B (2:57)

I have. I have. What can I say? And so I am a union member.

C (3:00)

I, I, I.

B (3:01)

When you first asked this question, it flashed through my mind that the first thing I think of about Labor Day is you can't wear white after Labor Day. And that there are cookouts. Yeah, I know you can, but that used to be the hard and fast rule.

A (3:14)

Oh, yeah, I still follow that rule.

B (3:16)

And it used to also be, of course, the back to school day. And now, of course, school starts much earlier than that. But then I also started thinking about when I was head of Career and Technical Education and worked very closely with several unions, the Teamsters and the Plumbers to get career training for our students, and how proud I am of that because those are great jobs that have great pay. And so I now have a different attitude. I know people forget that Labor Day is to celebrate workers. There are parades. You know, it goes back to the 1880s when Labor Day first started. And the Pullman strikes in Chicago were one of the founding reasons. And there's still a Pullman neighborhood in Chicago that celebrates that history. So, yeah, I love Labor Day. This year, we're actually going on the Chicago Architectural Foundation's cruise on the Chicago river, where you get a really unique view of the city from the river. And I'm very excited about it. We have a friend of ours, a friend of my husband's from Cambridge is a docent on the cruise. And so it's gonna be really a fun Labor Day.

C (4:31)

Can I just make a suggestion for our listeners is if you wanna see a great about the Pullman and the Pullman strike, there's a PBS video that I think you can find on the PBS website. It's part of the Chicago Stories. But that whole series is outstanding.

B (4:49)

It is a great series. It's fabulous.

C (4:51)

It's so good. And the one about the tells the entire story about the Pullman Company and the Pullman Porters is really just great. That would be a wonderful way to celebrate Labor Day.

A (5:03)

Yeah, that's a good Labor Day. I might watch it from the puppy seat. Who knows?

B (5:07)

Yeah. You know, when you mentioned Pullman, I just have to say the first female attorney that I ever really worked with was Patricia Roberts Harris, who became a cabinet member in the Carter administration. Her father was a Pullman Porter. And so that was, you know, it was just very special to me. She was fantastic.

C (5:38)

So, you know, my husband often says correctly, that from Labor Day to Memorial Day is blanket season for me. I'm literally under a blanket every day. And he's not wrong. And that's why I'm so glad that we are Sponsored by Lola, who is the world's number one blanket. Crafted with ultra soft luxury vegan faux fur and a signature four way stretch that sets it apart from every other blanket I've owned. It's so comfortable and your pets will love Lola blankets too. Unfortunately, Snickers is not allowed on the Lola blanket because Snickers sheds like crazy. And I, I think the, the blanket has enough fibers, thank you very much, but they are machine washable and double hemmed for durability so they stay flawless no matter what what you put them through. So if you have pets that are allowed on your throws, fear not. And there's no pilling, no shedding, just pure coziness, even after repeated washes. And I have to say, sometimes in the winter I like weighted blankets like they have anxiety and that helps with that and it also helps me sleep. But sometimes it's too heavy. But Lola has enough, like it has a bit of weight to it, but it's still very fluffy that I think it will take the place of the weighted blanket for me and, and just, you know, being a bastion of comfiness. But yes, I ski. I jumped the gun a little bit. Not quite Labor Day, but I've already been enjoying the blanket.

B (7:08)

So I agree with everything you've said and I believe they also have an actual weighted blanket if you really end up needing that. Kim. But they don't just feel good, they look great too. They really add to the aesthetics of any home. They're sort of a universal style that goes from modern to my old antique filled home. And I have to say Brisbi is allowed and he loves the soft, cozy feel. He sheds a lot, but his shedding is white and I bought a white blanket so it doesn't show. It's brilliant. And of course because as you said, it's washable, it doesn't matter. I can keep his hairs off it and I use special pads in the dryer to keep his hair off. But I have to say the best part of it is he looks adorable wrapped in the Lola blanket that we have. He cuddles under it and he is just too cute. And if you just have one Lola, you're going to elevate the look of your space. And that's the room you're going to end up spending the most time in because you want to, whether it's on your bed or if it's on your couch to cozy up under, that's where you're going to spend your time. And every Lola is unbelievably soft, beautifully designed, and makes your home feel cozy and curated. Even on those days when the news is bleak and ice cream and a movie are called for, that's when I want to cuddle in my Lola and watch. I watch An Affair to Remember with Cary Grant and Deborah Carr.

C (8:44)

That's such a good movie.

B (8:47)

I'm so glad you guys like it. I know I can repeat the lines if you can paint, I can walk. Okay. But I mean, it does make me cry every time. But it makes me happy because I'm under my Lola now, and I either am eating Homer's cappuccino chip ice cream or Grater's banana, both of which are just fantastic. It's just an amazing thing.

A (9:11)

So what is this, an ice cream ad or a blanket ad? Let's go check it.

B (9:14)

Well, I just said, when you have to cuddle up with a pint of ice cream and your blanket, this is the thing for you. But we've all seen Lola online and it's exploding all over Instagram. But I actually didn't discover them that way. I discovered them right here on Sisters In Law. Now we are happy to tell everyone about them because we want to make sure you have enough to go around. You'd be surprised how jealous people and pets can be. If you only have one, you're going to have to share it with all those people in your house. So it's a great go to gift. It's personal, beautiful, and won't get tossed into a closet.

A (9:52)

Well, I love the Lola blanket. You know, we have a seat in my home that when my daughter was young, started calling the puppy seat, because she said from this window, you can kind of see all the way down the street. And she said, if I were a puppy, this is where I would sit all day, waiting for my owner to return. We, of course, do not have a puppy, but it's now referred to in the house as the puppy seat. Like the way you talk about the kitchen, you know, like it's totally normal and. And one of my favorite things to do is to sit in the puppy seat. With a blanket, it is the best, like a place to read, especially, like on a snowy day. It's the best. And that is where I've got my Lola blanket. So it's a really cozy place to sit. Don't take our word for it. Lola has more than 10,000 five star reviews. And once you feel it, you'll know why. There's a reason it's called the world's number one blanket. This thing is next level. And we have some great news. For a limited time, our listeners are are getting a huge 35% off their entire order at lolablankets.com by using code SISTERS at checkout. Just head to lolablankets.com and use code SISTERS for 35% off. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Wrap yourself in luxury in your puppy seat with Lola blankets. The link is in our show notes.

B (11:22)

There have been a lot of firings and forced resignations since Trump's inauguration for the second time. And this week his purge of anyone who doesn't do what he wants continued. But it was different because those he says he wants gone are not quite gone yet. They're fighting back as others have before them. But will the outcome be different this time? Let's talk about two cases this week where those targeted are not yet gone, at least as of this recording on Friday afternoon, although there was a hearing in one of the cases this morning and that was the case of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, the first black female governor. Kim, can you give us a journalist's quick who, what and why as to what the Fed does so that people understand the context of this, whether it is more autonomous than other agencies and why Trump wants Cook out and what his alleged or stated basis for ousting her is?

