205: Kakistocracy

Summary

#SistersInLaw Episode 205: Kakistocracy – A Detailed Summary

In Episode 205 of Politicon's #SistersInLaw, hosts Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuaid, and Kimberly Atkins Stohr delve deep into the intricacies of government malfunctions, misinformation, and the looming threats posed by extremist agendas. Titled "Kakistocracy," the episode explores how the worst elements within government can undermine effectiveness and integrity. Below is a comprehensive summary of the key discussions, insights, and conclusions presented in this engaging episode.

---

1. Misinformation Surrounding Natural Disasters

Overview:
The panel initiates the discussion by addressing the rampant spread of disinformation during natural disasters, specifically hurricanes Helene and Milton. The hosts highlight the detrimental effects misinformation can have on disaster response and public trust.

Key Points:

• False Claims About FEMA:
  Donald Trump propagated misleading statements claiming FEMA lacked funds for hurricane recovery, allegedly diverted to immigrants. These claims are unequivocally false. Additionally, misinformation about the $750 emergency payout was addressed, clarifying that while an initial emergency grant exists, larger claims are permissible for significant losses.

• Impact of Disinformation:
  Disinformation erodes public confidence in essential agencies like FEMA, particularly when timely and accurate information is crucial for affected individuals.

Notable Quotes:

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr [09:00]:
  “There is a lot of disinformation flying around about the hurricanes and FEMA's response. Claims that FEMA has no money because it's all spent on immigrants are blatantly false.”

• Joyce Vance [10:29]:
  “Disinformation is really despicable when it comes out of the mouths of our elected officials who are supposed to help us in these situations.”

---

2. Legal Recourse Against Disinformation

Overview:
The discussion transitions to potential legal measures against those spreading false information, examining whether agencies like FEMA can pursue defamation lawsuits.

Key Points:

• Defamation Challenges:
  Kimberly Atkins Stohr explains the complexities FEMA would face in filing defamation suits due to the need for proving actual harm and navigating First Amendment protections.

• Collective Action in Ohio:
  Efforts in Springfield, Ohio, aim to utilize a unique collective defamation law to address false claims about immigrants harming local communities. The success of such measures remains uncertain.

Notable Quotes:

• Kimberly Atkins Stohr [13:07]:
  “The key to combating disinformation is proper information and getting it out as soon as possible. Legal recourse would take time which victims don’t have in immediate crisis situations.”

• Barbara McQuaid [14:48]:
  “Using information campaigns is one of the few legal options available and is crucial for ensuring people receive accurate information quickly.”

---

3. Indictment Involving ISIS and Election Security

Overview:
A significant portion of the episode focuses on the recent indictment of Nasir Ahmad Tawedi, an Afghani national accused of conspiring with ISIS to disrupt the U.S. election.

Key Points:

• Details of the Indictment:
  Tawedi planned a mass violent attack on Election Day, purchasing over 500 rounds of ammunition and coordinating with ISIS leaders. His actions included selling personal property to fund the plot and attempting to relocate his family to evade authorities.

• FBI’s Preventive Measures:
  The FBI's swift intervention exemplifies their commitment to preventing attacks before they occur. They employed sting operations to halt Tawedi's plans, embodying the "left of boom" strategy—to act before the crime happens.

• Superseding Indictments and Future Charges:
  Barbara McQuaid anticipates potential additional charges and further investigations into co-conspirators, with possible superseding indictments as more evidence emerges.

Notable Quotes:

• Jill Wine-Banks [28:04]:
  “He was planning a mass violent action with AK47s on election day. The evidence is substantial, including communications with ISIS leaders.”

• Joyce Vance [32:18]:
  “Terrorism cases like this highlight both the persistent threats we face and the critical role of agencies like the FBI in safeguarding our elections.”

---

4. Project 2025: Reshaping Federal Government

Overview:
The hosts delve into Project 2025, a strategic initiative outlining how a conservative administration could restructure the federal government to implement an extremist far-right agenda.

Key Points:

• Targeted Agencies:
  Project 2025 proposes dismantling and privatizing key federal agencies such as NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and FEMA. The aim is to reduce federal oversight and shift responsibilities to state and local governments.

• Implications for Public Services:
  Privatizing agencies like the National Weather Service could lead to monetization of essential services, undermining public access to crucial information. The reduction of FEMA's role could compromise disaster response efficiency.

• Kleptocracy Concerns:
  Barb McQuaid introduces the concept of "kleptocracy," where government contracts are awarded to oligarchs in exchange for political donations, fostering corruption and undermining democratic integrity.

• Supreme Court’s Role:
  The episode touches upon the Supreme Court’s decisions, such as granting immunity to former President Trump, which could facilitate the implementation of Project 2025’s agenda by providing a legal shield for potential abuses of power.

Notable Quotes:

• Barbara McQuaid [46:05]:
  “Project 2025 targets NOAA and the National Weather Service, aiming to commercialize weather forecasting, which should remain a public service.”

• Joyce Vance [51:39]:
  “The Supreme Court’s immunity decision creates a roadmap for executing the worst excesses of Project 2025, giving a president like Trump a runway for misconduct.”

• Joyce Vance [50:34]:
  “It's kleptocracy and khakistocracy—where mediocre and corrupt officials run the government, paving the way for autocracy and disaster.”

---

5. Fraud During Natural Disasters

Overview:
The panel discusses how natural disasters create opportunities for fraudulent activities, exploiting the desperation of affected individuals seeking relief.

Key Points:

• Post-Katrina Fraud Cases:
  Joyce Vance shares experiences with fraudulent claims during Hurricane Katrina, where individuals misused relief funds for personal luxuries instead of aiding disaster-stricken communities.

• Preventive Measures:
  A zero-tolerance approach was adopted to prosecute even low-dollar frauds, deterring future attempts by emphasizing the consequences of such actions.

• Common Scams Identified:
  Jill Wine-Banks outlines typical post-disaster scams, including fake FEMA inspectors and fraudulent construction companies, advising vigilance and verification of credentials.

Notable Quotes:

• Joyce Vance [19:28]:
  “We decided to go forward and create some deterrence by prosecuting every case, no matter how small, to prevent the theft of funds meant for genuine victims.”

• Jill Wine-Banks [22:30]:
  “Fake inspectors claiming to be from FEMA and unscrupulous contractors are rampant. Always verify before making payments.”

---

6. Listener Q&A Session

Overview:
In the concluding segment, the hosts address questions from listeners, providing legal insights and clarifications on recent legal developments and policies.

Key Questions Addressed:

• SCOTUS and Emergency Abortions in Texas:
  Question: Did the Supreme Court vote on the Texas ruling that hospitals cannot be required to perform emergency abortions?
  Answer: Joyce Vance explains that the Supreme Court declined to hear the Biden administration's appeal, effectively allowing Texas to refuse emergency abortions under EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act).

  Notable Quotes:

  • Joyce Vance [58:54]:
    “The Supreme Court declined to hear the Biden administration’s appeal, allowing Texas to enforce its law against requiring emergency abortions.”

