276: Sisters Named In The Epstein Files

Summary

#SistersInLaw – Episode 276: Sisters Named In The Epstein Files

Date: February 7, 2026
Hosts: Kimberly Atkins, Barbara McQuaid
(Note: Joyce Vance and Jill Wine-Banks are absent due to furlough)

---

Episode Overview

This week, Kimberly Atkins and Barbara McQuaid host a dynamic episode focused on transparency, government misuse of process, and the erosion of public trust in institutions. They begin by humorously discovering that their own names appear in the recently released "Epstein files," before diving into deeper, substantive legal issues—ranging from the troubling FBI search in Fulton County, Georgia, to challenges facing federal prosecutors in Minnesota, and the alarming rise of non-disclosure agreements at the Supreme Court. The episode is rich with their trademark insight, candor, and wit.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Finding Themselves in the "Epstein Files"

• Discovery: Both hosts discover, to their amusement and initial horror, that their names are listed in the Epstein files published by the DOJ.

  • [02:35] Barbara: “Wait, what? I've never met the man in my life.”
  • [03:36] Kimberly: “None of us have been to Epstein Island… but our names turn up because they include clips from my columns or Barb’s columns, or our appearances on television.”

• On the Over-Inclusiveness of the Files:
  The hosts use their inclusion to highlight how the DOJ seems to have drowned out relevant evidence with an avalanche of unrelated press clippings and routine government documents, making public scrutiny unnecessarily complicated.

  • [05:30] Barb: “So, like you're saying maybe they created a haystack to make it harder to find the needles.”
  • [06:10] Kimberly: “...we want to know what... others who are culpable of the horrific crimes... This search tool that is, by its own admission, unreliable, just makes it so much harder.”

---

2. FBI Search of Fulton County, Georgia Election Office

• Background:
  The FBI recently executed a raid on the Fulton County, Georgia elections office, seizing ballots, tabulator tapes, and voter rolls, often without cataloging what was taken.

  • [12:04] Kimberly: “The FBI just came in and swooped up all kinds of rolls and documents... didn’t even catalog what they took.”
  • [13:46] Barb: “They took... ballots from prior elections, tabulator tapes and also voter rolls... It’s hard to imagine what is in the affidavit... We're so past 22 months, it's really hard to imagine that the statute of limitations is still valid.”

• Concerns Raised:
  Concern for due process, election integrity, and the possibility of intentional disruption.

  • [16:22] Barb: “It's sickening. And with regard to this request for return of property... usually with documents and other things, copies would be made... you would mirror image... so you didn’t even have to take them.”
  • [17:47] Kimberly: “Again, we can't trust the federal government to actually... return this stuff... Look at what they did with the Epstein files.”

• Trump and Tulsi Gabbard’s Unusual Involvement:

  • [18:07] Barb: “President Trump spoke by phone to the agents who conducted the search and to Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence... she was... at the scene... which is bizarre.”
  • [19:09] Kimberly: “The fact that she was the one who orchestrated this call between Donald Trump and the agents involved... If there is not an impeachment article written for her, I just don't know why we even have the impeachment power anymore.”

---

3. Trump’s Call for Nationalizing Elections

• Dan Bongino Podcast Appearance:
  Trump publicly called for “nationalizing” elections and putting Republicans in charge in key locations.

  • [22:49] Barb: “What would it take to nationalize an election?”
  • [22:49] Kimberly: “What he’s really calling for, though, is for Republicans to do everything they can to throw wrenches in the system... it's more of a... I can’t even call it a dog whistle—a Foghorn.”

• Legal Barriers:
  The hosts clarify that only a constitutional amendment could enable federal control of elections, currently the domain of the states.

  • [24:19] Kimberly: “That would take a constitutional amendment... the Constitution sets out very clearly that it is states who have the responsibility for administering elections.”

• On Disinformation and Undermining Trust:

  • [25:27] Barb: “I think this is about planting these false seeds, casting doubt on the legitimacy of elections, and then creating a path to do these drastic things...”

---

4. Federal Prosecutor Burnout & the Situation in Minnesota

• Julie Lee’s Standout Testimony:
  DHS lawyer Julie Lee, detailed to the Minneapolis U.S. Attorney’s office, snapped in court about being asked to defend the indefensible.

  • [31:51] Barb: “She said, what do you want me to do? The system sucks. The job sucks... would you please hold me in contempt for 24 hours so at least I can get some sleep?”
  • [34:28] Kimberly: “She told the truth and she put herself as a human first and a lawyer second. And I say hats off to her.”

• Reasons for the Crisis:
  High turnover and political pressure have gutted morale and the ability of prosecutors to do their jobs ethically or effectively.

  • [35:53] Barb: “Before I would go into court and lie or make representations that... I’m not proud of, I will resign.”

• DOJ “Jump Teams”:
  DOJ’s desperate move to form "jump teams" by borrowing prosecutors from other districts is criticized as inefficient and misguided, with some recruitment now blatantly political.

  • [38:49] Barb: “Can you imagine... they're coming around and you, like, hide under your desk. Oh, God, please don't call on me.”
  • [39:06] Barb: “They're supposed to be nonpartisan jobs... you’re not supposed to be hiring based on whether somebody supports a particular president.”

---

5. Non-Disclosure Agreements at the Supreme Court

• Roberts’ Use of NDAs:
  Chief Justice Roberts requiring clerks and staff to sign NDAs to stem leaks was called constitutionally dubious and unethical.

  • [46:43] Kimberly: “The fact that he resorted to non disclosure agreements given to these employees, I found that to be really outrageous.”

• Why This Is a Problem:
  NDAs are, as a rule, unconstitutional prior restraints when forced upon public servants except in national security cases. Roberts knows this.

  • [49:46] Barb: “You think he knew a thing or two about the law?”
  • [49:48] Kimberly: “He knows this is constitutionally dubious... Also... contracts signed under coercion... are unenforceable.”

• Clerk Culture:
  No real risk of leaks because “anybody who blabs would be destroying their own elite career.”

  • [51:48] Kimberly: “Most clerks at the US Supreme Court would never, would never disclose what they do because they know it would ruin their career.”

---

6. Listener Questions

Questions tackled included the potential for electing a US Attorney General, doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel in the Georgia context, and why threats against public officials aren’t easily prosecuted.

Notable Exchange

• On Electing a US Attorney General:

  • [58:40] Barb: “This would sort of essentially create a fourth branch of government. Now, I'm not saying it’s a bad idea... But I think it would require a constitutional Amendment.”

• On Threats to Officials:

  • [63:48] Barb: “If somebody communicates a true threat over the phone, over the Internet, social media, I think they should expect to be prosecuted and often are.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

The Epstein Files Surprise

• [02:46] Kimberly: “Wait, what? I am in the Epstein files. And, Barb, I hope you're sitting down because you are too.”
• [03:35] Barb: “Wait a second.”

Fulton County FBI Raid

• [16:22] Barb: “It's sickening. It's absolutely sickening.”
• [17:47] Kimberly: “It's so sad that we can't trust the federal government to actually... return this stuff.”

Julie Lee, Hero of the Week

• [31:51] Barb (on Julie Lee): “Would you please hold me in contempt for 24 hours so at least I can get some sleep?”