C (12:25)

Yeah. So the Federal Reserve is meant to act in a sense, like the central bank of the United States. It is not a bank in itself, of course, but it's there to regulate U.S. monetary policy. And it involves a lot of things. It can involves keeping an eye on employment and pricing inflation. It does things like decides whether or not to raise or lower interest rates, which is incredibly important for the US Economy. It provides financial services to banks as well as to the government. And it it's designed to ensure that the nation's economy remains steady and prosperous as possible for everyone. So as such, it was created with a lot of independence because the last thing that you need, the two things that the Fed really want are stability, you know, stability and to keep their decisions out of the realm of politics. And to do that, you have to insulate it from being at the whims of any president who wants to just advance his policy over what the overall good is for the US Economy. So the governors are seven governors on the Fed and each of them are appointed to 14 year terms that are staggered by two years. So every presidential term there is the ability to appoint two, two governors to The Fed, every president gets a shot. This is a kind of thing that I would love if they would do the Supreme Court too. But that's not what, that's not what we got. And so that is the reason. And Lisa Cook is one of the governors on the Fed.

B (14:20)

And so there is a difference between what Donald Trump is saying and what he really wants. What does he really want in ousting her and what is he saying the reason is?

C (14:33)

Well, he, I know exactly what he really wants in ousting her because he said so. He said after his attempts to try to force her to quit, that don't. Something to the effect of, don't worry, we'll have a majority on the board soon. Now, that's exactly what you're not supposed to do with the Fed. You're not supposed to assert your own control and try to get authority. But that is exactly what Donald Trump, Trump wants to do. We've seen him sparring very publicly with the Fed chairman, Jay Powell, in a way that Jay Powell basically has just sworn off and said, you know, I'm here to do my job. That has nothing to do with that. And I think the President knows that firing Jay Powell, the Fed chair, would not only cause him to lose political support, but it would also like, roil the markets. Right. That lack of stability would be the last thing that you would think a sitting president will want at a time, especially at a time where prices are high. The tariffs he's wave waging are really pushing. Have you bought, tried to buy a pair of shoes lately, like some sneakers? They're probably 30, $40 more than they used to be. Those tariffs are really having a dramatic impact on people's pocketbooks. So you would think that that's the last thing he wants. And I think he doesn't want the fight with Powell. So who did he look to? He looked to the governor, who is not only the first black woman appointed to that role, she's also a Biden appointee. So I mean, this is, that's like catnip to maga. Like, of course they targeted her to try to first push her to resign. She refused to do so. And then he purported to fire her, which she said, no, no, you cannot do that. The way that the administration has supported their claim that she ought to be ousted is from what I, my opinion is this is a trumped up charge of mortgage fraud because she has allegedly listed more than one of her homes as the primary residence in the mortgage documentation on those homes. Now, why do we know that Were charges brought against her? Was civil action implemented against her? No. We know this because a member of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and that is the agency that oversees mortgage giants like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, launched an investigation into Cook's mortgage application. So. So sua sponte. They're just digging in her. In her mortgage documents. And they said they did so based on a tip. Like, how did they get. This is private information. That's not a public. They had to really dig to get that. And that feels to me like that's a witch hunt, you know, that we're just throwing around a lot. But it feels like they purposely were looking for something to claim that she had to be fired for cause. Because members of the Fed board can't just be fired for no reason. They have to show cause. Now, I still don't understand how what is on somebody's mortgage application for their personal home has to do with their job on the Fed Reserve. But even if that is the case, she's not been charged with a crime. She's not been charged with any civil action. I don't know how you can call that cause. But for the reasons I mentioned above, we see what's going on here.

B (18:04)

Well, cause becomes an important factor here because the rules under which the Fed is established are very clear as to what power there is to fire a member, either the chair or a member of the governors, from that. And you've pointed out an important fact about how this came to be, because it's important to say that Bill Pulte, who is the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, obviously was not just digging through her file. He was looking for Democrats, because similar charges have been filed or referred to the Department of Justice by him for guess who? New York Attorney General Letitia James.

C (18:51)

Shocking.

B (18:52)

Oh, yes, totally shocking. And also Senator Schiff. Oh, terribly shocking. But I have to point out that although there is some credible evidence that Attorney General Republican in Texas, Paxton has filed three mortgage applications listing three properties as his primary residence. But, gosh, are you surprised that there's no referral for Paxton? No, I bet you're not. Right. Okay, so this does make me think of two things. One is that this is definitely not a legitimate referral. And it raises a question that you raised of how did he get this other than he targeted someone? This wasn't just in the normal course of affairs. And that makes it look to me like Nixon and the Enemies List, where Nixon used the irs, the FBI, and the Plumbers, who were a group in the White House. That were supposed to leak, stop leaks. So they were called the plumbers. And of course, that's what led to his impeachment, even though he wasn't successful. Because in that day and age, those agencies stood up to him and said, no, that's not legal. We won't do that. Whereas now Donald Trump has in place people who will do anything he says. So, Barb, let's move to. How has Cook responded to this?

A (20:23)

Well, she filed a lawsuit. She says she will not resign. Trump fired her. And so, uh, she filed a lawsuit, number one, denying that she's done anything wrong, but also challenging Donald Trump's ability to fire her without cause. She's got a number of different arguments. One is, and let's make this perfectly clear, all we have at the moment is an allegation by tweet from Bill Pulte. Um, and I, I've, I've investigated cases of mortgage fraud all the time. Mortgage fraud requires a showing of an intent to defraud. So merely a false statement on a document alone is not an intent to defraud. It could be a mistake. You check the box. Even if you do, you know, say that you are going to live there as your primary residence, it has to have been for the purpose of obtaining some benefit. You know, like, I got better terms on my loan as a result of this, or I wanted to get a loan I otherwise would not have qualified for, or something like that. So at the moment, she's presumed innocent of any crimes, and a box on a document alone does not make a mortgage fraud case. So let's start with that. But secondly, as Kim was discussing, the Federal Reserve Board is by design independent. The governors are appointed to 14 year staggered terms to avoid any political interference, and they can be removed only for cause. Now, the statute doesn't say what that means for cause. Other cases have held, as Kim has said, it relates to cause on the job. You know, incompetence, negligence, malfeasance on the job, not for something external to the job and not something like this, which, if it occurred at all, occurred before she was on the job. The documents are dated 2021. So, number one, the argument is this can't be the kind of cause that was mentioned in the statute. Number two, she didn't do it. She's entitled to a hearing. In number three, she's entitled to due process, that is advance notice and an opportunity to be heard before she's fired. The first she heard about this was when Trump posted a termination letter, which he's still not sent to her, posted it on, on social media. So, you know, due process typically requires advance notice and an opportunity for a hearing. So they've alleged violations of the Federal Reserve act as well as due process violations. She had a temporary restraining order hearing on Friday. It did not get resolved. The government had filed a brief shortly before the hearing, and Cook's lawyers asked for an opportunity to respond to that. So the judge did have a hearing, but said she wanted to wait until there was an opportunity to brief, submit a reply brief on Tuesday before she would make a decision on this case. But what I think is so important here is the idea of preserving this independence. Of course, Donald Trump wants lower interest rates because that's good for him politically. That will allow more people to buy houses like that Bill Pulte wants because he's in the housing business. When people can get lower mortgage rates, they borrow more and they buy more housing. The problem with that is, even though it's popular, members of the Federal Reserve are not thinking about short term politics. They're thinking about long term economic health. And long term economic health sometimes requires high interest rates in an effort to combat inflation. And so what you want is expert economists making their best decision insulated from political considerations.

