A (2:47)

Okay, how about you, Jill? You got any outs?

C (2:51)

Well, I have to say that my favorite thing on the out and in list was that teeny, dainty necklaces are out and brooches are in.

A (3:01)

I saw that. I thought I meant for you.

B (3:04)

I saw that.

C (3:05)

So in style, guys.

A (3:07)

You're in, Jill.

C (3:08)

I am in. I'm in. I'm in. And so I love the list. I certainly agree with Joyce on what should be out, but what should be out is all the lies and nonsense. They actually had one that said something to the effect of what's out is lies from Trump on social media. What's in is lies from Trump from the White House. So that wasn't exactly how they phrased it, but it was pretty close. And I hope that lies will be out and that facts will be back in, because facts matter.

B (3:42)

Hear, hear.

A (3:43)

Yeah, that's good. I hope that cryptocurrency is out. I think cryptocurrency is, like, the biggest lie ever. You know, I hope I'm wrong, but one of the things we have seen from the Trump admin administration is completely roll back all regulation. The SEC isn't looking at it anymore. All of the task forces and criminal cases that we're looking at it are gone away. It is just the wild, wild west there. And I've been reading that book, 1929, about the cause of the stock market crash. And it is all because of, you know, there was no regulation then, and so people were just speculating wildly and living off of credit and totally leveraged and. And got underwater so easily. And I really see the same thing happening with crypto. So I hope crypto goes out of style or out of. Out of vogue. All right, so that's the easy part. What do you think is going to be in style?

B (4:32)

But wait, can I just add to what you said, Barb? I did a great interview with the actor Ben McKenzie, like, two years ago on my substack. He's totally anti crypto. I, like most people in my age range, struggle a little bit to figure out how blockchain works, even though I've dealt with it as a prosecutor. And Ben did such a great job of explaining. Explaining why it was bunk and a fraud. I will actually post the link to that column with Ben in. In our show Notes for anybody who wants to get better educated.

A (5:02)

Oh, good. An actual Expert to say these things instead of just me spouting off.

B (5:05)

That's probably a good idea.

A (5:06)

All right, so how about. What would you like to see come in style in the new year?

B (5:13)

Well, I mean, there's no doubt, right? More hashtag Sisters in law, more smart analysis by people who care about democracy and make great sweatshirts for their listeners to wear.

A (5:25)

Okay, I like that. How about you, Jill? You got any.

C (5:28)

You got any thoughts, you know, other than brooches? I'm certainly into that, but. And again, the same thing. I want facts to matter again. I want us to pay attention, and I want to make sure that what's in. Is everybody taking part in the November elections. It's only 11 months away, and it is up to all of us to save our democracy. It's not gonna be the courts. It's certainly not gonna be the administration. So get busy working toward the candidates of your choice. And I guess the other thing, I interviewed Billy Ray, who's a screenwriter, and fabulous movies from Hunger Games and Captain Phillips. But he's been volunteering to help messaging for Democrats because he felt, as a screenwriter, he messages and that they weren't messaging well. And one of the things he says is, stop talking about Trump. Stop talking about him being crazy. Stop talking about him being old. Everybody knows that, and nobody cares. Start talking about what Democrats are doing to help ordinary people. That's the message that we need to carry forward. And so I wanna hear more of the Billy Ray message.

A (6:41)

Well, that's all good. You know, one of the things that I liked seeing at the end of the year, I don't think this was on the Washington Post ins and outs. I think this is actually in the wire cutter, you know. You know, they. All these gifts. Gifts, the gifts we love the most. And one of the gifts that they love the most or items they love the most of the year was the J. Crew roll neck sweater from 1988.

B (7:07)

Did you own this great sweater? I still own it. I still have mine from college.

A (7:12)

Can I tell you, I actually looked in my drawer to see if I had it, but mine was in gray. I love this thing, and I think I need a new one. Although, may I say, in 1988, I probably bought it in a size extra large, even though, you know, it would swim like a dress, because that was the style at the time. But I think I need to go get one. It comes in, like a nice moss green and a black. I think my size will be a little smaller this time around just to make it fit.

C (7:37)

But well, Barb, if you want to be in style, Extra Large is actually back in style. I was.

A (7:43)

Dang it, I didn't know.

C (7:45)

Balloon pants. Oh, please. I want them out so fast. No one, I don't want to see you wearing these gigantic balloon things.

A (7:53)

Well, may I say along those lines, what the 1988 roll neck sweaters made me start thinking of is what other things from my youth might be back in style. You know, the 80s were the era of not just roll neck, big sweaters, but it was big hair. It was big glasses.

B (8:09)

I'm sorry, has big hair ever gone out of fashion? You're talking to a southerner.

A (8:14)

Hilarious. But those. Those things I don't love so much from the 80s. But you know what I do love? And this is from the 70s. Not quite what you're talking about, Jill, but big bells, like the big bell bottoms. Man, I thought those were the coolest. It's probably because they came into style when I was like, a little too young to wear them. And so all the cool teenagers had them, like the really big bells in the early 70s. That's what I want to come back. You know, you can't even see your feet. Big bells. So that's my prediction for what's going to be in in 2026. But like both of you, I also hope what is in is political engagement, because we need people to be focused on what matters in our country. And so I hope we will have people going to the polls, educated, informed, and working to make our democracy work for everyone.

C (9:02)

I'll have to look for my pictures of me in those gigantic bells. But I also have to say my husband still has a sweater that he bought in the 60s.

A (9:12)

Nice.

C (9:13)

And it still fits him. That's the most amazing. So. And it looks good. It's not bad. It doesn't even have a moth hole.

A (9:31)

Running a small business can get crazy. So make this the year to simplify your workflow and take things to the next level. Whether it's a law firm or a podcast, and you want to focus on the cases, the show, or client management, unfortunately, there are a ton of hats to wear. It's distracting and can take the focus off your mission. That's why we wanted to tell you about Gusto. It's perfect for anyone who wants to take charge of their operation. And I know that in addition to my sisters, there are so many law firms and other small businesses out there.

B (10:02)

That would benefit to fill you in. Gusto is online payroll and benefits 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. Repetitive paperwork can take up so much energy and really all business people want to do is focus on the work they actually enjoy. So now running a business can be much easier and efficient using Gusto. Gusto has so many automated tools to help you save time and they're built right in. Imagine how much simpler your workload would be with quickly accessible offer, letters, onboarding materials, direct deposits, and more. You even get direct access to certified HR experts to help support you through any tough HR situations.