On NDAs at the Supreme Court

• [49:48] Kimberly: “He knows that this is constitutionally dubious. Also... contracts signed under coercion are... unenforceable.”

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• Epstein Files discovery & Record Dumping: 02:00 – 07:44
• FBI Raid on Fulton Co. & Political Interference: 12:04 – 23:00
• Trump's Call to Nationalize Elections: 22:49 – 25:27
• Minnesota Prosecutors, Julie Lee’s Outburst: 30:56 – 36:14
• DOJ 'Jump Teams' & Political Loyalty: 37:25 – 41:17
• SCOTUS NDAs & Transparency Issues: 46:41 – 54:13
• Listener Questions – AG Election, Preclusion Doctrines, Threats: 58:22 – 66:14

---

Tone and Style

Throughout, the tone is candid, conversational, and occasionally irreverent ("a Foghorn, not a dog whistle"). The hosts bring humor and humanity to complex, often alarming legal developments, sharing both expert analysis and personal perspective.

---

For Listeners New to the Episode

This episode delivers insider legal analysis with humor and gravity. It examines how the government both intentionally and unintentionally frustrates public oversight (from document dumps to NDAs and politically motivated raids), the mounting stress on those asked to enforce laws under politicized circumstances, and the continuity of legal standards often disregarded by those in power. The episode is a timely snapshot of the tension between accountability, ethics, and institutional decay in modern American law and politics.

Transcript

[Kimberly Atkins]

Foreign. Welcome back to Hashtag Sisters in law with Barb McQuaid and me, Kimberly Atkinstore. You know, due to the partial government shutdown, Jill and Joyce were furloughed and we will see them back now. No, no, they will be back soon. Don't worry. We miss them. But we'll have to soldier on as a duo this week. In the meantime, show off some Hashtag Sisters in Law gear. You know, we got hoodies, we got T shirts, got all kind of good stuff. Go to politicon.com merch and you can find the link in our show notes. Barb, you know, I was thought living below the Mason Dixon line, I wouldn't get a lot of use out of my hoodie, but man, have I been living in it. This one, it's so cold.

[Barbara McQuaid]

It is nice and toasty.

[Kimberly Atkins]

And we have exciting news if you haven't heard already. We have launched a companion podcast called Sisters sidebar where we'll answer questions that we couldn't get through on our main show. You know, we do say that the listener questions are our favorite part of the show and it's true and we wanted more of them. So now we have another podcast. We dive deeper into our opinions on the news and share more about our legal journeys too. It drops Wednesdays, so send in those questions and remember to tune in on today's show. We have a lot to talk about. We will talk about the search that was conducted in Fulton county by the FBI and the ongoing implications from that. We'll also talk about Minnesota, which is just seeming like a terrible place to be if you're a federal prosecutor. And also we're going to talk about non disclosure agreements when members of the government are asked are asking their employees to sign it. Most recently that happened at the Supreme Court. So I found it crazy. We'll see what Barb thinks about it. But first, Barbara, I don't know how to say this, but I found out this week that I am listed in the Epstein files. Wait, what? I am in the Epstein files. And Barb, I hope you're sitting down because you are too.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Wait, what? I've never met the man in my life. In the words of many people who it turns out, have met the man in their lives. I've never met. I really have never met the man in my life. What are you talking about? What about you?

[Kimberly Atkins]

And. And you know, Joyce, is. Jill Wine Banks is not. Can I say that Jill Wine Banks is not missing?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Who should be in there? Wait, please do tell. Gimme some context here. What are you talking about?

[Kimberly Atkins]

So I was just tooling around on the Department of Justice site where they have put the Epstein files up and list a story and put in a searchable tool where you can search names that are in it. It warns that it's not. It may be error prone. Like, it's not a foolproof tool. So I, you know. But, you know, I just started punching in the names of people who I might know. And lo and behold, there was mine and there was yours.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Wait a second.

[Kimberly Atkins]

There was Joyce's. Now, none of us have been to Epstein Island. None of us, I can say for certainty, met the man, hung out on his private jet, or hung out anywhere near him. But I think this says something. I wanna get your view on this, Barb, that among the 11/7 million files that the government complained about having to produce, a lot of them include really routine and bland stuff like the everyday. The DOJ press puts together a little roundup.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Oh, yeah, yeah. The Attorney General news clips. I used to read this all the time.

[Kimberly Atkins]

News clips from every day about things that were written about the Justice Department or matters before the Justice Department. And our names turn up because they include clips from my columns or Barb's columns or, you know, our appearances on television. And that's why our names are in it. I see.

[Barbara McQuaid]

I'm looking at this now. You had me worried there for a minute. But I see the. So there's a. There's an email to Steve Bannon where somebody shares an article that quotes me about Michael Cohen. That's so funny. How interesting. Thank you for sharing that. Well, we'll have to put this directory in the show notes so people can.

[Kimberly Atkins]

So that our listeners can search for people, too, and see where we are. But to me, like, when I saw this, I was like, okay, the Justice Department was bellyaching about how it's so onerous to produce these files because there are millions, billions of documents. Right. But these documents have nothing to do with Epstein. Like, I feel like they loaded them with things that are not at all in attorney speak, not responsive to the request bar. Is this a normal kind of thing?

[Barbara McQuaid]

So, like you're saying maybe they created a haystack to make it harder to find the needles.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Correct. Yeah.

[Barbara McQuaid]

No, I'm looking at the stuff that you see, which is the most innocuous. You know, here's the Attorney General's briefs of the day. It's basically all the legal news that might relate to the Justice Department. Yeah, that's really interesting. Yeah. You know, I don't want to make light of the Epstein files because obviously this is very serious business when it comes to the survivors. But it really feels like they have made a poor half hearted effort at producing the stuff that people actually want and are required to see under the statute. And instead they've got garbage like this for people to sort through.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Yeah, no, I think that's right. I think it's the opposite of making light of it. I think the thing that made me pretty angry about it is that we want to know what, you know, even if the Justice Department is announced that they're gonna do absolutely nothing about this, there's Congress, there are the survivors themselves that may wanna seek some sort of redress from the people, others who are culpable of the horrific crimes that were. That were orchestrated by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. And it just makes it so much harder with a search tool that is on, by its own admission, unreliable.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, right.

[Kimberly Atkins]

To make it so hard to find the information from it, I think is really a shame. It really is a shame. Yeah.

[Barbara McQuaid]

To clutter it up with a bunch of junk that's in there with news articles.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Yeah. So hopefully there are. Well, I know that there are a lot of people, organizations, attorneys, who are doing their own work and combing through this. And if there is some accountability to be had, hopefully it can be and people won't be distracted by, you know, a citation to a column I wrote at some point. I think mine was about Chris Wray. Like, it wasn't even. It had nothing to do with Epstein.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, I'm looking at the stuff. It's about like the Mueller investigation and stuff like that.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Interesting. It's just so sick. So anyway, I am glad that I never definitively said that you won't find me in the upstate. Yeah, that's right.

[Barbara McQuaid]

It turns out.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Turns out all right. But good for Joe Weinbanks.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Oh, Kim, you know how much I love quints. I gave Quint's sweaters to all of my sons for the holidays because I think their sweaters are fantastic. Like so many of their products, it's all about elevated essentials that feel effortless. Everything is designed for layering and mixing, and each piece helps build a timeless wardrobe made to last. They've got versatile silhouettes, thoughtful details. Quint's offer styles you'll wear again and again.