B (23:54)

And, you know, when you said that Pulte is in the real estate business, he really is. He is the son of the founder of one of the largest developers ever. And it hadn't occurred to me until I heard you say it that maybe he has a personal stake in increasing housing sales.

A (24:13)

Sure.

B (24:13)

That has nothing to do with the overall economy. But, Barb, let's even go a little further and put this case in the context of the President's ability to fire members of other agencies. Because there is a Supreme Court decision, Trump v. Wilcox, that involves firing NLRB members where the law says that they have a fixed term and can be fired not at all, except for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. But it also goes on to say, but no other cause. So the standard's a little different where it says just for cause is what it says in the Federal Reserve Act. Is that a broader ability to fire than the nlrb, where the Supreme Court said he could do it, or is that less?

A (25:05)

Yeah, I think that case actually gives me some hope. You know, the Supreme Court has been moving in the direction of this unitary executive theory, where the president is the executive and he gets to make every decision within the executive branch, including about these independent agencies. You know, like firing Hampton Dellinger, who was the head of the Office of Special Counsel and firing all of these inspectors general. But this case you mentioned, Jill, involving the NLRB was pretty interesting. The court did allow the President to fire these members of the nlrb, but they specifically included a carve out for the Federal Reserve Board, which is so interesting. You know, it, it almost felt like a little ham handed, you know, because they're saying, oh, God, we can't let Trump touch the Federal Reserve Board. We got to put some language in there to carve that out. But what they said was that the Federal Reserve Board is kind of a unique animal. Unlike some of these other federal agencies that were created by Congress, it is a quasi private organization because it came from the first national and second national banks. And so they say the structure of it is a little bit different. So if we're to read those tea leaves, those came earlier this year, it may be that this is the place where the court finally holds the line against Donald Trump. We'll see. But I think that this is the one that everybody has been worried about. And so I think this is the test. I think this case will go to the Supreme Court. You know, it's not the chair of the Federal Reserve, but it is a member of the board. And I think the court understands the stakes of sacrificing the independence of the Federal Reserve Board to a political actor.

C (26:46)

Okay, can I say something from the ledge?

A (26:49)

Yeah. Might be too optimistic. Is that you, Kim?

C (26:54)

Out of the ledge?

A (26:55)

Let me open the window.

C (26:56)

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. It was hot out there. So a couple things. You are very correct that the, that the majority in this order from the Supreme Court said that, you know, oh, all you worry, all these worries that that means that Trump's gonna can go fire members of the Fed. We disagree. We think the Fed's totally different. It was a shadow docket order. It was an opinion attached to a shadow docket ruling which does not have the same precedential value as a case that really presents that question squarely to them. So they have not been asked yet to say, is the Federal Reserve different from these other agencies? And again, it was a shadow docket order. So even before they decided, the cases were of the people that Trump fired from the NLRB and the Merit Protection Board. He let them do it like they're still challenging these firings, but in the meantime, they've already been fired and the damage is already done. Right? So I think, yeah, I do agree with you. They're like, okay, don't go firing the Fed just yet. But I don't see it as this protection that the Fed has, the imprimatur of the Supreme Court, that they are in fact different. In fact, Elena Kagan in, in her dissent from that shadow docket order, I think she was very fair because she's just like, what is the difference in terms of how they're set up between the Fed and all these other agencies? You can't like, and I'm paraphrasing, wave a magic wand around the Fed and say, oh, no, you're different because we don't want them, you know, we don't want them to do that. Right now. You actually have to show a reason. All of these boards were set up with some level of independence. All of them were meant to operate across presidential terms for that independence. And you've now opened the door to let him fire some of them. What is the legal basis of treating the Fed differently? The court did not say. So I think that is some ground to stand on. But that ground is shaky. Shaky.

B (28:58)

So, Kim, you are of course, absolutely, technically correct and this may be Barb's and my optimistic natures. I do agree with Barb that they went out of their way to carve out the Fed. And so I don't know how they will justify it. And of course, you're right about the dissent, which was meant to be a dissent in that case, but sort of means, is she going to now say, hey, you did it in the other. You can do it here too? I don't know. I'm still optimistic that the court will see that this is a much broader issue than just firing one person. And the outcome will determine whether the Federal Reserve going forward is going to be under the control of the White House or maintain its independent has been deemed essential so that the president cannot, on a whim or for short term political gain, change rates and the economy.

A (30:01)

So.

B (30:04)

I'm optimistic. But let's talk about one other person who got fired this week, Susan Menarez, who is the head of the Centers for Disease Control, appointed by Trump and confirmed by the Senate. And there the rules are different because she's a presidential appointee who you don't even need cause. So, Kim, what's her reason for not accepting the termination?

C (30:29)

Well, she initially, she said that. Well, she's. Let me start with what she has been saying consistently throughout the entire endeavor, which is she did not want to resign under pressure or be fired inappropriately based on her disagreement with the the turn the decisions that are being made under HHS by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. She said that they go against science, they go against the evidence, the hard work of people who have worked at the CDC for a long time, and that she could not countenance signing onto policies like the restriction of vaccine schedules, for example, that the CDC has been doing. And so she did not resign. RFK Jr. Purported to fire her. And she's like, uh, nah, nut, you're not, you're. You didn't appoint me, so you cannot fire me. I am presidentially appointed, Senate confirmed. There's only one way to fire me. And then Donald Trump purported to do just that. She is still. My understanding is that she is still also fighting this case, that they're saying that she's no longer the director. And she says she has not received that. Um, but maybe that has changed by the time this has published. But she is someone who is actually trying to stand up for the integrity of this agency. I've written before in my columns about how people at FEMA and the CDC and the Education Department and others are fighting back, signing public declarations. And some of the people, most of the people who sign their actual names to these declarations have since been put on leave. But that they are trying to say, look, this is a five alarm fire. What is happening at these agencies is preventing people from doing their jobs and putting Americans in danger for not getting the health care that they need, not getting the support if, say, a hurricane another week. We were spared one Cat 5 hurricane already this season. If another one comes that they won't be able to get services to people through fema, they've really been speaking out. So I give, I give Susan Monteris my, I tip my hat to her and I thank her for refusing to give in to an administration that does not seem to be having the American people's health in mind. It seems to only have the, I will say, unconventional views of the Secretary of HHS in their minds. And she's not going along with that.

B (33:11)

So, Barb, do you think that this is just a technical, temporary delay that could be cured by her actually getting a letter from the President? Or maybe posting it on Truth Social? Because that's how he does things, unconventionally. But there's also some word that he doesn't want to do this for political reasons. He doesn't want to have to take the consequences of doing it politically. So what do you think?

