305: Golden Idol

Summary

#SistersInLaw – Episode 305: "Golden Idol"

Date: May 20, 2026
Hosts: Barb McQuaid & Jill Wine-Banks

---

Episode Overview

This episode of the #SistersInLaw “Sisters Sidebar” continues the tradition of listener Q&A, with hosts Barb McQuaid and Jill Wine-Banks tackling politically and legally charged questions sent in by their audience. The discussion ranges from constitutional removal of officials and public health quarantines, to the symbolism of Trump-era iconography and the urgent need for laws about AI in political advertising. The tone is informed, witty, at times indignant—and resolutely committed to demystifying the levers of law and government for listeners.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Impeachment vs. 25th Amendment – Removal of the President and Cabinet

Timestamp: [00:37]

• Listener Q: Can Article II, Section 4, allow for the impeachment of the president and his Cabinet in one motion? Would it be better than the 25th Amendment?
• Jill Wine-Banks:
  • "It does allow for each of them to be impeached and removed, but each has to be subject to articles of impeachment individually directed at them. Now, could they be combined in one document? They could. But there have to be allegations specific to each person."
  • Both the President, VP, and cabinet officers may be impeached, but the Constitution does not permit “group” impeachments without individual allegations; each must face specific charges and trials.
• Insight: Impeachment remains an individualized process, reflecting constitutional safeguards against mass political reprisals.

---

2. Mandatory Quarantine Powers During Public Health Crises

Timestamp: [02:24]

• Listener Q: When can the government force someone into quarantine or isolation?
• Barb McQuaid:
  • Explains both federal and state laws allow for mandatory government quarantine if it’s necessary for public health, with due process rights subject to compelling governmental interest (i.e., curbing disease spread).
  • Federal jurisdiction kicks in for interstate/international travel; e.g., CDC and Coast Guard for quarantine of travelers from sea.
  • "As cruel as it may seem to come back after being stuck on a cruise ship, to then have to be in quarantine for a period of time is sometimes necessary to protect the rest of us from getting these illnesses." [04:04]
• Insight: Public health emergencies justify narrow, time-limited restrictions on personal liberty for the collective good.

---

3. Presidential Iconography on Passports & Authoritarian Symbolism

Timestamps: [04:24]–[07:33]

• Listener Q: Is it legal for Donald Trump’s image to appear on U.S. passports?
• Jill Wine-Banks:
  • "It's legal. It's never been done. This would be the first time that a living president has put his picture in [the passport]."
  • There’s no law prohibiting it (unlike currency); applicants can opt out in-person, otherwise it’s default.
• Barb McQuaid:
  • "This whole Idea of Donald Trump putting his face and name on everything is, it's vulgar, it's creepy, it's narcissistic. But you know what else it is, is it's authoritarian." [05:32]
  • Compares it to the “cult of personality” in authoritarian regimes—notes the gold Trump statue at Doral and other ubiquitous branding.
• Memorable Moment: Jill likens Trump branding to Roger Stone’s Nixon tattoo; both bemoan the rise of “personal merch” and government self-promotion, suggesting a legal/normative ban on self-promotion in public office.
• Quote:
  • "It creates this image that the leader is everywhere, sees everything, is omnipresent, is worshiped and it crosses over into this almost religious worship." —Barb McQuaid [05:32]
• Insight: The discussion frames Trump’s personal branding not just as tacky, but as a dangerous flirtation with authoritarian practices.

---

4. Mandatory Minimums for Lying to Congress

Timestamp: [13:47]

• Listener Q: Could Congress create mandatory minimum sentences for those who lie to Congress, targeting potential recidivism even among pardoned individuals?
• Barb McQuaid:
  • "The only limit on a penalty is the Eighth Amendment, which of course prohibits cruel and unusual punishment."
  • A five or ten year minimum for perjury before Congress would likely be constitutional unless “grossly disproportionate.”
• Insight: Congress has wide latitude in establishing penalties, but must avoid excessive punishment; mandatory minimums possible within reason.

