319: Nixon Goes To Rehab

Summary

Sisters In Law – Episode 319: Nixon Goes To Rehab

Date: July 8, 2026
Hosts: Jill Wine-Banks & Barb McQuaid
Podcast: Politicon’s #SistersInLaw

---

Episode Overview

This installment of Sisters In Law features hosts Jill Wine-Banks and Barb McQuaid fielding listener questions on a range of legal and political topics, with special emphasis on the structures of American governance and the legacy of Richard Nixon. Key issues include the flaws in America’s immigration courts, the implications of federal pardons, recent efforts to rehabilitate Nixon’s reputation, mechanics of constitutional change, and transparency at the Supreme Court. The episode’s title, “Nixon Goes To Rehab,” nods to a segment about the attempted restoration of Nixon’s image and comparisons to modern-day political scandals.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Reforming America’s Immigration Courts

Segment Start: 00:46

• Listener Question from Tish (Arlington, VA):
  Can Congress move immigration courts from the executive branch (DOJ) to the judicial branch to improve fairness and reduce political influence?

• Barb McQuaid’s Response:

  • Yes, Congress could move immigration courts to the judiciary by statute.
  • “It’s a very odd scenario that we have right now with immigration judges actually being employees of the Department of Justice, which is one of the sides in those cases. So they’re really getting an impartial decision maker. They’re just getting another employee of the Justice Department.” (01:44)
  • Noted that judges' titles shifted from “immigration judges” to “deportation judges” under the Trump administration—a signal of bias.
  • Shifting courts could improve fairness, objectivity, and public trust.

---

2. Pardons as Admission of Guilt – Nixon, Trump, and Legal Precedent

Segment Start: 03:47

• Listener Question from Lori:
  Is accepting a pardon an admission of guilt, and can that affect state prosecutions if Trump or his family are pardoned for tax violations?

• Jill Wine-Banks’ Response:

  • Trump has used non-prosecution agreements, not pardons, which block federal prosecution entirely.
  • The issue of whether accepting a pardon is legally an admission of guilt is contested:
    • The Supreme Court’s 1915 Burdick case suggested it is, but a recent 10th Circuit ruling disagrees.
    • “It is widely believed. Benton Becker was a young lawyer dispatched by then President Ford to bring a pardon offer to San Clemente in California, where Richard Nixon had left after resigning the presidency, and to offer him a pardon...President Ford demanded that Betten Becker bring with him a copy of the verdict decision to show to Nixon to say to him, if you accept this, this is what you’re doing. You’re admitting your guilt.” (03:47)
  • State prosecutions could still move forward if the federal pardon only shields federal crimes.

---

3. The Rehabilitation of Richard Nixon’s Image

Segment Start: 05:57

• Listener Question:
  What are the panelists’ views on the recent attempt (by figures like JD Vance) to rehabilitate Nixon’s image, especially among younger audiences?

• Barb McQuaid’s Response:

  • JD Vance and others are inaccurately normalizing Nixon’s corruption.
  • “He took himself down by engaging in corrupt behavior. And it was members of Congress from his own party that went to see him to say, you must resign, otherwise you will be impeached and convicted and removed from office. And that’s because of his own misconduct.” (05:57)
  • The claim that Watergate would now be just a “12-hour news story” is misleading; today’s divided media could obscure misconduct, but past bipartisan standards demanded accountability.

• Jill Wine-Banks’ Addition:

  • Modern media environments make true scandals harder to prosecute in the court of public opinion.
  • “Back then, there was evidence, there was facts, and there was bipartisan support for real facts. ... There’s a cartoon that shows Trump saying to Nixons, when Trump said, I am not a crook, Donald Trump is saying, I am a crook. But it doesn’t matter. Nobody cares. It doesn’t matter. So, so what? Everybody should care. This is an important threat to our democracy if we let our presidents commit crimes.” (07:56)
  • Underscored that Nixon’s actions were criminal and led to his downfall, unlike efforts today to downplay or ignore similar abuses.

---

4. Restitution and Pardons: Do Victims Have to Repay?

Segment Start: 16:26

• Listener Question from Dallas (Australia):
  If someone is pardoned after paying restitution, must the recipient return the money?

• Jill Wine-Banks’ Response:

  • No, restitution that’s already paid is final.
  • “If restitution has been paid, it’s final and the person who got the restitution gets to keep it. ... If you get pardoned before you pay, too bad for the person. Except they could bring a civil lawsuit, of course. But if you’ve already gotten paid, that person doesn’t get it back.” (16:49)

---

5. How to Call a Constitutional Convention

Segment Start: 17:43

• Listener Question from Michelle (Connecticut):
  What’s the process for calling a Constitutional Convention in the US?

