A (3:15)

Oh, that's great.

B (3:16)

Okay, great.

A (3:17)

Great.

B (3:17)

It's. You know, my. My sign that I carried was so pathetic. I thought, oh, it'll be so easy to make a sign. And honestly, I'm humiliated by how my sign came out. It was like the W in. Where was like a third of the space, and there was nothing left to say where.

C (3:35)

Do you know what's good about that? Do you know what's perfect about that, Jill? Is that it It. It. Critics of it and people who were trying to claim that it was some big conspiracy and it was paid protesters who got specially made signs.

B (3:50)

Yeah, right.

C (3:50)

Was clear. These were not professionally made signs.

A (3:54)

Pretty obvious.

C (3:55)

There was no. This was definitely the definition of the grassroots. Cause these were not fancy, slick, all uniform signs that you see at a political rally. People literally took out their markers and paper and did the best they could.

A (4:10)

I think it's great. You know, I. I happened to be in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania at the time. I was doing some book talks in Pennsylvania last week. And so I went into town into Gettysburg to their no Kings rally. And there are a lot of great signs there, including they have a little statue of Abraham Lincoln in town. And they. Somebody put a sign in his hand too about, you know, no kings. And that's the truth. Honest Abe. So that was a good one. But I also saw some other good ones that I love. The clever ones, you know, like the only monarchs should be butterflies.

B (4:43)

Yes, I saw those.

A (4:44)

That's very joyful. And another one was Vietnam veteran against Agent Orange with a picture of.

B (4:50)

Oh, that's a good one.

A (4:52)

Yeah, yeah, it was good. But what, you know, what I really appreciated about it was just how joyful the whole thing was. It was a celebration of American democracy. It was not angry. There were no paid agitators that I saw people dressed up like antifa just to make trouble. It was really a very joyful celebration. And it was encouraging to see how many people, young people, old people, and everybody in between were out there to show their support for the. The America we all love.

B (5:24)

It was a joy and it was really energizing. Another one of my favorite signs said, our huddled masses will defeat your fascist asses. Sorry for saying that word, Bar, but that I'm reading the sign. That was. Yeah, that was.

A (5:39)

We'll have to bleep it.

C (5:40)

Jill. Barb's here.

A (5:43)

I will acknowledge its cleverness.

B (5:46)

Yes, Another really clever one that a friend of mine made said a King with a picture of Martin Luther King, the King with a picture of obviously Elvis Presley. And then it said not a King and it showed our current incumbent of the demolished White House.

C (6:15)

Running a small business can get crazy, and whether it's a law firm or a podcast, you want to focus on the cases, the show, or client management. Unfortunately, there are a ton of hats to wear. You're spinning a lot of plates. As a entrepreneur myself, I understand how that can happen. It's distracting at at best and can take the focus off your mission at worst. So that's why we wanted to tell you about Gusto. It's perfect for anyone who wants to take charge of their business. And I know that in addition to my sisters, there are so many law firms that would benefit. Don't make running a business harder on yourself. Try Gusto and see what it can do for you.

A (6:54)

I love the idea of Sisters in Law. Podcast is sort of like the office where we're all sitting around the workplace and hi jinks ensue. I think. Yeah, I think Joyce would be Michael, what do you think? I don't know. She's not here so we can make fun of her. Well, let me fill you in about Gusto. It's an online payroll and benefit software built for small businesses. It's all in one remote, friendly and incredibly easy to use so you can pay, hire onboard and support your team from anywhere. They have so many automated tools to help you save time are built right in. Imagine how much simpler your workload would be with quickly accessible offer letters, onboarding materials, direct deposits, and more. You can even get direct access to certified HR experts to help support you through any tough HR situation that can.

B (7:47)

Save you so much money, time and worry. Best of all, it's quick and simple to switch to Gusto. Just transfer your existing data to to get up and running fast. Plus you don't pay a cent until you run your first payroll. We've all heard Joyce talk about how this has made her life and the process of running her LLC so much easier by using Gusto. But don't just take our word for it. Gusto is the number one payroll software according to G2 for fall 2025, and it's trusted by over 400,000 small businesses. It's the perfect complement to running your business. I just wish I had heard about it sooner so that I could tell you all about using it sooner. Join them and start optimizing your business. Try gusto today@gusto.com sisters and get three months free when you run your first payroll. That's three months of free payroll@gusto.com sisters one more time, gusto.com sisters and you can see the link in our show. Notes. Since World War II, the National Guard has been deployed only 10 times by presidents because they're usually done by the governors. Mostly those deployments have been in support of racial desegregation and the protection of civil rights. And all but one of those mobilizations came at the governor's request. The lone exception before Trump was President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1957 mobilization of the Arkansas National Guard to help desegregate schools in Little Rock over the wishes of the governor, Orval Faubus. Now Trump is doing it everywhere. Every day, that is everywhere. There's a Democrat in control. Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago. And there are conflicting court decisions all headed to scotus. We've talked about the laws that can be invoked by a president to call out the troops and why they don't really apply to what he's doing. But today, let's dive even deeper. Barb, we've had some new decisions that have distinguished between federalizing the troops and deploying the troops. Can you talk about whether that matters and what the difference is?

A (10:17)

Yes. So there is legal authority for the president to federalize the National Guard. There's a statute we've talked about already, Title 10, US Code Section 12406, which says that when the president is unable to execute the law with regular forces, he is able to take operational control of the National Guard, although that request is supposed to go through the governors. And that is what has happened in the states where we have seen the National Guard federalized so far. It is in contrast, however, to deploying the military forces, including the National Guard, when necessary for certain kinds of activities. What we're seeing right now is just a support function for federal law enforcement, not the law enforcement activities. So they can stand and guard federal property. They can help with crowd control and do other things. But of course, we still have the Posse Comitatus act, which generally prohibits the military, including the National Guard, from engaging in domestic law enforcement unless specifically authorized by law. And so the Insurrection act would be a notch higher and would allow the president to direct National Guard troops to actually engage in law enforcement activities. We aren't quite there yet.

B (11:46)

I hope we never get there. But, Kim, you know, the law sort of says you have to have a rebellion or an inability to enforce the laws to use this. And I live in Chicago. I can tell you, there is no rebellion. There's civil protests against what we see as violations of our rights, but no rebellion, no inability. And in fact, aren't they arguing against themselves because they're boasting about how many people they've detained, which would be the exact opposite of not being able to enforce federal law. What do you think?