---

5. Limits on Speech by Retired Military Officers

Timestamp: [15:37]

• Listener Q: Can recently retired Army chief Randy George speak out about his Trump-era experiences?
• Jill Wine-Banks:
  • "There are some restrictions...primarily regarding partisan politics and not engaging in them while in uniform, but in civilian clothes, it's a different story."
  • Retired officers retain broad First Amendment rights, cannot reveal classified info, must avoid contemptuous language (loosely defined), but can generally comment on policy.
• Insight: Expect insider revelations but little legal recourse to silence honest accounts, barring classified information disclosure.

---

6. AI in Political Advertising – Legal and Ethical Gaps

Timestamp: [19:12]

• Listener Q: Is there any law prohibiting the use of AI to alter/manipulate candidate images in ads (LA mayoral race example)?
• Barb McQuaid:
  • "There’s some real harm that comes from this...it creates false memories for people...and it creates a negative impression about that person."
  • No current restrictions. Suggests labeling AI-generated content as legislative priority (“This ad used artificial intelligence”) to help inform the public without restricting speech.
• Memorable Moment: Barb mentions her book on disinformation and the “false memory” problem—emphasizing long-term cognitive impacts of repeated deepfakes or misinformation.
• Quote:
  • "So often the response to people who are advocates for absolute free speech is...The best response to speech is more speech...Here’s more speech, right?" —Barb McQuaid [20:24]
• Jill Wine-Banks:
  • Shares personal anecdote about now being asked on YA book proposals whether any writing was AI-generated—applauds new awareness.
  • "I personally love the AI-generated dancing dogs."
• Insight: They highlight the vacuum of regulation and stress labeling as a low-barrier, rights-respecting step.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Impeachment:
  “You can impeach the vice president and other officers the same way [as the President], but each has to have allegations against them, whether it’s in one document or multiple documents.” —Jill Wine-Banks [01:30]

• On Authoritarianism:
  “It creates this image that the leader is everywhere, sees everything, is omnipresent, is worshiped and it crosses over into this almost religious worship.” —Barb McQuaid [05:32]

• On Mandatory Minimums:
  “If Congress wanted to write a statute saying that the penalty for lying under oath before Congress is five years or ten years...I think they could absolutely do that.” —Barb McQuaid [14:22]

• On Deepfakes in Campaign Ads:
  “It creates false memories for people...even if they knew it was fake at the time, months later, they recall an image of someone engaged in bad behavior and it creates a negative impression.” —Barb McQuaid [19:45]

• On Military Commentary Post-Retirement:
  “As a private citizen, you can weigh in. You cannot use classified information....Yes, I think that he could speak out about other aspects of service in the government and leading the troops.” —Jill Wine-Banks [16:40]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [00:37] Article II and group impeachment
• [02:24] Legal limits on quarantine
• [04:24] Trump’s image on US passports—legality and symbolism
• [05:32] Authoritarian parallels with leader iconography
• [13:47] Mandatory minimums for Congressional perjury
• [15:37] First Amendment rights for retired officers
• [19:12] AI/deepfakes in campaign advertising

---

Episode Takeaways

• Constitutional and legal processes remain robust but require vigilant public understanding and legislative updating.
• The rise of personal branding in government signals worrisome authoritarian overtones.
• Law needs to catch up with AI and digital disinformation, particularly in campaigns—labeling is a potential first step.
• The show’s blend of legal precision, humor, and cultural commentary makes complex topics accessible and engaging.

---

For more questions or to participate, listeners are encouraged to send audio memos for the hosts to feature on future episodes.

Transcript

[Barb McQuaid]

Welcome to this episode of Sisters sidebar with Jill Winebanks and me, Barb McQuaid. If you have a question for us, please email [e-mail] or tag us on social media using SistersInLaw. But don't just type them. We want to hear your voices so you can record them using a voice memo. Email them to us and we might include it in our next show. So let's get started. Jill, Our first question comes to us from Donna in North Carolina.

