Barb McQuaid (2:44)

So.

Jill Wine Banks (2:44)

So let me ask you, wait, were

Kimberly Atkinstore (2:46)

you a figure skater, too?

Jill Wine Banks (2:47)

Oh, no, no, no, no, no.

Barb McQuaid (2:49)

Gold medalist? Gold medalist?

Kimberly Atkinstore (2:51)

No, I would have totally believed it.

Jill Wine Banks (2:54)

Well, I did take ballet lessons and ice skating lessons, but going backwards was about as much as I ever accomplished in ice skating in what became by the way the NBC studios for a short time near the lakefront. But anyway, no, my fall was as part of the sexy liberal blue wave tour. I sat in the audience instead of going backstage, even though I was going to be on stage. And so when they started the show, they said, we're missing Jill. Where is Jill? And they put the light on the audience and said, come on up. And I left my seat and started to walk down the aisle in my high heels and fell flat on my face. I tripped over one of the cables, and the audience leaped up to help me up. I went on stage. I still was wearing hose back then. They were ripped. My knees were bleeding, and we were sitting on high stools, and I had to sit through the entire show with a bloody knee and just pretend like it hadn't happened. I should have dealt with it much better by, like, saying, okay, guys, you've all seen happen. Let's move on. But I tried to pretend like it hadn't happened, which was a bad way to deal with my dramatic public humiliation anyway. What about you, Kim? Have you had something that happened to you?

Kimberly Atkinstore (4:21)

Oh, well, I don't have a physical fall that I can remember happening, but I've had a performance that definitely did not go the way that I wanted. So this was many, many years ago, like, 20 plus years ago. And it was at the height of American Idol, you know, when everybody was watching that show. And so there was. I was living in Boston, and there was this contest, this American Idol style contest, and to sing the national anthem at Fenway Park. And I thought, oh, I want to go, you know, try out. So I went, you know, tried out, did pretty well in the first round, advanced on, and then I was one of the finalists. So it was going to be the final night.

Joyce Vance (5:03)

And.

Kimberly Atkinstore (5:04)

And this time there were, like, local people from local radio stations as judges and other people. And so I walk in, and I already see, like, the. The tryouts were in shifts, and I'm already seeing some of the other people performing, and they were really, really good. And I'm thinking, oh, my God, I'm, like, way over my head here. So I got so, so nervous, and it did not go well. I. I really just bombed so badly that as soon as I was done, I didn't even wait. I just left after I sang because my voice cracked. It was terrible. And I just left. And I was hoping, okay, you know what? I just won't tell anybody that happened, that this happened. I was there with my boyfriend at the time. Like, I'm not Going to tell anybody else it happened? Well, I was writing for the Herald at the time, and the next day, they didn't say that I bombed, but the next day, it's like, one of the contestants in the show. What's Kimberly at? I was like, oh, my God. Like, it was bad enough that I was terrible, but you have to tell everybody who I was. So it was not my finest moment. I don't know who ratted me out.

Jill Wine Banks (6:13)

Joyce, what about you?

Joyce Vance (6:15)

You know, fortunately, Kim, mine was not that public, which I guess I'm grateful for. And, y', all, this is so long ago, but you know how you just remember these things? I was in 8th grade doing community theater, and I thought maybe I had acting tal turns out I did not. But I was cast in the role of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland. And three quarters of the way through the first performance, I forgot a line. And the line was, when the Red Queen is doing off with your head. And the next line is, no, no. Sentence first, verdict afterwards. That was the line that I forgot. Fortunately, there was a lovely woman behind the wings who sort of mouthed the first couple of words at me. And after just massive embarrassment, I got the line out. I guess the irony is this. In the Trump era, I have used that line more than once. Right. Because it is the real, right impressanti rule of law quote from Alice in Wonderland. So I guess I ended up winning in the end.

Jill Wine Banks (7:22)

That's a great story. And, Barb, what about you?

Barb McQuaid (7:26)

Oh, so many to choose from. You know, one of the things I tell our students is one of the values of living a long time is you will embarrass yourself many, many times. And so it builds some resilience. You know, I think sometimes people are nervous to stand up in court and make an argument because they're afraid they're going to stammer or forget just the right word. And I think the value of having had many embarrassing experiences is, you know, that, like, it'll be okay. As long as you work hard to prepare and do your best, it'll be okay. I think I can't think of a performance based. You know, I just haven't had that many opportunities to be on the stage like some of you. But I can think of one life's most embarrassing moment. When I was a cub reporter for the Mackinac Island Town Crier, I may have told you guys the story before summer job, and I am one of three staffers. So we do everything like, you know, we. We sell the ads, we write the Stories. We take the photos, we deliver the paper, like we do everything on this paper. It's a great, super fun summer job. Well, one day I was the only one in the office on a weekend. And the phone rings and I answered it and it was a publicist for Governor Jim Blanchard. And they said, governor Blanchard has just hit a hole in one at the golf course. There's a beautiful golf course at the Grand Hotel. Would the paper like to come cover it? Like, you betcha. I've got this story covered. So I grabbed my reporter's notebook, I grabbed my camera, you know, old fashioned with the lenses and the whole bit. And I get on my bike because that's the only mode of transportation on Mackinac island. And I bike up there and I find them and by now they're on like, you know, the seventh hole or something like that. And I get some quotes from the governor, I find out what hole it was and what club he used and all the details. And then I asked him to pose for some photos and say, how about one with the backswing? How about one at the follow through? How about one where you're standing over the putting green? And I get him in all these poses and he does like, thanks, that's great. This is going to be the front page story of the town crier this week. And then I, I get back to the office and I discover to my horror that I had no film in the camera. Oh, back in the day you had to put film in the camera.

Kimberly Atkinstore (9:40)

Did you call him back and say, hey, can you go back to the golf course?

Barb McQuaid (9:43)

Yeah, I was too embarrassed. So that's probably the most embarrassing. Like now I just like, you know, slunk away and never to let it, never, never to speak of it again.

Kimberly Atkinstore (9:50)

Oh, that's great.

Joyce Vance (10:00)

You know, Barb, there was just a raid on a house in Birmingham and they've got like 72 pets that went to a shelter. So now's the time if you're thinking, I'll go look at all the pups for you and send you pictures.

Barb McQuaid (10:15)

Just what I need, all 72 in my house. I can see it now.

Joyce Vance (10:20)

No, seriously, if Bob and I go look at those dogs, thinking that we'll foster a couple till they get permanent homes, we'll come home with five new dogs. I mean, I know us, we really can't go. But inevitably we're going to go tomorrow morning.

Jill Wine Banks (10:32)

And we have a quick message from today's sponsor, the ASPCA Pet Health Insurance Program. We all have had so many fun times and amazing memories with our animal friends. And we know that your pet is part of your family too. Like us, you would do pretty much anything for them. But those vet bills can add up quicker than you'd think. That's why it's worth checking out ASPCA Pet Health Insurance Pet insurance can help

Joyce Vance (11:02)

manage the vet bills so you can focus on what really matters, making sure your pet gets the care they need when they need it. And right now, there's a little bonus perk for enrolling. When you enroll in an ASPCA pet health insurance plan, you can get a $25Amazon gift card. It's a little treat for you while you're doing something great for your pet. The program offers customizable accident and illness plans, making it easier to get your pet the care they may need.