• Barb McQuaid’s Response:

  • The U.S. Constitution (Article 5) allows amendments via two methods:
    1. Proposal by 2/3 of both houses of Congress
    2. Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of state legislatures
  • A Constitutional Convention is rare and would still require 3/4 of states for ratification.
  • Major changes like abolishing the Electoral College or reversing Citizens United would have to be achieved via this amendment process.
  • “I think sometimes people are fearful that we’d have this Constitutional Convention and they would upend the whole Constitution. I mean, that would be a pretty radical amendment...I think instead we do it amendment by amendment, one provision at a time.” (17:43)

---

6. Supreme Court Transparency – Cameras and Audio

Segment Start: 19:35

• Listener Question from Kyle (New York):
  Can Congress require the Supreme Court to livestream opinions/dissents? Could Justices independently release audio?

• Jill Wine-Banks’ Response:

  • She supports increased transparency in the courts, endorsing cameras and live audio for trials and hearings.
  • “I believe that the best way for people to trust the courts is to see how they really, really work. ... There’s no reason why they can’t be in every trial court and every appellate court.” (19:57)
  • Individual Justices likely can’t release their own audio unless the Court agrees as a body; the Supreme Court itself could adopt a policy to allow it.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Nixon’s legacy:

  • “He was a crook. And now, as I said, there’s a cartoon that shows Trump saying to Nixons, when Trump said, I am not a crook, Donald Trump is saying, I am a crook. But it doesn’t matter. Nobody cares.”
    — Jill Wine-Banks (07:56)

• On court transparency:

  • “There’s no reason why they can’t be in every trial court and in every appellate court...the best way for people to trust the courts is, is to see how they really, really work.”
    — Jill Wine-Banks (19:57)

• On Constitutional change:

  • “I think that there’s certainly some things we ought to look at, like, I don’t know, abolishing the Electoral College or overturning Citizens United. I think that’d be a good one.”
    — Barb McQuaid (18:58)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Immigration courts & DOJ: 00:46 – 03:47
• Pardons as admission of guilt: 03:47 – 05:57
• Nixon’s image ‘rehab’ debate: 05:57 – 10:33
• Restitution and pardons: 16:26 – 16:49
• Calling a Constitutional Convention: 17:43 – 19:35
• SCOTUS transparency (cameras/audio): 19:35 – 20:57

Note: Non-content segments (ads, sponsor messages, outros) have been omitted.

---

Tone and Style

Collegial, sharp-witted, and deeply knowledgeable, both hosts blend personal insight, legal analysis, and a dash of humor, keeping discussions lively and relatable while not pulling punches—especially regarding recent attempts to whitewash historical wrongdoing.

---

Conclusion

In this focused Q&A episode, Sisters In Law fosters listener engagement while delving deeply into both the mechanics and the meaning of legal and political institutions. From explaining constitutional processes to pushing back on historical revisionism, Jill Wine-Banks and Barb McQuaid showcase how the legal past and present are intertwined—and why vigilance, transparency, and integrity in public life remain paramount.

Transcript

[Jill Wine Banks]

Welcome to this episode of Sisters sidebar with Barb McQuaid and me, Jill Wine Banks. If you have a question for us, you can email [e-mail] or tag us on social media using Sisters in Law. But don't just type your questions to us. We love hearing your voice. You can send us a voice note instead of just an email, and then you may hear your own voice played asking the question you want answered. Email us that voice note right away so that we can answer your questions in next week's show. Now let's get started on this show. Here's one for you, Barb.

[Tish]

Hi, Sisters, this is Tish Calling from Arlington, Virginia. Love listening to your legal analysis every week. And I had a question regarding our broken immigration system. Given that the immigration courts are not actually part of the judicial system and are therefore subject to the whims of whoever's in the White House and the political nature of that, would it be possible for Congress to move the immigration courts under the judicial branch, which at least in theory, is supposed to be nonpartisan. That way they could also fund a huge increase in the number of immigration judges. So. So that we can try to actually start hammering away at this enormous backlog and try to get some of these thousands of people out of detention, whether they are able to stay here or not, but at least get them through a nonpartisan process to resolve their cases. Thanks for listening, and I hope you answered my question. Thanks.

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, thanks, Tish. That is a great question, and we really appreciate hearing your voice. So I think the answer to your question is actually yes, that Congress could move immigration courts to the judicial branch. In fact, you know, this has been part of a conservative movement of the Supreme Court's movement. That is, they like this idea that all legislation is done in the legislative branch. Right. That administrative agencies don't get to make rules because that's legislative lawmaking. They like the idea that the executive branch does all the governing of the executive branch that they are doing, executing the laws and making hiring and firing decisions. But they also really like the idea that judicial decisions are decided by the judiciary. They had a big case recently where they said that the sec, when it was resolving cases, had to use a jury system. And so the idea of taking immigration cases and putting them in the judiciary, I think is something that Congress could do by statute. And then, you know, it's a very odd scenario that we have right now with immigration judges actually being employees of the Department of Justice, which is one of the sides in those cases. So they're really getting an impartial decision maker. They're just getting another employ of the Justice Department. And in fact, in recent years, they've been changed. During the second Trump administration, instead of calling them immigration judges, they started calling them deportation judges, which I think sends a message about the decision they want these judges to make. And so I think to improve fairness, objectivity and public trust in the courts, moving immigration judges into the judiciary makes a lot of sense. Well, Jill, let me find the next question for you. We've got one here from Lori who writes, it is my understanding that the acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt. If Trump and his family accept a pardon for federal tax violations, wouldn't that be an admission that they have committed tax fraud and make them subject to state tax charges that would not be covered by the pardon? Interesting question. What do you think, Jill?

