#SistersInLaw Episode 267: “Faithfully”

Podcast by Politicon | December 20, 2025

Overview

In this episode, hosts Joyce Vance, Jill Wine-Banks, Barb McQuaid, and Kimberly Atkins Storr take on a heavy and diverse slate of criminal investigations and legal controversies that have dominated the headlines. The theme revolves around confronting political violence, the rule of law in moments of national crisis, and the ever-evolving challenges in the judicial and prosecutorial arenas. The #SistersInLaw team brings clarity to stories stretching from campus shootings and courtroom controversies to Donald Trump’s legal saga on Capitol Hill—and they don’t hesitate to call out the political theater, institutional intimidation, and injustices they see along the way.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Week in Shocking Crimes (07:13-30:45)

a. Multistate Murder Spree: Brown University, Brookline, and MIT

• Summary:
  The hosts discuss a tragic multi-state attack by a former Brown University student who killed two students at Brown and an MIT professor before dying during the manhunt. A focus is placed on investigative process, prosecutorial engagement, and the crucial role of public tips.

• Role of Prosecutors During Investigations

  • Barb: Prosecutors work “hand in hand” with law enforcement, helping get legal process for seizures, authorizing searches, and gathering evidence even before a suspect is identified.
  • “First order of business is to stop him so he can’t hurt anyone else...then making sure evidence is obtained for prosecution if alive.” (Barb McQuaid, 10:07)

• Importance of Public Tips and Social Media

  • Joyce relates a parallel to the Eric Rudolph case, emphasizing the pivotal role of anonymous tips in tracking criminal suspects.
  • “For folks out there, it really can be as important: see something, say something.” (Joyce Vance, 14:20)

• Wrongful Accusations and Media Responsibility

  • Jill draws parallels to the Richard Jewell case, analyzing the risks and limited legal recourse wrongly accused individuals face. “In this case...the court ultimately ruled...it was substantially true that the person...was a suspect at the time...so I don’t think he’ll have much of a case.” (Jill Wine-Banks, 17:07)

b. Bondi Beach, Sydney Terror Attack (18:04-23:09)

• The panel discusses the toll of antisemitic violence worldwide, drawing connections between hateful rhetoric and global acts of terror.
• “It’s a tough moment. It’s the evening of the Hanukkah celebration…they are targeted because they’re Jewish...I would really encourage people to think carefully before they equate those two.” (Joyce Vance, 20:00)
• “It’s a human problem. It’s created by humans...But look for the helpers like the man who disarmed the gunman.” (Barb McQuaid, 22:12)

c. Hollywood Murders: Rob Reiner and Wife (23:09-30:45)

• The hosts explain California’s legal standards for murder (first vs. second degree), prosecutorial discretion, and how mental health challenges complicate cases.
• Barb covers key distinctions: “First degree murder under California law...requires malice aforethought...That means this was planned, premeditated…doesn’t have to be plotted for days or even hours.” (Barb McQuaid, 23:46)
• Jill reflects on jury impartiality and sentencing: “It will be hard to find a jury that hasn’t read about his involvement…but that isn’t the same as saying you can’t get an unbiased jury.” (Jill Wine-Banks, 26:40)
• The question of using victims’ estates for defense funding is explained in detail by Joyce.

2. Jack Smith Testifies—But Only in Secret (39:01-55:43)

a. Why Was Jack Smith’s Testimony Closed?

• Kim: “...Jack Smith offered multiple times to testify in a public hearing, the Republicans on the committee did not want that...they wanted to do it privately so they can cherry pick the answers.” (Kimberly Atkins Storr, 39:18)
• Barb: Jamie Raskin said “Jack Smith schooled the questioners on the committee...they certainly didn’t want that to be seen publicly.” (40:27)

b. Smith’s Statements on Trump Prosecution

• Joyce highlights Smith’s strong language regarding the standard of proof: “He was confident they would have obtained a conviction had the case gone to trial...” (Joyce Vance, 41:23)
• Smith’s statement, “I’m responsible for this decision,” is dissected as a protective move for his colleagues and a rebuke to congressional targeting of career staff.

c. DOJ and Mar-A-Lago Search Documents

• Jill: “Bombshell is not a word I would apply...the FBI thought there wasn’t probable cause when it’s clear in retrospect there was...” (Jill Wine-Banks, 44:38)
• The implications and timing of document releases are sharply critiqued.

d. Calls for Transcript Release

• Kim: “All it would take would be for Jim Jordan to give the go ahead. So if you don’t see it...somebody seems a little chicken to me.” (46:57)

e. Phone Record Controversy

• Joyce breaks down the legitimacy and standard procedures of collecting “toll records,” rebuffing congressional outrage. “This is something that you would do in any case...You would want to know who all those people were.” (Joyce Vance, 47:55)

f. Will the Trump Criminal Cases Return?