Kimberly Atkinstore (11:33)

You can tailor your plan to fit your budget, your lifestyle, and your pet's particular quirks. To Explore coverage, visit aspcapetinsurance.com sisters Again, that's aspcapetinsurance.Com sisters Eligibility restrictions apply. Visit aspcapetinsurance.commazonterms for more info and the link is in our show Notes this

Barb McQuaid (12:05)

is a paid advertisement. Insurance is underwritten by either Independence American Insurance Company or or United States Fire Insurance Company and produced by PTZ Insurance Agency Ltd. The ASPCA is not an insurer and is not engaged in the business of insurance.

Kimberly Atkinstore (12:30)

The long awaited Supreme Court ruling on Trump's tariffs finally came down on Friday, and aside from the fact that Trump clearly lost looking at the 170 pages that the Court issued, the rest is about as clear as mud. That's because you literally need a murder board to figure out what the majority actually did in this case, who joined what parts, and why. It's messy, y'.

Barb McQuaid (12:58)

All.

Kimberly Atkinstore (12:58)

But first, let's start with the headline 6 to 3. The court found that Trump overstepped his legal authority by imposing all of those emergency tariffs on all these countries that he called so called reciprocal, although they were really reciprocal of nothing and there was no emergency. So Barb, give the top line about what Chief Justice John Roberts opinion said about the law and how Trump violated it.

Barb McQuaid (13:28)

Yeah, well, as we've discussed before, the Constitution of course gives to Congress the power to impose taxes and to regulate commerce, but Congress is permitted to delegate some of that authority to the President if it wants to. And the argument that the Trump administration made is that Congress did that when it enacted a statute known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It's sometimes abbreviated as IIPA because, you know, every statute has to have a catchy acronym. And what the Trump administration argued is that aipa, which is the statute, says that it allows the President to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threats that has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States. And the threat relates to the national security, foreign policy, or the economy of the United States. And the President declares a national emergency with regard to the threat. And so traditionally, what we've seen presidents use this for is imposing sanctions. So if a country maybe engages in international terrorism, there will be sanctions imposed against them, or. Or sometimes there will be retaliation if a country meddles in elections. For example, Russia got sanctioned for that. So those can be all done under ipa embargoes can be done under iepa. But what the Court held is that there was nothing in the IPA statute. And they looked at the text of the statute that gave the President this authority. Justice Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts wrote those words. The words in AIPA cannot bear such weight. AIPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties, and until now, no president has ever read AIPA to confer such power. So, striking down President Trump's use of

Kimberly Atkinstore (15:23)

tariffs, I really wish there was a more expansive, like no other president has ever done this before doctrine that comes out of this Court, because that would take care of a lot of these. That would take care of a lot of these challenges. But it's good to see the Chief justice at least apply that reasoning in this one. So, Jill, we need. Before we can move further, we kind of have to visit a legal doctrine, something a little nerdy, and we've talked about it before. It's called the major questions doctrine. Now, it is my opinion that it is something that the Court more or less made up around 2023 to make it easier for them to strike down Biden policies like the student loan policy and his EPA policy. That is my opinion, and I will die on that. Hill. But can you explain what the major question doctrine is and why did it come into play in this case?

Jill Wine Banks (16:17)

It's such an interesting doctrine. It basically says that in anything that involves a major question, the power has to be transferred to either the administrative agency, which is where it's mostly been used, or in this case, to the President by clear and concise language from Congress. And of course, in this case, they said, yeah, Congress didn't give the President the power under IPA because, as Barb has just said, there's no mention of tariffs or taxes that are part of his power. In the past, it's been used Mostly against President Biden and administrative agencies that he was supporting. So it's been used to stop administrative agencies from protecting the environment, for example, because the Supreme Court thought, no, this isn't a specific power that was granted to this administrative agency. It's too important for the agency to handle. It has to be done by Congress, which has created a real problem in terms of the regulatory state that we now live in. If Congress had to make the rules and enforce them, everything would come to a steep halt, and you wouldn't have the expertise. So Congress would have to hire all the people that now work for administrative agencies to do the work in Congress. It wouldn't change a thing. You would still need that expertise. And in this case, they said, and I should point out, that there were only three members who actually addressed it, although during the oral arguments, there were a lot of questions about this, the majored questions doctrine. But only three of the justices actually concurred in the opinion. That talks specifically about major questions doctrine,

Kimberly Atkinstore (18:10)

and we'll get to that in just one second. But it's. Yeah, I mean, it was something that the Court never cited. They never, like, if you went back and looked up through opinions looking for the major questions doctrine and, you know, law review articles on it or whatever, they weren't there because this is not something that the Court was doing. All of a sudden, during Biden's term, the Supreme Court is like, well, we have this doctrine called the major questions doctrine, and it means that if Congress gives agency a power, they have to really explicitly note that they want agencies to handle this power. And people are like, wait, what? What is this? And it was this a time, and we've talked about this before, where there was this growing animosity toward the administrative state by this court. They really didn't like the fact that agencies were putting out these regulations and putting out rules and doing what they saw as lawmaking, which is not the executive's job. And they're like, listen, Congress can only do that. So unless they specifically authorize this particular rule about how many. How much emissions that cars can give or whatever, then agencies can't do. Which is ridiculous, right? I mean, that's what agencies are supposed to do. And so now, you know, it got messy, Joyce, because the majority of justices who struck down Trump's tariffs, there were six. They had the Chief Justice, Barrett and Gorsuch, along with the liberal Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. They agreed that the tariffs were illegal. But there's no majority opinion as to why, which I think is gonna make it a little tough for lower courts to try to explain or use this Major questions doctrine. Get out the Murder board, Joyce, and tell us how these six justices to this place.

Joyce Vance (20:00)

Yeah, I mean, this is what's called a plurality decision where there's no clear majority on the court agreeing about the rationale for the decision that they all agree is the right one. Everybody agrees in the six that you can't issue tariffs under iipa. The question is, what role does the Major questions doctrine play? And this is not as bad, I think, as some plurality decisions where you just can't discern a rule. I mean, here at least is daeipa. It's clear Robertson, Gorsuch would strike down tariffs because they violate the Major questions doctrine. And Kim, I will die on your Hill with you. You know, that doctrine is just something that was created to protect conservative interests, which is exactly what it's doing here, by the way. This opinion is really six. Three against maga. Right. Maga is the three. Roberts and Gorsuch write in support of the view of folks like the Koch brothers. And we all saw the markets rebound, by the way, this morning after this decision came out. I'm sure Pam Bondi felt very proud as the Dow went up. But Justice Barrett's decision is interesting because she tries to finesse the Major questions doctrine, but she's clearly in the 3. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson continue to take the view that I think is the correct one here, that the text of the statute plainly does not authorize a president to borrow tariff powers from Congress. So these tariffs aren't legal, period. I mean, the conservatives are supposed to be the textualists, and they seem to have just really abandoned any pretense of that. There was no need to even reach the Major questions doctrine, which is what the three progressive justices say, because the language of the statute is plain. So this is really a conversation that the three in the majority are having with the three who didn't join. And this issue about the Major questions doctrine will be decided another day.

Kimberly Atkinstore (22:03)

Yes, there was a majority in this case, as there are in most cases, but it splintered the majority. What do you think about the conservative majority of the Court? You had Thomas, who. His reasoning is always just confounding to me. I'm not exactly sure what his rationale was other than, well, of course, the President. If the President did it, it must be right, let him do it.

Barb McQuaid (22:23)

It really does seem like that these days, doesn'? I hate to be that cynical, but

Joyce Vance (22:28)

he and Alita both are Like, I'm sorry, which cynicism. When it's true, they will contort themselves into any shape, no matter how painful, to support this president. And I hate that, and I regret saying it, but it is simply the reality we live with.