[Jill Winebanks]

Many people are talking about impeaching the president using the 25th Amendment. But that is only for one person at a time, isn't it? Would Article 2, Section 4, be a better way to take care of the president and his Cabinet? What are your thoughts? What an interesting question. You are not the only person who has asked about whether Article 2 of the Constitution, Section 4, allows for the overall removal of the president, the vice president, and the Cabinet all in one fell swoop. The answer is no. That's sort of a misreading. It does allow for each of them to be impeached and removed, but each has to be subject to articles of impeachment individually directed at them. Now, could they be combined in one document? They could. You could say, we need to impeach all these people and here's why. But there have to be allegations specific to each person. The Constitution allows all of the, you know, the president, the vice president, and all official officers to be impeached, but they have to go through the process of a vote of impeachment and then a trial and conviction in the Senate. So it does not differentiate. People think there's a difference between you can only impeach the president one way, but no, you can impeach the vice president and other officers the same way, but each has to have allegations against them, whether it's in one document or multiple documents. Barb, there's a great question from Smith that I'd like you to talk about. With the Hanna virus in the news, when can the government force an individual into quarantine or isolation?

[Barb McQuaid]

Oh, this is a good question, Smith, if that is your real name. Yeah. This Hantavirus, Jill, you've probably read about this. This is, you know, on a cruise ship where people have been very ill, some people died, and they have been put into quarantine, I think, in Kansas City. Right. And they have to stay there for quite a period of time when they come out. And the answer is yes. Both the federal government and every state has a law that permits mandatory government ordered quarantine and the reason for it in all of these cases, and they've been upheld. You know, in times of public health crises, including Covid, we have seen challenges to some of these rules. And although we ordinarily have these rights to liberty and to be free from restrictions and only with due process to have them removed, it can be if there is a compelling governmental interest, and that is protecting public health, and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve it. So for a limited time, whatever time science tells them is necessary to keep someone isolated to avoid infecting the rest of a community in, it is appropriate to do that. So the feds typically have jurisdiction if there is crossing of an international or a national boundary. So somebody coming in from the sea. The Coast Guard has the ability to designate people for quarantine during times of, you know, pandemics, epidemics, and other things. The CDC has the authority under the Public Health act to quarantine individuals when they're moving from state to state to say, you can't leave the state if you have some sort of illness.

[Jill Winebanks]

And.

[Barb McQuaid]

And then the states themselves have power within a state to order people quarantined for a period of time. So, yes, as cruel as it may seem to come back after being stuck on a cruise ship, to then have to be in quarantine for a period of time is sometimes necessary to protect the rest of us from getting these illnesses.

[Jill Winebanks]

My passport just expired and I forgot about it. So I am, on an expedited basis applying for one and my passport. My first reaction is I've got to get this application in fast enough that I do not have Donald Trump's picture in my passport. But is it legal? The answer is, yeah, it's legal. It's never been done. This would be the first time that a living president has put his picture in it. The passport as it currently exists does have, for example, Mount Rushmore engraved in it, which is deceased presidents. But no living president has ever been in the passport. And personally, I don't think it should be in the same way. The rule has been no coinage has had a living president on it. But as of now, it's not illegal. And if you want it, you can get it. I don't think anyone listening to this podcast is going to want it, but there will be people who are going to be happy to have it. And if you do it by mail, it does not happen automatically. If you go in person, I think. I think you can opt out, but it is otherwise the default.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, you know, this whole Idea of Donald Trump putting his face and name on everything is, it's vulgar, it's creepy, it's narcissistic. But you know what else it is, is it's authoritarian. I can remember when I was in law school, one of my roommates would, you know, it was during the time when there was a lot of unrest in the Middle East. And you would see these images of people walking around like carrying pictures of their leader. And I remember my roommate saying, isn't that the weirdest thing? Like, can you ever imagine people walking around with a picture of, you know, at the time it was George H.W. bush and we laughed at how absurd that would be. And yet, you know, we see that now with all of the Trump stuff. And it is, when it comes to this, you know, authoritarian playbook, so called, it is part of that game. It is creates this image that the leader is everywhere, sees everything, is omnipresent, is worshiped and it crosses over into this almost religious worship. Like how about the gold statue that he unveiled at the Doral golf course in Florida?