[Kimberly Atkins]

And you know what, Barb? They make really, really great gifts. Whenever I've given gifts from Quint to my husband or my stepdaughter or anybody else, they all really, really love it and you know, I love it and I want everybody to know about it. Quince has wardrobe staples with qualities that's made to last. You can refresh your fit with their 100% organic cotton sweaters, premium denim made with stretch for all day comfort luxe cotton cashmere blends. Perfect for the changing seasons and more. They have everything you need for a wardrobe that actually lasts.

[Barbara McQuaid]

It's also affordable. We love that Quince works directly with safe, ethical factories to cut out the middlemen. So you're not not paying for brand markup, just high quality clothing. Quince uses the highest quality materials, like 100% European linen and organic cotton. That means not only is everything incredibly comfortable, it's also built to hold up season after season. The stitching, the fit, the fabrics are excellent. And you'll keep reaching for Quince. I, I actually have a Quince sweater in just about every color they make. And I, I wear them under my, you know, it's been like sub zero temperatures in Michigan, such a cold winter, and so I've been wearing them as an extra layer under my suit jackets. They are pieces you will reach for over and over.

[Kimberly Atkins]

They really are. And one thing that I love about them is that they do last after wash, after wash, after wash. Like at the end of every season, I kind of go through when I'm switching out my clothes and I, you know, get rid of the things that are starting to fall apart. And I've had my Quince pieces for like, they're never in the falling apart pile. They always look so great. When you choose Quince, you're getting a wardrobe upgrade that feels smart, still stylish and effortless at prices you'll love. As Barb said, the cashmere is really cozy. Like, that's really what turned me on to Quince in the beginning of the cashmere sweaters. And, you know, especially right now when it's cold. And once you get inside, everyone needs Quince's washable stretch silk blouse. I have a couple of those too. The material feels really amazing, and the style is perfect for, you know, going out with friends or relaxing at home or taking care of business in the office. There's nothing better for looking your best. And if fitness is on your 2026 resolution goals, well, let me tell you, the best workout motivation is the new activewear from Quints. I did get the leggings, the workout leggings with the pockets. Barb, there's pockets.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Pockets. Wait a minute. Stop the presses.

[Kimberly Atkins]

And there's the pockets.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, you can refresh your wardrobe, too, with quince. Go to quince.com sisters for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. And we've got good news. Quince is now available in Canada, too. That is Q-U-I-N-C-E.com sisters to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Again, Quince.com sisters the link is in our show Notes. Well, last week, dear listeners, you may recall that we discussed a search that was conducted by the FBI at the election office in Fulton County, Georgia. This week. Fulton county is firing back. They filed a legal challenge to that search. Kim, let's break this down first. What is Fulton county seeking in this legal challenge?

[Kimberly Atkins]

So Fulton county wants their stuff back. The FBI seized not just to give you an understanding. When ballots are cast, not only are the ballots taken by the election offices, but they are archived. The material is archived in roles that are stored. And in Fulton county, these roles are stored within the building itself in an archival way. So it's not just the last election. It can go back sometime. And they, you know, I think it's meant to be cataloged and, you know, in case there's any future need for them. But the FBI just came in and like, just swooped up all kinds of roles in documents and didn't cata didn't catch catalog what they even took. So Fulton county is asking for this information to be brought back because they don't know what they took. Oh, boy. They don't know how far it goes. And this is I don't think this is how the FBI should be working when they're pursuing some particular alleged crime, which is the only reason why the FBI would be involved. But they did this in such a way, overly broad way that Fulton county officials are now going to a judge and asking, please make them return at least whatever they had so that we have these documents for posterity. Because at this point, Fulton county is no longer in possession of them, which is wild.

[Barbara McQuaid]

It is wild, you know, because they took, according to the warrant itself, ballots from prior elections, tabulator tapes and also voter rolls. So the names of all of the people who are registered to VOT in Fulton County. You know, it's hard to imagine what is in the affidavit that was signed, you know, submitted to the judge. We haven't seen that on the public docket. We've got the warrant itself, which shows us what crimes are allegedly being investigated. One is failure to retain documents. Well, here are the documents. I guess they're trying to see, but for 22 months. We're so past 22 months, it's really hard to imagine that the statute of limitations is still valid for that one. And then the other one is a crime for permitting fraud to be used, introduced into an election by election officials. But you raised such a good point, which is, if they are depriving Fulton county of the records they need to administer elections, what does this do to the 2026 election? I had a student today, I teach a course in criminal procedure. Ask if law enforcement ever does a search warrant, like, just to mess with people. You know, maybe they've got just enough evidence to get probable cause. They have no intention whatsoever of bringing a case. And so they're just doing this to. You know, because people often say this is all politically motivated. This is just a witch hunt. This is just to disrupt. And I should never. It's such a. It's such an ordeal to. You know, when I was a prosecutor, you know, you would. You would get buy in from your supervisor, from your unit chief, from the agent you're working with and their supervisory chain, because it's going to take, you know, 20 agents, maybe 30 agents to show up to secure these things, to analyze these things. This is going to be a huge burden on both agencies, both the prosecutors and the investigators. And so the idea that I'm just going to, you know, do this thing to mess with them is just unheard of. But then I thought about this search and I said, you know, I like to think. Think that people are operating in good faith, that there's this presumption of regularity. But, of course, as we know, many judges have made these statements in Trump's second term that DOJ is really losing this presumption of regularity. So.

[Kimberly Atkins]

And also, yeah, I think they're getting pressured from their bosses who want to please their boss. Yeah. And. And doing things that are just completely out of the. I mean, I can't imagine for you, as a former prosecutor, what you.

[Barbara McQuaid]

It's sickening. It's absolutely sickening. And, you know, with regard to this request for return of property, you know, typically, effort would be made. You know, obviously, if it's a gun that you took or drugs or child pornography, nobody's getting that stuff back if it's evidence of a crime and it could be used to endanger people. But usually with documents and other things, copies would be made. You would mirror image the documents sometimes on site, so you didn't even have to take them for a search so that you weren't dispossessing the true owner of their documents while you analyze them for evidence of a crime. So the idea that they have taken.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Away the only actual stuff, the physical stuff they hold out, I mean, at the time it was happening, the election officials were saying this. They were like, this is not. You know, this isn't a thumb drive of data. They took the actual original stuff, which, to me, it's also a lesson to election officials right now, wherever you are, digitize your stuff, like, find ways to protect it or put it in a. A vault or something that if there is an FBI search, that it won't leave you with nothing in the way that Fulton county was done.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah. And although a judge could order that copies of this stuff be returned, we've now lost kind of that chain of custody that makes us know that these are the authentic, real documents, and who.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Knows what they'll get back. And it's so sad that, again, that we can't trust the federal government to actually. Even if there is a court order by a judge saying, you need to return this stuff, we can't even trust that. Man. They'll do a full. I mean, look at what they did with the Epstein files as we just. As they just talked about. It's really. It's appalling. Yeah, it is.