Kimberly Atkinstore (22:45)

Right? And, you know, but you had Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas who said, you know, this, this is fine. He declared an emergency. This statute says emergency, so he should have been able to do it. I found Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurrence really interesting because he, he just kind of cusses everybody out. Like, he, he, he was just like, okay, we, you know, three of us got it right and applied the major questions, doctored and came to the right decision. Although Barrett did it in a weird way, but, you know, you do you girl. But like all of the people in the, in the, the rest of the majority, the liberal justices, they don't like the major questions doctrine, but they major. They basically applied it by reading the statute. It's like, no, like, that's the, like, what are you talking about? And then he also gets really angry at the, you know, the dissenters, too. Like, Gorsuch was just, like, mad at everybody. But that sort of is what brought me to my question. It's like, yes, on the one hand, this is an important decision because it's one of the very few times that this Supreme Court has turned to President Trump and said, no, you cannot do this. You do not have the authority to do this under the Constitution or federal law. And that's important. But they could not. They splint figuring out why they splintered. The court basically splintered. And that makes me worry that if it's this hard for this court, in a case that seems pretty clear to me when you read the statute, it doesn't say tariffs. What does that mean? What takeaway do you guys have from that? I mean, I'm thinking lower courts. Yes. Not in an IIPA case. Ayipa sounds like the sound I make if I see a mouse in the house or something. You know, not when it comes to aipa. Joyce is right. But any other case that has to do with agency action. Do they apply the major questions, Doctor, do they not. Do they do a strict statutory construct? What would that look like? If I were a lower court judge, I would say, what in the world? How do we handle all these Trump challenges? Talk me off the ledge.

Jill Wine Banks (25:02)

I do think it went further and gives power to the lower courts to say, well, the Supreme Court's willing to say no, I have to analyze things carefully, and maybe I can get away with saying no. Although I'm sure you've all heard the press conference at which he said the court was influenced by foreign countries. They're all traitors. I mean, he's gone way, way far beyond just criticizing an opinion to personally attacking the justices. So maybe lower court justices won't feel so empowered. I don't know.

Kimberly Atkinstore (25:39)

Nothing says you have the winning argument, then just blowing out ad hominems left, right, and sideways. That just says.

Joyce Vance (25:46)

But you know what really distressed me about the press conference? I mean, I know this is about the politics, not the law, but Trump praising Kavanaugh just in glowing terms with State of the Union just around the corner next Tuesday. And you gotta wonder, are any of the Supreme Court justices gonna show up? I think Alito typically doesn't go after his little run in with Obama. Right? Yeah.

Kimberly Atkinstore (26:10)

He hasn't been in years.

Joyce Vance (26:11)

Oh, yeah.

Barb McQuaid (26:11)

Over Citizens United, right?

Joyce Vance (26:13)

Ye.

Jill Wine Banks (26:14)

Right.

Barb McQuaid (26:14)

He shook his head and said, no, you lied. He didn't say you lied.

Kimberly Atkinstore (26:18)

No, he didn't say you lied.

Jill Wine Banks (26:19)

He said.

Kimberly Atkinstore (26:19)

He just said, not true.

Joyce Vance (26:21)

Not true.

Kimberly Atkinstore (26:22)

Yeah, he said that was a member of Congress. Yeah. Alito shook his head and said, not true.

Joyce Vance (26:28)

How does Brett Kavanaugh go into the State of the Union address after the President has just. It's just. It's so disgusting. It's just awful.

Jill Wine Banks (26:37)

Well, remember, he did thank Chief Justice Roberts for the immunity decision, basically, so last year.

Joyce Vance (26:44)

Thank you. I won't forget. Yes.

Jill Wine Banks (26:46)

Yeah, exactly. So we'll see.

Kimberly Atkinstore (26:48)

We'll see if the chief usually does go. So that's going to be a little chilly.

Joyce Vance (26:52)

Well, and you know, here's the irony, right? Apparently Trump forgot it because last year it was all hugs and kisses with Chief Justice Roberts, and now this year it's like, man, you are dead to me. You are foreign interest.

Barb McQuaid (27:04)

What have you done for me lately? That's Trump mantra, right?

Joyce Vance (27:07)

I mean, it's his Eddie Murphy moment with the Supreme Court, but there are

Jill Wine Banks (27:11)

commentators who are saying that they may have done him a big favor. It's like taking the matches away from the baby because his tariffs are so unpopular that by taking them away, it may give enough time before the midterms to let him recover and people forget how bad the tariffs were. I don't go along with that.

Joyce Vance (27:33)

But let's just put it into context, right? This case is only about tariffs that Trump imposed under aipa. He has plenty of tariff authority granted by Congress. In other contexts, the reason that they used iepa and Tim flagged this it's another one of those statutes that gives presidents extraordinary powers in emergency situations. So Trump seizes the power, says there's an emergency, tells the courts that they can't review his decision. And what he gains is the ability to impose these tariffs without any of the restrictions Congress imposes in other statutes where they limit how long they can last or how high of a percentage they can be. I mean, this was a power grab. And thank goodness the Supreme Court, at least six of them, finally said no. It does. It concerns me like it does you, Kim, that three of them even now couldn't say no to Trump.

Kimberly Atkinstore (28:25)

Yeah. And it's like that's how Trump has been ruling. Right. He issues an executive order out of thin air, declares something to be an emergency. Like, you know, same thing with the immigration policy and all of this, and then just starts acting. And if they can't, clearly, and this should be unanimous, clearly and unifiedly, say there are separations of power. You cannot do this. You are not a king. If it takes all this machination. I don't know, maybe I'm overthinking, but just, I am glad that the decision came out the way that it did, but I do worry about the future.

Jill Wine Banks (28:57)

But, Joyce, you had a good subsect post decision this morning making the point about the power grab and the use of, quote, emergency powers. But I also want to point out that the court did say, you know, there are other ways you could have done this. And they sort of point to some of those.

Kimberly Atkinstore (29:17)

Gave a roadmap.

Joyce Vance (29:18)

Absolutely right.

Jill Wine Banks (29:20)

Exactly. So that's a little scary. Like, okay, why don't you try, you know, yeah, you can only do 15% for 150 days, but, hey, go for it.

Kimberly Atkinstore (29:29)

You know, at least that they're writing the legislation.

Joyce Vance (29:32)

I mean, I'm not going to take up for Kavanaugh, but the reality is, you know, Congress has the power to impose tariffs. They're able to loan it to the president if they do it for clearly. And this was about whether or not Trump had gone too far into stealing power from Congress. I think it's ironic that Congress didn't stand up for itself and it was the court that had to do it. Institutional wins wherever I can get them these days.

Barb McQuaid (29:58)

Hey, can I end this segment on a happy note?

Joyce Vance (30:01)

Sure, go for happy.

Barb McQuaid (30:03)

I'm going to end this on a happy note. I just saw on social media Olympics Update, and there's a photo of Donald Trump sitting at his desk with his eyes closed. Trump wins gold in downhill presidency.

Joyce Vance (30:31)

When you're building a career or growing a family, giving your all isn't an option, it's the default. Whether you're preparing for a case, presenting at a morning meeting, or teaming up with your kids to get through their math homework, your days can feel exhausting. So when the weight of the world is on your shoulders, you need to make the place you rest into your personal sanctuary where you can relax, reset, and get the sleep you need to take on the days ahead. Quick fixes and viral trends are not going to get you there, but upgrading your bedding and choosing comfort that lasts definitely will.