A (33:40)

Yeah, you know, after all the hoopla about making official decisions by auto pen, it does seem a bit ironic that Donald Trump is hiding behind his underlings to do his dirty work. You know, I think if Donald Trump really wants her gone, he certainly has the ability to fire her. But until he does, I think she is calling him out. You know what? If you want to fire me, stand up and say so, because I think this is one of those areas where Trump could lose some support from moderate Republicans now, you know, shame on me for thinking that they might actually do what's best instead of doing what's best for Trump. But, you know, there are doctors in the House and in the Senate, people who care about good medical care. And this is, you know, an outrage that we've got doctors and scientists who are being told to, you know, mislead the public, and they're taking a stand. And so what I think she's doing is actually very brave. You know, no doubt she will get all kinds of, you know, threats and hate mail as a result of taking a strong stand. But I think she's gonna force Trump to take his political medicine here if he wants to go along with what RFK Jr says. RFK Jr is not the boss of her. He may be the head of her agency, but he is not the boss of her. You know, it reminds me a little bit of all the US Attorneys who are presidentially appointed, only the President can fire a presidentially appointed U.S. attorney. And that always gave us additional strength to do things and to disagree with the Attorney General if we wanted to. You know, ultimately he was going to perhaps overrule case decisions. But we felt secure because we knew that we could be fired only by the president. And I think because she's a presidential appointee, she can only be fired by the president, and she ought to make him do it.

B (35:29)

I completely agree, but it also. I mean, as a follow up to this, four of the top people have now resigned in protest of this, and things are really a mess. And Cassidy, who was instrumental in confirming Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

C (35:48)

He sure was. That's Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a medical doctor that had all kinds of concerns about Kennedy until he turned around and voted to confirm him.

B (35:58)

But he is now saying the Vaccine Committee should not meet as scheduled in September because they are ignoring science. He is now taking a very different position. That's pretty interesting.

C (36:11)

Well, you know what I would love for Senator Cassidy to do? I would love for him to tell his colleagues over in the house that RFK Jr. Is unfit for this job and maybe should look into impeaching him. Yes, that's what I'd love to see, Senator Cassidy.

B (36:25)

Yeah, exactly. And then we also have to. We didn't mention this, but I'm going back to cook for a second, which is, it looks like really hypocritical for Donald Trump to be claiming any kind of mortgage fraud as a reason for her not to serve when he is convicted of fraud. He has been officially convicted of business fraud. I mean, how can he say someone else shouldn't serve now? Yeah, I know he was elected and she's appointed and so it's different, but really, it just, it just screams bad.

C (37:01)

Yeah, he was found liable for mortgage fraud. And also he, he brags like, he's just like, I know, I love. What do you say? I understand low income housing. I love low income housing. I made a lot of money off of low. I made a lot of money off of low income housing. I think what, like. But, you know, consistency is not his forte.

A (37:29)

Hey, have you guys been eating factor meals? I gotta tell you, between busy schedules and back to school for the fall, sometimes all I have is a couple of minutes. And Factor is where it is at. It helps me eat smarter with tasty chef prepared meals that are dietitian approved and delivered right to my door. And now with more than 65 weekly meals made for how I live and what I like to eat, I have even more ways to fit in a real meal wherever the day takes me.

B (38:00)

You know, Barb, unlike you, I actually enjoy chopping and cutting and stirring and cooking. But I love factor. There are days when it just is like I have two and a half minutes and I need to eat. And that's where factor comes in. And they have so much variety. You can get so many meals to choose from. It's a very wide selection of weekly meal options and it includes premium seafood choices like salmon and shrimp at no extra cost. You can support your wellness goals. Enjoy even more GLP1 friendly meals and new Mediterranean diet options packed with protein and good for you fats. Savor global flavors for the first time. Try Asian inspired meals with bold flavors influenced by China, Thailand and more. You have so many choices to better nutrition. That's why 97% of customers say that factor helped them live a healthier life. Feel the difference no matter what your routine is.

C (39:02)

I also found Factor to be really great as a gift for others. For example, my parents who were, you know, they were tired, they were getting a little older. Especially when my dad was ill before he passed away. And it was just easy to have something that you could just heat up. You knew it was gonna be good, you knew it was gonna be healthy. And my sister's in I got Factor Meals for them to their house. So that's another great use for them. And you can just think of how much time you'll save with Factors two minute meals. It really takes two minutes. So Joe was right. They're restaurant quality. They come ready to heat and eat. And it's great having easy snacks and smoothies and more waiting for you when hunger strikes. In fact, I had the fantastic garlic herb chicken with vegetable risotto and roasted green beans. And you'll be amazed. That's a meal that I would cook sometimes. Now I'm like, well, why was I doing that? Because this one's really, really good and.

B (40:01)

It does taste home cooked, doesn't it?

C (40:02)

It does. It tastes really good.

A (40:04)

Well, you can eat smart too. @factormeals.com SIL50OFF and use code SIL50OFF to get 50% off your first box plus free breakfast for one year. That's code SIL50OFF@Factor Meals.com for 50% off your first box plus FREE breakfast for a year. Get delicious ready to eat meals delivered with Factor. This offer is valid only for new Factor customers with code and qualifying auto renewing subscription purchase. The link is in our show notes. Well, you know, you can indict a ham sandwich, they say, but turns out, not a sandwich thrower. This week we learned that there is an addendum to the old phrase because we had a case in the Washington D.C. grand jury where they failed to indict a ham sandwich thrower. Kim, tell us about the man who got arrested for throwing the subway sandwich.

C (41:19)

Yes. So the subway sandwich. I don't, you know, do we get confirmation at what type of sandwich it was like? I liked, I like to think that it was a chicken parm or an Italian sub, but maybe.

A (41:30)

Oh, I'm like, I'm thinking meatball would be pretty fun.

C (41:32)

Oh, meatball would be great.

A (41:33)

Wouldn't that be fun?

C (41:34)

It was at night, so I'm assuming, you know, you go out, you have a couple drinks and you're not going to get like a. You're going to, you're going to get something.

A (41:41)

You're not getting the veggie delight at night. No.

C (41:45)

So anyway, the sandwich thrower, whose name is Sean Dunn, who was formerly a paralegal at the doj, he, he got into an altercation with a custom and border patrol agent, a verbal altercation where he was clearly unhappy with them patrolling the streets the way that they were. And in his frustration, as I think just about everybody in America has now seen in the video he threw his sandwich at and ran in. What, as serious as all the fallout of all of this isn't as serious as, you know, Trump's attempted military takeover of DC Is. Was one of the most hilarious moments that I've ever seen on television. There are now memes about him. He has the, you know, the. The, you know, the Obama poster style.

A (42:38)

Yeah.

C (42:39)

You know, the hope. Red, red and blue. The hope. Yeah. Is now like, you know, with the Sam, you know, protect DC Or Free DC on nsa. He's become a bit of a folk hero. But after that happened, Janine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for D.C. put her foot down and said, we are going to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. So he was charged with felony assault. Problem is, it went to a grand jury as. Which is required for a felony indictment, and the grand jury didn't really see it that way. They returned what is called a no bill, which means they did not agree that prosecutors should bring a felony indictment in this case. So he subsequently was charged with a misdemeanor.

A (43:27)

Yeah. Pretty interesting. Jill, you've been to the grand jury before. To charge someone with a felony, they have to be indicted. It's a right protected in the Fifth Amendment. Can you just tell us a little bit about how that process works?