C (10:53)

And you know Joyce, all of that can 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 get up and running fast. Plus you don't pay a cent until you run your first payroll. 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. 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 at G-S-T o.com sisters one more time gusto.com sisters the link is also in our show Notes. The week before Christmas, Jack Smith, former special counsel in the election interference and documents cases against Trump, finally got to testify. He wanted to testify publicly, but the Republicans kept him behind closed doors and he was there for about eight hours. And then on New Year's Eve, they finally decided to make his testimony public. As the Democrats had been clamoring for I found his no nonsense language very much unlike the Mueller report, very powerful and his conclusion that his team had proof beyond reasonable doubt for both cases, very persuasive. When he first talked about it, he said as to the documents case, he had powerful evidence and as to the interference case, he had proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But in his testimony, he added that he had beyond reasonable doubt to obtain and sustain the cases. In both of the episodes, other special counsel have testified in public and released their written reports. So Barb, that raises the question is why was his testimony kept secret and why was the only really meaningful testimony about the election interference case and what's going to happen as to whether we'll ever hear more about that case?

A (13:25)

Yeah. So let's talk. I think you're talking about both the cases, the election interference case and the the Mar? A Lago documents case. So the. The reason it was secret is only because Congress said so. And so the Judiciary Committee is controlled by Republicans. I think what they wanted to do is give Jack Smith a hard time and drag him in and ask him a lot of questions. And they did. They asked a lot of questions about his lawful collection of phone records in an effort to intimidate people who might investigate political players, I think was the goal. But I think it was done behind closed doors because they were afraid of what would happen. And what did happen, frankly, which is he showed him up, he schooled them. He is a thoughtful, careful prosecutor. And, you know, what he said was, I think, demonstrated that this is a case based on facts and law and not politics. So I think that's why it was done behind closed doors. Your other question about whether we will ever learn about his reports in the documents case. So he released his public report in the election interference case, in the Florida documents case, Judge Aileen Cannon, who has presided over that case and who has made so many decisions favorable to the Trump administration as to really draw a lot of concern about her objectivity, she has blocked the release of that, of that report. It's still being litigated. I think it may ultimately be released. But she keeps giving the Trump administration more opportunities to object and to raise issues. You know, initially it was blocked because the indictment was still pending against the two co conspirators, Nauta and Dee Oliveira. Those cases got dismissed when Trump pardoned both of them. And so we're now left with no real good reason to keep it closed. I imagine eventually it will be released. But I think Judge Cannon continues to do all she can to block its release.

C (15:27)

And I think she's under some constraints now from appellate courts to actually make a decision and get on with it, which is, of course, the right thing. Go ahead, Jennifer.

B (15:37)

Yeah, I mean, I think it's important to have clarity on what happened. This is so interesting to me because two, essentially two journalism schools or First Amendment interests tried to intervene in the case to force the release, because the Justice Department isn't exactly doing that. Right. And Aileen Cannon just sat on the motion to intervene, refused a rule. And so those interveners took the very unusual step of asking the 11th Circuit to mandamus her and force her to rule. And the 11th Circuit took the even more unusual step of entering that order and telling her, hey, quit dragging your feet. You need to rule. And so it was only that decision by the 11th Circuit in this sort of related, but not the Same matter that caused her to finally set the schedule for the February release, which I found to be very, very interesting.

C (16:30)

I agree completely. And when we talk about scheduling, Joyce, I want to ask you also, because I found it extremely strange that they set this secret hearing for the week before Christmas, December 17, and then they released it literally on the late afternoon of New Year's Eve. And obviously they were right that if it had been public, it would have been dynamite. And so they were trying to hide it. And I wonder if they think that by releasing it on New Year's Eve, that as of today, when people are getting back to work, that they'll forget about it. Do you think people are gonna forget, or is this the Epstein case? No one's going away.

B (17:15)

You know, I think that this is a redo of what happened in Epstein and Jill. It's so interesting. So I was actually on TV at MSNOW when the release happened, and my first instinct was exactly the question that you're asking.

A (17:31)

Right.

B (17:31)

It's like the only reason that they dumped it. And let's be clear who they are, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, they dumped it at the low point in the news cycle in hopes that it would be forgotten because their efforts to, you know, I think they were trying in the first instance to see if they could get Jack Smith to say something under oath that would make him prosecutable. But I think also, as you say, they just wanted to harass him and see what they could do to further intimidate and put prosecutors and others who want to hold the administration accountable into a state of fear. And it just totally backfired. Jack Smith was just a ramrod straight career prosecutor answering the questions, defending his people, defending his case, and they got nothing. Nothing. They got bubkus out of Jack Smith.

C (18:20)

That is true. And let's barb look at the unwavering conclusions that Jack Smith put forward, that he had proof beyond a reasonable doubt for both cases. And let's talk about what he said, because I found his conclusions very powerful. Let's delve into what the evidence is that he talked about.

A (18:44)

Yes. Yeah, I actually read this thing. It came out on New Year's Eve. And the sad state of affairs of my social life is such that I had time to read this on New Year's Eve and I did. I was, you know, it was great. I was sitting by the fire watching football and reading the Jack Smith transcript. That's like bliss for me. I was enjoying it. But, you know, if you read this thing, it is in my View really quite powerful. He talks about how he had proof beyond a reasonable doubt that, you know, originally there was reporting that he had said he had guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the election fraud case and just powerful evidence for the documents case. I think he had to be very careful in the documents case only because that report has not yet been released. In fact, he was really. I think everybody should read this thing, even if you do have a better social life than I do, because it, it will show you just how incredibly professional Jack Smith is. He says several times, this was not partisan, this was not political. I would have chosen not to indict if I didn't find the evidence. I would have been willing to investigate Presidents Biden or Obama. But he continues to focus on the facts, the evidence, and he also declines to answer questions that might compromise secret grand jury material under Rule 6e, which is in place even when it would have served his interests. And, and he was very cautious not to divulge anything that's in his report in the Florida case. So there is a lot less substance about what's in that report and about his investigation there because he would say, well, I can't really answer that in light of Judge Cannon's order prohibiting the release of the report. So I think that when that report gets released, I think we will see a similar conclusion. You know, he. Prosecutors only bring cases when they believe the evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. That means they believe they have proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And so I think the same is true with regard to both of these investigations.

C (20:46)

I agree with you completely. And I think if you want to read it, it's good and you probably read faster because it's an eight hours of testimony. But watching him is also magical because he is like the perfect model of a prosecutor. He could not have been better. He was so on top of everything. He wasn't defensive or aggressive, but he was so on top of it. Joyce, he mentioned one of the things that he thought was the most powerful evidence he had. Can you talk about that?