Kimberly Atkinstore (31:07)

Enter bowl and Branch Sheets Made for moments of unmatched comfort, they're breathable, incredibly soft, and designed to get better over time. Which means that the rest you get and the way you think about it will as well. And while I'm thinking about it, the best way to describe bowl and branch sheets is really dreamy. I mean, you know when you put on clothes that feel really nice, like they were made for you, imagine that in be that's really what it feels like to me. It's not just that they're soft, it's like you just sink into it and you don't even think about it. You just go to sleep. With bowl and branch, you get to enjoy sleep that you don't have to compromise on.

Barb McQuaid (31:47)

I used to think that sheets came in only two styles, regular and scratchy. I didn't know how wrong I was because bowl and branch has definitely changed the game. Ever since I put them on my bed, I have been so snug I haven't wanted to get up. They are buttery soft right from the start and incredibly they get softer with every wash. I've become such a fan during the cold winter weather that I might need to get a second set so I have one to take with me when it's time to travel. I am never going back to the old ones. You need to experience their unmatched softness for yourself. Once you do, there is no going back.

Jill Wine Banks (32:23)

They have over 25amazing colors that will complement any room or style. My favorite color for my bedroom is light green, so it was an easy choice for me. Though I was very tempted by some of the other colors, especially the peachy ones. It's so much fun to pick them out for your family or as a gift for someone else. But don't wait to get them and get the best rest you ever have had when you buy them for yourself. Combine luxurious comfort with the perfect aesthetic, vibe and sleep sound. With Bolen Branch get 15% off your first order plus free shipping at bolandbranch.com sisters with code sisters that's Boland Branch B O L L A N D branch.com sisters code sisters to unlock 15% off exclusions apply and the link is in our show not.

Barb McQuaid (33:29)

When you love seafood, you deserve the best at the grocery store. You never know where it came from, what it might have in it or whether it's sustainable. That's why you need a provider you can trust. For us, that's Wild Alaskan company it's the best way to get wild caught. Perfectly portioned, nutrient dense seafood delivered directly to your door. Trust me, you have not tasted fish this good. We always recommend them and it's wonderful to know our friends, family and I are all getting the best.

Kimberly Atkinstore (33:58)

Everything from wild Alaskan is 100% wild caught and never farmed. This means there are no antibiotics, no GMOs, no additives in their catch. Just clean real fish that support healthy oceans and fishing communities. And I think about that even more in like this week with the news of some farm raised fish causing a recall just because of what they may be spreading. So I really love that I'm getting something I can trust. Don't settle for less. Go with fish that are nutrient rich, full of flavor and with wild Alaskan that's a given. Their fish is frozen off the boat to lock in taste, texture and nutrients like omega 3s and you can tell the difference right away.

Jill Wine Banks (34:43)

Like us, you'll love that everything from Wild Alaskan is sustainably sourced and wild caught from Alaska with every order supporting sustainable harvesting practices. Plus becoming a member means your deliveries are flexible and at your own pace. Plus you'll get chef tips on how to cook what you get. It's all endless smorgasbord of truly feel good seafood. I love the Pacific Halibut for a tasty treat that's low in fat, high in protein and rich in omega 3s. It's a delicious whitefish that turns into a savory looking bright white when you cook it and it's perfect with just a sear or a grill. But if you feel more adventuresome, it's also amazing in tacos or a curry. You'll need to try all of their fish and there are so many other amazing options to choose from.

Joyce Vance (35:37)

You know it really is good in curry. We don't always think of fish curries when we're thinking about a fast food dinner, but with Wild Alaskan I can have dinner on the table in about 20 minutes and it tastes like something you'd eat at a restaurant. If you're not completely satisfied with your first box, Wild Alaskan company will give you a full refund, no questions asked. There's no risk, just high quality seafood. Not all fish are the same. Get seafood you can trust. Go to wildalaskan.com sisters for $35 off your first box of premium wild caught seafood. That's wildalaskan.com sisters For $35 off your first order. So here's a big thanks to wild alaskan company for sponsoring this episode. The link is in our show notes.

Barb McQuaid (36:37)

Well, this week, Stephen Colbert had another run in with cbs, the network that airs his late night comedy show. According to Colbert, CBS refused to let him air an interview with James Tallarico. He's a candidate for the U.S. senate from Texas. Let's break that down. First, Joyce, tell us about this controversy, according to Colbert. What happened?

Joyce Vance (36:59)

Yeah, I mean, this is crazy, right? Colbert shares the story that he was told by the network's lawyers that he couldn't have Texas Democrat James Talarico, he's running in a contested primary against Jasmine Crockett for the U.S. senate in Texas. And according to Colbert, who personally I have every reason to believe the lawyers told him that he couldn't have Talarico on his show because of Federal Communications Commission rules that require broadcasters to give equal time to opposing political candidates. So Colbert, being Colbert, put the segment on YouTube. And the last time I took a look at his numbers on YouTube, it had just millions of views. He was killing it. It was like four or five times more than the number of view viewers on his late night show. So, you know, much props to Colbert, who instead of caving has yet again shown us what it looks like to stand up to a bully.

Barb McQuaid (37:59)

Yeah. You know, this reminds me of what they call the Barbra Streisand effect. You know, I think there's like some flyover pilot who showed a picture of her house and she got all mad and she complained about it and nobody saw the original picture. But once she started complaining about how they publicized the location of her home, then everybody started paying attention to it.

Joyce Vance (38:17)

Right.

Barb McQuaid (38:17)

So you draw attention.

Kimberly Atkinstore (38:18)

People started playing the visuals on a loop. Like everybody saw every angle of purpose dress.

Barb McQuaid (38:22)

Yeah. So same way like, you know, how many people would have seen this interview if they just aired it on the Colbert Report? Who knows? But, you know, millions of people have now seen it because it was on, on social media and on YouTube. Well, as Joyce said, what CBS reported, now their story is A little bit different from Colbert's, though. I think the gist is the same. I think what CBS said is if you run this on the air, the show will be exposed to some legal challenges under the equal time rule, which is part of the Federal Communications Act. And let's talk about what that is, Kim, what is the equal time rule?

Kimberly Atkinstore (39:05)

Yeah, so it is, as you said, a part of federal law that governs broadcast stations. Okay. So the reason that he. That Colbert was able to put this on YouTube is that the FCC does not regulate the Internet. They don't regulate cable, only the waves that go through the air. That's all. And so that really covers the major networks that we used to use that we used to need, you know, rabbit ears to see. I'm aging myself. But what that does is it says that if a network puts a candidate, a political candidate, so not just any politician, but anybody run currently running for office on air, they have to provide, offer equal time to the candidate's opponent should they ask for it. Which is an important caveat there. There are also exceptions to the rule which include just a news program. If a candidate does something and you report on it, and it's just a matter of public interest, you don't have to give their opponent extra time for that. And there's also an exclusion for what is called interview programs. Now, the last time I looked at Colbert, that to me seemed to be an interview program. But, you know, here we are. This is where we are at this time. We already know that Colbert, the administration has beef with Colbert and others at cb BS for various reasons. So I, I feel like this is political, but that's just my opinion.

Barb McQuaid (40:43)

Well, Jill, the FCC issued some new guidance this year about how this FCC under the Trump administration intended to enforce the equal time rule. What's their new interpretation that caused CBS to have some concern?

Jill Wine Banks (40:59)

Basically, it's if you say anything against Trump, you can't do it.