B (43:40)

Yeah, I think everyone has been interested in how this comes about. And so if we look at this, an indictment is necessary, as Kim said, for felony charges. And what normally happens is a prosecutor hears something about a possible crime and investigates it. This crime was pretty much committed to. If it was a crime in plain view, he was arrested, I think, a block or two from the site of the incident, within minutes of it happening. But so you would investigate. You gather evidence through law enforcement, but then you have to go to a grand jury and present that evidence. Sometimes in a serious case, you may need to subpoena witnesses or documents, and you use the grand jury for that purpose as well, and then you present the whole case and the grand jury makes a decision. You explain the law to them, you've presented the evidence and the facts to them, and they decide whether they will agree that it is a crime that should be indicted. And it is very rare that this would happen ever. And in this instance, aside from this failure, there are several other failures of similar episodes. A woman named Reid and a man named Riley all couldn't be indicted. And so that's the normal procedure of how you get an indictment and why you need it. As Kim said, the Constitution requires it.

A (45:17)

You know, as A federal prosecutor like you, Jill. I indicted many cases, and it's a pretty low bar. I never had a. No, true Bill. You know, you go in and, you know, sometimes people say a grand jury is even a rubber stamp. I don't think that's right. I mean, you have to have all your ducks in a row. You go in, you present your case, you have a witness testify, usually a federal agent, who will summarize what happened in the case. But, you know, say it's a bank robbery. They will go in, describe all the facts of the case, you will explain the law. Here are the elements of the case. But there's no defense. There's. There's no cross examination. And so, you know, as long as there's probable cause, much lower standard than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Typically, the grand jury, you know, maybe they have a question or two. Once in a while, they ask for more evidence, but most of the time, they kind of nod. You walk out of the room, they vote, and you get your true bill. And so this is really quite an unusual state of affairs, I think, because there's no question, based on the video, that this guy did throw the sandwich. And so, you know, Kim, I want to ask you what you think might be going there in D.C. especially as a D.C. resident. You know, as Jill mentioned, this is not the first case where a D.C. grand jury refused to indict a case and return an indictment. We. We saw very recently three different grand juries, so three different groups of citizens refused to indict a woman for impeding a federal agent. She was taking video of him.

B (46:46)

That's really dangerous, isn't it? Oh, my God.

A (46:48)

He. Well, in an effort to, like, stop her, he slammed his own hand against a brick wall and got some scrapes, I guess, but. Yeah. Do you think that this is a new method of civil resistance for the people of dc?

C (47:03)

I'm not entirely sure. So what. What we're talking about is essentially jury nullification, which is if a jury, including a grand jury, renders a decision, even if they believe that a defendant is guilty or in the case of a grand jury, that they believe that the prosecution has made out a case for a felony, that they will still say no, issue a no bill. Because they just think, for whatever reason, they think it's ridiculous, they don't agree with the prosecution of this person for whatever reason. So is it possible, especially after the Sam. I mean, the sandwich dude went viral within minutes. Like, minutes.

A (47:47)

Yeah.

C (47:47)

If everybody knew that this thing had happened. And if you bring In a grand jury. Like, are you serious? Where you brought us in for the sandwich, man? Like that? No, we're not. Give you a true bill on this. This is ridiculous. That's possible. Maybe they're trying to send Janine Pirro a message, but I think more likely they just looked at this and said, this is not felonious. It's a sandwich. That agent was fine. Like it. It was. Come on. That's not.

A (48:18)

And then. And then ultimately they were able to charge him with a misdemeanor. So it's not like he got away with it. And also, I. I do understand the need to protect federal officers who are doing their jobs. Like, I don't think anybody was hurt by this. We've seen the video.

C (48:29)

Absolutely.

A (48:30)

You know, it was more. More of an insult than a comical. Yeah.

C (48:34)

If. I don't. Yes. If he or anyone else had. And there have been incidents.

A (48:39)

Sure.

C (48:39)

For when some people being detained here in D.C. since this ramp up, who did. Who have actually struck people. And that's an entirely different situation. This was not that.

A (48:52)

Yeah. You know what this reminds me of? You know, I teach criminal law and criminal procedure, and we talk about the history of the grand jury and one of the great cases in American history. I know you talked about how this came over from Britain as a buffer against the Crown. The case of John Peter Zenger, who was a colonial publisher, and he published, you know, pamphlets that were critical of the colonial governor, and he got charged with seditious libel for printing this. And a jury came in. Now, it wasn't a grand jury. This was at trial, I think. And, you know, the jury instructions were just like, if you find he published this, he should be guilty. And. And the jury said not guilty. So it was a case that is known as nullification at trial. Jill, can you explain the concept of jury nullification and whether you think that nullification at trial is an appropriate response for citizens to take in response to aggressive exercise of prosecutorial discretion?

B (49:55)

So, of course, it's a controversial issue. It is not one that is black and white where it's absolutely the right thing to do. It's absolutely the wrong thing to do. Let's talk about one what it is and maybe put it in the context of some good examples besides zinger jury nullifications. When a jury finds a defendant isn't guilty, even though the evidence is pretty clear that the defendant did exactly what the law prohibits. And the jury may do that for one of a number of reasons, either because they think the law itself is unjust or it's a very harsh penalty for something that, as in the case, I think of the sandwich thrower, it's way too harsh a consequence for what he did in the heat of the moment. Or they could be protesting government overreach. Again, that could be the sandwich man. And whatever it is, jurors are acting on their own sense of justice, morality, fairness, not on the basis of the politics of the case. So let me give you some examples that I think are, you know, make this point. Trump's impeachment vote, it's not. It was a jury. The Senate is a jury. In that case, they voted that he was not guilty when they. Well and fully knew that he was guilty of the crimes that were charged of the. Not the crimes, but of the impeachment charges. And they had to say he's not guilty when they knew he was. That, to me, is one example, but there are several others that, you know, come to mind as well. I would say when Emmett Till's murderers were acquitted, that has to be an early example of jury nullification. I mean, he was guilty, right? They were guilty. O.J. simpson is another one that is often pointed to as a example of jury nullification. And so I think, is it a legitimate thing to do? Yes, I think it is, because that's why we have trials before our peers, is so that they will evaluate the evidence and the law. And I think that it may be a legitimate thing. There are, of course, arguments that say that it is a conflict for juries to nullify because they are sworn to do their duty, to follow the law and the facts as presented to them.

A (52:37)

And.

B (52:37)

And so there is an argument against it. But I think, in general, it is a fair outcome when particularly there is government overreach, as there is now in the District of Columbia and hopefully not in Chicago, which seems to be the next target city for troops to come here.

A (53:00)

Yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about the concept of nullification. As a prosecutor, I have always thought of it as a, you know, a breakdown in the way the system's supposed to work. Kim, what do you think about nullification as a method of resistance?

C (53:16)

Listen, I think we are a government of the people, and that's the way that the government works. And so if you present something to a jury, I've never practiced criminally, but as a civil attorney, I knew once you give it to the jury, what the jury says goes. It doesn't matter unless there's some egregious, you know, appealable error that took place. That's part. That's how the process works. So, yeah, I do believe that jurors ought to adhere to their oath, but I also think if they see some nonsense being brought before them, they have the right and the duty to call nonsense nonsense.