[Jill Winebanks]

Oh my gosh, you know, that's his golf course. How about the banner at the Department of Justice and other cabinet offices? It's disgusting. And you know, the only thing I can think of comparable is Roger Stone having a tattoo full size on his back of Richard Nixon. So. And you know, let's say at it's not just his picture that'll be on it, it's his signature. His big bold, oh, I mean, sharpened signature. It's really. But I think your point about authoritarian rulers is absolutely correct.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah. You know, we talked about in our last show the package of anti corruption bills. I would love to see whether it's a law or just a norm or a campaign pledge. No self promotion in government. Right? Ah, the personal meat. Like Kash Patel with the bourbon and all. You know, bottle of bourbon with his name on it. You know, do your job. We don't need merch with your name and picture on it.

[Jill Winebanks]

And how about renaming the Kennedy center and renaming the Peace Institute? Yeah, we should not allow this for. Do you keep switching skin care options hoping something will finally click? That was until one skin science backed peptide was discovered by their female PhD scientists who founded the company and won us over. Since then I've become a huge fan of their head to toe trio. I use the face and eye cream on my face and then I use their body cream everywhere else. Now my skin feels smoother and softer with fewer dry patches and the whole routine takes under five minutes. We recommend them all the time and we keep hearing from our listeners how much they love the Results.

[Barb McQuaid]

OneSkin's proprietary OS1 peptide is a total game changer. It's been extensively studied for its role in skin longevity and is proven to address a leading driver of visible skin aging, helping skin look and feel younger and healthier over time. Every time I use One skin, I give my skin a clear signal to repair damaged cells, support collagen production and strengthen my skin barrier. Now, whenever I get dried out on planes or when the AC is blasting, I use OneSkin's OS One Face topical supplement to fight back against dryness. It's the perfect supplement for making your skin look fresh and and keeping it ready for anything the day throws at you.

[Jill Winebanks]

With One Skin, my skin feels so much smoother and way less stressed. Best of all, Oneskin's regimen works fast and the formulas feel amazing when you apply them. This isn't just our experience. Oneskin's results are backed by four peer reviewed clinical studies and over 10,000 five star reviews and it's been recognized by Bloomberg as a leader in skin longevity. You really don't need a complicated routine to get healthier, younger looking skin. Try them and find out for yourself.

[Barb McQuaid]

Born from more than a decade of longevity research, OneSkin's OS1 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. I love my Lola blanket. It's been my go to gift because it's such a great thing and I have friends who love them too. You know when a hard day of work starts winding down, there is nothing better than snuggling up under a Lola blanket. I was saying to my husband yesterday, my favorite thing to do is to go into the living room after dinner, put on a sporting event. You know the Pistons, the Tigers, the Cubs. Sure, they play in the day, you know it's in the evening and you need that Lola blanket. They're so warm and comfortable that your worries and stress vanish in its soft embrace. Add in your favorite movie, your favorite team, your loved ones. Maybe a tasty snack. I usually like a little herbal tea and it's the highlight of the week. After discovering them on Instagram, our Lola has been a part of so many memories, which is why we decided that the next time we bought a gift for a loved one, it was going to be a Lola. So that they can recreate those moments with something that they can enjoy every day. And I'm not kidding, it is. It has become my go to gift and everybody who gets one loves it.

[Jill Winebanks]

You know, Barb, you can record the Cubs and watch them at night. Okay, we record the Cubs and the Seminoles and we often watch them under the embrace of a Lola blanket. Lola blankets come in tons of colors and beautiful designs, so you can find the perfect fit for any home or personality. They not only make your space warmer and more put together, but their softness is on another level. Each one is so luxurious and there's no pilling or shedding, just pure comfort. Speaking as a true blanket lover, Lola's are the best. They're crafted with ultra soft luxury faux fur and a signature four way stretch that somehow makes them both plush and light at the same time. They're machine washable, double hemmed for durability, and even after countless washes, they look brand new with a wow factor that makes them truly special.