Barb McQuaid (41:03)

But

Jill Wine Banks (41:05)

they probably couched it in more regulatory language than that and said, yeah, those exceptions don't apply anymore. We don't care if you're a new show. And they have gone after the View as well as the Colbert show and said, yeah, you can't do it. And if I'm not mistaken, Colbert actually had already interviewed Jasmine Crockett, who is Talarico's primary opponent. So. So in fact, he had given equal time. Except that now, of course, because this interview got so many more views through YouTube than it would have if they had broadcast it. Maybe he didn't get Equal time. He should put the Jasmine Crockett one online, too. So, yeah, they said we're not going to do that. You just no exceptions for new shows. And besides, you aren't a new show and you're not eligible for this exemption.

Joyce Vance (42:01)

Yeah.

Barb McQuaid (42:01)

And you know, the problem when the law gets interpreted this way is that it's hard to know where the legal line is and when you might cross it. Joyce, of course, the FCC is led by Brendan Carr. I would say that he has been among the Trumpiest of the Trump appointees. What can you tell us about Carr?

Joyce Vance (42:20)

Well, I would say that you would be 100%, Ms. McQuaid. Look, Carr wrote the Project 2025 chapter on the FCC. I mean, do I need to say anything else? Right. He wrote Project 2025. He claimed, by the way, that bipartisanship on the FCC, you know, there's this long tradition, bipartisan membership in action. He claimed it's a matter of tradition, not law. And he really has suggested, without actually coming out and saying it for some time, that Trump could change that tradition of bipartisanship. Now he just seems putting that unspoken statement into effect. And it's a really serious problem because the FCC regulates radio, television, wire, satellite, cable networks. You know, if you think grandpa is having a bad time watching only Fox News, imagine a universe where only Fox is available, right? Where that's all that's out there. So Carr has suggested he could take away broadcast licenses from media companies that don't operate in the public interest. Having Carr there is, I mean, it's just. Welcome to George Orwell's 1984.

Barb McQuaid (43:33)

Yeah, and you wrote a good piece in your substack, Joyce, your Civil Discourse newsletter about this issue, and a couple other things I'll note. Brendan Carr wears not a US Flag pin, which many politicians do, but a Trump pin. Like a pin.

Joyce Vance (43:50)

It's crazy, isn't it?

Barb McQuaid (43:52)

It's creepy.

Jill Wine Banks (43:52)

Yes.

Barb McQuaid (43:53)

A pin with the silhouette in gold of Donald Trump. That's really creepy. Remember, he is also the one who said back when there was another issue about we can do this the hard way or the easy way, he has threatened to take away the license of networks that have DEI programs in their own hiring. And so, as I say, I see him as among the Trumpiest of the Trump appointees, and he is the guy who's deciding how to enforce the equal time rule. So I, I can understand the skittishness of cbs, but it also makes me applaud Stephen Colbert for standing up to this kind of use of the law. As a weapon and as a way to silence free speech. Hey, Kim, I want to ask you about something. I, I often hear a conflation between the equal time rule and the Fairness Doctrine, and I think people sometimes fail to differentiate between the two. The Fairness Doctrine is no longer enforced. Can you tell us what the Fairness Doctrine is and help us maybe put into context, you know, that ended. It's no longer enforced, what that has wrought.

Kimberly Atkinstore (45:13)

Yeah, so the Fairness Doctrine in. Was a much stronger rule that used to be in place by the fcc. And what that did was, first of all, it required networks who had FCC licenses to devote some of their time on public interest programming. And within this requirement to devote to public interest programming, you had to give equal time to both sides of controversial issues in the public interest. I mean, it's, it's. To say it now sounds a little crazy because it's literally putting this federal agency basically in the programming department of all these networks, deciding what they had to cover and exactly how they had to cover. So not surprisingly, that ran into some First Amendment problems with the government really forcing what networks could and could not say. Far beyond just regulating how they did it or ensuring that, you know, if a candidate, if somebody, the. The equal time rules more meant to give an opportunity. If a candidate calls, you know, his opponent a, a child beater, you got to give the other time to get on the same stage in the same way and defend themselves, you know, so that's really what the equal time rule, although I have my issues with that too, is more aimed at doing. The Fairness Doctrine was just so broad that it stopped being enforced because it's pretty clear it was unconstitutional and that Congress really didn't give the FCC that, that power. So since that ended, I know there is a thought that I don't necessarily agree with that, you know, the end of the Fairness Doctrine meant the beginning of what we have now, which is a really fractured media ecosystem where, you know, Fox News and other ultra conservative media was allowed to rise while facts were left at the wayside. I think, I think that Fox News and the rise of the kind of conservative media we've seen over the past decades had more to do with greed and ratings. I think you had people like Rupert Murdoch who didn't really care so much about the truth as he did about getting views and getting a lot of ratings. And by airing salacious stuff, a lot of people tuned into Fox and that kind of became the new rule. I think it was abused by the people who are in charge of those networks as opposed to a failure on the part of regulators. But that's just my opinion. I understand why some people think that, but I think that there's a better way of ensuring that people have fairness and integrity when they broadcast things than a sort of a draconian rule coming from the federal government telling networks what they can and can't say.

Barb McQuaid (47:58)

Oh, you're such a journalist. That's such a journalist. Yeah, I'm not sure I agree. And I say I'm not sure. I'm not certain. But, you know, there was a Supreme Court case, I remember learning about this in an undergraduate course on communications law, and there was a Supreme court case in 1969 called Red Lion Broadcasting, where the Supreme Court did uphold the Fairness Doctrine, but in fairness. See what I did there? To Kim's argument? The reasoning of that case was about the fact that the broadcast spectrum was finite. Right. We had licensure for radio and television, and that was it. And the Reagan administration stopped enforcing it when cable news came along because they said it's no longer finite. We have all of these other options. And so we're not going to require, as a condition of having this broadcast license, we're not going to require you to, you know, kind of tell the other side, because the marketplace of ideas now has lots of different sellers. And so all these other voices will provide that other perspective. But I do think a consequence of no longer enforcing the Fairness Doctrine is that it gave us Rush Limbaugh. You know, he. He can just give one side of the story and never has to talk about the other side of the issue or Fox News. And I know you say, well, this is because we have bad people doing running these networks. We do. But how do you stop them? Because the business of business is business. They just want to get, you know, viewers share and all that sort of stuff. So is regulation perhaps an answer to it? I don't know. But, you know, when you think about the explosion in what is a broadcaster now with social Media, broadcasting is YouTube, broadcasting is a substack, live broadcasting. I think it becomes, as a practical matter, pretty difficult to enforce the Fairness Doctrine. So maybe we agree in the end, even if we get there in different ways. Jill, let me ask you one last question. This is not the first time Stephen Colbert has spoken out about CBS's submission to the Trump administration. Can you remind our listeners of that earlier controversy?

Jill Wine Banks (50:07)

Surely I can, because it shows exactly where we're at and why he was even freer to criticize now because he was fired for the first one and that was when he criticized his bosses for having settled with Trump for $16 million to settle up a totally meritless lawsuit over edits to a 60 minute interview of Kamala Harris, at the time a presidential candidate. And they settled rather than saying no, this is how it goes and we were right to do it and we didn't do anything. He called it a big fat bribe on air. And all of a sudden CBS said, you're not profitable enough. We're firing you when your contract expires, which is not until May. So everyone watch Stephen Colbert every night until the end of his term. And then let's hope he goes somewhere else because he brings me great joy every night. And I know Joyce is pandering to him right now.

Joyce Vance (51:17)

Right?

Jill Wine Banks (51:18)

You want to be on his show?