C (12:24)

It's really a mess. I mean, some of the earlier calls for bids to send National Guards were ostensibly made to protect federal proper, you know, when there were protests outside of ice. But it seems even that pretense has been dropped by the government. They are just trying to send troops willy nilly. You know, there was a threat to send them to San Francisco and then they got pulled back and it's back and forth. So what the actual standard is under the US Code is that the National Guard can be federally deployed if there is, as you said, to repel an invasion, to suppress a rebellion, or to execute the laws of the United States when they cannot be enforced by regular forces, which means the local and state police, which is law enforcement. That's where law enforcement is done by local and state authorities. And a good example of this to contrast, what is happening now is after the verdict in the Rodney King case in Los Angeles, when there was widespread violent, just chaotic unrest, and despite efforts by the governor and state and local police and LAPD and more, they just couldn't get it fully under control. So the governor requested that the president send National Guardsmen to help them. And they ended up coming sort of toward the end of the unrest. At that point, the police had started to get. And community members had started to get a hold of it a bit. But toward the end, National Guard sort of helped to finally put a final end to it. And that makes sense. And that is a good exemplar of how it's supposed to work. It's not supposed to be used as a threat. That's clearly political, aimed at democratic cities that are run by black mayors. I will say I'm happy that my hometown of Detroit still hasn't seen the smoke, but I can't. I gotta believe that that's one reason why it hasn't. But, yeah, it's nothing that is even close to what is envisioned by the statute.

B (14:29)

Yeah. And Barb, the president has asserted that basically his determination that there is a rebellion, invasion, whatever he wants to call it, is not reviewable. And so even in cases where, as the district court judge here in Chicago said, it's untethered to facts, that his analysis of, you know, calling This a grounds for federalizing troops just has no factual basis. So. And there's a 200 year old case, Martin vs. Mott, that sort of has been, I believe, misinterpreted. And anybody who reads Joyce's substack knows that she certainly thinks it was misinterpreted. What's the deal? Is it reviewable by a court?

A (15:19)

Yeah, I think there's a lot of moving parts that are going on here. And Joyce has a nice discussion of this in her civil discourse substack. This is an 1827 case. It is looking at, you know, the authority for these things has changed over time with different statutes. And what they said in that case was the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, that is to call up state militias belongs exclusively to the President and his decision is conclusive upon all other persons. But that case was talking about whether the militia itself could second guess the President's decision, not whether this was reviewable by courts. And that's a very different question. And so I think that that language has to be viewed through that lens. I will also point out that the statute we're talking about specifically, which was not the statute, there is 10 United States Code section 12406. And to the extent we have textualists on the Supreme Court who are looking at these things, I think the text of this statute matters. Because what 12406 says is the President can, you know, federalize National Guard troops when he is unable to execute the law with regular forces, not when he deems or determines he cannot, it's when he is. And so if we're looking at not just what the President has decided and it is what the situation actually is, of course that's reviewable by courts. You know, just to take the law professors love to take hypotheticals, you know, to point out the most ridiculous extension of this. It's sort of like the same thing that happens in sketch comedy. Like let's take an ordinary situation and create the most absurd example of it. We can see, what if the President said, I need to federalize the National Guard because little green men have landed in Chicago? Everybody can see that's not true. Right. And if we can see with our own eyes, that's not true, of course there has to be some recourse for that. And so I think this argument that it's not reviewable is ultimately a loser. And I think even our current Supreme Court, which has great deference for the executive, some even follow this unitary executive theory. I think the text of this statute means that it has to reflect the reality, not just what the President determines is appropriate.

B (17:42)

Right. And so, Kim, that raises the question in my mind about. The court has said great deference is owed to the President's determination, but that doesn't mean that you are blind to the realities. And judges can. We all know the theory of judicial notice. Any judge in Portland or in Chicago can see for themselves that there is no rebellion against the authority of the United States. So can a judge take judicial notice? Can. Can there be any basis to Trump's argument?

C (18:14)

Yeah. You know, one thing that's important to realize is that the judges I'm talking about, the trial level, federal judges, the district court judges, who are the first to consider challenges to these orders are the ones that are in these locations on the ground, looking at the facts as submitted in these motions and making determinations based on those realities, including what they can see with their own eyes. I'm sure they will not ignore that. And they see what is happening, and they're making these rulings based on that. And you are seeing judges who were nominated by presidents of both parties finding against Trump. What you're also seeing, though, is when it's appealed on the shadow docket, the Supreme Court is routinely lifting any injunction. Not any, but many of the injunctions that have been put in place. And sort of substituting their own thoughts about this, the justices, for the judges who are on the ground, who are doing the hard work, who are going through the record and seeing what is actually being presented to them. And that isn't just bad for how. Determining exactly when these standards under 10 USC that Barb talked about are met, but it's also really causing a different problem that I'm hearing off the record from current and retired judges. That 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.

A (19:47)

And.

C (19:48)

And that's the majority of our judicial system is these judges at the trial and appellate levels doing their jobs the best that they can. And to have the Supreme Court say, okay, fine, but as this. As this case continues, we're gonna let the President keep doing that based on this deference just doesn't make any sense. And to me, again, as Barb said, I don't think that's the way the statute was meant to work.

B (20:07)

Right. And it's also completely contrary to everything we've ever seen where the Supreme Court or even the Court of Appeals will Say, you know, great deference on the facts for the, as found by the district court.

C (20:21)

Right.

B (20:21)

Not as to the law. They are more supreme in the law, but not as to the facts. And if you listen to the argument that was on this case, there's one point where the court is saying, well, are you saying that this is in perpetuity, that the decision that there is a rebellion can never be re evaluated even when things on the ground change? And honestly, Trump's lawyers said, yeah, it's for perpetuity. So it's really, it's, it's just really reviewable. But then that leads to the question of, so if it's not reviewable according, you know, according to Trump, and if, heaven forbid, the court agrees with that, what's, what's going to happen, what's next?

A (21:02)

BARB Well, I think that it's going to, we're going to see different opinions in different circuits around the country. I think ultimately this goes to the Supreme Court, as I said, I think ultimately this is reviewable by courts and there has to, I think they'll get great deference. But I think there has to be at least some support factually for these things to happen. And I think, you know, one of the things that you had indicated you wanted to talk about, which is the interplay between the First Amendment and the tenth Amendment here. And I think the tenth Amendment is one that doesn't get, you know, a lot of attention. It is one, it is the one that says, you know, the states, Anything not given.

B (21:41)

Yeah, go ahead.

