best interest of justice. So it might be very difficult for them to get an indictment in this case.

Kim (1:06:54)
I mean, here in DC, y’all, they would not even indict that subboy sandwich. So to think that they would indict in this case after having watched her testimony, I think it’s a tall and and we’ve said this before, but I have to underscore it. Not indicting or issuing a no-bill is what it’s called, is something so rare that

In all of the three of your prosecutorial experiences, you have never one time, not ever, not a single time, been returned a no-bill. This is not something that happens as a matter of course. You roll the dice, sometimes you win, sometimes no. As Barb said, you don’t they you’re not supposed to bring these cases unless you know that you’re gonna secure that indictment. And the f how many times did you just tick off the no-bills that have been issued after

you know, to this DOJ. It’s it’s real it’s why that in itself is such proof that this is a weaponized DOJ that it’s not in pursuing these cases in the interest of justice. They’re pursuing them in the interest of a vindictive, vengeful president who wants to go after his enemies. And it’s the same with

The same can be said with him going after Lisa Cook on the Fed still after Supreme Court ruled against him once, him going after Jim Comey, Jack Smith with this nonsense, John Brennan. Apparently now there’s like, you know, activity in Florida that seems to be aimed at John Brennan. I mean, the amount of resources and time this is this is taking up is really, really just it’s outrageous. It’s outrageous. I’m mad. I every time I pay my tax bill, I’m mad.

‘Cause I’m it’s funding this nonsense. I mean it’s really it’s an outrage.

Jill (1:08:36)
And this is why the courts have made it clear that there’s no presumption of regularity from the Department of Justice anymore. When we used to go to court, we were presumed to be telling the truth. Not anymore. It just isn’t. And you know, if you’re gonna add to the list of wrongful investigations, you know, there was a two hour presentation to the Office of Professional Responsibility about misconduct fifty two years ago in the Watergate case. So I you know, like

It is it’s it’s it is risable except it’s serious and it’s such an abuse of the power of the government that we should all be concerned.

Joyce (1:09:17)
You know, the flip side is I’m sitting here listening to y’all and I’m thinking, okay, so maybe Harme Dillon is able to send some lawyers from the civil rights division into the grand jury and they get an indictment. But everybody understands that this is at bottom a revenge case, and defense lawyers have been very successful at convincing courts to look at least in camera in what goes on in the grand jury, which i as you were saying, Kim, you know, getting a no-bill never happens.

Looking at the grand jury transcript never happens either, except now it suddenly is. And this is a statute if they’re traveling under the civil rights conspiracy statute that requires a specific intent to violate people’s civil rights. That’s an element of proving that civil rights conspiracy. And so it’s hard to imagine how prosecutors could competently advise the grand jury about that requirement.

And then get an indictment, right? The grand jury is gonna look at that and go, I just don’t see evidence of that here. And and there’s no indictment. And so I think to the extent that there is an indictment in this situation, it’s just setting up another one of these damaging, vindictive, and selective prosecution arguments that underscores the fact that this ain’t your mama’s Justice Department, right? I mean, Kim, we all get that by now the the process is the punishment.

What message does this sort of notion of prosecuting Hutchinson to future witnesses? Do you worry at all about the spillover and whether or not it might make future whistleblowers less likely to come forward or people less likely to testify about Donald Trump after the fact?

Kim (1:10:59)
No, I think that’s absolutely right. As Jill pointed out, even if these cases are absolutely baseless, in which it seems that the vast majority of them are, right? that doesn’t that doesn’t take away the expense that these people have to go to in terms of defending themselves. It doesn’t take away the time that they have to devote to this. It doesn’t take away the loss of their reputation. I mean, how of how often has Lisa Cook been it’s slightly different and cause now it’s a

the h it an entire part of a new apparatus has been built with the min within the administration just to press this bogus mortgage fraud claim against her. But how the vilification of her constantly, the constantly people talking about her name, her name constantly being on Fox News, what that does to her and her family. all of these folks, the the, you know, death threats that people get, I mean, of course

That’s part of it. It’s meant to intimidate. It’s meant to intimidate. And even if they are all victorious legally at the end of this, it still takes a tremendous toll on people. So of course that’s gonna make people I’m sure it has. Who knows how many people it has dissuaded from speaking publicly and honestly about what they’ve seen happen in this administration or or any sort of

abuse of power in any way that might anger the pri it doesn’t even have to be about him, but just something that might anger him. That’s a terrible, terrible disincentive. And that’s another reason why we really need to vote in people in the White House, in Congress, in state houses that believe in the rule of law and not abusing it as a lever of abuse or vengeance. we have to we have to really make that.