• Statute of Limitations on Alleged Co-Conspirators:
  Question: What is the statute of limitations for individuals identified but not yet charged in the indictment?
  Answer: Barbara McQuaid clarifies that for January 6th conspirators, the statute of limitations is five years from the last act of conspiracy, extending to January 2026.

  Notable Quotes:

  • Barbara McQuaid [63:17]:
    “The statute of limitations for these conspirators is five years from January 2021, meaning charges can be filed until January 2026.”

• US Laws Against Agitation of Ethnic Groups:
  Question: Does the US have laws similar to Sweden’s against agitation against an ethnic group?
  Answer: Jill Wine-Banks points out that while the US does not have a direct equivalent due to First Amendment protections, there are potential legal avenues for addressing severe cases of agitation that lead to harm.

  Notable Quotes:

  • Jill Wine-Banks [64:40]:
    “The First Amendment makes it challenging to implement laws like Sweden’s, but severe cases that incite imminent harm might find legal ground in existing statutes.”

---

Concluding Thoughts

Episode 205 of #SistersInLaw provides a poignant examination of how governmental failures and extremist agendas can converge to undermine democratic institutions and public trust. The panel underscores the importance of combating misinformation, safeguarding electoral integrity, and remaining vigilant against policies that threaten public welfare. Through insightful discussions and expert legal perspectives, the hosts highlight the critical need for accountability and informed civic participation in preserving democratic values.

Transcript

[Barbara McQuaid]

You know, more and more I am seeing Factor vans driving around in my neighborhood. That's because I have told all my friends and neighbors about the great meals you can get from Factor. You can fuel up for your fall routine with Factors. No prep, no mess, Fresh and never frozen meals that are ready in just two minutes. Get 50% off your first box plus 20% off your next month with code [e-mail] SIL50. You can find the link in the show notes.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Hi, everyone. This is Kim Atkins Storr. Before we get started with this episode of SistersinLaw, Do Me a favor. Also follow my other Politikon podcast called justice by Design. That's the name, because justice doesn't just happen. It's carefully planned through the hard work of people ensuring that it happens. And those are the people that I talk to on the podcast. You can find it wherever you get your pods or even even on YouTube at the Politicon channel. Welcome back to SistersinLaw with Barbara McQuaid, Jill Winebanks, Joyce Vance, and me, Kimberly Atkins. Store and don't forget to check out the new T shirt on our merch store. It's the perfect vibe for any season of the year and we love seeing you wear them out and about. Just go to politicon.com merch now onto the show, where we will be discussing misinformation, especially around natural disasters like the hurricane, an indictment involving ISIS, and Project 2025. So a lot to talk about. But first, I was talking with my friends from law school. We have a group chat and someone mentioned, since when do we not put two spaces after periods anymore? My kid says that they're not teaching that. And everyone's, you know, half my friends are like, oh, no, I will die on this hill. There's always two spaces. And me, I was sort of like, I work at a newspaper. We gave that up a long time ago. But it just made me think of things that we do or a habit that you might have that even though it's changing and, you know, quote unquote, the kids don't do it anymore, you still hold on to it. Barb, do you have something like that?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Oh, man. Are you yelling at the kids to get off of your lawn now? I am.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

I am officially get off my lawn. Age.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Excellent. Excellent. Oh, yeah, I got a million of them. One is just cursive handwriting. I've been signing a lot of books and people say, oh, what beautiful handwriting. And I took pride in handwriting when I was a child, right in Second grade, we learned how to make the loopy letters. Very proud of my handwriting. And yet today, my own children did not learn how to write cursive in their elementary school. And I remember one day taking it up with a teacher like, hey, how come we're not learning cursive? Well, life in the future is going to be all about keyboards. And frankly, it's not very interesting to teach.

[Jill Winebanks]

Oh, really?

[Joyce Vance]

It's about the teacher.

[Barbara McQuaid]

So my kids do not write incursive. They can read it, they can sign their names, but that's about it. They're like these, you know, primitive.

[Jill Winebanks]

How do they sing notes?

[Barbara McQuaid]

They print.

[Jill Winebanks]

I know. They use it on a computer.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, they type. They type.

[Jill Winebanks]

Oh, man.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

What about you, Jill?

[Jill Winebanks]

Well, you know, I was going to say something different, but I'll first add that my mother had the most beautiful handwriting, and it was something called the Palmer method, which she was taught by and which I didn't learn. And I write sort of backhand, so my handwriting is horrible and no one can read it. I use shorthand. And that's another thing that nobody knows anymore. But it was something I learned in high school, and I still use it during trials. It was fabulous because I didn't have to wait for a transcript. I could write down what a witness said, and then I could go back to them on cross examination and say, you just said but. And so that was really helpful. I have trouble giving up certain phrases, like, it sounds like chalk on a blackboard. And I bet you all know what that means. But I know that, for example, Victor, Shia and I have worked together very closely and talk all the time. And there are certain things I'll say, you sound like a broken record. He doesn't know what a broken record is. Or there was a bank of payphones, or I used a typewriter. And he knows what a typewriter is because he saw one in a museum. There are some of those things. On the other hand, I love learning new things, so I'm very, very happy to have Victor tell me all the new things that I need to know.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

How about you, Joyce?

[Joyce Vance]

You know, I'm sort of an early adopter. I mean, I liked the one space rule for the end of sentences. As soon as it was introduced, I used em dashes. But I'll tell you what annoys that my kids don't know how to do. They don't know how to read a map. And they looked at me like I was insane early on when I pointed that out. But, you know, the first time that you don't have GPS or your wifi goes down when you're out hiking or driving. Ooh, those map reading skills come in super handy, so I think I've actually made believers out of them instead of vice versa. On that one.

[Jill Winebanks]

You know, I like the one space just in typing, but I have to say in reading a script it helps to have the two spaces. Or when I'm giving a speech and I'm reading the speech, it helps to have the double spacing. It really, really does.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Huh? Well, we have a lot of work to do in terms of adapting to what the kids are doing, but there's also some hope for us. All I.

[Jill Winebanks]

Support for today's episode comes from HoneyLove. Honey Love has revolutionized the wireless bra game by using supportive bonding to eliminate uncomfortable wires and unnecessary bulk. You deserve to feel light and comfortable without sacrificing support. The fabric is so soft it's liberating. Embrace freedom, flexibility and comfort with Honey Love's wire free designs. And for a limited time only, you can get Honey Love on sale for 20% off your entire order with our exclusive link. And that link is honeylove.com sisters support our show and check them [e-mail] sisters.

[Joyce Vance]

Their best selling crossover is so comfortable, it's sure to be your new go to. You get all the traditional support without underwire, and the mesh detailing looks fantastic. The smoothing fabric prevents bulging in the back too. After a long day, you'll still want to relax in it even when it's time for bed. That's definitely a first for me With Honey Love, you'll never sacrifice comfort again. And if you want an even more relaxed option, we recommend the V edition for the same underwire free support with molded cups to lift and avoid compression.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Honeylove also has incredibly comfortable shapewear tanks and leggings for everyday support. You look amazing when you pair your V neck with their breathable and versatile leggings or combine matching shapewear with your crossover. Whether you're going for an everyday look, a workout, or a fall social event, Honey Love has you covered. We're never going back to suffocating and uncomfortable shapewear. You need Honey Love in your life.