[Barbara McQuaid]

And, you know, of course, we still don't know what evidence was presented to the judge who found the probable cause and authorized the warrant. I'd love to see that thing at some point. But we do know some interesting reporting this week, Kim, was that President Trump spoke by phone to the agents who conducted the search and to Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, who was also present at the scene, which is bizarre to me, because, of course, the Director of National Intelligence is looking to threats to the national security from foreign actors. So what do you make of Trump's involvement in this case and Gabbard's involvement in this case?

[Kimberly Atkins]

You remember, like, recall too, that when, you know, something that involved national security and international actors, say, the nabbing of the Venezuelan president, Tulsi Gabbard was nowhere to be seen. Like, she. You. I didn't. I was like, where is Tulsi Gabbard?

[Barbara McQuaid]

You know where she was? She posted on social media that day. She was in Hawaii, and she posted herself doing yoga poses before the sunrise.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Yet somehow, when the FBI is raiding the elections office of folding, she just happened to be. Yeah, this seems to me. And the fact that she was the one who orchestrated this call between Donald Trump and The agents involved, in which Donald Trump praised and thanked these agents. Of course, later he would say, oh, I had nothing to do with this. This wasn't me. I didn't even know what happened. He thanked and praised the agents who conducted this search on this warrant says a lot. It says that, you know, Tulsi Gabbard, who before was not a war hawk, she actually was trying to, you know, her position when she ran for president, was that we need to de escalate these international conflicts. Didn't want to be. Didn't want to touch Venezuela, but was willing to still do Trump's bidding in a domestic matter that is completely outside her realm of authority. I mean, that in itself, if there is not an impeachment article written for her, I just don't know why we even have the impeachment power anymore. This is such a just gobsmacking. I don't even know what to call it. Dereliction of duty doesn't seem to do it justice. It's outrageous.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah. Mark Warner, who is. I don't know what they call it in the Senate, not ranking member, Vice chair, maybe, of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Yes, I believe it is vice chair for that.

[Barbara McQuaid]

He said there's two possibilities, both of which are shocking and unacceptable. Either this is a purely domestic criminal case, in which case the Director of National Intelligence just should not be there based on her job description and this is a violation of her duties and an overreach and abuse of her power. Or alternatively, she's there because there is some foreign nexus, in which case she has a duty to. Briefly, the Intelligence Committee chair, Reed Village.

[Kimberly Atkins]

That's right.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah. So he said. And we have not received any briefing on this. So it's.

[Kimberly Atkins]

It's.

[Barbara McQuaid]

I'm not sure the reason it's wrong, but all I can tell you is it's wrong. Also, there were photos of her there, and she's wearing, like, you know, a ball cap and, like, the whole costume stuff, it almost. It feels like it was intentional that she be photographed, right?

[Kimberly Atkins]

Yes.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Like, just to create this impression that there's some sort of foreign intrigue here. So the whole thing is just bizarre.

[Kimberly Atkins]

All in black. Yeah. It's really just when you think that things can't get weirder, they do.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah. I will tell you that, Kim, when I was serving as U.S. attorney, never once did I dress in raid gear, although I like baseball caps and I do own several baseball caps. Didn't wear them on the job. I didn't wear a vest.

[Kimberly Atkins]

You know, you weren't going around like Kristi Nome showing up.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, yeah, maybe I should have done that. One last thing I would ask you about, about all this is also deeply disturbing. This week, President Trump appeared on the podcast of Dan Bongino. Remember, he was the deputy director of the FBI, the number two official at the FBI for about a year. And now he's back podcasting where he was before that. But he shows up on the. Trump shows up on the show and he was interviewed. And during that interview, President Trump said, we should nationalize elections. We should put Republicans in charge of elections in at least 15 places. What would it take to nationalize an election? And what do you think the risks are if we were to do that?

[Kimberly Atkins]

So first of all, he's calling for, I mean, just what he's calling for just belies what he's trying to do. Republican to nationalize. Not federal officials to national. Republicans to nationalize. Election. Excuse me. An election cannot be rigged by one part. You know what that is? You know where that happens? Russia. Yeah, there's election. I'm using air quotes because we're a podcast. Where there are elections. You know that happens in Turkey, where there are election. No, that's not what happens. So how to nationalize elections? What? That would take a constitutional amendment, because the Constitution sets out very clearly that it is states who have the responsibility of administering elections. There is a role for Congress to make some rules with respect to federal elections. Congress, Senate, the presidency, they can set up some rules with regard to that. But the way the elections are carried out, the rules, where elections are done, what equipment is used, how the votes are count, all of that, that is up to the states. So unless you amend the Constitution, which I don't think is happening anytime soon, thankfully, that can't happen. But what I think he's really calling for, though, is for Republicans to do everything they can to throw wrenches in the system. And that. We've already seen that. We've already seen that with the new invention of mid decade redistrict, which wasn't a thing before you had a census and you had new congressional lines drawn. And then 10 years later, we did it again. All of a sudden now, suddenly, in 2025 and 2026, it's just so imperative that these congressional maps be redrawn. No, it's things like that. It's the, you know, sending ICE agents to polling states. That's what they're talking about. I feel like it's more of a. I can't even call it a dog whistle, a Foghorn. Just saying that he wants Republicans to try to suppress voting and obstruct the election in any way that they can. Yeah.

[Barbara McQuaid]

I think to some extent there's some disinformation going on here. Right. Trying to create this false narrative that our elections are rife with fraud. One of the things President Trump said in either this interview or another one this week was that they. I assume they means the Democratic Party, they are bringing in immigrants. Now, I don't know that the Democratic Party is bringing in immigrants.

[Kimberly Atkins]

They.

[Barbara McQuaid]

I know they are bringing in immigrants to vote for Democrats because they can't win elections otherwise. So creating this false narrative that the whole reason that Democrats care about the rights of immigrants is not because of treaties that permit asylum claims or compassion for human dignity.

[Kimberly Atkins]

I was gonna say basic humanity.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah. It's because it's all about winning an election and trying to get these ineligible voters to vote. Of course, there is no evidence of widespread election fraud, no evidence that immigrants are voting in elections, let alone voting for Democrats. So I think this is about planting these false seeds, casting doubt on the legitimacy of elections, and then creating a path to do these drastic things, like have the National Guard at polling places to. Or ICE at polling places to protect the polls from immigrants who want to vote illegally. So I think it is paving the way, all of this, the search and all of these things for the 2026 and maybe the 2028 election. We all have this image of our perfect day where we get all our tasks done and eat better. The problem is that when the winter cold hits, things pile up and it feels like you have zero time and zero energy to spend cooking. At least I know I do. That's why we want to tell you about Factor. Factor doesn't ask you to meal prep or follow recipes. It removes the entire problem. All you have to do is heat it up. It takes two minutes, and you have delicious, real food ready to enjoy.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Yeah, you know, I have a lot of jobs, and as such, I have a lot of deadlines, and I'm usually pretty busy during the day, and sometimes the last thing I want to do is cook. And I certainly hate the supermarket. I've said on the show many times how much I detest going to the supermarket. And, you know, it takes up time we don't have. And that's why I love Factor. It's made by chefs, designed by dietitians, and delivered to your door. And you heat it up for two minutes, and boom, dinner is ready. The meals taste great and are packed with ingredients you can really feel good about like lean proteins and colorful vegetables and whole food ingredients and healthy fats. All the stuff that you'd make if you had the time to do it yourself. And best of all, there are no refined sugars, no artificial sweeteners and no refined seed oils.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Factor offers get this, 100 rotating meals every week and you can see 100, 100, 100 Kim. And you can, you know, choose your categories. Maybe you like high Protein calorie Smart Mediterranean, GLP1 support ready to Eat salads and their new Muscle Pro collection for strength and recovery. All you have to do is pick what fits your goals. Whether it's healthier eating, calorie management, more protein or whatever you're actually trying to do. It's great having easy snacks that are healthy smoothies and more ready to go when hunger strikes. In fact, here's what I'm planning today. Kim, are you ready for this?