[Barb McQuaid]

Lola has more than 20,000 five star reviews, including ours. And once you feel it, you'll know why. There's a reason it's called the world's number one blanket, but the story behind it is what makes it even more special. Lola was founded by two brothers inspired by their mom who found comfort in her favorite blanket while living with breast cancer. Later, she gave blankets like hers to her children so they'd always feel that warmth and love to us that makes each gifted blanket so much more special.

[Jill Winebanks]

Once you touch a Lola blanket, you'll know you've got a blanket for life. And for a limited time, our listeners can get 40% off select Lola blanket products with Code Sisters at checkout. Just head to lolablankets.com and use code sisters to get 40% off your order. After you purchase, they'll ask where you heard about them. Please support our show and let them know we sent you. Wrap yourself in luxury with a Lola blanket. The link is in our show Notes. And Barb, we have another question also on audio from Sam in San Jose, California.

[Barb McQuaid]

I'm curious, if Democrats take control of both chambers of Congress again, is it possible for them to pass an act with a mandatory minimum prison sentence for anybody that lies before Congress under oath, specifically for the people that have been pardoned to let them know that they are going to have to answer for this eventually. Do you think that might cool their jets? Yeah, that's a really interesting question, Sam. The answer is yes, absolutely. Yes. So Congress, you know, makes all the laws, it writes the criminal laws, and it gets to set the penalties. The only limit on a penalty is the Eighth Amendment, which, of course prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. And one of the things that's been held to be cruel and unusual punishment is that which is grossly disproportionate. So sometimes they've held the death penalty. The Supreme Court has held the death penalty to be grossly disproportionate in certain kinds of crimes that are not homicide crimes. You know, so if you said the sentence for littering is a million years in prison, that's a mandatory minimum, they would say that's grossly disproportionate. So I think it depends on what that mandatory minimum sentence is. But, you know, five years, 10 years, one year. The court will not really substitute its judgment. They're not to say, you know, if we were writing on a clean slate, we might pick a different number. It just has to be. And not just disproportionate, grossly disproportionate. So if Congress wanted to write a statute saying that the penalty for lying under oath before Congress is five years or 10 years, and it's a mandatory minimum, meaning a judge cannot impose a sentence below that, I think they could absolutely do that. Jill, I've got another audio question I'm going to send your way. This one is from Maureen in California.

[Jill Winebanks]

Would Randy George, who's recently been forced into retirement by Defense Secretary Hegseth, be allowed to speak publicly about his experience governing the army during the Trump administration? Or are there rules that limit his ability to speak as a former commander? Thanks. Really love the show. Great question. And under federal law, both under the UCMJ Uniform Code of Military justice and Department of Defense directives, retired officers do have some limitations, but not many on their First Amendment rights. There are some restrictions that are primarily regarding partisan politics and not engaging in them while in uniform, but in civilian clothes. It's a different story. Use of contemptuous language and military discipline, interfering with military discipline. We have seen some efforts to limit the powers of retired people. Like, for example, Senator Mark Kelly has been attempted to be disciplined, but the courts have said it was improper. But again, contemptuous language is penalizable, though it's not very well defined. But I think it's a question of what you say about the president himself, particularly political endorsements while in uniform. Not allowed Taking foreign compensation, not allowed. But as a private citizen, you can weigh in. You cannot use classified information that once it's classified, you can never reveal it. It doesn't matter whether you're in uniform or out of uniform. And so, yes, I think that he could speak out about other aspects of service in the government and leading the troops. In a time of the President being Donald Trump, probably a lot of value

[Barb McQuaid]

to come from that kind of, kind of free speech.

[Jill Winebanks]

I think so. Particularly because of the rumors that his departure from the military was because of disagreements with military policy.