[Barbara McQuaid]

You know, I don't ordinarily like to talk about my shapewear, as people perhaps know my foundational garments. But you know, after hearing you gals talk about your undergarments, I thought I'd give Honey Love a try. And let's just say, you know, hypothetically speaking, if there happen to be others out there who might have narrow shoulders. The crossover bra is the first one out there for you that won't slip off your shoulders. I hear that from my friends. You might try it too. And honey love is not just supporting women, it's empowering women. Treat yourself to the best shapewear on the market and save 20% [e-mail] sisters use our exclusive link to get 20% off@honeylove dot com sisters to find your perfect fit. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Elevate your comfort, elevate your style and empower your lifestyle of flexibility. Look for the link in the show notes Our hearts go out to all of the people who have been harmed by the recent hurricanes, Helene and Milton. And in the midst of such tragedy, I can't think of anything more despicable than spreading disinformation. But you've probably seen some of the disinformation that's flying around about the hurricanes and FEMA's response. Donald Trump has been pushing the false claim that FEMA has no money for recovery because the Biden Harris administration has spent it all on immigrants. That is, of course, false. Or that payments are limited to $750. Also false. There is a kernel of truth to there's like an immediate payout of $750 you can get for emergencies like food or medicine or baby formula. But that does not preclude you from larger claims if you've lost your home or something. So that is also false. And the topper perhaps of them all is one that was repeated by Marjorie Taylor Greene. But she wasn't the only one who said that they can control the weather. So it's really just been, I think, Jill, you said earlier, sickening, depressing. But Joyce, let me ask you, you've been in crisis response situations before. I know we've had training on crisis response where communicating accurate information is so essential. What are the harms to victims and society of this kind of disinformation?

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, well, you know, really disinformation is devastating in a situation that's already bad. I mean, according to Marjorie Taylor Greene, I should have both my Jewish space lasers and to control the weather.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, let's go already.

[Joyce Vance]

I'm doing a really bad job, aren't I? I apologize to all my friends. Disinformation is really despicable when it comes out of the mouths of our elected officials who are supposed to help us in these situations. And you know, they're Trying to score political points. Right. It's an election season. To some extent, we expect it from them. I think in this situation, though, they need to be held accountable for disinformation. Look, there aren't a lot of ways to. It's not a crime to push out disinformation. Maybe in some circumstances, actually it could become one. But for instance, Green's comments, probably not actionable. Trump's comments, and this I thought was so despicable, saying that what he refers to as illegal aliens, that all of FEMA's money was spent on them, so it was unavailable. That really strikes at public confidence in FEMA's ability to do its job and the administration's ability to do its job just when the public needs to have that confidence the most. And we know that these comments do harm not just on that societal level, but on an individual level. There are people on social media and also people, readers of my newsletter who I've been corresponding with, who are talking about family members who are afraid to go ahead and get the $750 that you referred to, Bob. That's your immediate emergency money designed to get you through the immediate aftermath. They're afraid to do that because there's a rumor circulating that if you do that, FEMA will take your home, the government will take your home. This is just the height of irresponsibility for these people who've already been traumatized to re victimize them with disinformation.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, it's really awful. Well, Kim, what can be done about these harms from a legal perspective? I know FEMA is out there trying to debunk the false claims with a web page that is posted to try to explain what's accurate and what's not. Can FEMA file a lawsuit for defamation over false claims about its work or is there any other legal recourse? You know, we've seen some efforts to use the law in Springfield, Ohio to address false claims that immigrants there are eating the cats and dogs. Is there any likelihood of success there? Is there any way to use the law to try to remedy this situation?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Well, maybe is the answer to that question when it comes to the Springfield, Ohio folks first. Right. What they're trying to do is using a law to allow for a collective action of defamation. Generally speaking, when you bring a defamation suit, an individual has to show that they were harmed, their reputation was harmed by something that was said that was false. It's very fact specific. But in this case, this would allow a group to move forward to say as a community we have been negatively impacted on what's going on. We'll see how that goes. But generally speaking, when it comes to fema, we have seen them do that information campaign because that is not only really legally one of the few options that they have, but it's also a really important thing to do. The key to combating disinformation is information is proper information and getting it out as soon as possible. So even if there were some legal recourse FEMA could take, that would take some time and they don't have time right now to try to ensure that people are helped. So that communication is important depending on what the disinformation is. Right. Like if it's trying to fraudulently lure people to do something or take their money, there are federal and state level fraud statutes that attorneys general or individuals can use if that happens to them. But if it's just in the case of political speech, that's very strongly protected and it would be very, very difficult to pass a rule that would penalize that, that would withstand First Amendment challenges to it.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah. So I guess the best safeguard we have as individuals is to look for credible outlets. Right. Go to FEMA's website, go to your local news outlets, go to state and local government websites. Well, Jill, you raised an interesting lawsuit that was filed recently in Calif. Over allegedly false claims from Exxon about the ability to recycle plastics. What's that lawsuit about and is there any hope for success in that one? You think so?

[Jill Winebanks]