B (21:24)

Yeah, I mean, this is a really interesting point. Like, Barb, I'm nerdy and have very little social life. Bob and I actually decided that we weren't going to even make an effort to go to a New Year's Eve party this year because neither one of us likes staying up till midnight. So we got a nice early dinner at our favorite place, had a fabulous time, came home, played with the dogs and cats and told the kids good night. It was wonderful. And then I got up the next morning and. And really started digging into the transcript, which I had looked at just, you know, very quickly, as one does when it first comes out. And what really strikes me is Smith emphasizes that the evidence that he's using is not, you know, radical, snowflake Democrat, resistor sisters. Right. It's the people around Trump. And there's this one quote from him that's fabulous, where he says, the evidence that I felt was most powerful was the evidence that came from people in his Trump's own party who put country before party and were willing to tell the truth to him, even though it could mean trouble for them. It's very clear, by the way, as you read through this, that some Republicans who people suspected spoke with Smith, in fact, did people like Mark Meadows. And so Smith has the ability and repeatedly just refers to these Republicans who testify to make the case against Donald Trump, the leader of their party. And Smith also talks about the former Vice President, Mike Pence, some of the Republican elector nominees, and talks about how they would have been such strong trial witnesses, because this isn't someone who's just speculating about the facts. This is a prosecutor where everything that he does when he discusses his case, it's couched in terms of what he could have offered to a jury at trial.

C (23:15)

And, Barb, there were two other pieces of evidence that were highlighted that I found really interesting. One was Trump's January 6th tweet attacking Pence while he was at the Capitol, which Smith said without question exacerbated the danger to the vice president's life. And then he talked about Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony that I'm sure everyone listening remembers, because it was very powerful about Trump grabbing the wheel of the car after the rally and. And saying, I want to go to the Capitol, even though the car was taking him back to the White House. Republicans made a big deal about Smith's answer about Cassidy Hutchinson and sort of made it sound like, well, I'll read you what they said. Smith had said that the officers who was driving the car testimony was not the same as what Cassidy Hutchinson said that she heard from somebody secondhand. And Republicans went, well, that partisan January 6th thing, entire case was just destroyed by Jack Smith, star witness, completely unreliable. But that's not true, is it? Smith also went on to say something else. He said, the President Trump was very angry and wanted to go to the Capitol. That's what the person driving said. So isn't that really the same thing as Cassidy Hutchinson said?

A (24:42)

Yeah, I'll answer both your questions. So the one about saying that the tweet by President Trump, remember, this is when, you know, the mob is already in the Capitol and Trump posts online, Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what it take, you know, would take to restore our stolen election or something like that. And that's when they start chanting, hang Mike Pence and they've got a gallows out there. Oh, my gosh. Now, Jack Smith did not charge Donald Trump with insurrection or inciting insurrection or anything like that. So it's really more sort of atmospherics to include that. But it does show the seriousness. And he knows that there's chaos at the Capitol and he continues to stoke the fire. So I think that goes to his intent to stop and block the certification on January 6th. So I thought that was a powerful moment. And then with regard to the Cassidy Hutchinson thing, this is, it'd be funny if it weren't so disturbing. But all over Fox News, the big headline about Jack Smith's testimony wasn't that he talked about how it was nonpartisan, about how he had overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt, about how there was nothing wrong with obtaining these toll records from the phones of senators, because those are the people Trump was calling to try to exploit the chaos at the Capitol to try to still delay the certification of the election. What they highlight is, aha. What Cassidy Hutchinson said, Jack Smith admits was hearsay. Well, yeah, it was hearsay. Of course it was hearsay. She said she, she didn't, she didn't suggest it was anything other. She said, I heard someone tell me that somebody else told him such and such. It would not be admissible at trial for her to testify about that at the congressional hearing. There's no rule against hearsay. So she talked about what she heard. But as you just pointed out, Jill, I mean, two things about that. One is, but the person who testified still shared the gist of what she said, which is President Trump wanted to go to the Capitol. Now, maybe he didn't grab the wheel, maybe he didn't swear, maybe he wasn't as reckless as her second hand story, third hand story made him out to be. But the gist of it was true. And then the other big thing about that is, aha. Her star. The star witness has been discredited. Not at all. And number one, anytime you see the phrase star witness, look for dear listeners, look for this. Star witness is usually used by a party who wants to undermine the credibility of some witness. Was she the star witness? I don't know. She was Kind of a surprise. But I think there's an awful lot of other evidence, because one of the things Jack Smith said is they really built this case on the testimony of Republicans like Mike Pence and like Rusty Bowers in Arizona and like the Secretary of State of Georgia and other people who did not have some ax to grind. So the idea that Cassidy Hutchinson is somehow the star witness who's been lost credibility. No, she, she never portrayed herself as anything other than repeating what she had heard. And even that which she had heard is pretty much what we heard from the original source.

C (27:51)

Yeah, I agree. There was all this accusation from the Republicans that Smith had acted politically and that this whole investigation was political in nature and that he just wanted to prevent Trump from reclaiming the presidency. And I think Jack Smith was brilliant in his defense of that. Barb, maybe you can start. And Joyce, if you want to chime in on this about why he says that it was absolutely not a violation of the speech and debate clause to talk about the phone records of members of Congress or the First Amendment rights of the president and why it really is true that it was not political. What was his evidence that it wasn't political?

A (28:40)

Yeah. So I thought his best answer was here. When he was asked, why did you target these senators or whatever he said. He said, and he said, I didn't pick them. Donald Trump picked them when he had his co conspirators reach out to them in an effort to exploit the chaos at the Capitol to delay the certification of the vote. What he explained was, and you know, is obvious to anybody who's ever prosecuted a case, the gathering of phone records alone. Let's, let's clarify. This is not wiretapping. This is not listening to content. This, this is obtaining records to see who called whom at what time and for how long. And one of the things that Jack Smith was working to establish is, was the White House reaching out to these members of Congress to try to delay. He was corroborating the testimony of other witnesses. And so, you know, the speech debate clause says a member of Congress cannot be questioned anywhere other than on the floor of Congress. He wasn't questioning them. He was just getting these records. And not to target them, but to target Trump to show who Trump was reaching out to, to establish this effort to delay the certification.

C (29:45)

Absolutely. It would have been a dereliction of duty as a prosecutor not to have subpoenaed those records to see exactly who was calling who and why and to develop additional witnesses. Joyce, anything else you want to say about why Jack Smith proved it was not political.