[Barb McQuaid]

Okay, Jill, can you imagine some of the books that are going to come out in a couple of years about people who served in this administration? We had John Bolton with the room where it happened, which may or may not violate the Espionage Act. Can you imagine some of the tell alls we're going to hear about in a few years?

[Jill Winebanks]

I hope we're going to hear tell alls and I hope that they'll be honest. But the problem is most of this administration is following the desires of Donald Trump, and so they will be incriminating themselves if they tell the truth going forward. So I'm not so sure we're going to get any tell alls. But, Barb, I have one more question for you. It comes from Charlene in Santa Monica, California, and it's about the LA mayoral race. And as you know, my former podcast partner in Igen politics has been a longtime employee of Mayor Bass, now a consultant to Mayor Bass. So I'm particularly interested in this question. And the question is LA mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt is using AI to put the opposing candidates in his ads. Is there any legal restriction on this? That's such a fascinating question.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yeah, no, it is a fascinating question, and the answer is no. And I really think this is an area where we need to get our arms around legislatively. You know, we've all seen AI generated content that, you know, some of it's funny, some of it makes, you know, animals do funny things. I've mentioned before how I love those diaper diplomacy little, little videos where, you know, they make some of our political leaders look like babies. I think they're just funny. But. But no, and I think there, there's some real harm that comes from this. I mean, one is it could be that some people get confused and think these are real. That is one of the harms. There's another, though. You know, I wrote this book on disinformation and I've done a lot of research in this area. But one of the Things it says is that it creates false memories for people. People may not remember where they saw something, even if they knew it was fake at the time. You know, months later, they recall an image of somebody engaged in some bad behavior, and it creates a negative impression about that person. And so there's a lot of damage that can be done with AI if unregulated. And so, you know, what I would consider a modest proposal that I think would be really important to getting our arms around this is to have laws that require just labeling that something was AI generated. You know, the same way an ad says, I'm Spencer Pratt and I approve this ad, just say, you know, artificial intelligence was used to create this ad that would at least allow people to be fully informed. You know, so often the response to people who are advocates for absolute free speech is the. The best response to speech is more speech. Well, here's more speech, right? We're not telling you you can't do it, but just label it so that voters and consumers are not confused by what they see. At least they know, okay, this is a fake, and I should treat it accordingly.

[Jill Winebanks]

That seems like such a good and easy solution. I just noticed I was submitting a proposal for a YA book, young adult book, and in the form that is required, it says, was any part of this book generated by AI? Ooh. I mean, that's a new question that I was surprised to see. And I think it's. It's the right thing. But I have to say, I personally love the AI generated dancing dogs. They are so cute how they wag their tail to the music or mimic a diver doing a backflip and landing. Oh, yeah, I love those. Those are my favorite AI things. And I don't care that they're fake. I know they're fake, right?

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, that's the point. You know they're fake, right? But I think labeling would go a long way.

[Jill Winebanks]

Thank you for listening to this episode of Sisters sidebar with me and Barb McQuaid. Please keep sending us your great questions. We love them. And remember, you can send a voice memo by email, and then you'll hear your voice on the show. If you only send a written question, we have to read the question in our own voices. But we love hearing your voice, so please keep sending them. Follow Sisters sidebar. And of course, our original companion show, which is Sisters in Law. Wherever you listen to podcasts, please give us a five star review so that other people will find the show and start listening to us. Please show some love to today's sponsors, Oneskin and Lola Blankets. The links are in our show notes. And it is those advertisers who make this show possible. Don't forget to pick up Sisters in Law, Sisters in Law merch and other [e-mail] merch and come back to see us every week on Wednesdays for Sisters sidebar and on Saturdays for new episodes of Sisters in Law. Thanks for being here today. No, really. How about Murda? And you saw. Oh, God, what's his name? Harvey's gonna get a new trial. Harvey Weinstein. A mistrial.

[Barb McQuaid]

Oh, yeah, yeah. Harvey Weinstein, mistrial.

[Jill Winebanks]

God, what a week. I, I, I, yeah.