A (54:01)

Yeah, I think that's right. You know, it's why we have humans there. Right. And not exactly a judge or an AI program deciding whether the person was guilty. It brings in not just sort of like a check the box, but a sense of justice about the big picture. Jill, do you think we're gonna see more nullification at the trial level? And if so, do you think it's a good thing for democracy?

B (54:24)

I think we may see more of it because the example has been set. And I just want to add, I did have one case of jury nullification in my own in Watergate. One of the defendants, Ken Parkinson, who was a lawyer who got called in to represent the Committee to Reelect. Creep. Committee to Reelect the President at the very end, and who the jury clearly felt sorry for because the evidence was more than sufficient to say he violated the law. And he wasn't on any of the tapes, but there was plenty of witness testimony that showed his guilt, and it was just in comparison to the others. He did so much less to cover up than they did that he got acquitted. And so I think that that is a fair thing to happen. He was a sort of pathetic character in this scenario. And he got acquitted. I'm sorry about that, because he was guilty. But I also think that it's one of those things that juries have the obligation to do is to bring their own moral sense.

A (55:44)

Yeah. Hey, totally off topic. How is it that Richard Nixon did not understand the irony of the acronym of the Committee to Re Elect the President? Creepy.

C (55:56)

I was thinking that same thing. I was like, who thought that was a good idea?

B (56:01)

Or how we would name the group that did the break in. The Plumbers. The Plumbers. He's that good at this. I mean, you couldn't make this up. If you were seeing this as a film, you would think it was fiction.

A (56:14)

I don't know.

B (56:15)

And it was officially called CREEP and nobody ever did anything about it.

C (56:21)

Yeah. It all seems so quaint now, though. Jill know what's happening?

B (56:25)

It does.

A (56:26)

If only if. If south park had been around, then the episodes would have written themselves.

B (56:40)

This may surprise a lot of you listening, but fall is planting season. Did you know that many plants and trees actually do better when planted at this time of year? But you have to know where to start. And that's why we love fastgrowingtrees.com it doesn't matter if you live in the sunny south or if the air is getting chilly where you are like it is. For me. Their plant experts can help you find the perfect fit for your space. They have all the plants your yard needs, whether it's fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs, and so much more. Plus, all their plants and trees are locally grown in the US Ensuring they will thrive in your yard. For me, I went with hosta and green velvet boxwood because I have a heavy shaded yard and they are thriving. But whatever plants you're interested in, fast growing trees has you covered. Find the perfect fit for your climate and space. Fast growing trees make it easy to get your dream yard order online and get your plants delivered directly to your door in just a few days without ever leaving home. But they will also hold it if you order too early. I tried ordering some and they said it was still too cold for me last spring and so they said we'll send them to you as soon as it's safe to plant. Which I thought was fantastic.

C (58:02)

Yeah, you know, I love having beautiful plants outside of the home, but I have to admit that I'm not the gardener. I don't have the green thumb that like my mom has always had. And so that's why fast growing trees is like, it lets me totally like flex. And even though I don't have the goods like I, I have, I have citronella, I have lavender, nice shrubbery, all these beautiful things. And literally all I had to do was put them in dirt and they're like fantastic. They're very low maintenance and it makes me look, it makes me look like, you know, when I go water things and I can wave at my neighbors and pretend that, you know, I am, I'm some planting guru, but I am not. And what's great about fast growing trees is their alive and thrive guarantee ensures that your plants arrive happy and healthy. Plus, you get support from trained plant experts on call to help you plan your landscape, choose the right plants, and learn how to care for them. Fast growing trees offer over 6,000 plants to provide the perfect choice for you. Just follow their 14 point quality checklist and fast growing trees will help you care for each plant individually. And I'm talking about the outside ones. I have them inside too. I have this gorgeous rubber tree plant that really I had been, I had been killing plants in my house, I admit, but that the rubber tree plant looks great. So you can also get your indoor plants and they will help you with everything from watering routines to maintaining the correct sunlight exposures. So it's all very easy. That means you will be giving your plants the care they deserve the moment they ship to your home. We we're excited to learn you can grow a vanilla bean plant indoors. Get your ice cream makers ready. Got vanilla beans come in. And with so many different plants, the choice is yours.

A (59:57)

Oh, I can't wait to get on the couch with the puppy seat and my molar blanket and my vanilla ice cream. It's watching An Affair to Remember. Man, this is gonna be great. Well, you know, I got a couple of lilac plants from fast growing trees and I've not yet managed to kill them. So they are doing well. They are some sturdy beasts, these two things. What's great is you can talk to a plant expert about your soil type, landscape design, how to take care of your plants and everything else you need. No green thumb required. I can attest to that. So don't wait. This fall they have the best deals for your yard with up to half off on select plants and other deals. And listeners to our show get 15% off their first purchase when using the code SISTERS at checkout. That's 15% off at fastgrowingtrees.com using the code SISTERS at checkout. Now is the perfect time to plant Use sisters to save today. This offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. Check out the link in our show notes and support the show.

C (61:13)

Donald Trump, who apparently has a burning apathy for protesters as well as maybe a mystifying lack of understanding about the Constitution and how it works. Well, he signed an executive order to hold people who burn the American flag criminally accountable to the fullest extent of the law. He directed the DOJ to make that happen. Jill, make it make sense. What exactly does this order purport to do?

B (61:43)

You know, I'm, I going to add to our show notes a link to the actual order because it's, it's worth reading. I mean, it starts out by saying how important the flag is to our country and what it means. And then it's written as if he was passing a law. It's literally written like a statute, which of course the president can't do. Only Congress can pass a law. But he takes measures to say the attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement to the fullest extent possible of our nation's criminal and civil laws against acts of American flag desecration. But then he's careful. He Says that violate applicable content neutral laws while causing harm unrelated to expression. That's because the Supreme Court said this is free expression consistent with the First Amendment. So he's really reaching out to avoid the First Amendment law of the land that was set by the Supreme Court. And he's, he's going way beyond it, though. And basically what he's doing is saying that if you burn the flag, I'm gonna get you, I'm gonna make sure that you have a minimum one year sentence.

A (63:01)

Yeah.

B (63:02)

He's also imposing the term of sentence in this order. I mean, it's ludicrous. But if we don't stop it, he's gonna get away with it. And so I'm hoping that the Supreme Court, which will eventually get a case under this, because we have one already ready to go, we'll say no, we meant it when we said that burning the flag is a way to express resistance and disapproval of government action and it is protected by free speech. So you can't punish people for burning the flag unless it leads to an imminent danger to the public. And that's what the law says.

C (63:52)

So, Barb, what about that? Didn't the Supreme Court already say something about this issue? And does this executive order jibe with what the Supreme Court said?

A (64:02)

Oh, Kim, you remember so well. Yes, the court has absolutely spoken on this issue. And can I tell you, this was all the rage when I was in law school.

B (64:11)

Yeah.