Yeah. Before I actually address the specific California one, let me just say I think first of all, Ohio does have a unique law that allows a community to sue. But I think that if you can prove as happened in Springfield, Ohio, that there are severe damages that people are being businesses are being put out of business because it's owned by a Haitian immigrant where there's actual financial damage, I think that that may give cause to a more compelling lawsuit that might have a good chance of winning. This California one is interesting because it's based on the claims made by ExxonMobil that all plastic is recyclable. And they've been promoting the use of all sorts of products which come from their underlying petrochemicals, which are plastics. And in fact the truth is that it is too expensive to recycle and that at most 10% of everything that is produced by plastic is actually recycled. And we are polluting the world because of single use plastics. That's why the suit was brought. I think that they have very good evidence because they have some Internal emails that show that people within Exxon knew what they were saying was false. And they are now saying, well, we are doing advanced recycling methods. We're developing this. But even the advanced ones are more expensive than creating new plastic. And so I think it's really important that this case go forward. They're claiming that they can recycle a certain amount of plastic and that they have in fact recycled like 60,000, 60 million tons or pounds. I can't remember the difference between pounds and tons. Whereas California every year produces at least 10 million. So it's an infinitesimal amount that they say they have done. I think those are the kind of lies that we need to start paying attention to and that there needs to be an economic comeuppance for. And it's true with all of these lies. You know, in researching for today, I came upon a Dana Milbank opinion piece. Trump upgrades his con to category. And wow, that's one of the reasons I got so depressed, because I read seven pages of his lies and it's unbelievable. You know, you may let one go as well. That's ridiculous. Who would believe any of that? But then you see them all and how many times he repeats them and also shows his mental incapacity that he'll say the same thing three times in within minutes of each other. I'm going to actually add this opinion piece to our show notes because not that I want to depress everybody, but I think we need to be aware of all the lies that are being told and how we must resist all of them. And that means checking all sources. As you said, Barb, the best way is to trust reliable sources. But I know that there are people out there probably not listening to our show, but there are people out there listening to Fox who believe what they hear on Fox, even though we know that Fox has paid almost a billion dollars in damages because they lie and they knowingly lie. So we need to make sure that people get the information from more reliable sources.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah. Let me ask you about a different aspect of disinformation that comes out of natural disasters. Joyce, you noted when we were talking about this topic that sometimes there are criminals who will exploit the opportunity to commit fraud during a natural disaster. You know, during Hurricane Katrina, there were claims all over the country. As far as Detroit, we had some Hurricane Katrina relief fraud cases. Tell us about your experiences in that area.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, so I was surprised when we were approached by. Actually, we were initially approached by some folks who were looking at some civil lawsuits for misuse of Katrina relief Funds. And they had stumbled on a situation in my district and wanted us to take a look. And we began to realize that there were people making fraudulent claims for recovery funds post Katrina. You'll recall that Katrina was devastating, especially to people who had any involvement in the fishing economy down in Louisiana. And that ultimately there were global settlements between the Gulf coast states. The attorneys generals of those states worked together, Republicans and Democrats. It was sort of impressive to get relief. But what we were seeing were opportunistic criminals who thought that they could get away with small dollar amounts of fraud. $50,000 here, $120,000 there. They thought that they could sneak under the radar screen. And the case where I finally had enough was a woman who was in Birmingham, who had never set foot in Louisiana in her whole life. She filed a complaint to get relief, and she bought herself a brand new Mercedes with money that was meant for people who were struggling after Katrina. And so we decided we would have a zero tolerance approach. We actually did small cases. Hers was a smallish one in dollar amounts that we normally didn't devote our resources to. But we thought that if we spent four or five months banging out every case that we got wind of that people would quit doing it because they wouldn't want to go to federal prison. And I think that worked really well. You know, and there were some ways, I mean, Barb, you know this too, right? As a U.S. attorney, you have to think carefully about where you devote your resources. But we thought that problem was so appalling, that sort of just outright blatant theft from both taxpayers and people who really needed the money. So we decided to go forward and create some deterrence and felt pretty good about what we did.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah. We also had cases from Katrina even up here in Detroit. That's incredible, isn't it? Yeah. I remember a guy who claimed to have had a tour boat company that just never existed, and he filed a big claim. And I think part of it is because FEMA pays upfront and doesn't ask a lot of questions because they want to provide relief to people who really need it. But they do scrutinize later, look for the records, and if you can't provide the receipts, the government's gonna come knocking at your door. We did similar things. We had a big flood during the time I was U.S. attorney and FEMA came in to provide relief and same thing. Even if they were low dollar frauds, we prosecuted them because it's so important that those funds be used for the real victims who need them. Kim and Jill, I wanted to ask you, there are other common scams that con artists use after a natural disaster, and it seems like we should warn our listeners to be on the lookout for some of them. What's your favorite or least favorite natural disaster scam?

[Jill Winebanks]

Boy, there are so many, it's hard to pick a really one to warn about. But there are always fake inspectors who show up and will say, I'm from FEMA if you pay me $10. Usually it's not $10. If you pay me $100, I can get your inspections. Speed it up. Or there are fake construction companies that come out and you need to be careful about who you pay money to. FEMA will never ask you for money, so don't trust anyone who does. Make sure you look for a badge that identifies them as from the federal government. And with contractors, you have to be really careful and never pay upfront for the repair until you've checked out the person and then you never pay all of it until the work is done. And if you report this, the word can be spread about who is doing bad things. So I think those are two that I would mention offhand.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Yeah, I would only add anything financial. Right. I mean, there are going to be people posing as a contractor of the government. You know, they're administering the payment or something and then you give them your bank information and off they go. Or people trying to offer relief of some sort, which is particularly the worst because they too are targeting people who are at their worst. So, yeah, I think Jill gives good advice. Just check everything out and make sure it's legit and use extra care.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yes, dear listeners, we want you to be secure in your disaster relief.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

There is a lot of turmoil in the world these days and it can feel especially stressful or hopeless when things are outside of our control. That's why we believe very much in the power of meditation with calm. Calm can help you restore your sense of balance and peace when you're surrounded by chaos. Since I've started using it, you know, I have found it a lot easier to unwind from the endless new cycle of awfulness and just sort of take a moment to recenter and connect with what's important, you know, now the challenges and stressors, they feel manageable instead of feeling like massive obstacles.

[Jill Winebanks]

So, Kim, I'm glad you mentioned all of this because you're usually the one who's on the ledge and this week it's me. If I burst into tears during the show, everyone, please forgive me. And if I don't, it's only because Calm is the number one app for sleep and meditation. It empowers you to calm your mind and change your life. CALM knows everyone faces unique challenges in their daily lives and mental health isn't about a one size fits all solution. That's why Calm offers a wide range of content to help you navigate life's ups and downs. And I know we're having a lot of those recently with programs like Meditations that are designed to help you work through anxiety and stress, boost your focus, build healthier habits, and take better care of your physical well being. And who doesn't need that?

[Barbara McQuaid]

There are also sleep stories, sleep meditations and calming music that will help you drift off to restful sleep quickly and naturally. It's so relaxing. It's the perfect end to a stressful day. But when you're feeling overwhelmed, we recommend you try their grounding exercises too. These short guided sessions use sensation, movement and breath work to help you relax and reset. Calm even has powerful expert led talks designed to help you handle grief, improve self esteem, care for relationships and more.

[Joyce Vance]

CALM puts the tools you need right in your pocket and can help you dedicate just a few minutes each day to live a happier, healthier life. Stress less, sleep more, and live better with Calm. For listeners of our show, Calm is offering an exclusive offer of 40% off a Calm premium subscription at calm.com sisters. Go to calm.com sisters for 40% off unlimited access to Calm's entire library. Again, that's calm.com sisters. You can also find the link in our show notes. On Tuesday, the Justice department charged a 27 year old Afghani national with a terrorist plot to disrupt election day here in the United States. Nasir Ahmad Tawedi was arrested and charged in a complaint with conspiring and attempting to provide material support to ISIS and with possessing a firearm in connection with that crime. The charges are very serious ones. Tewetti faces up to 20 years in prison. So Jill, can you start us off? I mean, it's been fascinating to me. This story has not gotten the coverage in the media that I would expect. Right. It's about a violent attack planned for election day, but a lot of people haven't heard about it. Can you talk about the evidence the FBI uncovered about the crime Tewetti was planning to commit and that led to his arrest?