Joyce Vance (51:19)

I am, I am. You know, I was so sad during my book tour. I really wanted to go on Colbert's. He didn't invite me, so I'm like hoping now that he'll read my piece and go Choice fans. I should talk to her about her book. She's really funny. This episode is brought to you by IQ Bar, our exclusive snack, hydration and coffee sponsor. IQ Bar Protein Bars, IQ Mix Hydration Mixes and IQ Joe Mushroom Coffees are the delicious, low sugar brain and body fuel you need to win your day. There's no better way to start off 2026 with a clean slate, and now's the perfect time to transform frustration into fuel and power your day with I.Q.

Jill Wine Banks (52:12)

bar and Joyce. I'm sure you know this, but they have something for everyone. We recommend the Ultimate Sample Pack. It's a great way to try all of IQ Bars, products and flavors, complete with nine IQ Bars, eight IQ Mix Sticks, and four IQ Joe sticks. Unlike a lot of the stuff out there, you don't have to worry about what you're getting. All IQ Bar products are clean, label, certified and entirely free from gluten, dairy, soy, GMOs, and artificial ingredients so you know you're treating yourself to the best when you use them. Plus, all IQ Bar products are packed with clean, delicious ingredients that keep you physically and mentally fit, like magnesium, lion's mane, and more.

Barb McQuaid (53:00)

Between teaching, podcasting and keeping up with the news, it can be hard to find the time to get the nutrition and energy we need to beat the clock. That's why I'm so glad we discovered IQ Bar and their awesome products. Their Chocolate Sea Salt Plant protein bars are so convenient to carry around in your bag. And when I'm in a rush, the original black IQ Joe is a powerful burst of delicious, caffeinated mushroom coffee. The only problem is deciding what flavor I want that day. So the Ultimate Sampler Pack is a must. There's so much variety, you need to try it for yourself.

Kimberly Atkinstore (53:35)

2026 gives us all a chance to reset and maximize our brain and body's potential with IQ bars, protein bars, hydration mixes, and mushroom coffees. Don't forget their Ultimate Sampler pack includes all three. And right now, IQ Bar is offering our special podcast listeners 20% off all IQ Bar products, including the Ultimate Sampler Pack, plus free shipping. To get your 20% off, text sisters to 64,000. Again, text the word sisters to 64,640. That's sisters to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply. See the terms for details. The link is in our show notes.

Joyce Vance (54:22)

You know, the problem with podcasting with four kids is that all of my kids love this stuff and they fight over it. And I find that I have to get more than I need just so I can get a little bit for myself. Well, everyone who was up early Thursday morning, and that would include me, probably saw the notice flash across their screen more than once saying that Andrew Mountbatten Windsor had been taken into custody by British police. Andrew has already faced some measure of accountability for his conduct in connection with Epstein. He lost his royal title, he's no longer a prince, and he was forced out of his royal lodgings. But, you know, he has never told the truth or faced legal consequences for allegations that he had sex with at least one minor girl. So, Barb, let's start with that early morning arrest and be clear about what happened, because the British legal system is a little bit different than ours. Andrew does not seem to have been charged, at least not yet. So what was the arrest about and what sorts of crimes are British officials investigating?

Barb McQuaid (55:34)

Yeah, they called this misconduct in office and they have not revealed the details of what the arrest is about. He has been released, but he has not been formally charged. So we haven't had a chance to really see exactly what this is about. It may have something to do with sex trafficking of minor girls, but it seems quite possible it's not related to that, but is instead related to his inappropriate sharing of confidential information with Jeffrey Epstein. One of the jobs he had in his portfolio was to be the trade envoy for the uk, and in that work he traveled the world, including South Africa and other places, and had confidential financial information. You know, as people who have read some of the Epstein emails know, one of the things Epstein was trafficking in was information. He groomed people, not just the girls who were his victims, but also all these other people. Right. He would share little nuggets of information with people, and that was one of the things he wanted in exchange was information that he could utilize as a financial advisor or in other ways. And so it could very well be that this misconduct in office is not about what Prince Andrew did in his personal life, which is still repugnant, reprehensible, and perhaps even criminal, but it could be related to his official duties as a prince, as this trade envoy.

Joyce Vance (57:05)

Yeah, I mean, it's fascinating. They interviewed him. We don't know exactly for how long. I think he was in custody for about 12 hours. But we know that they interviewed him, they served, searched both his current and his former residence. So it sounds like the investigation is very live. I guess it's. Stay tuned on whether there will be charges. But, Kim, you know, I saved this question just for you because I know that, like me, you have strong feelings about the British Royal family. How did the Crown react and how does it compare to Donald Trump's reaction?

Kimberly Atkinstore (57:37)

Oh, my goodness. I would be so mad if my brother reacted this way, if I was in trouble. But I am pleased with the way that King Charles III react, React, Reacted to this news. A part of his statement reads, let me state clearly, the law must take its course. He said, too long. Didn't read. I ain't in it. Does it have nothing to do with us? This is between Andrew and the authorities, and good luck with that. I mean, he. He called for a full, fair, improper process, an appropriate investigation. He said all the right things, essentially. And this is important because, you know, as everyone who watched the Crown knows, it seems that, you know, when you are a member of the monarchy, you get a lot of protections. You are not treated like most other people. And it seems, at least from the statement that King Charles made his brother, he's saying that, look, you're like an ordinary British citizen right now, and the law must treat you as such, and the process should be fair. So definitely some distancing happening from the Crown, because understandably, I think the last thing that Charles needs right now is for the Crown to be associated with Epstein, of all things.

Joyce Vance (59:03)

I mean, did you not think it was sort of ironic that the country that actually has a king sort of did the. No man is above the funny thing.

Jill Wine Banks (59:11)

Yeah. Yes.

Kimberly Atkinstore (59:12)

It's like. And I mean, and everything, including this, you know, if. If there are charges, the criminal proceeding is going to be done, essentially. In the name of the King. So it's like it's, you know, the brother is in charge of it, but the brother's like you on your own. But he.

Joyce Vance (59:29)

Did you see what Donald Trump said by comparison last night?

Kimberly Atkinstore (59:33)

Yes. He said it was very, very sad. But it's a total. I can speak as an expert. It's exoneration for me. I'm totally exonerated. And as a totally exonerated person, I can say he's very sad.

Barb McQuaid (59:46)

You know, I'm paraphrasing and say if they need a new actor to perform the role of Donald, we got one right here.

Joyce Vance (59:54)

I mean, by golly, you just cannot make this stuff up. It's just nuts. Well, Jill, let's be serious just for a minute. You know, Andrew is not the only one in the United Kingdom who's sort of under the lens. What else is happening there in regards to people who had involvement with Jeffrey Epstein?

Jill Wine Banks (60:12)

So, of course, it's not just in the uk this reaches worldwide to other governments and other leaders, other prominent citizens. But in the uk, it's led to a very interesting person who I really didn't know about until this happened and find totally fascinating. It's led to the. The firing of Peter Mendelsohn, who was the ambassador from Britain to the US and was relieved of his duties because he was found to have been in the birthday book. You all remember the birthday book, where Trump had the outline of a lady. Well, he had. Peter Mendelsohn had one that said, to my best pal. And that was enough for him being fired. But the more I learned about him, it's not the first time he's been out of government. This man has a very, very fascinating history and a very patchwork career. He basically is credited with having started what is the modern Labor Party and bringing governments to power. But he's been relieved of his duties. He was the comms director for the Labor Party, and then he got in some trouble and that ended.

Kimberly Atkinstore (61:28)

And.