[Kimberly Atkins]

Yes.

[Barbara McQuaid]

On this cold Michigan day, I am going to enjoy their three bean vegan chili with cornbread casserole and tofu based crema to ward off the cold.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Oh that sounds so good.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Doesn't that sound amazing? So no matter what you choose, you'll be amazed at how much time and money you save.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Factor is always fresh, never frozen, and ready in two minutes with no prep, no cleanup, no mental load, no muss, no fuss. You don't need motivation to eat better, just eliminate the reasons you don't. Head to FactorMeals.com SIL50OFF and use the code SIL50OFF to get 50% off your first FactorBox plus free breakfast for a year. This offer is only valid for new Factor customers with the code and a qualifying auto renewing subscription purchase. Make healthier eating easy with Factor and look for the link in our show notes. Well, Barb, as we've been discussing, it's a tough time to be a federal prosecutor right now, especially if you're in Minnesota. Much of the news that came out this week regarding the surge in ice operations happening in and around the Twin Cities is related to the Justice Department's prosecutors who were tasked with handling the flurry of litigation surrounding. It's important to realize when we're seeing all these actions take place, they don't just end with these. It's really the beginning of a process that really has been taxing federal prosecutors, whether it's with respect to habeas claims or it's respect to, you know, people who are harmed who are not a part of these operations. So I wanna get your take on It, Barb, as a former prosecutor, let's start with my her of the Week, and her name is Julie Lee. Please tell us about her, Barb, and what she did and what happened next.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, so Julie Lee is a lawyer who works for the Department of Homeland Security. She got detailed to the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota because we've seen so many career prosecutors resign from that office. They're way down. And so they just needed bodies. And so they brought her in along with others from the local office of the Department of Homeland Security on a detail starting in January. And she was assigned some cases to respond to what's called an Order to Show Cause why the administration should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with court orders, including several orders to release some people who had been detained. And so this is the day, like, show up. So the judge says, show up, lawyer for the government, and please explain to me. And he kind of goes through, here are the four defendants. I've been asking for updates on all of them, and I haven't received any. What is the update? And that's when she said, what do you want me to do? The system sucks. The job sucks. In fact, at one point she said, would you please hold me in contempt for 24 hours so at least I can get some sleep? And I never, never true or word said in a courtroom. I mean, she explained quite candidly about what she's up against. She said, I've been trying really hard to provide that information for you, you, Honor. I go back and I talk to people and I ask them, where is this person? They tell me one thing, and I file a brief with the court. And then I find out that, you know, they tell me the person is in custody here in Minneapolis. I file my brief at 2:30, and then I find out that at 1:30 they were moved to Texas. So now I gotta refile and find something else. So it's a moving target. I can't get answers from these people. And I think reading this transcript is really enlightening because the judge shows some empathy, I think, toward this prosecutor. But what he says, and he even says, I adhere to the unitary executive theory. Like, I buy into all this stuff, but what you can't do, you know, and I, I, I buy into immigration enforcement. You can absolutely enforce the immigration laws, but what the government can't do is arrest so many people that you don't have the capacity to provide due process to all of them. Like, you can't just lock people up and not share with the Court where they are or once they've been ordered released, you can't like lose them. You have to be able to do these things. So I think this transcript is really incredibly important because it provides this wake up call. What about her makes her your hero?

[Kimberly Atkins]

Well, that, that the fact. And I wanna say when I was laughing right now, it was not at her or at this situation at all because it's tragic. It's tragic that we've gotten to this point. But as somebody, I was not a prosecutor, but as somebody who argued before judges many times and they're asking me questions about the. I can't imagine the amount of frustration and resignation that you must have in your heart as an attorney arguing in front of a judge. That brings you to the point where you are saying, you know what, Judge, hold me in contempt, please. I would love it to point.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, she said I was until 2:30 last night working on this.

[Kimberly Atkins]

That would be relief at this. The last thing you want to do as an attorney is to be held in contempt for anything when you are begging for it. Listen, so that is what the fact that she basically said it like she told the truth as opposed to, you know, being giving the lawyer ease.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Or lying to the courtesy of trying to get out of the situation. She told the truth and she put herself as a human first in that position and a lawyer second. And I say hats off to her.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah.

[Kimberly Atkins]

That's why she's.

[Barbara McQuaid]

And I'll add now, I think she also put herself as a lawyer first. Right. Candor to the tribunal. Instead of trying to lie or dance around or make excuses, she explained what was going. Now, of course, she was fired shortly after this. I think she was just sent back to dhs. I don't think she was.

[Kimberly Atkins]

I think she was just removed from that detail.

[Barbara McQuaid]

She's probably no one happier than she is when she. Yes.

[Kimberly Atkins]

It's just like the relief that she saw it. So the struggle is real. Barb, as we were talking about, the prosecutors are leaving the Minneapolis U.S. attorney's office in droves. You know, as a former prosecutor, what must it be like in that office right now? And what are your biggest concerns about this situation?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, I can't imagine what it must be like to be working there. I'm sure the morale is horrible. I'm sure even those who are staying are really torn because this is a dream job for a lot of people. And I can imagine people trying to say to themselves, look, if I can just stick it out for three more years, we'll have a normal U.S. attorney. And I can stay here for the rest of my career and do incredibly important work. But at the same time, I'm sure there are others who are saying, but there are certain things that I'm just not going to do, like Julie Lee was asked to do.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Right.

[Barbara McQuaid]

And they're going to say, before I would go into court and lie or make representations that, you know, I'm not proud of, I will resign. And so we're seeing instead people like, you know, detailees like Julie Lee, who only got there July 5th or, I'm sorry, January 5th, and had to handle.

[Kimberly Atkins]

These cases of 2026.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Of 2026. Yeah. When I started as a prosecutor, I think about the kind of training that I got. I got to go to training courses on federal practice, trial practice, grand jury practice, rules of evidence, ethics, appellate practice, and then a whole lot of subject matter courses. And then before I was allowed to do things in court, I had to shadow somebody. I had to be second share with somebody. I had to do those things, like, at least three times before I could do it myself. So, you know, all of those things help make sure that people are getting adequate training and you don't have surprises. You know, now it just sounds like anybody who has a bar license, they're throwing in court regardless of the training they have. But aside from that, even if these are legal superstars, if you don't give them the information they need to provide answers to the court, then it doesn't matter what kind of trained lawyer you are, how good you are at your job, you're just not going to be in a position to do the job effectively if members of the agency aren't giving you the information you need. Yeah.