[Jill Winebanks]

Sure can. And it is really serious because he was planning a mass violent action with AK47s on election day, a large group of people and he had bought over 500 rounds of ammunition. So you can Imagine what could have happened. And it was him and a minor relative. A relative who is a minor. Not a minor relative, but a relative who is a minor who is not indicted but is listed as co conspirator one. And it I don't know how the FBI first got onto this plot, but however that was, they ended up being the ones who quote, sold, end quote, the AK47s to him, which meant that they could stop it. As one of Barb's favorite phrases is left of boom. Which means you have to go far enough in the plot so that you can convict them of a serious crime, but you can't go too far along or they may actually end up committing the crime. And so you need to stop it before it gets committed. And considering that we're less than a month away from the election and this was planned for election day, they did it about as close to election as they possibly could to arrest them and stop this violence. The evidence shows that this person had been in touch with ISIS leaders and had text messages and phone calls with them. He had sold his personal property and his, I believe it was his father's home for over $180,000 so that he could use the money for this plot and donate it to isis. He had planned to evacuate his family except for himself and this other relative who was a co conspirator and his father, who according to the information knew nothing about this, but who didn't want to leave. They were all being relocated so that they wouldn't be arrested or hurt in America. They were being, you know, plane tickets had been bought and that kind of pre planning for his siblings and his, his mother, his wife and his one year old. This is a person with a one year old who was reading stories about how he would be, not he particularly, but reading stories about martyrs and going to heaven and having 47 vestal virgins with him, which I would think his wife might have been offended by, but who knows? So this was a really serious thing. And it's kind of, in a way ironic that it was in Oklahoma, which was many years ago, where the federal building was blown up and several hundred people were killed. And in the category of I bet you didn't know this about me, one of my very good friends is the only woman who has ever designed a federal building and she was responsible for redesigning the federal building in Oklahoma. Her name is Carol Ross Barney. And so I think that was an interesting little tidbit about the bombing which destroyed the federal building.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, I mean, now you've got Oklahoma City as a nexus not only for white supremacist domestic terror, but for international terror. And, Barb, to that point, when I read this story about this arrest, it felt more like 2010 than 2024. We don't worry as much about ISIS as we used to. I was fascinated to see Director Wray, the director of the FBI, Chris Wray, come out, say international terrorism continues to be our number one priority. And I sort of have two mindsets about that. On the one hand, I'm glad that they're watching, and I'm grateful to the brave men and women at the FBI who kept us all safe with this. I also hope that they're sparing some of that attention for the white domestic terror.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Right.

[Joyce Vance]

That lurks around the edges of our society in this day and age. But something that caught my attention is the fact that Tewetti got arrested based on a complaint. This was not a grand jury indictment. Right. This looks like it was something that happened fast. You've got a background in these kind of terrorism cases. What does that say to you? And maybe more importantly, what do you think will come next?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, so this is an interesting technique. You know, there are two ways to charge somebody. You can charge them initially in a complaint, which is a very nimble instrument. A prosecutor can draft it up quickly. It gets sworn out. It can even come after an arrest. And you don't need to go in front of a grand jury, which may be only sitting certain days of the week. And so if you need to arrest somebody quickly, a complaint is usually the way to go. Now, an indictment needs to be filed, however, fairly quickly thereafter. If the person is in custody, there's going to be a preliminary exam within about 10 days. And so typically, prosecutors will try to beat that step to bypass it and get to the grand jury. So eventually, they're going to go to the grand jury anyway. But what it says to me is probably a couple things. This was a sting operation. So they found out that this guy had these plans, and so they gave him the opportunity to buy the firearm and then arrested him. So they were doing this nimbly. But in terms of what might come next, it could be that what we saw here was just one charge, and there may be additional charges that come later. We saw this in the case involving the attempted assassination of Donald Trump. Remember, initially, they just charged him with the easy charge, the charge of possessing weapons, while they continue to investigate his involvement in an attempted assassination. And the really key thing that they want to look for is Is there anyone else involved? Is this really a lone actor or are there others? And so one of the things is upon arresting them, to obtain their digital devices, laptops, tablets, cell phones, and search those to see who they are talking with about these situations, because that could lead them to other people. So I think we'll have to watch and see. So imagine there will be an indictment in at some point. There could even be a superseding indictment down the road after they've had a chance to conduct further investigation. But the complaint tells us that this may not be the whole story.

[Jill Winebanks]

And Joyce, can I add something? Two things. One, there is a person named Malek listed in the indictment with whom Nasser Tawadi was in communication. Probably not in America, but they know who he is and they've seen the communications, and he certainly could be added as a defendant. So that would be one additional thing. The minor probably, hopefully is cooperating, but so is Tawadi. He basically confessed. And so I don't even know that we will need an indictment. There may be a guilty plea arranged because of that. He is not fighting it. He's basically admitted it.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, I mean, I suppose that's possible. And I've seen these cases break both ways. For one thing, there is some scope where investigators can talk to a defendant like this before they Mirandize them. And that can still come in under the public safety exception. But I think it's likely that they reached a point here where once they ascertained that there was no immediate risk that they would have gone ahead and read him his Miranda rights. Sometimes defendants will give you a statement at that point, and then they won't want to plead guilty down the road. And so it be interesting to see how it falls out. But, Barb, do you have a gut sense here, just from the way that the FBI is acting now that this indictment or discharge is out public? Do you think that they're acting in any way that leads you to believe that there's more to this, that perhaps Malik, the online recruiter who was talking to Teddy, may have been working with other people? Whether or not they pick it up from Teddy's comms, is this a big problem that we're only just now seeing the tip of the iceberg on?

[Barbara McQuaid]

I think it's possible. I think some things we don't know is maybe Moetty is a cooperator. So it could be somebody they're charging or it could be somebody who was a cooperator. So I think what seems likely the only tea leaves I'll read is There may be more to come. I'm not sure I know what that is, but it seems that there are more people involved in this and we will likely learn more as the case proceeds.

[Joyce Vance]

Well, thank goodness that would be. Terrorists continue to sell off all of their worldly possessions on Facebook, so the FBI knows when it's go time. You know, Kim, I'm curious about your perspective on this as a lawyer turned journalist. There's a big threat environment ahead of this election. There are concerns about everything from, you know, Donald Trump to traditional sorts of voter intimidation sort of schemes, white supremacist intimidation. I know we'll be talking about concerns about vote certification once Election Day is passed. I'm wondering if we now have to start worrying about foreign terrorist recruitment of people who want to engage in violent attacks against our election. And if so, what do you do as a journalist? How do you cover an issue like this in a responsible way?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Yeah, I mean, it's. There is a lot. There's a lot going on, as you noted. It's just to be responsible and focus on facts but give proper context to it. So, yes, this case is remarkable that we discussed, but still, what is at the fingertips of journalists is the FBI's reports that issue the extent to which there is a threat to folks. And this would rank lower in the overall likelihood than some of the other things that you said. You can give things in proper context while still talking about that. You can reiterate that the previous election was not stolen. And so a lot of claims that they were are dubious because there is no evidence that they were. It's hard to keep giving that much context, especially as an election draws nearer. And, you know, networks all have their fancy screens that they want to cover it like it's a horse race. And, you know, it seems much more interesting when you can point to both sides in your coverage. But there is a certain thing as the truth and that needs to govern the context in which folks do their job. Some journalists are very good at it, others not so much. But we need everyone to be better.

[Jill Winebanks]

You know, at my age, I never get tired of hearing compliments about my skin. It's a real confidence booster. And I think I know why I keep getting those compliments. Because before I golf or garden or honestly do just about anything outdoors, I use OneSkin's OS One Face, SPF Protect and Repair to fight back against sun damage. Whether at home or traveling for vacation, I feel great knowing my skin will be ready for anything the elements throw at me. I'm especially prone to sun damage, and that's probably partly based on my youthful bad practices before we knew about the dangers of the sun. So I love that One Skin's regimen works fast and the formulas feel amazing when you apply them. When anyone asks if I really love One Skin as much as I say I do on this show, I say absolutely. And I'm certain you'll be a big fan too. Just try it.