Jill Wine Banks (61:28)

And then he was a trade rep, and that ended. And then he came back in another position and then he eventually got out and he was an EU trade rep. I mean, it's hard to believe. And now it's leading to his being investigated for possible conduct similar to Andrew's, of leaking information of great financial benefit to Epstein. They found in, in the Epstein files a lot of emails that show that he was giving information that gave confidential British economic information to him, to Epstein that helped Epstein. So that's what he's being looked at just as is Epstein. But it's also leading to consequences for the Prime Minister, who is being criticized for. How did he hire him at this point, they already knew about his relationship to Epstein in terms of the sexual stuff. Although I have to say he says, I really didn't know about that because I'm gay. So they kept me away from it. Which is one of the most interesting excuses I have ever heard for why.

Kimberly Atkinstore (62:37)

How could I have possibly. I'm gay. Which keeps my eyes and ears from working. When reports about Jeffrey Epstein being charged with sexual misconduct and trafficking happen. Being gay means that I cannot comprehend that.

Jill Wine Banks (62:52)

Even though he wrote to Epstein saying, I want to help you, what of my contacts could I reach out to to help you in this terrible situation in regards to the Florida case of his having sex with a minor. So, I mean, it's of course ridiculous, but Starmer is now looking to be in trouble for having hired him. And Prince Charles III may be in trouble. It's being reported that this is his Watergate. What did he know and when did he know it? What was his role in paying $14 million to one of the victims to Virginia Giuffre. Virginia Giuffre for Andrew paying for his misconduct.

Kimberly Atkinstore (63:39)

Civil sedimentary.

Jill Wine Banks (63:40)

And so, you know, know, someone says, well, it was really the Queen and Andrew was her favorite son, so that's why it was paid. But there are other reports that at the time of the payment, Charles was really in charge because she was very ill with cancer and was not functioning very much as making these decisions. And so it's now a challenge to the monarchy because of this happening. So the consequences of the Epstein files, these are, I would say, unforeseen consequences beyond who had sex with who is, who was friends with him and doing bad things and helping him out. And so there are a lot of people now in trouble because of the release of the Epstein files.

Barb McQuaid (64:26)

You know, I was going to say, I kind of feel like you certainly make valid points, but I feel like the media has been so excited about really famous, powerful people being sort of compromised and embarrassed because they had relationships with Jeffrey Epstein, even after it came out that he was this child predator, which is awful. But I really feel like it has overshadowed what I think is really going on here. And that is DOJ's concealment of what still appear to be co conspirators in this case. CNN ran a great piece. I'm gonna put it in the show. Notes of 13 redactions that we have questions about. Like there's one, an email from a Redacted person to Jeffrey Epstein. Thank you for a fun night. Your littlest girl was a little naughty. We don't know who that is. And under the statute, there is no basis for that redaction. There's another one about. I found three very good, good young girls for you. They're very poor. Maybe not a beauty queen, this one, but I think she'll be good for you. We don't know who sent that. Here's another one. I met your little Lolita from Nabokov Femme miniature. And we don't know who that was. There's a draft indictment that names not just Trump, but three other unindicted co conspirators. Actually, I guess they were going to be co conspirators. Yeah, we don't. Who are those four? There is a chart that shows Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and this other woman, Leslie Groff, who was his longtime assistant. And then there's four other people that are on a link chart as potential co conspirators. Who are they? There's a whole bunch of these. As I said, CNN like pick the top 13. Are there more?

Kimberly Atkinstore (66:17)

There really are because we still only have about half of the documents that they are the DOJ still REM in violation of the law because even there are still documents that have not been released. And your point is so important, Barb, because the difference, and we'll get to this a little more, but the difference between what's happening in the US and what's happening in other countries is that there are consequences for this in other countries. But here you have the DOJ basically saying our job is done here. We don't see any. We're not investigating. There will be no charges. So you can't even with Congress asking and pushing for more of these documents to be released, even with journalists going through it and trying to find out what you know is in this trove of millions of documents. It hits a dead. It hits a wall at the end. Unless some crimes may have been state law, crimes have been created where Epstein has homes in Florida or New York or other places.

Barb McQuaid (67:12)

Well, New Mexico is going to start investigating.

Kimberly Atkinstore (67:14)

Yes, there is investigation.

Joyce Vance (67:15)

And the good news is there's no federal statute of limitations on some of these crimes, although obviously evidence doesn't get any better when it sits around. But Barb, to your excellent point, you know, Mim Rocca and I wrote a piece that I'll drop in the show Notes too, where we simply were looking in the DOJ database and there's so much There that has more questions. I love that CNN pulled out these. Mimi and I just searched for the term Brazilian and came up with so many appalling, shocking documents that were investigative leads that you would expect DOJ to follow. And what's so concerning is we see here that DOJ was trying to do its job right, that there was a draft indictment. We know that there's email traffic that talks about co conspirators. So does Pam Bondi just come in and shut it down? We don't really know the answer. And there has to be a full accounting here. Which I guess leads me to my last question to y'. All. I mean, we've talked about what's happening in Britain. How do y' all compare the Brit's handling of Andrew to DOJ's handling of of everyone who is not a prominent Democrat? And I guess my question really is just this. Why are we so bad at this?

Barb McQuaid (68:31)

Because we have an immoral president who has normalized all of this bad behavior and has convinced us it's not a big deal. I will also say I still hold it against Bill Clinton for minimizing his lies about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. I think that gave Republicans this ability to say Democrats started this. I think anybody who minimizes power imbalances and exploitive relationships deserves to be held accountable.

Jill Wine Banks (69:04)

I would also add, I would blame Pam Bondi because her appearance before the Oversight Committee was one of the most despicable and inappropriate presentations by a representative of the Department of Justice that has ever happened. And that includes Attorney General Mitchell who went to jail. So I just think that she not only has washed her hands of we're not going to do anything, but she is insulting and dismissive of any possibility of disclosures. And that is a really serious thing that makes all of us former DOJ ers ashamed.

Kimberly Atkinstore (69:57)

You know, we've talked before about one Skin really stands out as a skincare company. And it's not just hype or fancy packaging. It's real science. Their founding team is composed of longevity researchers who asked a deceptively simple question. If many visible signs of aging, like wrinkles, fine lines and loss of elasticity are driven by so called zombie cells, what if you could actually reduce those cells to slow the aging process down instead of just covering it up. That research led to OS1.1 Skin's proprietary peptide. It's the first ingredient proven to switch off those damage damage senescent cells and actually slow skin aging directly at the source.

Jill Wine Banks (70:43)

And it's serious science that fits easily into my routine. And that's one of the things we love about Oneskin. So many products rely on slick branding or filler ingredients, but not Oneskin. Every time I use them, I give my skin a clear signal to repair damaged cells, support collagen production and strengthen my skin barrier. Barrier. Now I can't get enough of one skin. Whenever I get dried out on planes or while I'm out in the winter winds in Chicago, I use OneSkin's OS01 face topical supplement to fight back against dryness. The supplement makes your skin look fresh and leaves it ready for anything the elements throw at you when you need it most.

Joyce Vance (71:29)

With Oneskin, my skin feels so much smoother and way less stressed. And best of all, Oneskin's regimen works fast and the formulas feel amazing to apply. This isn't just our experience though. Oneskin's products are backed by extensive lab and clinical data, including four peer reviewed clinical studies to validate their efficacy. They're also safe on all types of skin. Plus They've got over 10,000 five star reviews, including ours, and were recently featured by Bloomberg as a leader in skin longevity. It really helps that you don't need a complicated routine to achieve healthier, younger looking skin.