A (21:42)

Yeah. The states have the power that is sort of residual of anything that's not specified and assigned to the federal government. And that's a lot, right? There are enumerated powers that are given to the federal government, and then the state government kind of gets everything else, and it includes the police powers. That's why we have this Posse Comitatus Act. And what's so interesting is that for decades, Republicans have been the one urging states rights in the 10th Amendment. I think that, you know, is a relic of the civil rights era, when they didn't want the feds coming down and telling them what to do in the Jim Crow era. And so we had this whole states rights movement. But now suddenly, now that Trump is in power, we hear silence from Republicans about states rights. But our Constitution envisions a situation where we have a federal system and state systems that operate cooperatively, and they're supposed to each respect the role of the other. And so this idea that the president can just sort of Storm in and throw troops on every street corner and start enforcing the law is unconstitutional under the 10th amendment.

B (22:54)

It's starting to get cold, especially in Chicago. There are a lot of drawbacks to the cold, but one of the best parts of the season is being able to build out your wardrobe and create style complete with layers that complement you while being built to last. That's where Quince comes in. It's our go to for quality essentials that feel cozy, look refined, and won't blow your budget.

A (23:18)

You know, I've told you before, I love their Mongolian cashmere. I think I have one now in every color. It's my perfect go to for warmth, comfort, and style, especially as we're heading into the colder weather here in Michigan, and especially when the price is $50. They also have premium denim that fits like a dream and luxe outerwear you will wear year after year. These are the pieces we turn to time and again, and you'll find that they quickly become an essential part of your fall uniform.

C (23:48)

You know, it's really true, Barb. I started. I found quints during the pandemic when I just. I felt like somehow the cashmere would serve to protect me against the virus.

A (24:01)

I think that's a proven scientific fact.

C (24:03)

Yeah.

A (24:03)

Yeah.

C (24:03)

You know, really cashmere.

A (24:05)

Yeah.

C (24:06)

And now I have a sweater in almost every color, too, in part because the ones that I bought then, you know, five years ago, they still look beautiful. They're machine washable. It's really great. And so now am I in their wool coats? Because I love a coat. I think. Don't let my husband hear this, because our coat Closet is like 5% his coats and 95% mine, and I don't need any more coats, but they're so nice, and I like being warm. They look designer level, but cost a fraction of the price and the quality. Listen, it's just so good. I'll fill you in on their secret. Quince partners directly with top tier ethical factories and cut out the middlemen, which is how they can consistently deliver luxury quality pieces at half the price of similar brands. So when you choose Quint, you're getting a wardrobe upgrade that feels smart, stylish, and effortless and at a price you're gonna love. I have to say, once you get inside the office or the classroom, when the heater is running, everyone needs Quince's washable stretch silk blouse. I wore it for. I wore one for a TV hit, and I got a ton of compliments on it. They really feel as amazing as they look. And the style is perfect whether you're on TV or giving a speech or just seeing your friends or just, you know, running errands. I mean, wear, I say wear the clothes you have in your regular life. Wear that blouse to the grocery store and feel good and know you are getting high quality things and, and you're wearing them. There's nothing better than looking your best wherever you are. And if you're prioritizing fitness as we head into the holiday season or anytime, I gotta tell you, the best workout motivation is new activewear from Quint waiting in your drawer. Like, that totally is it for me. Like, if I know I have some cute activewear that I have, it'll make me want to put it on and then, okay, fine, I'll work out.

A (26:04)

It's so funny the different ways that Kim and I think about clothing. She's like, get cute and excited about her outfits. I am like all about functional. Like the uniform. Where is it? It's reliable. I can put it on. One of the pieces I got recently is this. Like no iron, no wrinkle, silk blouse. Like those adjectives are music to my ears. Like I can just wear this thing without worrying about and it's fantastic. Find your fall staples at Quint's if you want to take advantage of these items as well. You can go to quince.com sisters for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com sisters to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Again, that's quince.com sisters. The link is in our show notes.

C (27:05)

When the seasons change, it also means it's time to mix up your makeup routine. And that's why we are so glad we discovered Jones Road beauty. We have high standards when it comes to the products we use on tv because when we don't look good, we hear about it. And also in our professional lives, whether it's in the courtroom or in front of a classroom, the last thing you want is to not feel your best or to have makeup that feels caked on and artificial looking with low skin, breathability or something that takes forever to apply. And one thing I really like about Jones Road is their mini balms. I call it a super makeup product because it's so easy. You could put it on your face for a little bit of a highlight. You can use it as an eyeshadow. I even used one like plummy color as just an easy lip balm. That gives just a little bit of color, but not too much, and it instantly just brightens the face and makes you look more put together, more awake, and it's easy as can be.

B (28:04)

I wish everyone could see how you were talking about that because you were so expressive with your hands and pointing to your cheeks and your lips. It was fantastic.

C (28:13)

I love it.

B (28:14)

Watch. I know. And, and it's, it's really. I've seen their ads on TV for Jones Road, and I was so excited when they came to us and we could try their products, and it's been fantastic. We love especially that their products contain no phthalates, sulfates, petrolatum, pegs, EDTA or bpa. Talk about a tongue twister. It's just clean beauty. It's a no brainer. I was so surprised how easy it was to apply the mini Miracle bombs and the eyeshadow stick in the perfect smoky colors for fall with their Bobby Kit 5.0. They keep updating their game and it just keeps getting better and better. There are no brushes and no complicated routine. That's the best part. You just use your finger. Who needs all those brushes? And you go. Many people have told me that the Miracle Balm has enabled them to skip multiple steps in their routine. I agree. And their products give your skin a natural look, but better with a warm, captivating glow in under 60 seconds.

C (29:19)

And Jones Row doesn't just have their famous Miracle Balm. They've built a full, full lineup of effortless skin first staples like they're just enough tinted moisturizer. It's lightweight, non comedogenic formula that smooths and even skin tone with a soft touch of coverage. Not only does it hide redness, it looks so natural and it feels like nothing on the skin. Plus, it's packed with skin friendly ingredients to keep skin moisturized without clogging pores. And one thing I don't like is when makeup feels very dry, especially in the cooler months. So this makes it a truly winter essential. And whether you're out in the cold or under the heater, which is. That's where I would be. Under the heater. It's perfect to keep you from drying out.

A (30:04)

It's makeup that won't even feel like you're wearing it, which is a win for me. So embrace modern day makeup that's clean, strategic and multifunctional for effortless routines. And for a limited time, our listeners are getting a free cool gloss on their first purchase when they use Code Sisters at checkout. Just head to Jonesroadbeauty.com and use code Sisters at checkout. After you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. The link is in the show notes.