B (30:04)

Smith does something here that almost seems quaint when you're reading his words and thinking about it. He, I think, is reciting the articles of faith that prosecutors that the three of us lived with for so many years, Right. This ability to set aside politics. I mean, I was a Democratic presidential appointee, right? Barack Obama appointed me. One of the first cases that I had to deal with was a very political case where we were involved in prosecuting three ranking leaders in the Alabama Democratic Party. I would have loved to be involved in the case. I recognized, though, that it was important to recuse myself, to preserve the appearance of integrity in our office. Smith is referring to those same principles, saying, I'm a man of honor and integrity. I'm happy to. You know, I don't care if you're Republican or a Democrat, if you committed a crime, and if there's evidence of it, I'm going to prosecute you. And Americans are so jaded about how the Justice Department is operating under Trump that I think that they needed to hear this. And this is perhaps the worst crime of Republican efforts to bury this testimony in that dark, dark, dank hole of the New Year's Eve news cycle is that people need to see this. And because, of course, the news moves on, there won't be clips of this played over and over on television for folks to hear. But I think we cannot emphasize enough that Smith, in his testimony, explains the method. He explains the process. He talks about the fact that he relies upon witnesses from the President's own party. He does everything he can to help people have confidence in the result that he reached, which, of course, a grand jury signed off on. And the real tragedy is that this evidence will never be aired in a courtroom in front of a trial jury. But that doesn't mean, and I'm glad we're talking about this at length today. It doesn't mean that as citizens, we. We can't read the transcript, share it with people we know. You know, this may be a subject that's. That really makes sense for us to revisit. I know we will when volume two of the report is released, the Mar a Lago part. But this is a topic that really, I think, deserves our attention.

C (32:15)

It does. And I think it's important to note that, first of all, we'll put in our show notes a link to the transcript and a link to the video of his testimony. Foreign.

B (32:37)

Season, and the lack of sleep that comes with watching the ball drop. Everyone feels a little bit sluggish. This time of year. That's why it's so important to have a little ritual to start the day that centers you and gets you feeling excited to get out of the house and take on the day. For me, that's getting out my stash of Thrive cosmetics and putting together the perfect winter look. Every product is 100% vegan, cruelty free, and made with clean skin loving ingredients that work with your skin, not against it. That's one of the many reasons why Thrive is a go to for amplifying your everyday look.

C (33:14)

You know, I love all of Thrive's products. Their mascara is amazing. The lip balm is so soothing. The eyebrow tint helps my little blond eyebrows actually show up. And I love the brilliant eye brighteners. They're waterproof eyeshadow highlight sticks made to brighten and open your eyes, giving you radiant eyes. Thrive's foolproof formula makes it extremely easy to apply and blend any of the 32 shades that you might find an interest in. You can use as little or as much as you'd like to create your own look. Just apply it to the inner corners of your eye to appear rusted. Even when you're not, it looks effortless. Sometimes I use another darker color as a liner and one right at the crease of my eyelid. And you can use the eyeshadow for a perfect daytime glow. You can also try applying a metallic shade all over your eyelid and blending it with your fingertips for an easy smoky eye that steals the show.

A (34:22)

That's why you always steal the show. Jill. I've heard about the smokey eye for a long time now. We love that. Cause is in the name for a reason. Thrive not only defines luxury beauty with their uncompromising standards, but they give back too. Every time you use Thrive, you're doing more than enhancing your glow. You're helping others shine too. With more than $150 million in product and cash donations to 600 plus giving partners, your purchase directly fuels real impact. Imagine making a difference in things like education, the fight against cancer, stopping domestic abuse, and more with every purchase. That's beauty with purpose. So don't wait. Amplify your everyday. Get that smokey eye just like Jill. Go to thrivecosmetics.com sisters for an exclusive offer of 20% off your first order. That's Thrive Cosmetics. C-A U S E M E T I C S.com sisters the link is in our show notes. There's a saying in politics, never let a crisis go to waste. And the Trump administration is using One in Minnesota to attack the Somali community. There's. Let's start with the actual problem. The U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota has charged 86 people, 78 of whom are Somali Americans, with fraud relating to daycare and autism centers in the past three years. So this is real fraud and it's really occurring. Joyce, can you just tell us a little bit about how these schemes were perpetrated? Sure.

B (36:01)

So, I mean, the. The basic bottom line on this is people were setting up companies that build state agencies for millions of dollars worth of social services that were never provided. A very classic fraud. Here's an example of what they were doing. A Minneapolis nonprofit organization called Feeding Our Future was set up and supposedly they were going to feed dozens of hungry kids working with local businesses. So state agencies reimbursed the group and its partners invoices that claim just tens of thousands of children were being fed. And in reality, very little, if any of that actually happened. The money was being spent on, you know, just luxury travel, luxury cars, houses, by the people who were involved in the fraud. And this is just the sort of classic government programs fraud case. Barb, I'm sure you prosecuted these. I did. You know, in Alabama, we prosecuted very similar schemes in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the Gulf oil spill. So unfortunately, there are always people that are willing to line their own pockets at the expense of people who really need to use taxpayer money to help them after a crisis. This is yet another one of those horrible situations that cries out for prosecution.

A (37:19)

Yeah, serious crimes should be prosecuted by serious people because it is taking money intended for people who need services and diverting it to people who are taking it out of their own greed. So, Jill, somehow we end up seeing President Trump blame the entire Somali community in Minnesota. Let's talk a little bit about that community. There are 84,000 Somali Americans in Minnesota. And what do we know about that community?

C (37:52)

Well, it is the largest group of somalis in the US there are about 260,000 total. But obviously that's a huge portion of them, but we know a lot about them. And one thing we know is that almost 58% of the Somalis in Minnesota were born in the U.S. of the 42% of Somalis in Minnesota who are foreign born, 87% are naturalized U.S. citizens. So those are pretty dramatic facts. The foreign born Somalis fled a war torn country and came to Minnesota, some say. And of course, the Republicans are going to stress this. It was because Minnesota has Scandinavian inspired social services and they have become a very powerful political force in Minnesota. And of course, that's, again, Republicans are saying that's why Democratic Governor Waltz did nothing about it. But all of this, to me, is Trump reiterating his disgusting racism. And he's called all Somalis garbage. This is disgusting to me, and it's the worst kind of stereotyping. You blame all Somalis because there a significant number were involved in crime. Yes, but it would be like blaming any group, as Trump did, for example, with the Afghani citizens in America, blaming all of them because an Afghani attacked the National Guard in Washington. You can't blame a whole group of people for the acts of any one or even 80 of those people. It is not fair. And I just disgust me to have that kind of stereotyping going on.