The first qual quality, the first qualification that we judge are the people on any ballot that we vote on.

Joyce (1:12:59)
You know, I remember those quaint days of the first Trump administration and following where we said that if Trump was returned to office, we would run the risk of having a weaponized Justice Department. And we talked about how when the president could use the power of prosecution as a tool to punish his enemies, that was what separated us and our country with our legal system from these sort of tin pot dictatorships that we were

Kim (1:13:24)
Told

we were hysterical, our hair was on fire, nobody cared about that.

Joyce (1:13:29)
So true, right? I mean, here we are, here and now, watching Cassidy Hutchinson get investigated because she came forward and testified to what she observed. Mm. Mm mm mm.

Barb (1:13:51)
You know those pieces in your closet that you find yourself reaching for over and over again? That sweater that somehow works with everything, the jeans you know will always fit just right, or the bag you carry everywhere. Those are the pieces that earn a permanent place in your wardrobe. How do they know I wear the same thing every day? And that’s exactly what Quince does so well.

Jill (1:14:14)
Quince makes elevated, everyday essentials using premium materials like Mongolian cashmere, organic cotton, and premium stretch denim. The designs are timeless, thoughtfully crafted, and made to be worn again and again. Their 100% Mongolian cashmere sweaters start at just $50, giving you the softness and quality you would expect from a luxury brand without the luxury price tag. And as the weather gets colder, Quince has everything you need to do.

To round out your wardrobe from warm, responsibly sourced down jackets and cozy cashmere scarves and gloves to be beautiful fourteen carat gold jewelry that adds the perfect finishing touch.

Joyce (1:14:56)
Everything at Quince is priced 50 to 80% less than similar brands. They work directly with ethical factories and they cut out the middleman, so you’re paying for quality, not brand markup. I recommend Quince’s washable stretch silk blouse. I really love it, but you know, even beyond the blouse, I actually sprung for the silk skirt last week. And it is such a pleasure. The color is beautiful, it feels great, it looks fantastic, and just like the blouse, the material feels amazing.

The styles look great if you’re sitting around at home, but you can also wear them out or even wear them for business. There’s nothing better than looking your best. And Quince is about so much more than just apparel. They bring the same approach that they bring to clothing, to everything that they make, from hotel quality bedding and bath to kitchen essentials and thoughtfully designed furniture. Everything is a well-designed piece for everyday living.

Kim (1:15:54)
Yeah, I I would say that it’s even more affordable in some cases than that compared to I I was looking at a a handbag and there is a similar one at at Quince that’s made out of, you know, top leather and it’s really gorgeous quality. And I think I would have I think I got it for a lot more than fifty percent off the original bag I looked for. it’s just so good. Find the fall pieces you’ll reach for most at Quince. Download the Quince app for app.

exclusive offers or go to quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns now available in Canada and the UK too. And when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was the sisters-in-law who sent you. It’s the best way to support the show and the link is in our show notes.

Barb (1:16:55)
If you have a question for us, please email sistersinlaw at politicon.com or tag us on social media using #SistersInLaw. If we don’t get to your question during the show, we’ll try to answer it during our new show, Sisters Sidebar, every Wednesday. Our first question comes to us from Frank in Kansas City. Frank says, I just learned the Supremes has have thrown us under the bus again.

If and it’s a big if, Dems take the House and Senate, can they impeach six justices at once? Kim, you’re our Supreme Court guru. What do you think about that?

Kim (1:17:34)
Frank, you know, I think the answer is, well, I know the answer is no, but after I’ve answer that, I’m gonna tell you why you don’t want that to be the answer, frankly. So no pun intended, Frank. so it’s highly unlikely that you can impeach multiple people at once. cer certainly in the case of Supreme Court justices. The impeachment power is there.

and it’s the only way that you can remove a a justice can be removed from the bench aside from retirement, resignation, or death, because they have lifetime appointments. And that it’s the same standard as for a president. It has to you have to show that someone has committed a high crime or misdemeanor. there is not an delineation of exactly what that means in the Constitution, but it’s really meant to mean they’ve done something very bad.

something very corrupt in the case. They took money in exchange for their vote on something, they you know, violated the law, they kidnapped somebody and, you know, kept them hostage for a week. Something like that, I think, could rise to the level of it. But even the type of abandonment of the rule of law or ignoring it that we talk about week after week on this podcast,