Barb McQuaid (72:09)

Born from more than a decade of longevity research, OneSkin's OS01 peptide is proven to target the visible signs of aging, helping you unlock your healthiest skin now and as you age. For a limited time, try OneSkin with 15% off using code sisters at OneSkin co. Sisters. That's 15% off OneSkin co with Code Sisters after you purchase, they'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. The link is in the show Notes.

Jill Wine Banks (72:51)

If you have a question for us, please email sisters inlawoliticon.com or tag us on social media using SistersInLaw. If we don't get to your question during the show, we do try to answer more questions during our new show Sisters sidebar every Wednesday, so stay tuned for that one as well. You can listen for questions, but today we have some really good questions and the first one comes from sue in Harrison, New York. And Barb, I'd like you to answer the this Is there a difference between taking the fifth Amendment and refusing to answer a question? Is it different in a Congressional hearing versus Criminal court? Can someone be compelled to answer questions that clearly won't implicate them?

Barb McQuaid (73:40)

Oh, I love this question. You know I teach criminal procedure and we have just been talking about this concept, the fifth Amendment right against Self incrimination in class. So I am primed for this question. Thank you, Sue. Well, it begins with, with the Fifth Amendment, which says, in part, no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. And it comes from this idea they call the cruel trifecta that would require someone to either tell on themselves or lie or be held in contempt. And so instead you get to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Now, can you refuse to answer a question? Well, if you refuse to answer a question, you may be held in contempt. You would have to invoke the Fifth Amendment right. And the Fifth Amendment right is only for questions that might implicate yourself. So, for example, I once had someone in a grand jury say, I refuse to answer that question under the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination on the basis that it might incriminate someone else. And I had to say, say, that's not how it works. And we had to, like, you know, interrupt and have her go talk to her lawyer and come back. She was trying to protect someone else. And it really is only for ourselves. There are a few other testimonial privileges, like you can't be forced to testify against your spouse or, you know, medical patients, priest, penitent. There are a few other privileged areas, but mostly it is just protect you from, from implicating yourself because of what I just described as the cruel trifecta. Now, you also asked this question about whether it's different in a congressional hearing versus criminal court. And this is a very interesting wrinkle because as I said, the text says no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. The, in a criminal case has been interpreted to mean not the place where the witness is being compelled to give the testimony, but in the place where the CR where the testimony might be used. So if I am at a congressional hearing or in a civil deposition and I'm asked a question, I can still invoke the fifth there and say it could be used against me later on in a criminal case. And so if that's a possibility, then the person may invoke the Fifth Amendment right. And the last thing I'll say about this is, is the prosecutor has a tool to override the Fifth Amendment, and that is immunity. And so a prosecutor can give one of three kinds of immunity to a witness and basically promise not to use that statement against them in a criminal case. And if that happens, then the person is compelled. It's called a compulsion order to testify. Because after all the harm, the fifth Amendment seeks to avoid having the statement used against him has now been washed away through this grant of immunity. And so immunizing a person in one context would allow the person to be free from having that used against them in the criminal case.

Jill Wine Banks (76:49)

And Margaret asked a question, Joyce, that you should answer, which is, do the district judges have any supervisory role over magistrate judges, and would the decision of the judge in the Fulton county case warrant such a review?

Joyce Vance (77:05)

You know, this is a great question. It's just the kind of nerdy procedural question that I like to dig into. So thank you for this one, Margaret. District judges, all federal judges, really are Article 3 judges. They're their own branch of government appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. But magistrate judges are what we call Article 1 judges. Their authority stems from Article 1 of the Constitution, which empowers Congress to create, through the Federal Magistrates act, federal magistrate judges, whose job, in essence, is to assist the district judges. So the magistrates really do, in a very real sense, work for the federal judges. And there's almost always an automatic right to appeal a ruling issued by a magistrate judge to a district judge. The exception is you can consent, usually in civil cases, to have a magistrate judge hear your case. And they do that in some jurisdictions, particularly the ones where caseloads are higher. But by and large, and especially in a criminal context or in a case involving the legitimacy of a search warrant, a magistrate judge will take the first bite. They will issue a report and a recommendation, and almost always the district judge will adopt it. But of course, not all the time. Right? Sometimes the district judge will take a second look, and sometimes they will even disagree with the magistrate judge. So here we've got one of those situations where a district judge is taking a hard look at what the magistrate judge did, and we'll see how the Rule 41 issue comes out.

Jill Wine Banks (78:39)

And our last question for today comes from James in Portland, Maine. Kim, who is subject to impeachment? All executive and judicial branch employees, Senate confirmed positions, White House staff.

Kimberly Atkinstore (78:54)

Who? Who?

Jill Wine Banks (78:55)

That's the question.

Kimberly Atkinstore (78:57)

So, yeah, this is a great question. And I actually did a little research and looked to the Library of Congress to see the answer. And the answer is, honestly, it's unclear. So one thing that you mentioned, White House staff, those are people who are not subject to impeachment. The people who are hired to work within the White House are people who serve at the pleasure of the president, so the president can fire them. But so far, in practice, I should say in practice, the Constitution provides that the impeachable offices are the president and the vice president. And it also says all civil officers of the United States. In practice, that has been applied to judges who are civil officers and it's also applied to cabinet members. So the head of federal agencies, the head of the Department of Justice, the attorney general, the secretary of the Interior, they are all subject to impeachment in order to be removed unless they resign. Now how far down the chain of people that goes has not been definitively determined. We do know that there are some Senate confirmed positions that are not subject to impeachment. For example, U.S. attorney. You guys were both confirmed. Joyce and Barb were confirmed by the Senate. But you could be fighting fired. As you learned,

Joyce Vance (80:31)

I resigned. I resigned the night before the bad man was inaugurated. Never fired.

Barb McQuaid (80:40)

I was asked to resign.

Kimberly Atkinstore (80:46)

So it's not all Senate confirmed folks, but. But for example, Stephen Miller does not need to be impeached. He would need to be fired by the President. So I hope that gives a little Clari, even though there is not a clear cut and dry black and white rule, which I did not know until you asked me that question.

Jill Wine Banks (81:03)

That's such a great thing that we learned from our listeners questions. Thank you listeners and thank you for listening to Sisters in law with Barb McQuaid, Joyce Vance, Kimberly Atkinstore and me, Jill Wine Banks. We hope to see you at our live show in Denver, Colorado at the Cervantes Masterpiece on April 23rd. Tickets are available at Politicon.com Tour so make sure you get them before they sell out. And we have sold out all of our tours in the past, so don't sit this out. Get busy. Now. Don't forget to pick up Sisters in Law Merch and other goodies@politicon.com merch and wear it to our show. Make sure you check out our new companion podcast, Sisters sidebar on Wednesdays. And please show some love to this week's sponsors, ASPCA Insurance, Boland Branch, Wild Alaskan Company, IQ Bar, and OneSkin. The links are in our show notes. Please support them because they make this podcast possible. See you next week with another episode. Sisters in Law.

Kimberly Atkinstore (82:15)

Jill, the joke is the Andrew formerly known as Prince.

Jill Wine Banks (82:19)

Yes.

Kimberly Atkinstore (82:20)

Like, remember when Prince stopped going by his name and he was called the artist formerly known as Prince? So I said the Andrew formally known. Otherwise, it kind of doesn't make sense.

Jill Wine Banks (82:28)

Okay, let me, let me.

Barb McQuaid (82:30)

I thought it was kind of endearing. I thought it was kind of endearing the way it came out.

Kimberly Atkinstore (82:34)

Okay, okay, that's fine. We could keep going. With Verbocare help is always ready before, during, during and after your stay. We've planned for the plot twists, so support is always available because a great trip starts with peace of Mind.