[Kimberly Atkins]

So meanwhile, it seems that the Justice Department is trying to respond by rapidly assigning prosecutors with prosecutorial experience for what is called as emergency jump teams to Minneapolis. Which, you know, would seem reasonable they would want to reinforce that office if it's being so badly depleted. But, Barb, it turns out it's only for some kind of cases and in some places. Tell us about that. And if that is the best use of the DOJ's resources.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Oh, my gosh, can you imagine the nightmare? They said, you know, each office, each of the 93 US Attorney's offices has been asked, I guess it's 94 US Attorney's offices has been asked to provide two volunteers to be on the job to. Can you imagine, like, you know, they're coming around and you, like, hide under your desk. Oh, God, please, please don't call on me.

[Kimberly Atkins]

I want to be on the jump team.

[Barbara McQuaid]

I don't want to be on the jump team. God, anything but that. You know, next week you might be deployed to Minneapolis, and the week after that you might be sent to Maine. Just, you know, some sense of how bad it is. Chad Meisel, who is the former chief of staff to Attorney General Pam Bondi, posted on X. If you're a lawyer and interested in being an AUSA and you support President Trump, DM me, I mean, it's that bad. Oh, my gosh. Really? This is how we recruit.

[Kimberly Atkins]

This is like, this was once one of the most prestigious positions that you could ever want. And he's out here saying it's sort of like those, those text messages that you get. It's like, work from home, get $4 an hour. DM me.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Unbelievable. And the other thing a lot of prosecutors are objecting to is not only is it like, like a sign of desperation for bodies, but if you support President Trump, which, you know, these are supposed to be nonpartisan jobs, you're not supposed to be, you know, hiring based on whether somebody supports a particular president or not. These are career jobs to outlast any one administration. And you asked like, is this an efficient use of resources? Absolutely not. For one, every district has local practice. There are local rules. Each judge has their own idiosyncrasies. And to throw people from other districts into that community and ask them to practice is just not going to be effective. In addition, you are uprooting them from their own districts where they're working on other cases. You know, maybe they're working on corruption cases or armed robbery crews or whatever it is. No, we're going to throw you into the fray in Minneapolis, where we have a situation of chaos of our own creation. So it strikes me as incredibly foolish use of resources.

[Kimberly Atkins]

And on top of that, according to reporting by Bloomberg Law, they're sending them to places to deal with the cases of alleged assault or obstruction of law enforcement. It's not to help administer all of these additional cases from the increasing caseload in the number of people who have been detained. It's to focus on places where they're trying to crack down and give more prosecutions of people who have allegedly assault or obstructed law enforcement. Where we see from the way that the high profile cases have been handled and the way that the top officials in the justice and DHS departments have categorized these folks, you can only imagine some of these cases that are being brought by people who are just Filming, who are just, you know, blowing whistles, who are, you know, just doing things that are not against the law, but that's who they want to prosecute. Like that. Ugh. Yeah.

[Barbara McQuaid]

You know, I am all in favor of protecting law enforcement officials. No one should assault a law enforcement official, and if that happens, they should be prosecuted. But the statute requires for, even for obstruction, forcibly obstructing, that means hands on. So, you know, video recording somebody or blowing a whistle is not going to qualify. And as you say, Kim, even in these high profile prosecutions, we've seen some pretty ticky tack things. So I think, I don't know the extent to which they will actually prosecute and to what extent they are trying to create a narrative either for deterrence or, you know, we've got the back of law enforcement because we're the pro law enforcement party. Because Trump's MO has always been to just make an announcement of something even if you don't intend to follow through. Right.

[Kimberly Atkins]

That's true.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Vladimir Zelensky, I need you to announce. I need you to go in front of a microphone and announce that Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are under investigation for corruption. He said to doj, just announce that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me. So just creating this impression is all that he cares about. So I don't know if this is really happening or if this is just an announcement, but whatever you do, if the recruiters, dear listeners, in U.S. attorney's offices, when the recruiters come by, maybe you dropped a contact lens on the floor and you need to get down behind your desk and look for that so they don't spot you sitting at your desk when they're looking for the people they're going to send. And these jump teams.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Oh, Barb, when the weather is this cold, I am all about keeping my skin moisturized because nobody likes cracked skin. And whether you're freezing out in the wind or baking under the heater, winter is the roughest on. It's the toughest time of year. Add in the start of the year stress and just the events of the world and you wish you could relax on a warm tropical beach somewhere. But even if you're not there, I have the next best thing for you with Osea Malibu. I feel like I'm in paradise when I incorporate their products into my regimen. Right now, I'm really enjoying their dream collection. Barb. It's these. It's a serum and a moisturizer. It smells like lavender and I slather it on at night. It's the perfect way to create a feeling of warmth on dreary winter nights. Have you tried it, Barb?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah. And to fill you in, osea's Dream Night Serum and Dream Night Cream are clinically tested formulas for powered by bioretinol and designed to reduce the visible effects of stress on skin while you sleep. It's a one, two combo. So first you put on their Dream Bioretinol Body Serum. I was excited to try it out. It feels great. It smells great. It's a brand new full body restorative treatment that visibly de stresses the skin with a holistic blend of bioretinol, red seaweed, magnesium and lavender. After savoring that scent, you can follow it up with the night cream. Both products are so nurturing and I now wake up with firmer, more moisturized skin as opposed to my normal sandpaper skin. It glows wherever I apply it. It doesn't just visibly firm and improve skin elasticity. It also smooths lines and wrinkles with less potential for irritation than the traditional retinol of other brands.

[Kimberly Atkins]

You're looking very smooth, Barbie.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Thank you.

[Kimberly Atkins]

I can tell that it is working.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Maybe that should be my new nickname.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Smooth Smooth. I like that. Smooth McQuaid skincare is self care and the dream collection makes it easy to give your skin rest. Say goodnight to dryness, dullness, wrinkles and lack of firmness. And say hello to serenity. It's the perfect relaxing ritual and it works overnight. In the morning your skin is softer, smoother and more radiant. Both of its products are truly an essential treatment in any bedtime routine. You can ask Greg. It's always a treatment for my one night I'm just gonna, once he's sleeping, slather it on him too because I know he'll like it too. They're so efficient and lead to a real transformation in your body and well being.

[Barbara McQuaid]

There really is nothing better for promoting a restful night while visibly firming and improving skin elasticity. We also love that everything's vegan, cruelty free and comes in sustainable packaging. So don't wait. Give your skin a rest with clean clinically tested skin care from osea. And right now we have a special discount just for our listeners. Get 10% off your First Order site wide with code [e-mail] that's O S E A malibu.com Code Sisters10 the link is in our show notes. Kim, I want to ask you about a topic you wrote about in your newsletter, the Gavel. If you're not subscribing to the gavel. You're doing it wrong. Kim posts a newsletter every Wednesday with a deep dive on some interesting things, usually about the Supreme Court, what's going on there? And you wrote this week about non disclosure agreements in our federal government. Not at the White House, which we have seen before, but at the Supreme Court.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Yeah.