A (39:48)

Yeah, I agree with you. You know, there's what, 86 defendants charged and something like 86,000 Somalis living in Minnesota. You know, I charged a lot of white males with fraud, and never once did anyone suggest that all white males should be, you know, eradicated from the United States because they. They engage in fraud. Well, as you said, Jill, not only did President Trump call them garbage, we've now seen some action being taken against Social Services in Minnesota Choice. In recent days, the Small Business administration has stopped 6,900 loans in Minnesota, and the Department of Health and Human Services announced it is freezing all child care payments to the state of Minnesota. Now, you investigated crimes, certainly as a U.S. attorney, involving, as you mentioned, federal program fraud with the Katrina disaster, flooding, tornadoes, mortgage crisis and all of that. Have you ever seen that kind of response when there have been these acts of fraud in federal programs?

B (40:58)

You know, this is absolutely unique to the Trump administration, and it doesn't make any sense. It's sort of like, you know, throwing out the baby with the bath water, which I think just understates how horrible it is. I mean, as you and Jill were discussing, it's not enough for Trump to denigrate the entire Somali community for criminal acts, you know, committed just by small numbers of specific people. And I love Jill's example. You know, what it makes me think of is there are these pockets of very conservative evangelical Christian communities down where I live and I'm sure elsewhere across the country. And every once in a while, a group of people there involved in criminal conduct of. Of some kind. And no one ever denigrates all white Christian evangelicals, Right, because of criminal acts committed by some of them. Here, though, they're punishing the entire state, the entire state for criminal conduct committed by a couple of People and that makes it really easy to read what's going on here. This is just part of Trump's political revenge agenda. He's going after Minnesota's Governor Tim Waltz because he was Kamala Harris's running mate. And this is just utter garbage that I think is designed really to make Waltz's life miserable. Right. It's just consistent with the revenge prosecutions of Comey and Lisa Cook and Tish James and others. But apparently Waltz is so squeaky clean that Trump was left with going after his entire state because he couldn't find even a tenuous case to indict him on.

A (42:33)

Yeah. This is such a inappropriate response because it blames and harms the people who rely on these services. Like if they're not gonna be funding.

B (42:44)

Daycare centers, they're probably Trump voters in large part.

A (42:47)

Right.

B (42:47)

I mean, and somehow they've now become collateral damage. Cuz he's just so transactional.

A (42:53)

Yeah. You know, I think what would I sometimes ask myself, what would a good leader do in this situation? They'd say, this is a problem. You know, absolutely. We want to stop fraud. And maybe the governor, in administering these payments through his state government system, has missed some of its duties. Let's work with them to get back on the ball to make sure that fraud isn't occurring. But in the meantime, you know, we want to maybe increase the rigor of oversight, but not take away the benefits intended to harm real people living in Minnesota. So I thought that was was problematic. So, Jill, one of the things about this crackdown in Minnesota is that it seems to have been prompted by viral videos put out on social media by a 23 year old influencer named Nick Shirley. In fact, White House spokeswoman Abigail Johnson said the country should be deeply grateful to Mr. Shirley. Can you tell us about his work?

C (43:55)

I certainly can. And of course, this is actually right up your area of expertise because it is dis and misinformation. It's unchecked social media reporting. I'm putting air quotes around the word reporting. Nick Shirley is, as far as I can tell, has nothing else to do but travel around the country to make these videos that have hundreds of millions of views. I mean, there's no question that he's getting attention that he doesn't deserve. He's done a couple of viral video content things and it aligns, of course with MAGA views and policies. In the video that caused this, Nick Shirley was accompanied by someone named David. That's the only identification for him. We don't know who he Is, oh.

A (44:49)

Well, if David was there, you know, it must be his name.

C (44:50)

David was there. Right. And they claim that they uncovered fraud worse than anywhere else ever in history.

A (45:00)

Okay.

C (45:01)

So that kind of excessive claim is a big red flag to me. When you hear something like that, you know that it isn't real. The New York Times and other media have tried to verify some of the claims made, and so far, they haven't been able to. There's really nothing new because prosecutions in this case started under Biden several years ago. They started finding this fraud and indicting and trying them. Mainstream news has reported on the cases for a long time now, for years. And so this isn't anything that's really new, but somehow his video did generate attention in conservative media outlets like Fox and got praise from Republican officials who said, this dude has done far more useful journalism than any of the winners of the 2024 Pulitzer Prizes. That was from, of course, Vice President Vance, but. So he visited sites that he claimed were the benefit recipients. They got this money and didn't provide services. And he says, but I didn't see any children when we were there. Now, one of the places he went has been closed for three years. It hasn't been operating for three years. So there were no children there. There was no one there. It's closed. So there's really no evidence to support his accusations and claims. And yet that's what happened and has led to, as you said, this unfair punishment of everyone in Minnesota by depriving them of the benefits that they are entitled to. And this isn't the only time that Trump has punished a blue state. He has specifically made it a point to take benefits away, whether it is for hurricane relief or anything else. Blue states don't get the same treatment that red states do.

A (46:55)

Yeah. You know, if you've watched any of these videos and I've just seen little clips of them online, I haven't watched all of it, but it's just. It's so amateurish. Like, he knocks on the door at a daycare center, and I'm here to investigate whether you are legitimately operating a daycare center. Show me the children. And of course, like, the person who answers are like, get lost, weirdo. You know, and, like, closes the door. It doesn't let him in. And he takes it as proof that there must be no children inside, otherwise, why would they have slammed the door on him?

C (47:27)

Could I also add that the state, by the way, has investigated this and sent people out to look, and they say they've always found children there getting the benefits. So that just again disproves what he's saying.

A (47:40)

Yeah, you know, fraud's an important problem. It's important to address it with law enforcement. It's important to try to prevent it. And maybe, you know, Minnesota State administrators need to double down on getting their act together. But the idea of blaming an entire community is just. It's wrong, it's bigoted, it's stereotypical, and it is politically divisive.

