#SistersInLaw Podcast Episode 259: "Finally, An Episode With Sports"

Date: October 25, 2025 | Host: Politicon
Panel: Barb McQuade (A), Jill Wine-Banks (B), Kimberly Atkins Stohr (C) (Joyce Vance absent this week)

Episode Overview

This episode takes on a lively mix of current legal and political controversies, ranging from the status of the National Guard in U.S. cities and Trump's remarkable $230 million claim against the Justice Department, to the week’s headline-grabbing NBA gambling scandal. The panel’s trademark blend of sharp legal analysis and witty camaraderie is on full display, with personal anecdotes and cultural references lending warmth and relatability to the discussion. Notably, the episode marks the show’s long-awaited deep dive into sports scandals—much to the joy of listeners craving a crossover of law and athletics.

Notable Moments & Quotes

• "Our huddled masses will defeat your fascist asses." – Barb, recounting clever protest signs (05:24)
• "The only monarchs should be butterflies." – Barb, on creative protest messaging (04:43)
• "It's a joyful celebration of American democracy. It was not angry... There were no paid agitators." – Barb, on the 'No Kings' rallies (04:52)
• "I didn't realize the mob was still mopping like this." – Kim, on the NBA scandal (49:22)
• "You cannot allow Todd Blanche or Pam Bondi to sign off on something in which they're representing their own client from the past... This is not at all ethical." – Jill, on DOJ conflicts over Trump’s claim (39:22)
• "So, basically, Trump is suing himself. It sort of looks bad. I'm suing myself. Right?" – Kim, quoting Trump on his DOJ claim (39:04)

Segment Overviews with Timestamps

1. Protest Signs & the No Kings Rallies [01:06–06:15]

• Range of witty, grassroots protest signs from "introverts against kings” and Elvis-themed puns to pointed political commentary.
• The rallies across cities like Chicago, NYC, and Gettysburg were marked by joy and cross-generational attendance, celebrating democracy without hostility.
• Discussion underscores the genuine, DIY spirit—no “paid agitators” or professional props.
• (Memorable quote at 05:24—see above.)

2. The National Guard, Presidential Power, and the Law [07:47–22:54]

• Background: The legal authority and statutes governing Presidential federalization and deployment of the National Guard (Title 10, Section 12406; Posse Comitatus Act).
• Critical distinction drawn between "federalizing" (taking control for national needs) and "deploying" troops for support functions.
  • [10:17] Barb explains: “There is legal authority for the president to federalize the National Guard... although that request is supposed to go through the governors.”
• Contemporary controversy: Trump’s expansive, possibly politically motivated deployments to cities with Democratic leadership.
  • [12:24] Kim: "It seems even that pretense has been dropped by the government. They are just trying to send troops willy nilly."
• Legal debate: The reviewability of the President's determination of 'rebellion' or 'invasion.'
  • [15:19] Barb explains the 1827 Martin v. Mott precedent and why Trump’s legal team may be misapplying it to argue for unchecked power.
• Role of the judiciary: District courts can take "judicial notice" of on-the-ground realities (i.e., the absence of a rebellion); Supreme Court actions are demoralizing local judges by overriding factual findings, often via the shadow docket.
  • [18:14] Kim: “It is demoralizing to them because that's basically like the Supreme Court telling them that that work doesn't matter or that the power that they have is being taken away from them."
• The Tenth Amendment and Federal Overreach:
  • [21:42] Barb: "Our Constitution envisions a situation where we have a federal system and state systems that operate cooperatively... this idea that the president can just sort of storm in and throw troops... is unconstitutional under the 10th amendment."