[Barbara McQuaid]

So I. Yeah, go ahead, tell us about this.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Well, picture it. You know, the head of an branch of government calls in some employees in a room, presents them with a non disclosure agreement because he wants to stop leaks from the building and tells them to sign it. Right. Then that sounds like something Trump would do. Right. This is something, according to reporting in the New York Times by Jodi Cantor, who has been doing some really incredible reporting inside the Supreme Court. That's what Chief Justice John Roberts did last year to employees. I believe that they're clerks who work for other justices too. Not just his clerks, all the clerks. Because he wanted to plug up the leaks that were coming out of the building. Recall that the Dobbs decision got leaked. Recalled later on that Jodi Cantor wrote a pretty detailed story about the deliberations behind Trump's immunity ruling. So clearly the Chief justice didn't like that. But the fact that he resorted to non disclosure agreements given to these employees, I found that to be really outrageous.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah. You know, I think for people who work in the private sector, it may seem like no big deal. Right. I mean, people get non disclosure sometimes when they leave. They get non competes when they leave certain organizations. What's different about it in the public sector?

[Kimberly Atkins]

Yeah. So when you are in the government, any effort to priorly restrain or gag someone for speaking about what they saw and what they did while an employee of the government is presumptively violative of the First Amendment. Remember when Donald Trump was using non disclosure agreements in his first term and Don McGahn, his White House counsel at the time, first he tried to convince Trump not to do that. It's like, dude, you can't do this as violates the first. Like you are the government. Like when it says shall make no law, that's talking about you. You can't do this. It violates. It's unconstitutional. You won't be able to enforce it. Trump wanted them anyway. So when Don McGahn drafted and handed out to employees this non disclosure agreement, he told them this is not enforceable, but you know, the boss wants it, so could you please sign it? He, Don McGahn was 100% right. It is unenforceable because it's presumptively unconstitutional unless you have a really good reason. So, for example, if you're working in the intelligence space, yeah, of course you can't disclose classified information. The government has a compelling interest to keep classified information classified. And so the least restrictive means would be to restrict the people who are in possession of that from disclosing it. That would pass constitutional muster. What the Chief justice is doing, not so much. And it's particularly galling because he's the top.

[Barbara McQuaid]

You think he knew a thing or ship.

[Kimberly Atkins]

He knows that this is constitutionally dubious. Also, we also learn in law school that contracts signed under coercion are, as a matter of public policy, non enforceable. So you're going to drag a law clerk in and the Chief Justices sign this. Do you think that law clerk is going to say, hey, maybe I should have a lawyer look over this? Or maybe I should think about this?

[Barbara McQuaid]

You know, Mr. Chief Justice, I think this is. I refuse. Yeah, no.

[Kimberly Atkins]

So if that is not coercion, what is? And it also, I think the biggest reason is that at a time where people are demanding greater transparency and accountability from the Court. Right. They want cameras in for oral arguments. They want Justices to disclose when they have connections with people who have business before the Court. These are things that the Court has been largely resisting. I mean, they now give audio streaming of arguments, which is a little tiny step. For the most part. They're still on the honor system when it comes to their own ethics rules. So to have the Chief justice then try to make it more like, to make it less transparent.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Read over yourself.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Read the room.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah.

[Kimberly Atkins]

You wonder why the, the, the reputation of the Supreme Court is tanking. This isn't a way to help it.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah. So they're, you know, they're not lawful. They're against public policy. And what is it you're trying to hide anyway? I mean, I get it that the Dobbs opinion leaked, and I get it that Justices should say to their clerks, you don't disclose work before it's published. I think there's a famous quote by Justice Scalia who said, if you ever disclose anything, like I will eat you alive or something like that.

[Kimberly Atkins]

People believe I will hunt you down and I will ruin your career. You know who said that?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Was it Scalia?

[Kimberly Atkins]

Amy Coney Barrett, who was his clerk. Oh, and he said that to her. She said that at an event. So, and that's another important point, Barb, is that generally speaking, most clerks at the US Supreme Court would never, would never Disclose what they do because they know it would ruin their career. And the careers that the former U.S. supreme Court clerks have are lucrative. Yes, they go on. If they go to a big firm, they get signing bonuses that sometimes are as high as half a million dollars. The signing bonus of half a million dollars aside, all the millions that they'll make in their salaries, they go on to prestigious jobs like US Solicitor General, you know, somebody. Or Supreme Court. Yeah, yeah. They go on to be federal judges or justice of the Supreme Court. My former colleague, we were both interns together at the Boston Globe. Elizabeth Prelogar was the last, was the Solicitor General under Joe Biden, and she got a clerkship. She clerked for Elena Kagan. They're not gonna wanna mess up their careers because legal circles are small. People are not gonna wanna hire somebody who snitches about what they did at the Supreme Court. They're really not. So there's always already a disincentive. And again, if that still doesn't keep people from leaking, I think the thing for the chief justice to do is to ask himself, okay, what's wrong with this institution that there is so much problem with leaking? Maybe if we are more transparent, it will be harder for reporters, good reporters, like Jodi Cantor, to get these scoops because we're being transparent in the first. I think that is what he ought to do. And the fact that he is doing it this way, man, it just gives me one more reason to believe that he is not the court institutionalist that he has long had the reputation of being.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, circle the wagons, share nothing, disclose nothing, deny everything, admit nothing, and make sure nobody shares anything out of school. And, you know, if one of the values of transparency, of course, is it gives public the trust that things are on the up and up. And if people have the ability to disclose problems, they have the freedom to do that. If you have NDAs like what? You know, it just raises the question, what is it they're trying to hide?

[Kimberly Atkins]

What are you hiding? That's exactly right.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Well, I can remember a time when I wasn't concerned about microplastics, but now I am. And if you aren't concerned about microplastics in your cleaning products, maybe you should be. They are not good for us or our families or our pets. And even as we reset our habits for the year ahead, many people don't realize they're bringing them into their homes every day. That's why we've made the switch to blue land across all the cleaning products we have in our homes, especially at the start of a year when we're rethinking our routines and trying to build more sustainable habits at home. Certified by Cradle to Cradle Blueland products meet the highest standard of clean. They're effective yet gentle on people and the planet.

[Kimberly Atkins]

From cleaning sprays and toilet bowl cleaner to dishwasher and laundry detergent tablets, Blueland's 100% microplastic free EPA Saver Choice certified formulas are safe to use around my family and snickers in the house house. I love not having to choose between the safe option and what actually gets my house clean. And you will too.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Blueland is on a mission to make it easy for everyone to make sustainable choices like us. They believe that hardworking clean products can be the norm, not the exception, so that you can do better for your family and the planet. At the same time. It feels great knowing that I'm incorporating sustainable practices into essential everyday activities. I'm always amazed by how well their dishwasher tablets work. They're proven to perform no matter how intense the baked on or burnt on stains get. You won't even need a rinse aid. And when you're stuck inside cooking during the cold weather, it's a lifesaver when the dishes start to pile up.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Everything is independently tested to perform alongside major brands and the formulas are free from dyes, parabens and harsh chemicals. Plus Blueland is a certified B core and certified cruelty free by Leaping Bunny. Can I just add also that the containers look really cool like I like, I like. And they're simple, you know, they, they're labeled like you know, glass cleaner. Kitchen cleaner.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yes. Bathroom.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Sometimes, like sometimes you just need to cut through it and you're like reading the like okay, what can I use this on? On the other they just tell you and I, I appreciate that. I do. Their formulas are even EPA Safer choice certified. All the good stuff. And many have received the gold material health certificate from Cradle to Cradle. Their products are trusted in over a million homes including ours. And Blueland has a special offer just for our listeners right now. Get 15% off your first order by going to blueland.com sisters. You won't want to miss this. Blueland.com sisters for 15% off. It's a great deal. That's blueland.com sisters to get 15% off. And you know where you can find the link?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Barb, Would it be in the show notes? Kim?