C (30:44)

So the news never stops. And that includes a report by the New York Times this week that Trump is seeking $230 million from the Justice Department to compensate him for two federal investigations into him before he took office for the second time. The report noted that there is no historical parallel for this situation. A presidential candidate under federal investigation wins the election and then takes over the Justice Department that had been investigating him. So let's get down to the nitty gritty of exactly what Trump is doing here. He has since confirmed this and has talked about it to reporters at the White House. But there are two complaints that Trump filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Help us understand what that is and to give us an idea of the process and how strong you think these claims are.

B (31:40)

Let me start with the easy question. These are really ridiculous and absurd. There's an administrative procedure before you actually go to court. So this is not in court right now, which makes it even more ridiculous.

C (31:57)

Even though he keeps calling it a lawsuit and it's like, it's not a.

B (31:59)

Lawsuit, it is not yet a lawsuit. And unfortunately, I'm going to divert a little here. If the Justice Department, before he was inaugurated for the second time, had refused to settle this, he would have had to file a lawsuit. It would have been over. It can't be re reviewed. And unfortunately, I think that's what they should have done, but they didn't. And so now it falls to his former lawyers, who are now the Justice Department officials, to say, yeah, you want it, you can have it. Because of course they say he can have anything he wants anyway. And he's saying that I was really hurt because you investigated me for Russia, and I was really, really, really hurt because you raided his favorite word, my private residence at Mar a Lago and you searched me and this was all malicious and it was politically motivated. We know that there are proper predicates for all of this. And the process is he files these standard forms and then it gets reviewed and justice can say, okay, you can have it. And they just pay him our money. They pay him our taxpayer dollars and that's the end of that. Or they could, if they were being honest, say, I'm sorry, but there is no grounds for this and we're going to deny it. And then he would have to file a lawsuit and go to Court. You know, I would love to see that happen. Of course, I certainly would like to see some pressure brought to at least have a special counsel appointed to negotiate with him. If the Justice Department is going to go ahead in the same way that we don't let the Justice Department prosecute or the President that they are serving under. That's why we have special counsel. You need someone independent to look at this. You can't have his appointees saying, yes, sir, you want that, you can have it. And I would love to see some of the facts that would come out in this. We would see the predicate that happened, how a court gave a search warrant, and it would be such an interesting thing to review. And his, his memorandum attached to his administrative complaint includes a lot of out of context remarks from FBI agents and others who were afraid to go in. And, you know, going back to Watergate, we didn't subpoena the President until we had made a letter request for the White House tapes because Archie Cox was a man of great integrity and he felt that the President should be asked. Well, in this case, the President was asked, let's go to just a search warrant. He was asked to cooperate. He had plenty of time to cooperate. And before he destroyed the documents, they had to go in without warning. If they had given him warning, we already saw proof, video that he was moving stuff and hiding it. It would have been destroyed. So there's every justification for what happened.

C (35:18)

And as you pointed out, I mean, one thing that's awful about the administrative process is unlike a lawsuit, there's no transparency. Like, they could have cut it. They could have already come to a settlement about what they were going to pay him and we wouldn't have any way of knowing that. So, Barb, the Federal Torts Claims act is an important law that allows people who've been harmed by the government to seek redress. But how is this claim different than what most people filing claims under this act go through?

A (35:45)

Yeah. So, you know, the Federal Tort Claims act actually has a smart process which is before you file a lawsuit and bring upon both parties all of the demands that that comes with it. Right. The expense, the time, the risk and all of those things. They created this preliminary method to shortcut all of that. First, like come to us, tell us what your claim is before you go to court and make us respond. And we all spend a lot of money because we might agree with you. When I was serving as U.S. attorney, we got claims under the Federal Tort Claims act from time to time. Maybe somebody Got into a car accident with a postal truck, for example, and they said, I had physical injuries, lost work, and I'm seeking $50,000. We would look at it, we would assess the claim. We would decide whether we thought it was worth 50,000. Maybe our own independent assessment was that it was worth $40,000. And so we'd offer that. And if it could be settled before going to court, that's a win win. Right. Everybody saves the money, the time, the risk, and all those kinds of things. Makes perfect sense. What's unusual here, of course, is that, number one, it's the President of the United States, so that creates a conflict of interest. Number two is this is the kind of claim that would absolutely fail in court. As Jill has said, President Trump is claiming malicious prosecution. One of the elements in that is that the case be resolved in your favor. Both of these cases were dismissed not on the merits, but because of procedural concerns relating to the appointment of the special counsel in the Florida case.

C (37:21)

Wait, it wasn't a complete exoneration?

A (37:23)

Well, I know that's what we've all heard hard to believe. And with the, the Mueller Russia investigation, there was never any charge at all. So that wasn't even a prosecution. So these cases, in my opinion, were. Would be doomed to fail in court. But of course, they may never get there if the Justice Department simply says, you bet, Mr. President. Oh, poor you, $230 million. Why, that's, that's a fair sum for all of your pain and suffering, sir, let me write that check today. So it may never get to court where we can see the light of day and we could analyze it. But the conflict of interest is one of the things that's so strange here, because obviously, the drafters of the statute never envisioned a scenario where the claimant would be the President of the United States. And so we're going to see.

C (38:15)

Yeah, that gets me to the question I wanted to, to ask Jill, because one reason I wanted to talk about this topic is that we got a lot of questions from listeners about, especially the point that, you know, the people in the Justice Department who will determine whether to cut that check are also the people who were his former personal attorneys, people like Todd Blanch in the Justice Department. And people were asking, wait, is this really how this works? Is this. And even Trump himself, when asked about this in the White House, I think it was yesterday or the day before he said, quote, I have a lawsuit. Again, it's not a lawsuit. We explained that. I have a lawsuit that's doing very well. And when I became president, I said, I'm sort of suing myself. It sort of looks bad. I'm suing myself. Right. So I don't know. But that was a lawsuit. That was very strong, very powerful. Okay, again, not a lawsuit, but.

B (39:13)

And not very powerful.

C (39:15)

Not very powerful. But the people making the decisions have clear conflicts of interest. Jill. Like, make it make sense.

B (39:22)

Well, it doesn't make sense. It goes back to what I said, which is you cannot allow Todd Blanche, who's one of the two people who could sign off on this, or Pam Bondi to sign off on something in which they're representing their own client from the past. And when they were being confirmed, they both said, our obligation, our attorney client privilege, goes on forever. And so they cannot. There's no way that they could claim they don't have a conflict of interest in judging the merits of this. They must either recuse. And you know how Donald Trump feels about recusals. He will never forgive anyone who recuses like the Attorney General Sessions. So there's no way to make sense of this. He is suing himself. He can't be doing that. He also, by the way, says that if he collects this money, he's gonna give it to charity. Yeah, that's just like he's gonna pay for the wall, right? Uh huh. Or I'm not going to hurt the east wing. It's just gonna be an addition. And now you see that he has completely demolished the east. Okay, so we can't believe it's gonna go to charity either. But yeah, you definitely need recusal. A special. You need something. This is not at all ethical. It's meritless to have brought the case anyway.