• Joyce: “More and more, I think Donald Trump has been permitted to romanticize what happened on January 6th...Ultimately there needs to be accountability.” (Joyce Vance, 53:59)
• Resounding agreement from Barb and Jill: “...if we do not take action against the blatant and obvious criminality...we will suffer in the future.” (Jill Wine-Banks, 55:43)

3. Judge Hannah Dugan, ICE, and Courtroom Controversy (61:37-78:39)

• Barb lays out the sequence that led to Judge Dugan’s conviction for obstruction after she was accused of assisting a defendant (undocumented immigrant) in leaving her courtroom as ICE agents arrived.
• Key detail: The importance of intent—did she intend to obstruct?
• “An essential part of this case is whether she intended to obstruct their arrest of Mr. Ruiz or whether she was just showing him the way out...” (Barb McQuaid, 61:51)
• Defense argued courtroom management, political prosecution, and judicial prerogative.
• Joyce explains the “split verdict”: acquitted of misdemeanor, convicted of felony; discusses likely grounds for appeal, especially around judicial immunity.
• Barb: “I think this was a very aggressive charging decision...people will respond by saying, ‘I don’t want to not just cross the line, but get even close to the line’...it can chill even lawful behavior.” (Barb McQuaid, 76:31)
• Joyce: “If you can intimidate judges...who can’t you go after?” (Joyce Vance, 77:52)

4. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Font Controversies:

  • Joyce: “Marco Rubio doesn’t have enough to do. He’s now the font police...” (02:32)
  • Kimberly: “Wait, so they don’t actually want people to be able to read these things? They think that is too woke, just being able to read what they say.” (02:16)
  • Jill: “I have always hated Times New Roman and now I have a real reason to hate it.” (03:30)
  • Kimberly: “Well, I’m going to do all of my correspondence from now on in a comic sans…” (04:02)

• On Political Theater:

  • Barb: “It just goes to show what theater this is.” (47:31)

• On Public Service Accountability:

  • Joyce: “More and more, I think Donald Trump has been permitted to romanticize what happened on January 6th...but Donald Trump has made a believer out of me. He needs accountability.” (55:04)

• On Judicial Chilling Effect:

  • Joyce: “I’m concerned about this administration and its unusual attack on judges. I think it’s meant to intimidate people. If you can intimidate judges, who can’t you go after?” (77:52)

5. Listener Questions (81:50-89:32)

a. Prosecutorial Discretion and Conscientious Objection

• “Best practice...if anybody had a conscientious objection to...a death penalty case, you didn’t want the person on that case.” (Barb McQuaid, 83:44)
• BUT: Under the “Gurn administration,” DOJ is now requiring all staff to “implement the president’s agenda faithfully.” (85:20)

b. Trump’s $10 Billion Lawsuit: How Are Damages Calculated?

• Kim: “By and large, yes, [plaintiffs] can draw a number out of a hat...but this is a lot of hot air, so don’t pay too much attention to that.” (86:40)

c. Presidential Power to Remove Supreme Court Justices?

• Jill: “Congress can create executive agencies...but the Supreme Court was created by the Constitution...so, no.” (88:31)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:10 – Intro and Font Controversy
• 07:13 – Brown University, Brookline, MIT shootings; Investigation Process
• 14:37 – Media responsibility & Richard Jewell reference
• 18:04 – Sydney terror attack & antisemitism
• 23:09 – Rob Reiner case: murder charges & mental health
• 39:01 – Jack Smith on Capitol Hill, closed-door testimony
• 47:55 – Trump phone records, DOJ investigative legality
• 53:59 – Should Trump criminal cases be resurrected?
• 61:37 – Judge Dugan, ICE, and the legal chill
• 83:44 – Listener Q&A: Prosecutorial discretion
• 86:40 – Civil lawsuits and headline damages
• 88:31 – Presidential removal powers & SCOTUS

Tone & Language

The hosts maintain their trademark blend of humor, warmth, irreverence, and deep legal expertise throughout the episode, never shying from tough topics or sharp critiques of political and legal players alike.

Conclusion

Episode 267 is a deeply engaged look at the crossroads of law, politics, and accountability, reminding listeners of the costs—personal and societal—of failing to confront violence, intimidation, and political theater in the justice system. As ever, the Sisters in Law bring clarity, wit, and compassion to the moment, leaving no stone unturned.

For full legal context, memorable quips, and more on merch, check out the full episode and show notes.