A (64:12)

There was a decision in 1989. I was in law school then, and it was highly discussed in class. We talked about it all the time. And the Supreme Court held that flag burning is free expression protected by the First Amendment. It was a 5 to 4 decision. Among the majority finding in favor of the flag burner was one Antonin Scalia, a libertarian conservative, also libertarian. A man had burned a flag at the 1984 Republican National Convention in opposition to the policies of Ronald Reagan, who was president at the time in Dallas. And Dallas, the state of Texas had a law making it a crime to desecrate the flag. And he was sentenced to a two thousand dollar fine. He challenged it and he won at the Supreme Court, although with a 5, 4 decision. You know, maybe things change today. What's interesting is Congress responded by passing a statute that said flag burning could be criminalized. But that too was challenged and quickly struck down under the authority of this 1989 case called Texas vs. Johnson. So the law is pretty clear, as Jill said. You know, there are some exceptions about it. For example, you can't steal somebody else's flag. Right. I can't go and steal the flag off the post office and set it on fire. Right. That's property damage. And I can't incite imminent lawless action by somehow setting the flag on fire and saying let's, let's go and charge. You know, that's a case, a different case called Brandenburg vs Ohio. But the mere act of burning a flag protected free expression, landmark case law.

C (65:51)

So, Jill, we may not have to wait long until the courts get involved on this. The very day like that, I was. It felt like less than hours that the president signed this executive order. A veteran went out and filmed himself setting fire to a flag right along Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House where if anybody's been to D.C. you know that area that's blocked off where people frequently. It's almost like a constant protest happening there. He went there clearly enunciating his First Amendment rights and that saying that this was a protest and he was then swiftly arrested. Jill, do you think this amounts to the things that Barb was talking about, property damage or incitement?

B (66:40)

Well, there was no property damage, but there is a law that applies to federal parks that you can't ignite a fire in a federal lands. And so he was arrested because he clearly he spilled it. Said in the reports that it was alcohol. Looked like some kind of oil to me. But in any event, some flammable, some.

C (67:04)

Accelerant, some flammable liquid.

B (67:05)

Some flammable liquid was poured on a flag and beyond the confines of the flag and he lit it and it went up in smoke. No one was hurt. There was no damage to the cement that it was burning on the. The person who did this must have been like watching his phone and seen the executive order announcement because it did happen almost instantaneously. He, he is. His name is Jim Carrey. He's 54. He's a decorated.

C (67:41)

This felt not a joke.

B (67:43)

No, it was not C A R R E Y. It's C A R E Y. He's a decorated former soldier. He served over 20 years in the military and he did as you said. He announced it's my right as a citizen under the First Amendment to protest in whatever way I see fear without hurting anybody. And he didn't hurt anyone. So this was in protest of Donald Trump saying, we're going to vigorously protest anyone who desecrates the flag. And so he desecrated the flag to prove that the Supreme Court was right in what it said, which is that he had a First Amendment right to do this. And so that's where we're at.

C (68:23)

So, Barb, what do you think? Do you think the Supreme Court has the appetite to overturn this landmark precedent that you laid out, even if it is on a 54 vote? Do you think that there's an appetite to revisit whether flag burning is within the First Amendment's freedom of expression protections?

A (68:44)

Yeah, I don't know. You know, on the one hand, I could see them not wanting to get involved. There's a pretty, you know, a very solid precedent here. They could just, you know, so long as the lower courts follow Texas v. Johnson, they could just leave it alone and the precedent will stand. But, you know, that case was decided 54 in 1989. The makeup of the court is very different today. We know how much Mrs. Alito loves flags. Let's not forget that. And so I don't know how this court feels about it. You know, I'm often reminded of the great quote by Justice Robert Jackson. You know, I think it's disgusting to burn a flag, right? I mean, the flag is a symbol of America. It is used by the military. I honor the flag. But, you know, the quote by Robert Jackson is something like, you know, if there is any North Star of our constitutional structure, is it that no one can tell you what to believe and what to think? And so just because it is unpopular and many people find it, you know, just repugnant that someone would desecrate the flag, that it still gets protected. And so I would hope that, you know, this court, those who are libertarians, would see that, see it that way, and that they will leave it untouched. So I'm gonna bet they leave it alone. But, you know, I'm not sure if, in light of that affinity for flags.

C (70:14)

Yeah, I think I'm with you, Barb. I mean, on the one hand, you're absolutely right. You know, it's that phrase. I may disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it. That's why the ACLU defended the Klan who wanted to. You got a permit to have a march. You can't say no to them based on their content point of view, so long as they are not bringing harm to anyone. The Supreme Court also upheld the right of the. The Westboro clan. I don't. They call themselves a Baptist church, but I don't. It's all the family members who would go to military funerals and say horrible, horrific things within earshot of the families who are mourning their lost loved ones. Really Terrorizing Gold Star families. And the Supreme Court said you can't hold them to a different standard because they have First Amendment protections. That was in the time that I covered the court. That was just maybe a decade or so ago. So they've upheld this principle. But again, whether they keep things consistent, this court doesn't have the best track record with that. So we shall see.

B (71:21)

Let me just add that I think the thing that will save us from the Supreme Court overturning this case is that I don't think this is going to go to them on flag burning, because what he is charged with is not flag burning. It is lighting an object on fire on federal land in violation of that rule. So, no, but there will be another case.

A (71:46)

I agree. Not this one, but there'll be another one.

C (71:50)

Maybe Janine Pirro didn't charge this one because she was a little bruised by the no pills.

B (71:56)

Well, for all of us who grew up at camp where you pulled the flag up in the morning and took it down at night and had to be extraordinarily careful that it didn't even touch the ground, of course it offends me that this is happening, but I, and I want to protect the flag, but I also even more want to protect the First Amendment. I know if you're smart enough to be listening to Sisters in Law, you also know that all of us are ingesting over a credit card's worth of plastic every week. Multiply that by 52 and yuck. It's from plastic residue permeating our homes. It gets on our dishes, in our food, and then into our bodies. Most of us don't know we're cleaning with plastic every day. And that's dangerous. That's why we've made the switch to Blueland. Across all the cleaning products around our houses, their products meet the highest standards of cleanliness. They're effective, yet gentle on our families, and best of all, on the climate, too.

C (73:07)

I like to keep my credit card's worth of plastic where it ought to be, which is on the checkout when I go shopping. That's where I want my plastic to go. But Blueland has also been previously named an EPA Safer Choice Partner of the Year. And that's for a reason. From cleaning sprays to toilet boil cleaner and dishwasher and laundry detergent tablets, Blueland's formulas are 100% microplastic free, made with certified clean ingredients, free from chlorine, bleach and harsh chemicals. Which means Blueland is safe to use. Around my family and around the house. I love not having to choose between the safe option and what actually gets my house clean. And I know you will too. Blueland's on a mission to make it easy for everyone to make sustainable choices. We believe that hard working clean products can be the norm, not the exception, so that you can do better for your family and the planet at the same time. And better yet, blueland products are independently tested to perform alongside major brands and are free from dyes, bleach and harsh chemicals. That's why they are trusted in over 1 million households, including ours. The fragrances add such a pleasant vibe to your home. I really do like the variety of fragrances they have too. They're not overpowering, but they're really nice. And I can't begin to tell you how many times the subscription has saved me from running out of cleaning products. And also the cleaning products, when you put them in the bottles that are supplied, they're really pretty. Like, I like the way that they look just sitting on the shelf. It looks, it looks very clean. It's all great.