C (48:11)

Foreign. It's a new year and there are tons of fads popping up all over our socials. But the hype rarely equals results. As a Sisters in Law listener, I bet that you are someone who pays attention to facts and who follows the science when it comes to living your life. It's a winning philosophy and it applies to almost anything, even your skincare. That's why we started using Oneskin. Their formulas are powered by the OSO1 peptide, a patented peptide built on longevity science proven to target aging at the cellular level. So forget adding more steps to your routine. Start swapping in smarter ones. We've been using it for years, and when I look in the mirror, I can barely tell that they've gone by. We love knowing that we're supporting the cellular repair and that helps keep skin looking and feeling better as we get older. Thanks to cult favorite formulas like OSO One Body, OS01 Face, and OS01 Eye, One Skin Science First Approach to Aging really stands out. It's been validated in five separate clinical studies and delivers with hydration, barrier strengthening and visible skin improvements with every single product.

B (49:36)

Well, Jill, I am definitely part of the One Skin cult. I love this stuff. You know, I just can't get enough of One Skin and I've been using it recently whenever I get dried out on planes or from being out in the winter wind. I use One Skin's OSO One Face topical supplement to fight back against dryness. And it really works. The supplement makes your skin look fresh and it leaves it ready for anything that the elements can throw at you. You know, I am not someone who's super patient. No surprises there. And I especially love that Oneskin's regimen works fast and the formulas feel amazing when you're applying them, but then you see results really pretty quickly with consistent application. We're not the only ones who think that One Skin is amazing. Customers consistently rave about how their skin is smoother, firmer and healthier looking with results that get better over time with improvements in both the appearance and the overall health of their skin. It's no wonder that Oneskin's products have over 10,000 5 star reviews, including mine.

A (50:42)

Born from over 10 years of longevity research, OneSkin's OS01 peptide is proven to target the cells that cause the visible signs of aging, helping you unlock your healthiest skin now. And as you age. And for a limited time, Oneskin is making it even easier to stay consistent with up to 30% off your first three subscription orders when you use Code Sisters at Oneskin Co Sisters, that's up to 30% off with code Sisters. After you purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you one last time Oneskin Co Sisters. The link is in our show Notes.

B (51:31)

The end of every calendar year brings a statement, a formal statement released publicly by the Chief justice of the United States Supreme Court about the state of the courts. The end of 2025 was no different, with Chief Justice John Roberts releasing the expected statement. It's a document that is in many ways surprisingly grounded in history when so much history is being made in the moment. But he doesn't really delve into that too much. So I wanted to start by asking y', all, what sticks out to you in the Chief Justice's statement? Jill, was there anything that jumped out at you?

C (52:09)

Well, you've actually mentioned the thing that jumped out at me, which was this isn't a report on the state of the judiciary. This is a report of the 1700s and the origins of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It's looking back and ignoring the consequences of their recent decisions and what's going on in the courts now. So the only good thing I could think about it is that it really does emphasize how much the country didn't want a king. And so that that gives me maybe some hope that maybe they're finally catching on at the Supreme Court, that they've gone a step too far.

B (52:51)

Barb, what did you think?

A (52:52)

You know, I thought there was one really interesting little anecdote he buried in there. As Jill said, it was all about, like, the history of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to coincide with America's 250th birthday.

C (53:04)

So as she said, quicentennial. How do you even say that word?

A (53:09)

Yeah, there's a lot of that. But he does say this. He says, among the here's like, you gotta give him credit for finding this hook. Among the signers of the Declaration of Independence, four went on to become judges, including Samuel Chase, who went on to become a justice of the Supreme Court and who was impeached and ultimately acquitted. And this was an important lesson that impeachment of judges is not an appropriate response when we disagree with their opinions. So I thought it was a very soft way of rebuking President Trump in his efforts to attack judges who rule against him. But I thought it was so subtle as to be lost. This is a really important point. And Chief Judge Roberts, to his credit from time to time, has spoken out when President Trump has attacked judges, but in my view, not nearly enough. And I thought this was an opportunity where he could have done this in a much more muscular way, and instead he kind of buries it in this long, kind of tedious, some will find boring history of the Declaration of Independence. And then otherwise was like, ain't our country great? You know, like, you're kind of missing the big picture here, fella. So I thought it was overly, if this is a way to mix my metaphors, overly understated.

B (54:35)

You know, I had exactly the same reaction to this. I mean, I think the Chief justice wants to be all things to all people. And if you read this statement, and we'll drop a link to it into the show notes, you know, if, if your views are consistent with the views of hashtag sisters in law, you know, you would read this and you would think, absolutely, this is a powerful statement about the importance of judicial independence. And of course, if you're somebody who's right wing and maga, you could see this as an indictment of Democrats and their radical liberal judges. And John Roberts had the opportunity to say something important here, and I think he completely failed to meet the moment. You know, it's ironic, as I started reading this, actually was texting with my publisher saying, I think the Chief justice read my book because he marches through, like, literally. I mean, this is my history of judicial review. So, Mr. Chief justice, if you're listening, I hope you did in fact read my book. I talk about that impeachment episode with Samuel Chase pretty extensively, because the whole point of that incident was they wanted to impeach him because people in power didn't like his judicial decisions. It was political animus. Right? They thought he was deciding cases the wrong way. Fortunately, a majority of senators said, no, no, no, no, no. This is not how the judiciary in America works. We don't have to like judges decisions. They're supposed to be independent. Whether you love this Supreme Court justice or not, this is not impeachable conduct. And so that does become a very important principle in American jurisprudence. But like you say, Barb, unless you knew all of that history, this point could be lost on you. And the Chief justice certainly wasn't speaking to America writ large and saying, folks, we need to stand up for the independence of the judiciary. I sort of felt like this was all about trying to preserve John Roberts and the future of his career. So, you know, Barb, maybe to some extent we've already covered this, but I wanted to ask you about whether you think there's anything in this that's meaningful. I mean, we've discussed the flaws in what he released. Is there something meaningful here or is it really just going through the motions?

A (56:58)

Well, I do think making this point as you did in your book, I do love the idea of Chief Justice Roberts reading your book and like highlighting, highlighting it.

B (57:06)

I'm pretty sure he didn't.

A (57:07)

Damn it, Vance, I'm going to come back and I got a rebuttal for that.

B (57:10)

A girl can hope.

A (57:12)

Yeah, I bet he did. I bet it was in book. You know, Supreme Court Justice Book Club was the book of the month for December. I bet it was. I do think there's value in acknowledging that the Court's independence is an essential part of our democracy and pointing out the inappropriateness of going after a judge just because you disagree with their opinion. So I like that inclusion. I just wish that had been the focus instead of burying the lead and throwing it into the middle in just about two or three sentences of an otherwise 13 page report that's just kind of, you know, Yawn, it's been 250 years, you know, the United USA, USA, USA.