I don’t think that it rises to the level of impeachment, because at the end of the day, a justice sh can’t be and shouldn’t be impeached based on how they rule. That’s the part that should be protected. That’s what we’re supposed to use the confirmation process for, to vet them, to figure out what they’re all about and ask questions. Now, granted, that has been ruined and destroyed by politics in a big way. And I know a lot of people often say, well, the Supreme Court justices say they respect president and they’re

confirmation hearing, is that perjury and can that be a crime that could be No, no, because justices have the right to change their mind too, right? Remember John Paul Stevens, who was a stark who who authored, helped to author one of the core decisions that really brought the death penalty back from the brink of being wiped out under the Eighth Amendment, went through his tenure on the court and by the end of it was completely opposed to the death penalty, right? We want justices to have the ability to change their minds too. So w we can’t just imp

impeach justices because we don’t like the way they they rule. And you don’t want to set that precedent because what happens when if we get a six-three majority on the other side, which I’m sure a lot of people who want the justices in the majority now, to be impeached would be thrilled with what would be to stop someone from just im using impeachment as a political tool to remake the Supreme Court over and over again, term after term.

Presidency after presidency, the way they want. That’s not justice. That’s not what it should look like. Now, what you can do is vote for lawmakers that would be willing to seriously discuss, bring up, and bring to legislation ways to reform the Supreme Court. I think that in itself will have a change in the way that the current justices will act.

think if they know they pay attention to the news, they know what people are writing about them, they know how the public feels, they pay attention to the polls too. Trust me, they pay attention. So if voters and through them the law their representatives make clear that voters want the Supreme Court to operate differently, not necessarily control the way that they rule, that’s not what the Constitution provides for. The Constitution tries to avoid that, tries to prohibit that. But to say, look,

We want you to recuse in cases where you have some sort of financial stake. We want you to be more transparent about what you do and and your activities. We want you to be more responsive to the press and not be in your glass house where nobody knows what’s going on unless, you know, somebody happens to see the flag that’s flying in your backyard. We want you to operate in a more upfront and transparent way. And these are some rules we would like Congress to pass in order for you to do that.

They will hear that, even if the law doesn’t pass or if it doesn’t apply to them, because that would create other constitutional barriers. I think they will respond to that. So that’s the way to get the Supreme Court that you want as much of a dream for some people, impeaching multiple justices at a time might be. That’s just not feasible and it’s also not democratic.

Barb (1:22:07)
All right, our next question comes from Jonathan in Scarsdale, New York. Jonathan asks, This is a moment in our history when everyone needs to get involved in protecting our democracy. Litigators have been heroes in this regard, and I’m sure they’re ready for whatever Trump throws at us in November. But beyond litigation readiness, what can lawyers, retired judges, civic leaders, and all citizens do to prepare for election day and the possibility of interference in the process? Jill, what do you think about that?

Jill (1:22:36)
Well, what a great question as we approach the November elections and the fears that we all have. so I’m I’m glad to answer that. and let me start with something that I learned both as a a student in the civil rights movement and then as a young lawyer with the anti-war movement and as a more experienced lawyer during Watergate, which is that

Public pressure actually works. That public protest makes a difference. And so I don’t want people to give up on that form of making a difference. And this is I mean, all thanks to the litigators who have so valiantly defended our democracy. They deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. they deserve some some real rewards. But one thing you can do is, you know

A week from Saturday, listen to #SistersInLaw while you’re marching. And then No Kings Day march on October 17th is just a week away. So you can participate in that as a way of protesting. And supposedly if we get to three percent of the population marching, that really makes a difference. So you should do that and be prepared to spread the message so that you know other people learn about this. if you’re at a law firm.

You don’t have to be a litigator, but you can figure out what can your law firm do, or if you’re an in-house counsel, what can your corporation do to do it. If you’re a government attorney, and this really relates to our last conversation, think about your ethical obligations and what it means to bring a fake case, to bring a revenge case. Think about resigning rather than doing the thing that you’re being asked to do that you find difficult.