C (40:49)

And Barb, just a little reminder that the money Trump is seeking, I mean, again, take this fact that he says he's going to give it to charity with a grain of salt. That's taxpayer money. I mean, Trump, you know, under the ftca, we may not even be informed, as I said, when a settlement is reached and how much. And that is taxpayer money that he is seeking. Not to mention he's seeking it at a time when the government is closed, federal workers aren't being paid, you have air traffic controllers who are moonlighting as Uber drivers at night, which doesn't seem like a good idea. Just what are your thoughts on that?

A (41:29)

Yeah, so $230 million. This is money that will come out, as you say, of the general treasury funds for judgments. It is money that is not going to be used to send for Social Security checks. It is money that is not going to be used to improve public infrastructure. It is money that instead will be directed to the charity of Trump's choice. And what's the charity of Trump's choice? I don't know. How about the White House ballroom project? So it's really disgusting. It's ethically bankrupt. It is just another example of his failure to follow government ethics. But, you know, I think there's one more thing at work here, and that is something that I think is a theme throughout many of the things he does. And that is an effort to rewrite history. Because if he can get a judgment from the Justice Department, even if he doesn't keep the money, he can say, the Justice Department made a finding that I was maliciously prosecuted over the Trump Russia investigation and the Mar? A Lago case. C. It was all rigged all along. In the same way, his pardoning of the January 6th defendants, the firing of all of these people who worked on these cases, the indictment of Jim Comey, it is all part of an effort to rewrite history with him not only as the victim, but the hero.

C (42:57)

Yep, that's.

B (42:58)

So when Jim Comey is acquitted, think about how much money he can claim in damages from the Justice Department for malicious prosecution.

A (43:07)

Yeah, well, he might have to wait for another administration to collect his judgment.

C (43:22)

Hey, Jill, guess what turned up at my house this week.

B (43:24)

What?

C (43:25)

Croissants.

B (43:27)

Oh, I am so not surprised.

C (43:30)

I just like to hear Kim say it and everything. Bagels and muffins and all kinds of other good things. And that is why this episode of Sisters in Law is brought to you by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first bake from frozen subscription box for artisanal breads, seasonal pastries, and fresh pastas. Plus, all items conveniently bake in 25 minutes or less. Unlike store bought, Wildgreen uses a slow fermentation process that's easier on your belly, richer in nutrients, antioxidants, and made with simple ingredients you can pronounce. Wildgreen's boxes are fully customizable and they're constantly adding seasonal and limited time products for you to enjoy. I am looking forward to the cheese tortellinis that is waiting in my freezer to become dinner. And in addition to their classic box, they now feature a gluten free box and a plant based box.

B (44:29)

So. All right, Kim, guess what my husband took for lunch today and what we're having for dinner tonight.

C (44:35)

Croissants?

B (44:37)

No, because I can't say it the way you do, so I wouldn't even if it was, I wouldn't say it, but no. He took the ciabatta bread with some cheese. That is really good. And although his favorite is probably the baguettes, he loves, loves it. And we're having the Tonnarelli pasta for dinner with the pasta sauce that comes from them frozen. And you just, you know, put it in hot water, and it's ready to eat. It's.

C (45:02)

You know what? My husband is in Chicago as we speak, so I'm sending him to your house.

B (45:06)

Where is he? Tell him to come for dinner. It's amazing how fast wild grain goes from the box to the table. Or as this. In this case, to my husband for lunch. My husband and I enjoy the breads, pastas, and pastries, especially the pastries. And so do my guests. They're always impressed. And when I say that it's baked from frozen, not homemade, they're really surprised. And many of them have ended up subscribing. It's perfect for delicious meals, snacks, or quick and delicious food prep.

A (45:40)

Well, I love watching the color and smelling the flavor come alive when those pumpkin cinnamon biscuits are heating up. Have you guys tried those?

B (45:48)

Oh, my gosh. Oh, yes.

A (45:51)

The aroma coming from the oven is incredible. I want to put those things in there and just leave them all day, just as the smell.

C (45:57)

I know. It's almost terrible because you smell. It doesn't take very long for them to bake, but the whole time you're waiting and you smell them. Like, my mouth is watering. Snickers. Mouth is watering. Like, it's. It's. It's like a short period of torture before you can actually eat them.

A (46:11)

Yeah, but it's a great, like, household smell for the fall.

C (46:14)

It is.

A (46:15)

And have you tried that apple caramel galette? Yes. That was amazing.

B (46:19)

Yes. It's huge.

A (46:21)

Well, you'll never have to call people when. When the food is ready, they will come running. So this fall, treat yourself and your loved ones to warm sourdough breads and seasonal baked goods from Wild Grain. Rumor has it they have apple cider donuts and pumpkin cinnamon biscuits. So get them before these seasonal items sell out. Have you guys tried that? The apple cider donuts?

C (46:45)

The donuts are ridiculous.

A (46:47)

Yeah, I thought I heard you talking about them.

B (46:49)

I don't even like donuts, but I love these.

A (46:52)

Wait, you don't like donuts? I don't know.

B (46:53)

I don't. I don't know what's wrong with you. It's one of the sweets that I can.

A (46:57)

Just stop, Jill.

B (46:58)

Just stop.

A (46:58)

It's sacrilege. I don't want to hear it.

C (47:01)

We love you anyway, Jill.

A (47:02)

For a limited time, Wild Grain is offering our listeners $30 off the first box, plus free. Say it, Kim. Croissants in every box when you go to wildgrain.com sisters to start your subscription. You heard me. Free. What is it, Kim? Croissants in every box and $30 off your first box when you go to wildgrain.com sisters. That's wildgreen.com sisters or you can use promo code Sisters at checkout. Don't miss their seasonal products and look for the link in our show notes. All right, listeners, I'll bet you'll like this topic. See what I did there, Kim?

C (47:47)

Yes.

A (47:48)

At long last, dear listeners, I have prevailed upon my sisters for the first time to discuss a sports topic. And actually it was Kim who suggested we discuss this week's news of a sports gambling scandal because it does have ties to our beloved Chauncey Billups, the former Detroit Pistons player, now head coach of the Portland Trail Blazers. I take no joy in discussing this. Chauncey Billups is one of my all time favorite players. But this is a significant story that happened this week. And Kim, there are actually two indictments that came out this week. One that includes him and then there's another. Can you tell us first just about the indictment that includes Chauncey Billups?