[Joyce Vance]

You know I'm a fan for sure. I always feel fresh and vibrant now that I've added One Skin to my skincare regimen. And it also makes my skin feel like it's tight on my face. Not in a bad way. It feels good and moisturized, but sort of young and resilient too. You can see and feel the difference difference in no time. It really happens within the first or second time you try it, and I couldn't be happier with the results. The secret lies in one skin's proprietary OS 01 peptide. It's the first ingredient proven to switch off the damaged senescent cells that cause lines, wrinkles and thin crepey skin. The routine is super easy too. That's the best part of it. Just cleanse, pat your skin dry and apply twice daily. Plus, the cleanser and the topical supplement can all be used with other products or treatments, so it's the perfect fit for any skincare routine.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

The science is clear. One Skin's entire line of face, body, sun and travel size products has been backed by extensive lab and clinical data that validate their efficacy and safety on every skin type. It's great knowing that all of their offerings are free from over 50, 1500 different kinds of chemicals and preservatives that have known to make skin red and irritated or itchy. I have very sensitive skin, so I really appreciate it. And they're even certified as safe for sensitive skin dermatologists, tested and approved by independent testing platforms like SkinSafe.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Get started with Oneskin, the world's first skin longevity company. By focusing on the cellular aspects of aging, One Skin keeps your skin looking and acting younger for longer. For a limited time, you can try one skin with 15% off using code sisters at OneSkin co. That's 15% off OneSkin co with Code Sisters. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Give your skin the scientifically proven gentle care it deserves with one skin. The link is in our show.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Notes.

[Jill Winebanks]

Project 2025 is a collection of policy transition proposals that outline how should trump win in November, he can vastly remake the federal government most effectively to carry out an extremist far right ag agenda. The project's website makes clear its goals. It says it is not enough for conservatives to win elections. If we are going to rescue the country from the grip of the radical left. We need both a governing agenda and the right people in place ready to carry this agenda out on day one of the next conservative administration. This is the goal of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. And we've discussed.

[Joyce Vance]

Oh Lord, I'm back out on the ledge with you now just listening to that.

[Jill Winebanks]

Well, at least I'm not alone anymore. So thank you for joining me, but.

[Barbara McQuaid]

It'S gonna be okay. It's gonna be okay.

[Jill Winebanks]

Yeah. Hopefully on November 5th we will feel better. Or November 10th or whenever. We have discussed several aspects in past Sisters in Law episodes, but today I wanna talk about a few more. I found a warning about Project 2025 in an unlikely place. And that was the Self website where I normally see exercise recommendations, not political commentary. But recently I saw a headline that read, Three major ways Project 2025 could impact your reproductive health. And we've discussed two of the warnings they gave, which were about abortion pills and emergency contraception being harder to access and threats to birth control and fertility treatments possibly being at risk. But there was Another warning from Self.com about your healthcare. And Kim, could you talk about that one that we haven't talked about before?

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Yeah. Essentially it would try to limit access not just to things that can aid infertility or contraception that's in it. We've talked about that before. But by extension it would eliminate as preventative care things like STI screening or other treatments that are directed specifically at STIs or other things. So, for example, when you think about it, that would include things like prep for people who have hiv, that would eliminate STI screenings for. For people who are at greater risk of getting STIs. That would mean all kinds of preventative care on a slippery slope for everyone in a way that would go far beyond that. And we're already seeing cases where there are lawsuits aimed at trying to deny that types of care from receiving any sort of public funding. So I think you will only see that increase.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah.

[Jill Winebanks]

And I think it could extend to preventing cancer screening, the way I read this.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Right, right. Especially with things like hpv, which is considered to be an sti. If the screening is based on that.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah.

[Jill Winebanks]

So. Okay. Another one that I was surprised about was, you know, we've talked Already today about the lies about Hurricane Milton and Helene. But there's another threat from Project 2025 that could make hurricane predictions and response even worse. What is that, Barb?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Oh, well, speaking of hurricanes. Yes. There are several propos that I think really go hand in hand with the climate change denial movement. So one of them affects the national oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That's known as noa. Noaa. And this is the part of the government that leads the weather and other research operations. Project 2025 calls for it to be broken up and downsized. And the reason is that the agency is, quote, harmful to US Prosperity, end quote. Because it has, quote, become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Wait, there's an industry?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Apparently.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

So do they have conventions and stuff?

[Barbara McQuaid]

And Project 2025 says that the work of NOAA should instead be done commercially. We should make money off of the weather, folks. We should not be providing this for free. And along those lines, the National Weather Service to the crosshairs of Project 2025. Of course, the National Weather Service provides weather forecasts and data all across the country for people to rely on. Project 2025 says that the National Weather Service should be fully commercialized in its forecasting operations, working with private partners rather than providing weather casts for free.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

So wait a minute, wait a minute. So that means that Elon Musk would be in charge of. Of noaa and also what else? The National Weather Service.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, the National Weather Service.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Because one guess at who these contracts are going to be going to.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, well, you know, now that they can control the weather, it only makes sense that we should make money off of them. And I'll just mention one more as.

[Jill Winebanks]

It pertains to Democrats, and no Democrat is going to get that contract under Project 2020.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Well, Joyce is going to do it with her laser eyes. That's good. I have one more along these lines because it's very pertinent to our prior discussion. It is about fema and it says this emergency response agency is, quote, overtasked and overcompensates for state and local government. And it's regularly deep in debt. And so this agency should be overhauled and shrunk. And so we should let the states and local governments shoulder the responsibility for emergencies, freeing up to FEMA to handle the truly catastrophic disasters where its services are most needed. So in other words, every state for yourselves. You know, I think some of the states, some of the red states, Florida is going to want a word about this. You're on your own.

[Joyce Vance]

Florida.

[Barbara McQuaid]

When the hurricane storms come. So, you know, this idea of privatizing and sending everything to the states, you know, there are times when the beauty of FEMA is they have the ability to be nimble and to pivot and to go anywhere in the country because they've got emergency workers all over the place. If you're going to leave every state to themselves and defund FEMA because. And one of the reasons is because it's chronically underfunded, how about you recognize climate change, start investing in things that will not ruin the climate so that we have fewer of these emergencies to do.

[Jill Winebanks]

Yeah. I mean, and listening to what you're saying, it's not a surprise that Donald Trump would favor privatizing because we know how much money he made while he was president and what his future prospects are for making money out of being president. But anyway.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah. And may I just say, it's called kleptocracy.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Yes.

[Barbara McQuaid]

And it is what happens in Russia where you designate certain oligarchs, you know, your profile preferred friends and wealthy people who will be loyal to you, you award them these big contracts and in turn they kick back some of it to you in the terms of political donations so that there's this little cycle of patting each other's backs to keep each other in power.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Right.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah.