If you’re a bar leader, think about what you can ask your lawyers to do, how how you can do that. But in order to do any of these things, you have to be prepared. So you have to get the facts, remember how much they matter. Then start spreading the word and start doing things like volunteering to drive people to the polls who don’t have cars. start thinking about volunteering, and it’s not too late to volunteer to be a poll watcher, or I just volunteered and found an organization that will give me

a I think it’s a ninety minute training so that I can help on election day with issues that arise on election day. and many organizations offer that kind of training. And I’m trying to recruit other lawyers in Illinois to join me in this training and to participate. These are, you know, real practical things that you can do to help protect democracy and to defend the polls on on election day. You can be an observer. You don’t even have to be a poll watcher. There are roles for

observers at the polls. And then you can become a know, a witness against this. And I think these are all important things that people should take on.

Barb (1:25:42)
All right. And our last question comes to us from Aaron in Boston, Massachusetts. Aaron asks, You are all hardworking, super accomplished professionals. thank you, Aaron. have you ever been overwhelmed? How do you take time for yourself without impacting your goals or commitments? Joyce, you you are hardworking and super accomplished. How do you take care of yourself?

Joyce (1:26:04)
I am so in love with this question, Erin. Thank you so much for for asking it. I wanted to take this question today so I could turn it back on everybody out there and say, please share your best tips with us. We all feel constantly overwhelmed. And I think it’s it’s an epidemic right now. I talk about this a lot with especially with my girlfriends. And we talk about how when you ask people the question, how are you?

Instead of being routine, it’s now like a serious conversation. I had a girlfriend called this morning. How are you? And we talked for fifteen minutes about how we were. and and so look, I think everybody has different answers. I would love to get people’s best suggestions and maybe we’ll just somehow find a way to run Maybe there’ll be like a written essay, attendant to the next #SistersInLaw with all of your great answers.

But for me it comes down to friends, family, and pets and and also the ability to multitask that you only have if you’re as badly attention deficit as I am, because you know, I can walk the dog while listening to somebody reading an essay I need to be reading on headphones at the same time that I’m saying hi to neighbors. And and we live in this constant era, I think, where we’re trying to do too much at once. I mean

I’m looking at my computer right now and I have like so many tabs open, it’s embarrassing because there’s so much stuff that you have to read. I’ve got a couple of news articles, I’ve got two briefs, I’ve got notes for the podcast, you know, I’ve got a a knitting pattern open. and so all of that I think is not great for us and something that you do have to slow down. I’ll tell you one thing that really works well for for me and that has become just non-negotiable.

is exercising. I do yoga or bar or go for a walk every single day. can’t live without that. I spend time with my dogs and my chickens. And I have this one really annoying cat named Dingus, who is only sweet at night and will come in and sleep with me during nighttime. And I take a lot of comfort from that. and then I try to hang out with my family because they don’t they’re not really very impressed by the fact that I podcast or do TV or

or write books, you know, they I’m only as good as the last meal in this household. last night was really good. I made pork chops, so I’m popular right now. But today is on a serious note, Bob’s and my 38th anniversary. It’s really I mean it’s weird that we’ve been married for that long, right? I mean longer than half of our lives. And and I’ll just say at the risk of being sappy because I know he doesn’t listen to this, so he won’t hear me say nice things to him.

When you feel overloaded, you have to have somebody that you can go to. And having that person is really a big deal. So I think in a lot of ways, he’s my superpower.

Jill (1:28:57)
very

Joyce (1:29:00)
Tell him that I said that, right?

Jill (1:29:02)
You should. I think I vote for telling him.

Barb (1:29:05)
We’re gonna send it to him.

Well, there you have it, listeners. Thank you for listening to #SistersInLaw with Jill Weinbanks, Joyce Fance, Kimberly Atkins Stohr, and me, Barb McQuade. If you enjoyed this podcast, please rate the show and send it to a friend. And be sure to follow hashtag SistersIn-Law on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts so you never miss an episode. Join us every Saturday as we break down the biggest legal developments of the week. Then catch our companion podcast, hashtag Sisters Sidebar every Wednesday.

Where we answer your legal questions. Shop for hashtag SistersInLawTotes and other goodies at Politicon and follow us on Instagram at sistersinlaw.podcast. And check out the special offers in this episode’s show notes from our sponsors Gusto, Tumble, DeleteMe, Bolin Branch, and Quince. See you next week with another episode, #SistersInLaw.

Kim (1:30:00)
Mm-hmm.

Joyce (1:30:02)
Do you remember there was that great story a couple of years ago about the couple that thought that they were purchasing tickets to Birmingham for their honeymoon and instead they came to Birmingham, Alabama. It was like a screw up. And the city rolled out the red carpet for and just treated them wonderfully. But they they made a little mistake there.