C (58:03)

Well and it was one of those things where it was more like written by a historian than by the Chief justice of the U.S. supreme Court. And I actually read the part that you're referring to about the impeachment and the failure of the Senate to convict as more don't come after us today as opposed to protecting lower courts from Donald Trump. It was like, hey Senate, hey House, don't come after us just cause you don't like how we're deciding and the grant of immunity, don't come after us for that. So I think there was also a sort of a bitter pill in what might have been a good point.

B (58:45)

You know, that's a really good point, Jill, because there's been so much criticism of the judiciary by people around Trump. I just always remember this comment from the El Salvadoran President Bukele, who is a president in name only, more of a soft dictator. And Bukele, you know, had commented publicly on Twitter and said, in America, you know, you'll never be able to reform your country until you get rid of some of these judges. And that got picked up, I think by the vice versa president. And just it was really shocking to me to see that sort of criticism of the federal judiciary coming from senators and people, high ranking lawyers, Yale educated lawyers in the office of the Vice presidency. To not have a more forceful defense of the judiciary, the entire judiciary.

A (59:40)

Right.

B (59:41)

The district judges who are bearing the brunt of this in the same year when it happened from the chief Justice, I think is a little bit shameful. But look, I mean, there's more coming, right? The court has a lot of cases left on its plate, more for argument, more for decisions. So what are you looking forward to with the most interest as we enter the final months of this term of court? Jill, what do you think?

C (60:04)

So looking forward to? Would not you added with interest? Okay, I'm very interested. Not looking forward.

B (60:12)

The doom sim would decide no case this term.

C (60:17)

Yeah, if they could just go away, that would be good. But I'm the most concerned, I would say, about presidential power and some of the cases that are pending that would lead to a possible expansion of the executive powers, as Trump has tried to do. And so we have cases pending about whether he can fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve and Slaughter from another independent agency that has term limits included. You serve for a certain term and you can't be fired except for cause. And he's saying, hell no, I'm the executive, I can do anything I want in the executive branch. So I'm very worried about his ability to remove officials. And then it could even, you know, spread beyond the Federal Reserve, the Copyright Office, the ftc. He's fired tons of civil servants who have this enormous protection. And if he can just remake the government and bring in his own, I don't know, his own supporters, then we have lost democracy in the worst way. So that's, I think, the ones that I'm the most concerned about and don't trust the Supreme Court in the way that I wish I did.

B (61:36)

Barb, what do you think?

A (61:38)

Well, I think, you know, immigration is a big area and I'll be looking for some of those. You know, a couple of them in particular the birthright citizenship case. I think maybe I'm being naive here. I can't imagine that the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of Donald Trump, who tries with an executive order to change the definition written in the 14th Amendment about what constitutes citizenship that, you know, people born here have been considered citizens for, what, 150 years? And the idea that he can change that with an executive order, I'm hopeful, is struck down. But there's also that other case that's out there. Remember that the court sided with the Trump administration in Noem versus Vasquez. That's the one about allowing immigration agents to stop people on the basis of citizenship. You know, to determine their citizenship on the basis of their language, whether they speak with an accent, their job, or where they're found. That is just, to me, a complete violation of Supreme Court precedent and encourages racial profiling. It's being referred to as Kavanaugh's house because he wrote about him in his concurring opinion saying, like, oh, it's perfectly reasonable. These are brief detentions, and people can be on their way. And then we saw, you know, how they're being actually executed in Chicago, where people are being dragged out of their cars and held for long periods of time because they can't produce papers and other kinds of things. So I think that's going to be an important case as well.

B (63:12)

Yeah, I think that's a big deal. And I think Justice Kavanaugh agrees with you, Barb, because he recently wrote in a confession opinion, like, wait a second, I didn't mean that. Yeah.

A (63:24)

In an unrelated case, he puts in a footnote. Wait, don't.

C (63:27)

Unrelated to the hearing in the case. Yeah.

B (63:29)

I mean, he knows they are forever going to be called Kavanaugh styles. Oh, yeah. He's hating on the case on the basis of. Of race, national origin, and what language you speak. Thank you, Justice Kavanaugh. I'm actually glad. Look, something we don't see this court do ever is walk it back when it makes a mistake. So I don't mean to discourage that behavior at all. Thank you, Justice Kavanaugh, for doing that. Just be more clear about it. Please write where it's binding on the court, not someplace buried in dicta in a concurrence. I agree with y'.

C (64:01)

All.

B (64:01)

I'm worried about those cases. I'm also watching the gerrymandering case out of Louisiana, Kallay, very carefully. You know, will it come early? There's been some suspicion that it'll come at the end of January. Or will it come late because judges writing dissents will try to drag their feet on it? The practical reality is, in states where black and other minority parts of the population are seriously underrepresented in the electoral process, this could just doom states to having super majorities made up. Of the politically powerful and letting politicians pick their voters, not let voters pick their elected representatives. So, you know, Fair Fight, which is the group founded by Stacey Abrams in Georgia, recently issued a release. They had done a data study and they were saying, folks, you need to wake up. This is not just a Louisiana problem. There are districts across the country that will be written out of existence depending on how the court decides. Calais in Alabama, we've just gotten our second black opportunity district. We could lose both of our black opportunity districts depending on how the court decides this case. So, look, 2026 is going to be a year where elections are critical. Many people have speculated that there might not be elections, and I strongly disagree with that. I think that there have been absolutely will be elections, if for no other reason than because dictators love to cloak themselves in the legitimacy of an election. The real question is whether we're going to be able to hold free and fair elections, and Calais will play a pivotal role in that.

A (65:51)

Well, now comes the part of the show we really like the best, 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 SistersInLaw. 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 comes to us from Carolyn, who asks, would the Supreme Court immunity decision have kept Richard Nixon from being indicted if he had had Donald Trump's conservative court at the time a Nixon question. Who should we ask that to? How about you, Jill? Do you know anything about Watergate?

C (66:32)

Oh, I know a little bit about his guilt and about his non indictment, which should have happened. And yes, I want to sort of couch this a little carefully because we've just been talking about Kavanaugh sort of backing off of the hardness of his statement that, yeah, depending on your accent and the location that you're found in, for heaven's sakes, if you're at a hardware store, you must be someone who's not a legitimate citizen and sort of saying, well, you know, maybe it's a little different than that. I think that we may see some redefinition of what is a core responsibility of a president and that in the same way that I don't think writing a check in the Oval Office to pay off a porn star is a core responsibility that gets immunity for Donald Trump. I don't think the conversations and the planning and the hush money that was found and paid would ever be considered part of the immunity that a president would get. So even under this court, I think that it's possible that he, Nixon, wouldn't get immunity and that maybe there will be some definition in a future case that allows presidents to be indicted, tried and convicted. But as it stands right now, the answer is if there hadn't been, or if there had been a Fox News, if there had been social media, and if this was the Supreme Court, I think that our case would have come out very differently.