[Joyce Vance]

And you know, it's worse than just a kleptocracy, right? It's kleptocracy and it's a khakistocracy where you let the most mediocre people run government. So instead of high quality officials, you've got mediocrity combined with corruption. It's a real recipe for autocracy and disaster and.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Wait, and what was the word you used to describe it?

[Joyce Vance]

Khakistocracy.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Khaki. I was thinking like, you know, the kind of pants Jim Harbaugh wears. That's a great word.

[Joyce Vance]

There's a joke there, but I'm going to try to resist.

[Jill Winebanks]

Oh, man. Well, I don't know if the laughter is good for us, but it isn't really funny because these are seriously dangerous things. And there's yet another one which are friend at MSNBC Ali Velshi has written about, which is the overall plan to make the President a king with the power of the once far out of mainstream idea of a unitary executive. Tell us, Joyce, what Project 2025 plans and whether it has actually already been accomplished by an out of control Supreme Court in its grant of almost total immunity to former President Trump.

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah. So you know I think your question is exactly the right one. This is, how does Project 2025 intersect with this very pro Trump Supreme Court?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Right.

[Joyce Vance]

I mean, there's. There's not a nice way to say it. Whether it's intentional or not, people might have different interpretations, but the impact of the immunity decision is very much to create a future presidency. If Donald Trump wins where he is free to do what he wants to do, he's been given a roadmap for executing the worst excesses of Project 2025. As long as he does it as part of his official conversations with his Justice Department or other similar folks. Right. He probably will have some level of confidence that he can skate and that he can pardon anyone around him. And this maybe is as much about the Supreme Court as it is about Project 2025. But I think the injustice that the court has done in this regard is that they have relied upon the fact that Joe Biden is a good man and a decent man and an honest man who they do not believe will abuse the powers of the presidency. They clearly think the same thing about Vice President Harris. And what they've done is they've used that good faith and confidence to liberate the bad conduct that Donald Trump engaged in in the past and would undoubtedly engage in if reelected, to give him, you know, a Runway for misconduct. And that's really the problem. Project 2025, like all policy documents, has some truly, truly horrible things in it. Will all of them get implemented? You know, administrations get four years, they do some things, they don't do others. There are folks behind Project 2025 who I think are deeply committed. The darkest parts of Project 2025, will they succeed in completely eradicating the Department of Education? That could be tough to do. But could they strip out all of the funding for special needs kids? Yeah, they can absolutely do that. And so when you look at the entire package, it's really deeply troubling when you add to that a president who can act in sort of a crime fulness manner if he chooses to. To Barb's point, perhaps sucking out profit via corruption. Right. Sending all those contracts to Elon Musk or making sure that aid only goes to states and counties that voted for Donald Trump. That would be an official act. Right. Deciding what states could get aid. I've been thinking about that a lot in the context of Helain and Milton. And so when you look at it all together, even when I try to, you know, be this very measured, thoughtful person who understands how policy gets implemented, I think it's truly terrifying. And that, Jill, is why I'm out on the ledge with you this week. Yeah.

[Jill Winebanks]

And for good reason. And it's I guess you'll be safe in your state. I certainly won't be if he's reelected. Because I think Illinois is a solidly blue state. And you know, what you're saying reminds me when Richard Nixon said, if the president does it, it's not ill. I never thought that would become true. And then the Supreme Court issued its ruling in U.S. v. Trump, and it is true. And that is terrifying. And why Donald Trump should never be allowed to be near the White House again.

[Joyce Vance]

Oh, Jill Winebanks, that was perfect. You know, a good mail day in my house is a day where a box full of new Thrive cosmetics shows up. And I had that experience last week when I got some of the new eye colors for fall. Thrive is just great. Whether your look is fresh faced, radiant or autumn glam, join us in spicing up your fall routine with Thrive Cosmetics. You've probably seen the viral tubing mascara all over your socials. It's the one in the turquoise tube and a personal favorite of mine. Thrive has so many other amazing products and each high performance and trademarked formula is certified as 100% vegan and cruelty free with zero parabens, sulfates or talates. It's no wonder that their bestsellers have thousands of five star reviews.

[Jill Winebanks]

You know Joyce, I agree with you. Opening a box of all these different colors was like a dream for me. I spent hours playing around with the different colors and I love them all. I am in love with Thrive's brilliant eye brightener. It's a luxurious highlighter and eyeshadow combo that makes your eye look effortless. Whether you're preparing for a meeting, hosting friends, or out enjoying a fall day, there's nothing better for a fresh, vibrant look. It comes in 17 buildable shades to play with, so you can use as little or as much as you like. And it's so easy to apply. You can start with just a light shade to the inner corners of your eye to open them up and give them a glow. I use a slightly different color on the lid and a darker one on the crease for a subtle blend. I recommend the Stella, but you can also use a metallic shade all over your eyelid and blend it with your fingertips for an easy smokey eye. It's my secret for making my eyes pop on camera. You have to try it.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Another thing we love is that cause is in the name for a reason Thrive not only defines Luxury beauty with their clean skin, loving ingredients and uncompromising standards, but they also give back too. With every purchase, you support organizations helping communities Thrive Thrive donates to eight major causes, including the Fight Against Cancer and Domestic Abuse, veteran and education organizations, and more. I'm glad we're a part of it. Like us, you'll look great and feel great with Thrive.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Thrive has so much more to offer. So spice up your fall look with Thrive Cosmetics, Luxury Beauty that gives back. And right now you can get an exclusive 20% off your first order at thrivecosmetics.com sisters that's thrivecosmetics c a u S E M E t I c s.com sisters for 20% off your first order, you can also find the link in our shop Notes. We've now come to the part of the show that really is our favorite and that is answering your questions. If you have a question, please email [e-mail] or tag us on social media. And we pick three every week. And if we can't get to those three, or if one of yours isn't the one that's chosen, keep your eye on your feeds. We're online sometimes when we answer them there. So our first question comes from Sherry, who asks SCOTUS decided to leave in place the Texas lower court ruling that hospitals cannot be required to perform emergency abortions. Did they vote on that, or did one justice make the decision? Joyce, how did that go down?

[Joyce Vance]

Yeah, well, this is more reason to be out on the ledge. This week, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Biden administration's attempt to appeal from a 5th Circuit decision that said that Texas could ignore the federal law, EMTALA, that requires ERs in hospitals that get funding from Medicare, which is virtually all of them, to provide emergency abortions to stabilize a patient's condition. That's the horrible cases that we've been hearing about, the ones where women suffer and die from a lack of care, sometimes in the hospital, sometimes in the waiting room, sometimes out in the parking lot. That wouldn't continue to happen if the Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the administration. But the court declined to hear that case. They did not issue an opinion. We don't know their reasoning, but that means that Texas can still refuse to provide abortions in its emergency room. Or perhaps more to the point, it can force doctors and hospitals to refuse to provide them. Texas argued, by the way, in its briefing papers, that its law is different from the Idaho law that the court was supposed to decide about last term. But then they punted that case, saying it was improvidently grant. But in Idaho, that left in place a lower court ruling that required Idaho to follow EMTALA and provide emergency care. And so I think part of your question is what's the difference? Right. Why is there now one rule in Idaho and a different rule in Texas? And that's because Texas says its law has exceptions for patients health and doctors don't have to wait for approval. But that's not really the case because in this environment where doctors are afraid of being prosecuted, they don't provide care, the hospitals might be afraid. They have complex rules. And that's why we're seeing women wait as their health deteriorates. So look, you know, for now it's just Texas, but it's never just Texas these days. I wrote a little bit about what happened in Texas and about there's also a Georgia abortion case where Georgia has reinstated its six week abortion ban. I wrote about those cases earlier this week in my newsletter Civil Discourse, and I'll link to that in our show notes. But the important thing is to keep reminding everyone around you that abortion truly is on the ballot this year, not just in the presidential races, in all of the races, up and down ballot. We need everybody to keep that in mind when they vote.