[Kimberly Atkins]

It will be in the show notes. So now we have reached what is truly our favorite part of the show and that is Questions from our listeners. If you have a question, you know what to do. The email is sisters in law politikon.com the hashtag is Sisters in Law. On social media, ask us your questions. We will do as many as we can during this show. We will also answer some in our new show, Sister sidebar. And when we can't get to them at either one of those places, we will try as much as we can to answer them right in the feed. So keep an eye out on all of those places. So. So, Barb, I'm gonna first ask you a question from Truman. In Austin, Texas. We have had some good times in Austin, Texas.

[Barbara McQuaid]

We have Austin.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Great place. Yes. So it's a. I love that city. Truman asks, what do the Sisters in Law think of electing a US Attorney General, much like many states already do. Further, would it make sense to have that election occur separately from the presidential election cycle? What do you think about that part?

[Barbara McQuaid]

Oh, I love this question, Truman. You know, I'm working on a new book called the Fix, where I explore some ways we could put guardrails into system to prevent some of the abuses that we're seeing now. And of course, the lack of independence of this attorney General from the President, I think is very problematic and is politicizing the Department of Justice. So this is actually an idea that I explore in the book. Why couldn't we directly elect a U.S. attorney General? You know, one of the suggestions that's been made is that the attorney General would be in a separate department from the president, insulated from politics altogether. But there is some value, I think, in making an attorney General accountable to the people through an election and perhaps impeachment, because otherwise they might pursue priorities that are out of touch with the preference of the people. So there is some value in political accountability, and I think this would create it with election and reelection. I think the challenge with it is that we currently have a system with three branches of government. The executive branch, which is led by the president, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. This would sort of essentially create a fourth branch of government. There's a famous case called Morrison versus Olson where they explored the Independent Council, and they talked about the fact that a fourth branch of government would be unconstitutional. They ultimately found that the Independent Council had enough connections to the Justice Department to make it within the executive branch. I think this could create a separate branch of government. Now, I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I think it's actually a good idea. But I think it would require a constitutional Amendment, which could be a very difficult thing to achieve, at least in the near future. But down the road, if we're thinking big and breaking the mold. I like this idea.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Yeah. With every passing day, I am more on board with the idea of big structural changes that are needed to our laws and constitution. So I would be willing to consider this as my only question would be like, okay, then, do we elect the Secretary of State? Do we elect the Secretary Agriculture? You know, it opens a Pandora's box, but I'd be willing to explore it. So our next question comes from Colleen, who asks, would raise judicata or collateral estopo prevent the government from filing suits regarding Georgia and its voting situation? Colleen, are you a law student? Because I have to say, I haven't thought about collateral estoppel since I was.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, that's a classic law student question.

[Kimberly Atkins]

A good one. This is actually a good question for those of our listeners who have not been to law school. The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are similar in that they hold. They stand for the proposition that once a case or an issue has been litigated by a court and a ruling rendered, that issue cannot be litigated again. So one is with regard to parties. So if Barb breaks my window and I sue Barb for damages for breaking that window, and that case is either settled or there is a judicial determination that Barb broke the window, she's at fault, and she has to pay whatever penalty, then I can't later look at the replacement window and say, I don't like this replacement window. I'm gonna sue Barb again because she broke the window in the first place, and she should replace this replacement. No, the issue has been resolved as between you and Barb in the broken window. So that's race judicata. Collateral estoppel is when someone makes a claim that has already been adjudicated in a way, even with other parties, but that the facts of them are exactly the same. They can't bring this claim again. The court has already held that they can't make that claim, and so they're stopped. With respect to the Georgia election situation, what the Trump administration is doing now has not been done before, certainly not by a federal executive branch. So neither race judicata nor collateral estoppel would apply to these cases, because there has not been a ruling, for example, that there was definitively no election fraud happening in Georgia or that or really about anything about it. There has been a lot of litigation about it. So it may feel like it's already been adjudicated, but it actually hasn't. But Colleen, I like the way you think.

[Barbara McQuaid]

Yeah, that was a very good, very geeky review of race treating counter and collateral sample. You are a procedure girl.

[Kimberly Atkins]

I did love procedure. Our last question comes from Deb in North Carolina. And Deb asks, with all the technology supposedly identifying protesters, why can't the government track and stop the people who produce death threats to politicians? Oh, interesting. Judges, et cetera. Can we assume that threats are coming from an organ? Nice small group of people. Interesting question, Barb, what do you think?

[Barbara McQuaid]

I think the answer is, Deb, that they can. To the extent that these are on servers online that are coming from within the United States, they can and they do. They take them pretty seriously. From time to time, you know, we would investigate threats to all kinds of people. Sometimes they're coming from overseas and then it can be very difficult. The, you know, the trail goes cold sometimes if threats are coming from a foreign country and we don't have a treaty with that country to obtain evidence. But many times a threat is posted on social media or it comes over the phone, and there are electronic surveillance techniques that can be used to identify some of these people. Sometimes the threat is not what's called a true threat. It's just something that is. Is ugly and mean and despicable. A true threat requires an intent to cause a person to be concerned about harm, you know, through some sort of act of violence. And so just saying, you know, I wish you were dead or some, you know, this should happen to you typically is not considered a true threat. And so some of those don't materialize into criminal cases. But I think that these kinds of cases are pretty aggressively investigated and are pretty aggressively prosecuted. So the question about are threats coming from an organized small group of people? I don't know. I don't have any reason to believe that. I think that one of the narratives of the Trump administration is that Antifa is some kind of organized group that is organizing against the federal government. We've seen that in some of these executive orders. I have not seen evidence to suggest that. And of course, Antifa is not itself a group group. Antifa is more of a philosophy like feminism or conservativism. You don't join a group that is the conservative movement or the feminist movement. It's a philosophy, not a group. So I think that might be a little bit of a false narrative out there. But certainly there are people who are self described antifa members or anti fascists. It's fair to call them, I suppose, antifa adherence. But it's not a crime, of course, to even label yourself. What's a crime is the conduct. And if somebody communicates a true threat over the phone, over the Internet, social media, I think they should expect to be prosecuted and often are.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Well, thank you for listening to Sisters in law with Barb McQuaid and me, Kimberly Atkinstore. We miss Joyce and Jill. We can't wait for them to come back. Follow Sisters in Law wherever you listen and please give us a five star review because it really helps others find our show. Yes, there are people who still don't know about us. It's crazy, but it's true. Don't forget to pick up some Sisters in Law merch and other good stuff from Politicon.com merch and make sure on Wednesday you listen to all our new companion podcast Sister Sidebar. We can't wait to see you there. Please show some love for this week's sponsors because they really are the reason we're able to bring this podcast to you. Quince Factor, ocm, Malibu and Blueland. We truly love them all and we would love for you to support them too. See you next week with another episode. Sisters in Law.

[Barbara McQuaid]

How funny is it that it's, it's the three of us, Yumi and Joyce and not Jill? Like, of all the people I would expect to be in the the world of, you know, intrigue.

[Kimberly Atkins]

Of course Jill is in the up scene. Yeah, I search with and without the hyphen and everything.