C (48:31)

Yeah. This pained me to Barb, I am also a lifelong Pistons fan and I actually have somewhere a framed picture because I worked at a newspaper in 2004. So my editor framed the front page of the Journal News of Chauncey Billups holding the championship trophy after that championship and I used to hang it in my office. It really hurt my heart. But yes, the scheme in which Billups was charged for wire fraud, conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy had to do with a poker ring that involved every New York crime family that that seems to have ever existed. The crazy thing about this is I didn't realize the mob was still mopping like this.

A (49:22)

I know, right? That Gambino crime family.

C (49:26)

Wait, what? I was like, what? Like they're still around, they're still mob.

A (49:29)

And they're high tech and now they're high tech.

C (49:31)

Right, Right. So essentially the charge is that these high stake poker games were put together with people who had deep pockets and they would be lured into these poker games by famous folks like Chauncey Billups, you know, the of the Portland Trailblazer and you know, championship championship player from the Detroit Pistons and. Yeah, who, why Wouldn't you want to go play poker with folks like this? Well, the poker game was not in any way clean. There was technology being used from X rays to other, to special glasses that players were using in order to see markings on the other player's cards. All kinds of high tech ways of cheating in this poker game and fleecing these unsuspected players out of a total of upwards of $7 million. In fact, one player alone left $1.27 million lighter from these poker games. And these rings were operated by New York's crime family, a collection of New York mafia types who were taking a cut off of all of this by fleecing people. And Chauncey Pellups was a part of this. I mean it's so, it's so dis, I mean innocent till proven guilty, of course, but it's so disappointing that he could be involved in something like this. It, it, it didn't involve betting against his own team like we'll hear about, but this was pretty, pretty bad.

A (51:04)

Yeah. I was really struck by the idea of these high tech poker games where they could use like chips in the cards to know who had the best hand. And like, you know, whether you, you should continue to bet high on your own hand or you should fold. Really interesting. And you know, all of these kinds of things, wire fraud, other things require knowledge and intent. I'm going to hope that maybe Chauncey Billups was just a dupe himself. Right. He got a chance to make a lot of money, he thought, with a celebrity appearance and he just played along. Now, you know, the fact that he's indicted means there's probable cause that a grand jury found that there was evidence of all of the elements of the offense.

C (51:43)

Yeah. And not everybody involved in these schemes were indicted. So you got to believe that there's pretty good evidence on him.

A (51:49)

Yeah, well, innocent, presumed innocent for now. But you're right, it is a disturbing charge. Jill, there's a second indictment that may be even more serious because it threatens the integrity of the game. And I was actually pleased to see that Chauncey Billups was not named in this indictment because I think this really is even worse, maybe less sophisticated, although, I don't know, it also is a very modern kind of crime. Can you please tell us about that one?

B (52:15)

So it's not actually that modern. In a way, it's almost like bribing a player, except this seemed to be a player who was like, I'm going to volunteer to do this. Let me tell my friend that I'm going to leave the game early, and then they can bet on my not making the scores that I normally make because they know I won't be playing long enough. And it does affect the integrity of the game because it's basically throwing a game. And I have to say, when you suggested we talk about a sports thing, I was, like, panicked because I don't know anything about sports. Although the Bulls and Michael Jordan I do know. And so basketball is maybe one of the places I could actually feel comfortable. And just so you know, one of my early trials was a sports bribery.

A (53:00)

Oh, look at. Look at you.

C (53:02)

Of course it was. Of course it was.

B (53:05)

It was a boxing case. Wait, was it.

A (53:07)

Was it the Black Sox scandal? The 1919 Black Sox scandal?

B (53:10)

No. God. Yeah, right. That was it.

A (53:12)

Just kidding. Just kidding.

B (53:14)

I was in puberty at the time. But yeah, no, it was a boxing SC Case where one of the fighters agreed with us, a boxing promoter, to throw the fight so that they could bet on the other guy winning, and he did.

A (53:30)

Did you go undercover to the fight as one of those, like, fight dames in the. In the. The big fur coat? Or were you the girl who walks through with the card in the bathing suit?

B (53:40)

Okay, okay. Make fun. Okay. I love it. Seriously, I. One of the witnesses, a character witness came in. Sugar Ray Robinson, who was a big name. Yeah, a real big name. I'm telling you, the jury was, like, jumping out of the box to get his autograph, and it's like, oh, my God, this is the worst thing that could happen to me. Anyway. Yeah, it was, it was, it was. And the defendant, Sam Silverman, and his cigar, which he would leave on a fire hose holder outside the courtroom. And he'd. In between breaks, you could still smoke in courthouses. He would come out and puff and smoke. And then his wife attacked me in the ladies room because she. Anyway.

A (54:24)

Wait, wait, I'm sorry. Wait, wait, What? Why did she attack you in the laser? This is the most interesting part of the podcast.

B (54:29)

Well, because his name was Silverman, he was Jewish, and so was I. And she said, thought you'd want to protect your own kind. Oh, seriously? I mean, I was, like, really bad. Really bad. But anyway.

A (54:41)

Interesting.

B (54:42)

Yeah, it was.

A (54:43)

Well, that's fascinating.

B (54:44)

So that's my connection to. And I forgot what your question was. Did I answer your question?

C (54:49)

The second indictment. Yeah.

B (54:52)

Yes. Yeah. About how it worked was for throwing a game, basically, or. Or for allowing people to bet. And this was for defrauding the official betting companies. And so that's what it's about. And it does. Again, you know, we don't know until trial, but the indictment lays out some pretty convincing evidence that the player said, I have a bad foot when he didn't, and that he would only play for a limited period of time and that therefore I had to look this up. A prop bet, which is a bet about the over, under of how many points someone will score. It's not about the outcome of the game. It's about a specific thing. That's how much I know about betting is. I had to look up what a prop bet was. And people made a lot of money betting that he wasn't going to make his normal score. And so that was bad. And he, of course, told his best friend and the mafia and everybody else.

A (55:48)

Yeah, super interesting. See, I think that's where there is some tech involved here, because with these prop bets, you know, is Player X going to score more than five points tonight? If he knows that's the bet, he comes, you know, minute three of the game, when he's at four points, he says, oh, my foot is injured. I have to come out now. But the technology can detect that there's like a highly unusual number of bets on that factor. And so there are, you know, like, algorithms that can detect this stuff. So super interesting.

B (56:19)

Well, that only means you get caught. It doesn't mean that people didn't bet and don't collect.

C (56:23)

Right?

B (56:24)

Yeah.