[Jill Winebanks]

Joyce, can I just, I just want to add that the Judge McBurney Georgia decision is one that everyone should read because it is some of the most cogent argument, most persuasive, most logical about why a six week abortion, abortion ban should be thrown out. Now, it was a decision based on the Georgia constitution, not the federal constitution, but it's still a really good read. And maybe let's put a link in the show notes to that decision.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah.

[Joyce Vance]

But don't get too carried away because Judge McBurney is a superior court judge in Georgia. He's a trial judge. And it took the court of appeals, the Supreme Court, about five seconds to reverse him. And I think the problem is we all know what the truth is and what abortion rights mean to women. Unfortunately, we live in a world where large groups dominated by white men who will never have to face that decision are making decisions for us. And so I read Judge McBurney's decision, sort of, it was sort of sad, right? It made so much sense. It is not the law. It will not be the law.

[Jill Winebanks]

And you knew from the moment that it was written that it would be reversed immediately. It lasted seven days. The last time there was a decision like this, it lasted eight days. So, you know, we knew it was going to be reversed, but it's still, it's just there's so much good language in the decision that I was very impressed by it and it made arguments like 13th amendment enslavement that I had never really seen spelled out so well.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Our next question is from Al in Plymouth, Massachusetts. I have friends in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Hello, Al. The question is in the recent filing of Jack Smith, only the former president has been charged. What, what is the statute of limitations on several people identified in the document?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yes, I think that we are clearly waiting for the other shoe to drop against these co conspirators who are described but not named or charged in the superseding indictment. In the January 6 case, the statute of limitations is five years from the last act of a conspiracy. So the indictment alleges that that last act occurred in January of 2021. So five years from that date is January of 2026. So there's like a year and a half left for them to file those charges. So I don't think anybody can rest easily until that happens. I have heard talk that there are defendants in the white collar world who occasionally pay attention to these kinds of dates and celebrate when the statute of limitations expires on potential criminal liability. So you can bet that those co conspirator 1 through 6 minus 41 has been removed, believed to be Jeffrey Clark, no longer part of that indictment, that those five individuals will be holding their breath until January of 2026.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

And our last question is, I believe the name is Cissy Landstrom, who asks the lies with respect to the lies about Haitians and bomb threats. Sweden has a law against agitation against an ethnic group. Huh. Does the US have something similar?

[Jill Winebanks]

Jill, so thank you for that question because I, I thought it was pretty thought provoking and wondered if it is a law that we could or should have. And I did look at the Swedish law and looked at whether there's anything in the US and the answer is sort of no, but not completely no. There is no crime like that. And I think the First Amendment would be an impediment to that. So if there is an imminent threat, however of harm, then even the First Amendment wouldn't prevent it. And as we talked about during the show, there is the lawsuit by the Haitian community in Ohio. And so maybe there are laws that could become law in America to set a better basis for it. So even if January 6th does not meet the test, and I think that it might, that there was agitation that led to harm and damage. I mean, there was property damage and death that resulted from the January 6th. So I think that there might be a possibility of bringing a case, if only as a tort, but maybe as more than a tort because of the harm that was suffered as a result of the fostering of the insurrection.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

Thank you for listening to SistersinLaw with Barb McQuaid, Jill Wine Banks, Joyce Fancy and me, Kim Atkins store. And don't Forget to follow SistersInLaw on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. And please give us a five star review because that helps others find our show. And please, please, please show some love for this week's sponsors factor, Honey Love, Calm One Skin and Thrive Cosmetics. Their links are in the show notes. Please show them some love because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode. Hashtag SistersInLaw.

[Jill Winebanks]

Hey, I forgot to tell you guys. I petted a chicken. It's the first time I've ever touched a chicken.

[Joyce Vance]

Really?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yes.

[Jill Winebanks]

I was canvassing in rural Wisconsin and there was one chicken who was a pet who hopped up on the stairs of the house where I was talking to the owner. And the owner said, oh, that's Lola. And I said, could I touch her? And she said, oh, yeah, she's very friendly. And she came over and she let me pet her. How silky.

[Joyce Vance]

They're pretty sweet.

[Jill Winebanks]

Yeah, really sweet. It was wonderful.

[Kimberly Atkins Storr]

When you said her name was Lola. I thought I was gonna say she was gonna go.

[Jill Winebanks]

I'd say that's your job, not mine. Yeah, I saw horses and goats and there were, at one point I thought there were some beautiful next to a horse and a goat. And it turned out they were sheep all curled up and they were three different colors. It was. I mean, they really looked like rocks.

[Joyce Vance]

Oh, my God. It's like Jill Goes to Farm country. It's a children's book.

[Barbara McQuaid]

It's another children's book. It's a children's book. There we go. Oh, boy, oh, boy.

[Jill Winebanks]

Oh, God. I'll have to fit that into my children's book. Okay.

[E]

When you think about businesses that are selling through the roof, allbirds or skims, sure, you think about a great product, a cool brand and brilliant marketing. But an often overlooked secret is actually the businesses behind the business. Making, selling, and for the shoppers, buying. Simple. For millions of businesses, that business is Shopify. Nobody does selling better than Shopify. Home of the number one checkout on the planet. And the not so secret secret with shop pay that boosts conversions up to 50%, meaning way less carts going abandoned and way more sales going. So if you're into growing your business, your commerce platform better be ready to sell wherever your customers are scrolling or scrolling on the web, in your store, in their feed, and everywhere in between. Businesses that sell more sell on Shopify. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout skims uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com audioboom all lowercase go to shopify.com audioboom to upgrade your selling today. Shopify.com audioboom.

[F]

Black Friday is coming. And for the adults in your life who love the coolest toys, well, there's something for this year too. Bartisian is the premier craft cocktail maker that automatically makes more than 60 seasonal and classic cocktails each in under 30 seconds at the push of a button. And right now Bartisian is having a huge site wide sale. You can get $100 off any cocktail maker or cocktail maker bundle when you spend $400 or more. So if the cocktail lover in your life has been good this year or the right kind of bad, get them Bartesian at the push of a button. Make bar quality Cosmopolitans, Martinis, Manhattans and more all in just 30 seconds. All for 100 off. Amazing toys aren't just for kids. Get 100 off a cocktail maker when you spend 400 through Cyber Monday. Visit bartesian.com cocktail that's B A R T E S I A N dot com cocktail.