3. Trump's $230 Million 'Shakedown' of the DOJ [30:44–43:07]

• Context: Trump files Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) administrative complaints seeking $230 million for "damages" from DOJ investigations into him, now overseen by his former private attorneys in DOJ posts.
  • [31:40] Jill: “These are really ridiculous and absurd... It's not yet a lawsuit.”
• Insight into process: FTCA allows preliminary claims before litigation for minor, genuine grievances—not for dubious presidential vendettas.
  • [35:45] Barb: "What's unusual here is... #1, it's the President... #2 is this is the kind of claim that would absolutely fail in court."
• Ethical firestorm: Deep scrutiny of the conflict of interest in Trump's own legal team at DOJ deciding on his claims.
  • [39:22] Jill: “You cannot allow... [them] to sign off... representing their own client... They must either recuse.”
• Possible motives: Panel agrees part of Trump's aim is to rewrite the historical record and claim “vindication,” irrespective of finances.
  • [42:57] Barb: “It is just another example of his failure to follow government ethics... an effort to rewrite history.”

4. NBA Gambling Scandals & Sports Betting Legalization [47:48–63:31]

• Segment intro: Barb relishes the panel's first sports law discussion, focusing on two major scandals:
  • [48:31] Chauncey Billups (beloved ex-Piston, now Trail Blazers coach) indicted for his alleged role in a mob-run, tech-enabled poker cheating ring.
    • [49:31] Kim: “The crazy thing about this is I didn't realize the mob was still mopping like this.”
  • [52:15] Second indictment involving a player allegedly colluding with gamblers by leaving a game early, wrecking integrity via “prop bets.”
    • [54:52] Jill: “It does affect the integrity of the game because it's basically throwing a game.”
• Tech, analytics, and modern detection: Algorithms now spot abnormal betting patterns, which can serve as deterrents or triggers for law enforcement involvement.
• Sports gambling policy: Discussion pivots to the 2018 Supreme Court decision (Murphy v. NCAA) striking down federal restrictions, opening a floodgate for state-level legalization and technological innovation in gambling.
  • [58:05] Kim: “The majority... struck down a 1992 federal law... What has happened since is that it has been legalized on widespreadly.”
  • Sympathetic commentary on the resulting temptation for corruption versus the impracticality of outright prohibition.
• Panel’s take on solutions: Better detection and deterrence, not bans, are advisable but probably insufficient.
  • [60:36] Jill: “Preventing corruption... no matter what laws you pass, criminals are smart and they will find a way around it... If more and more people are caught and prosecuted and convicted, maybe people will stop throwing games.”

5. Audience Q&A and Lighter Moments [66:41–74:41]

• Legal ethics: Would any of the panel represent Trump if asked? (“No!” – Jill, 67:32), with philosophical nods to the right of defense but worries about honesty and past lawyer misfortunes.
• White House ballroom controversy: Kim and Barb explain the opaque and possibly improper process for demolition/funding, with likely donors including corporate heavyweights posing conflict of interest concerns.
  • [68:56] Kim: “The White House has determined that [they’re] exempt from those requirements... They are operating on the assumption that they can tear it down.”
• Anecdotes & camaraderie: Jill recounts prosecuting a boxing bribery case and being accosted in the restroom by a defendant’s spouse; banter and warmth close out the episode.

Key Quotes with Timestamps

• "There is legal authority for the president to federalize the National Guard... although that request is supposed to go through the governors."
  — Barb (10:17)
• "It seems even that pretense has been dropped by the government. They are just trying to send troops willy nilly."
  — Kim (12:24)
• "You cannot allow Todd Blanche... or Pam Bondi to sign off on something in which they're representing their own client... This is not at all ethical."
  — Jill (39:22)
• "It is just another example of his failure to follow government ethics... an effort to rewrite history."
  — Barb (42:57)
• "The crazy thing about this is I didn't realize the mob was still mopping like this."
  — Kim (49:22)
• "It does affect the integrity of the game because it's basically throwing a game."
  — Jill (54:52)
• "The majority in 2018 entered the chat and struck down a 1992 federal law... It has been legalized on widespreadly."
  — Kim (58:05)

Conclusion

Episode 259 offers an incisive, at times rollicking analysis of topics at the collision of legal authority, executive power, personal ethics, and modern technology—as well as how old and new forms of corruption may thrive or be thwarted. The panel—articulate, relatable, and sometimes irreverent—demonstrates once again how the letter of the law, the facts on the ground, and the quirks of human nature always interweave, whether the subject is the National Guard or a rigged poker game.

For legal nerds and sports fans alike, this is a #SistersInLaw classic.