A (56:24)

Well, you know, maybe after this, they'll realize that these. These bets are a little more transparent than they thought they were. Kim, I wanna ask you this, like, bigger picture on all of this. I was actually just discussing this at dinner with our daughter the other night. She was asking questions about why is it I see all of These ads for FanDuel and Sports King all of a sudden? I don't remember that more than a few years ago. And now suddenly it seems like I see that every year. Why is that? What changed? And you know, as we've just been discussing with Jill, I can remember a time when sports betting was considered a very bad thing and the teams really frowned upon it because it was considered a threat to the integrity of the game. I joke about the 1919 Chicago Black Sox scandal, but remember the movie Eight Men Out? It's about players actually were caught taking money from gamblers to throw the World Series. So what has changed in the past several years that we are now seeing this explosion of these online betting companies?

C (57:23)

Yeah, it's a good point. I mean, just personally, I'm not a gambler either, but I Used to play fantasy basketball. I remember when I was a lawyer, that would be my stress relief. I would go and like, make my little trades. But I stopped doing that after a couple years, even though it was fun with my friends, because I just hated the idea of if somebody on my fantasy team was playing against the Pistons. And then now all of a sudden, I have to like, kind of root again. Like, no, this feels awful. Like, I don't want to do this. Like, this is. This is cruddy. Why would people want to do that? So, yeah, add a lot of money to that and you see why people do it. But you asked what changed? Well, shockingly, the nine justices at the U.S. supreme Court entered the chat.

B (58:04)

Not nine of them.

C (58:05)

Well, the majority in 2018 entered the chat and struck down a 1992 federal law, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection act, which had banned betting on professional sports in most states. And what has happened since is that it has been legalized on widespreadly. I remember when Massachusetts was debating legalizing and eventually did, and I just felt like it was. It's a. It was such a bad idea for so many reasons. One, it's one of many reasons why I paid zero attention to the NBA anymore because I just can't take it. It just feels like such a different game to me. Also worry about betting as a generally, it just doesn't seem. Nobody who I know who gambles regularly is not feeling ill effects of that. I just think that societally it's a terrible vice to have. But that's the reason Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority. In the majority opinion that the way Congress went about the gambling ban violated. Wait for it, the 10th Amendment, which protects the power of the states.

A (59:15)

Oh, I love how comes full circle like that. Yeah. So you know that that case comes in, it overturns this federal law. States pass all kinds of laws to embrace gambling. And now we have sports gambling in most states. And so then of course, technology comes along and so now we have all these apps. So you don't have to go to like find an illegal bookie anymore. You don't have to even go to Las Vegas anymore. You can just get on your phone.

C (59:43)

Yeah. And the QR code that comes up on the televised game, you can just use that and go right to it. It's awful.

A (59:50)

Yeah. Well, Jill, let me ask you about that. I mean, I suppose the good news is that these people were caught and they've been charged and again, presumed innocent. But we'll see how that goes. And fanduel has said, you know, it is its technology that allows it to identify these unusual trends in bedding. And so people are not able to get away with it. I remember there was a Detroit Lions player who was caught making a bet on one of these things at the Lions practice facility. Like, they could even tell where he was when he made it. So that that kind of technology leaves an electronic paper trail. So is the solution, you think, to ban sports gambling or is the solution finding ways to prevent cheating?

B (60:36)

Well, I would say that neither of those is going to work. Sorry. You're so wise.

A (60:42)

You're so wise.

B (60:43)

I mean, really, you know, we can't ban sports gambling because it used to be done, as you pointed out, you know, with bookies who were, you know, corrupt themselves, but it was done off record. Now there's state sponsored gambling and people want to gamble. I'm sort of like with Kim, the only time that I was ever in Las Vegas was for depositions in a mafia case. And when we got there, my partner said, oh, let's go to the blackjack table. And I'm like, okay. And then we went to the roulette wheel and he was putting money down and losing big money. And I was like getting really upset, set. And I finally said to him, you know, I'm going to just. I'll wait until dinner. I'm going to my room. Let me know when you want to have dinner. Because I couldn't stand to watch this loss of money. But people do it. And so I don't think you can ban it. It's not going to work. And preventing corruption, if I learned one thing as an organized crime prosecutor is no matter what laws you pass, criminals are smart and they will find a way around it and they will do it anyway. So I don't know that you're going to be able to prevent corruption unless you could find people who have ethics and elect them to office and they set an example. Maybe. But I just, I don't know what the solution is if more and more people are caught and prosecuted. Because as we talked about before, yes, they have the technology to spot these unusual trends and they can report them to law enforcement, and law enforcement can investigate and, and arrest people if they find the evidence. But that's a long way and a lot of work and it's not going to really work. But if it gets to a point where enough people are caught and prosecuted and convicted, maybe people will stop throwing games. That doesn't mean you're going to stop gambling on legitimate. Let's Just bet on the outcome of a game based on. I've studied the statistics kind of thing.

A (62:52)

Yeah, right.

B (62:53)

Which is fine. Yeah, yeah.

A (62:54)

Which is fine. You know, I am a big believer in deterrence. You know, think about the way people drive. You know, other people, of course not myself, but the way people drive. They might speed from time to time on the freeway, but you wonder like, oh, why are all those brake lights ahead of me? It's because people are slowing down because they see a police car there and they don't want to get caught. So I think if FanDuel or Sports Kings were to let people know, look, we have the ability to track your unusual bets. Maybe that would help deter crime.

B (63:31)

The pressure to make the most of the final months of the year is real. If you woke up today thinking of all the things you should be doing, please stop shoulding and know you're doing the best you can. More importantly, when the shoulds or bad news pile up, calm is the tool you need to reach for. It will release your stress and help you find space to breathe even on the busiest or most stressful days. We even use it to center ourselves on the days when things are going well, but still need to take a moment out of our busy lives to refresh, reset, and get back on top of our game.

C (64:08)

If you haven't heard, Calm is the number one app for sleep and meditation and it's here to help you feel better. When you're feeling like you could use some support network navigating life's ups and downs, get the relief you need with Calm's sessions. No matter what life throws at you, Calm is perfect for every moon and moment. There is every type of program that you can imagine, like guided meditations designed to help you work through anxiety and stress, boost your focus and build healthier habits, and take care of your physical well being. And I just find, Barb, that just knowing that the app is there also just helps remind me to take that time every day day. And it does really make a difference.

B (64:52)

Yeah.

A (64:52)

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 also recommend you try their grounding exercises to help you relax and reset. There's one that's about like. I don't know if you've heard this one. It's about like for people who are afraid to fly. I'm not necessarily afraid to fly. But it's a really good one when you're feeling out of control because it just talks about, like, putting your feet on the ground and feeling solid, things and things that aren't moving and making you feel confident in your space. It's. It's a good one.