A (68:12)

Yeah. Our next question comes to us from Cynthia, who asks, Ed Martin's DOJ office is now targeting the prosecutors who handled the January 6th cases. What are their options for protecting themselves from vindictive prosecutions? Joyce, you have an answer to that one?

B (68:30)

Yeah. I mean, it's not a very good answer.

A (68:32)

Right?

B (68:32)

I mean, this is what happens when you have an administration that's willing to pervert the Justice Department and use it to go after people. And these are not wealthy people, by the way. Most of them are career prosecutors. And now they have to find the resources to arrange for very sophisticated, I. E. Very expensive lawyers to protect them in the stage where they're being considered as targets for lawsuits. And if, unfortunately, if. If they actually do get indicted, even if they're just pointless nuisance cases, they will be forced to defend against them. So they and their families go through all of this stress, never knowing from day to day when the hammer might drop. And, you know, really their best option, Cynthia, is. Is us. It's voters. It's people standing up in the midterms and beginning to reset congressional guardrails so that Congress will engage in actual oversight of this administration and this Attorney General who seems to be taking orders from the President on social media, no less, with absolutely no consequences so far. I'd love to see that change after the midterms, but really, this will be a long term project to restructure the Justice Department, to transform it into an entity that is proof against this sort of perversion in the future. So not a very satisfying answer, but that's where we are.

A (69:58)

Yeah. All right. And finally our last question comes to us from Hope in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Did the Christian coded posts and comments by the administration and its agencies during Christmas violate the First Amendment's establishment or free exercise clause? This is such a great question. Did you guys see those? I saw them all over the place. These were like federal agencies not just saying happy Holidays, not just saying Merry Christmas, but actually going so far as to say things like Our Savior is born. The Nativity is the reason for the season. I mean, very Christian messages on official government channels. Look, I'm Christian. I go to church on Christmas Eve. I love saying Merry Christmas to people I know are Christian. But I also know that when I am a representative of the United States government, when I was the U.S. attorney, I am not using my office to advocate for any particular religion because the establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits favoring any one religion over another. And so the question is, who has standing to file a lawsuit or stop this? I mean, first, if. If anybody had ever done that during the time I was in government, someone would have quietly gone to them and said, oh, my gosh, you can't say this in your official capacity. You know, you can wish your friends this, but you can't say this as a representative of the United States government because it is suggesting you favor one religion over another. And the person would say, oh, my gosh, I didn't know. I'm so sorry. I will take it down. The question, however, is a little more difficult when it comes to who has standing to sue. You know, sometimes when there is a significant expenditure of taxpayer funds, there might be a basis for a taxpayer to bring suit, but typically that's not enough. And so when it's something within the executive branch, like the cases involving the posting of the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall or in a school, there's a test. And I looked this up because I found this question so interesting. And so standing can be set if a person is going to face significant exposure or direct contact with the offending conduct. And so the example in the Ten Commandments case out of Texas is that a lawyer had to walk by a monument of the Ten Commandments every day when he used the law library at the Supreme Court building. And so he said either he had to be offended by seeing this thing every time he came to court, or he had to change his work habits and go somewhere else to avoid seeing this thing. So each of those things constituted a direct harm that was sufficient to give this person standing to bring the case. Now, if it is something that is more negligible, like a social media post, it seems like it might be easy for people to avoid that or, you know, it's not really causing them to change their habits. So I just don't know whether anybody would have standing. There's only way to. One way to find out that would be for somebody to file suit and say, you know, in my scrolling on social media, I found it offensive to see this thing, it's what I do every day. I couldn't avoid it. And there it was. I think it would be great to see somebody take the bait. However, is it not perhaps the goal of this administration to get somebody to take the bait and say, see, those people at the ACLU are anti Christian there. It's the war on Christmas and they hate all Christians and this just proves their anti Christian bias. So it seems to me that this post is like a win win for members of the Trump administration. We can troll the left by putting out our unashamed, unabashed, pro Christian views. We can curry favor with our Christian voters. And if you say anything about it now, I can call you anti Christian. So I think that's what's going on there. So I don't know if this is one that's better to ignore or if people need to stand up for their establishment clause rights. I kind of tend to think the latter, but it's a great question, Cynthia, and thanks for asking. Well, and thank you all for listening to Sisters in Law with Jill Wine Banks, Joyce Vance and me, Barb McQuaid. Follow sisters in Law where wherever you listen. And please give us a five star review. It really helps others find the show. Don't forget to ring in 2026 with some hashtag sisters in lawmerch and other goodies@politicon.com merch and please show some love to this week's sponsors, Gusto, Thrive Cosmetics and One Skin. 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.

B (75:01)

Among the things I'm very grateful to this podcast for is Thrive Cosmetics, which seriously, like, we can't say enough nice stuff about them. It's so great.

C (75:09)

But I do also like One Skin. And Michael saw some of my OSEA Malibu and he started using it. He loves it.

B (75:18)

He loves the oil. Seriously.

C (75:21)

I mean, I can't believe him.

B (75:22)

He has it in his shower, too. It's really great.

C (75:25)

Yeah. How amazing.

A (75:27)

You know, my kids have been home all week and they've been using and enjoying so many of our different podcast sponsors. And like, where'd you get this? Like, as a podcast sponsor, where'd you get this? And I cooked all the baked goods, you know, that have been in my freezer, cookies and chocolate croissants and all.

B (75:44)

This kind of stuff.

A (75:44)

Like, where'd this all come from? This is great. Like, yeah, it's a sponsor.

B (75:47)

I mean, we like had the biscuits last night with dinner and everybody thought they were great. Thought that they were just homemade.

A (75:54)

Yeah, it's all good stuff.

C (75:55)

I. I used my hexclad last night and it was great.

B (76:01)

Early birds always rise to the occasion.

C (76:03)

For summer vacation planning because early gets.

B (76:05)

You closer to the action.

C (76:06)

So don't be late. Book your next vacation early on VRBO.

B (76:09)

And save over $530 on week long stays.

C (76:13)

Average savings 550 select homes only. Minimum 7 day stay required.