A (74:56)

Well, it also feels great knowing that you're incorporating sustainable practices into essential everyday activities. I'm always amazed by how well the laundry tablets work. And they've proven time and time again that they'll lift out the toughest stains, whether it's grass, food or whatever your kids manage to bring in. That's why I'm happy to share that Blueland has a special offer for our listeners right now. Get 15% off your first order by going to blueland.com sisters. You won't want to miss this. Blueland.com sisters for 15% off. That's blueland.com sisters to get 15% off. The link is in our show notes. Well, now comes the part of the show that is our absolute favorite, the part where we answer your questions. If you have a question for us, please email us@sistersinlawolitikon.com or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. If we don't get to your question during the show, please keep an eye on our feeds throughout the week where we'll answer as many of your questions as we can. Our first question comes to us from Sarah. She asks, is fair redistricting, no matter what the state, is even possible? And what might that look like? Kim, you want to answer that one?

C (76:22)

Well, Sarah, that is a great question. And yes, there are many ways that redistricting can be done in a fair way. All it takes is the political courage and the political might to do it. So that's the only impediment here. But on a state level, one thing that I am supportive of and that a lot of states have done was to create independent commissions in order to do the work of redistricting. It takes it out of the hands of lawmakers in state houses who have obviously their own political the hides to cover and have an incentive to draw maps unfairly in order to hold onto power and put it in the hands of people who will look at the data from the census and draw fair apportionment maps to it. You can also I would be a fan of something akin to the Wyoming formula, which stands for the fact that Wyoming has the smallest number of people inside a House district because of its population. So you can say no other House district can be drawn at the decennial census. Redistricting that has a greater population than that in Wyoming. And that way you would have smaller districts. It would result in more House members, but it would be a closer representation of the actual population and give everybody, everybody more power with their vote when it comes to the House of Representative. It makes it a lot harder just to do would gerrymander districts. That would be a great solution to this problem. So this is something that you can write to your state lawmakers, your federal lawmakers, and say, I want this done differently. I hate these redistricting wars and I want a better, fairer system and I want lawmakers to do that. So you do have power. You have power when you're on a jury and you have power as voters to stand up and say, we want things to be different, but it is possible to have fair map drawing. We just need politicians with the political will to do it.

A (78:37)

Our next question comes to us from bjm. BJM asks, is Trump still appealing his felony convictions? What is their status? Let's ask that question to JWB Chill Wine Banks.

B (78:54)

Okay, that's a great question. And I think people have kind of forgotten that there are two cases, one of which is criminal and is a felony conviction. The other, of course, is civil. The criminal case was brought by the district Attorney of Manhattan, Alvin Bragg, and it was for falsifying business records to conceal his payment to Stormy Daniels. Everyone remember Stormy Daniels. The other, of course, is a civil case that the Attorney General of New York, Letitia James, brought against him for overstating the value of his properties to get better loan rates. Which again, I know we've mentioned the hypocrisy of all this, but is that any different than claiming two primary residents when you only have one Anyway, the civil case, the liability for the fraud and for sanctions that he can't do business in New York and he will have permanent oversight by a court appointed monitor, have been upheld and are still in force, although the financial penalty was deemed cruel and unusual punishment. James is of course appealing that and so is Trump because he doesn't want the conviction to stand on the criminal side. We have a different situation. He was convicted of 34 felony counts, but when it came time to sentence, he was President elect. And so he was given an unconditional discharge. That means he was discharged without any conditions because it was just before his second inauguration. And so he would not have any jail time imposed and no fine imposed. But the conviction remains, and that's at least for now, because actually the answer to your question is that Trump is appealing that conviction. And it's expected that the appeal will be a lengthy process. The first part of it was that his lawyers have asked that the case be moved to federal court from the New York court where the conviction is probably to raise immunity in a more effective manner. So it's pending right now. We can't say what's going to happen, but that's where it is right now.

A (81:14)

Okay. And our final question comes to us from Paul in San Jose, California. Paul asks, is it legal for the US Government to take a stake in Intel? What happened to capitalism? Paul, this is a great question. I imagine there you are in San Jose, Silicon Valley area wondering how it can be that it is the US Government who now has a stake in Intel. There's nothing that appears to prohibit the government from doing that, though it's highly unusual. What President Trump did is first, we, we, we're starting to see this pattern, sort of create a leverage situation by demanding the resignation of Intel's CEO based on a social media post that he had ties to the Chinese government. Very vague allegations. And if that's the case, if you're concerned about security concerns with the leader of a sensitive government position, you know, maybe there are concerns about engaging in government contracts with that company or something like that. Instead, what the government decides to do is like, he can stay, but maybe you should just give us 10% of a stake in your company. And the way they did this is that the Chips act, which was passed in 2022, which provided all kinds of funding for US companies to make computer chips in the United States as an important part of US Infrastructure, they said, tell you what, we are going to take the $9 billion that we told you we were going to get and we are going to convert that into a stake in Intel. And what Trump said in announcing this is that, you know, Biden was so dumb, he just gave them this money without demanding anything in return. That's because it was appropriated by Congress. This was an incentive, a subsidy to encourage these US Companies to make chips in the United States. And so he essentially converted this $9 billion in grants and said, we're taking a 10% stake in common stock. It's highly unusual, though it's not completely unprecedented. You may remember that in 2008, when the government bailed out the auto industry, they took a stake in some of the auto companies and even insisted on some leadership change there. So it's not unprecedented. But when you ask whatever happened to capitalism, my gosh, you're absolutely right. The Wall Street Journal has been scathing in its criticism. This is the opposite of free markets. Remember, the Wall Street Journal changed its editorial page philosophy to reflect individual personal liberty and free markets. This is the opposite of that. So it's really interesting. Same with regard to Trump's tariffs. It's surprising to see that he has not lost more political support from the business community as a result of these things. But I guess when you get your big cat tax cuts, you have some tolerance for socialism, which is what this is. Thank you for listening to Sisters in Law with Kimberly Atkins Storr, Jill Wine Banks and me, Barb McQuaid. Follow sisters in Law wherever you listen and please give us a five star review. It really helps others find the show. And please show some love to this week's sponsors, Lola Blankets Factor, Fast Growing Trees and Blue Land. The links are in the show notes. Please support them because they make the this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode. Sisters in Law. Jill, let me ask you this. If you were to come up with an acronym for your reelection committee, what would it be?

B (85:06)

Oh, man. Oh, I have never been good at acronyms. I wish that Michael Blumenthal were sitting next to me. He was an Assistant Secretary of the army that I served with who was great at creating acronyms. What would you call yours?

A (85:22)

Vote blm. Big Loudmouth. How do you make an Airbnb a vrbo. Picture a vacation rental with a host.

C (85:33)

Who'S showing you every room like you've never seen a house before. Now get rid of them. There you go. No host ever.

B (85:41)

Now it's a vrbo.

A (85:42)

Make it a vrbove.