C (65:33)

That's great.

B (65:34)

Yeah.

A (65:34)

Calm has powerful expert LED talks designed to help you handle grief, improve self esteem, care for relationships, and more.

B (65:41)

The Calm app puts the tools you need right in your pocket so that stress and anxiety relief are always within reach. With over 2 million 5 star reviews, that's 2 million 5 star reviews. Calm can help you stress less, sleep more, and live mindfully. So don't wait, calm your mind and change your life. Calm has an exclusive offer just for our listeners of this show. Get 40% off a Calm premium subscription@calm.com sisters. This is an amazing value. Go to c a l m.com sisters for 40% off. Unlimited access to. Com's entire library. Again, that's com.com sisters tell com you heard about them from us. And look for the link in our show notes.

A (66:41)

Well, now comes the part of the show we really like the most, the part where we answer your questions. If you have a question for us, please email us at sisters in law politicon.com or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. If we don't get to your question during the show, keep an eye on our feeds throughout the week where we'll answer as many of your questions as we can. Our first question is an amusing one, I suppose, from Anil. Here's the question. What would you do if Donald Trump called you up and said, hey, I've been listening to your podcast for some time now and really admire your legal prowess. Would you be willing to take me on as a client to represent me in case X. Jill, that has your name written all over it. What would you do if you got that call?

B (67:32)

You know, that's an easy question because I'd say no. And I believe everybody deserves a defense. They just don't deserve a defense from a specific lawyer. I would first of all be worried that he would not be honest with me, that I couldn't rely on what he would say or that he would testify truthfully if it ever came to that. And, um, then I would also think about the fact that how many of his lawyers have been disbarred because they're get into bad things? So I would have to say no. I did have one experience where I was observing the last of the Holocaust trials. It was of Klaas Barbie in France. Oh, wow. I remember that I, I was supposed to interview his lawyer afterwards, and I decided not to do it because it would be normal to shake hands with someone. And I couldn't shake his hand because I thought what he was doing was so abysmal. And so I just don't want to be in that situation. So I would say, no, you're crooked, and I'm not going to do it.

A (68:42)

All right, our next question comes to us from Karen Joy. She asks where does Trump get the authority to tear into the east Wing of the White House? Kim, what do you think? Do you have any thoughts about that?

C (68:56)

So that's an interesting question. So construction on federal buildings, including the White House, has to go through an organization called the National Capital Planning Commission, the ncpc. They have jurisdiction over construction, renovation, anything like that to the building. Well, the White House has determined that the White House is exempt from those requirements to go through the NCPC for permitting under their interpretation of the statute. I won't bore you with all of the details, but this makes a big difference because among the things that the NCPC would require is to review the entire renovation plan completely before any work can begin. Like before the shovel breaks ground. All of the plans need to be in place of exactly what's going on. Now, it seems that the White House themselves are changing the plans as they go. First, it was just to a renovation to put in a ballroom. Next thing you know, you look and the east wing is gone, which is why people are saying, you know, take pictures of this. Keep the evidence of what is actually happening. And the White House also has determined in their interpretation of this statute that demolition is not included in construction plans. So they are operating on the assumption that they can tear it down, but they only need to put forth a plan, which they still don't have. There's still no plan in existence yet for how the construction is actually going to go. But in the meantime, they just went ahead and tore it down. So I'm going to see. I have a feeling that there will be some challenges surrounding this. Exactly who can enforce these rules? I think that's going to be questions. It's a lot of, yes, all these. I mean, this has not been done before. That's literally what this. It's like the perfect, you know, symbol of what this administration is doing. They destroy things and then figure out the legalities and the rules later. This is a perfect example of that. So I think this is stuff that we will have to wait and see.

A (71:09)

How it all shakes out, move fast and break things.

C (71:12)

Yep. Literally.

A (71:13)

And our final question comes to us from Kathy, who has kind of a follow up to the last question. And her question is, where's the money coming from for the ballroom being added to the White House? Great question, Kathy. Initially the projection was that it would cost $200 million. Now we're hearing suddenly $300 million at a time when the government is shut down and federal workers are not getting paid. So where is all this money coming from? Donald Trump has pledged to put up some of the money himself. He has not said how much. You know, what, a quarter? I don't mean 1/4. I mean a quarter. I don't know. We don't know how much. That has not been disclosed. But what we do know is he hosted a dinner event to thank his generous supporters who have made donations for this ballroom. And they included companies like Microsoft and Apple, Palantir, Lockheed Martin in companies that have a real stake in government activity. Right. These are companies that are sometimes subject to enforcement actions. Companies that are sometimes interested in government contracts could find themselves in regulatory situations. And so the idea that they are ponying up money at Trump's request strikes me as something that presents a real conflict of interest. The idea of private fundraising in government is really something that is antithetical. You know, it seems to me that Congress is the organization that appropriates funds. And if Congress deems that this is an appropriate use of funds, they should expend these funds. And otherwise we should keep the White House perfect the way it is. Well or was.

C (73:03)

Well.

A (73:04)

Thank you for joining us here at Sisters in Law. This week with Kimberly Atkins Store, 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.

C (73:17)

Show.

A (73:17)

And please show some love to this week's sponsors, Gusto, Quince, Jones Road, Beauty, Wild Grain, and Calm. The links are in the show notes. Please support them because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode, Sisters in Law. So, Jill, when you were investigating this boxing scandal, were you undercover? You know, were you, like, smoking a cigar in the front row or what? What was your. What was your role in the investigation?

B (73:49)

Well, one, I didn't smoke a cigar until I was general counsel of the Army.

A (73:53)

Wait, wait, what?

B (73:54)

Yeah, so that, that's. I can send you a picture of that. But no, this was, this was actually a case investigated by the U.S. attorney in Boston.

A (74:03)

And.

B (74:04)

And then because Sam Silverman was so popular boxing was a big sport deal in. In Boston back then. They didn't want to prosecute him. And so they called Washington and said, we need someone to come from Washington to do this. And so that's how I got involved. So it had already been indicted when I got involved.

A (74:23)

I see. They sent in. They sent in the closer.

B (74:25)

Yeah, they. And it was also in the early days of Title three, and we had tapes, so there was. I mean, it was a pretty clear cut case of you could hear them planning to throw the fight. It was like an easy, easy case.

A (74:39)

It was a knockout, and so was Jill.

B (74:41)

Oh, that's so good. I love that. Yes, it was a knockout.