[Jill Wine Banks]

I love the question. I want to say first of all that what Trump has cleverly done is not to get a pardon, but to get a non prosecution agreement. Basically is that anything he did up to the date of signing that agreement can never be investigated or prosecuted by the federal government. And that is what he got for absolutely nothing. There was no fair exchange because there was no suit to settle, even though supposedly it was part of a settlement agreement. But yes, if he were offered a pardon and accepted it, as Richard Nixon did under a very old supreme court case from 1915, the Burdick case, accepting it, they said indicta was an admission of guilt. There is a recent 10th Circuit case that says quite the opposite, that you could still challenge your conviction even if you accept a pardon. And so it's not exactly clear now whether it is still going to be a dicta decision from Burdick or an actual decision from the 10th Circuit. It would have to go to the Supreme Court to have a final decision on whether it is or isn't. But it is widely believed Benton Becker was a young lawyer dispatched by then President Ford to bring a pardon offer to San Clemente in California, where Richard Nixon had left after resigning the presidency, and to offer him a pardon. But President Ford demanded that Betten Becker bring with him a copy of the verdict decision to show to Nixon to say to him, if you accept this, this is what you're doing. You're admitting your guilt. And so at least for Richard Nixon, it was an admission of guilt. And Barb, for you, this one is from onnyliteratiuskysocial. What do you think about the rehabilitation of Nixon's image And his new fans among the young. Ooh, I should have taken that question.

[Barb McQuaid]

So it's such a great question because J.D. vance in particular has been trying to rehabilitate the image of Richard Nixon and normalize his corrupt behavior, and we shouldn't buy any of it. He said recently something to the effect that if Watergate happened today, it would be like a 12 hour news story and that he was taken down by the deep state. That is absolutely not the case. I mean, the deep state is what the Trump administration likes to call the professional civil service. And it wasn't that group that took down Richard Nixon. He took himself down by engaging in corrupt behavior. And it was members of Congress from his own party that went to see him to say, you must resign, otherwise you will be impeached and convicted and removed from office. And that's because of his own misconduct. He covered up the break in of the Democratic Party headquarters. He then asked the CIA, I'm sorry, the FBI, to stand down by falsely claiming that the CIA was investigating. He used the powers of his office to spy on his enemies and to take out his enemies. It was a corruption and abuse of power in that office that did him in. It was not any deep state. And then this idea that it would be a 12 hour news story today. Well, either because of our divided media landscape, maybe that's true, or because Republicans would be normalizing this behavior, maybe that's true, but it certainly wouldn't be deserved. He deserved to leave office because he committed shameful acts in office. Jill, you want to chime in? Anything on that? You were there.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Oh, I can't resist. Of course, I cannot resist.

[Barb McQuaid]

Can I just say, J.D. vance is 39 years old. The only reason I raised that point is he wasn't there. He didn't observe it. He doesn't know what, you know, what all of us know who witnessed those moments.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Well, unfortunately, in one respect, I do have to agree to him, in today's world, it wouldn't be a story at all because there'd be Fox News and there'd be social media and there'd be alternative facts. And so back then, there wasn't any of that. Back then, there was evidence, there was facts, and there was bipartisan support for real facts. And you're right, of course, that it was the Republican Party that said to him, you will be convicted on the impeachment charges that hadn't even been voted yet. They had been approved by the Judiciary Committee based on the evidence that the Watergate special prosecution force my team provided to the committee. They voted some articles of impeachment. Then we got the final tape, the tape that showed Richard Nixon saying, well, we could use the CIA to stop the FBI from following the money trail because the money found in the pockets of the burglars was the result of cashing a campaign check. So that was proof that the White House and the campaign had paid for the burglars. That's what really happened. I hadn't heard about any of this until a recent phone call from a reporter from Vanity Fair who said that the Nixon foundation was creating memes and spreading the word that he was really innocent, he hadn't done anything wrong. And let me just say that that's great news for Vance and Trump. What they're trying to do now is to say, we're not doing anything bad. Everybody does it. Well, no, not everybody does it. Richard Nixon did it and he was a crook. And now, as I said, there's a cartoon that shows Trump saying to Nixons, when Trump said, I am not a crook, Donald Trump is saying, I am a crook. But it doesn't matter. Nobody cares. It doesn't matter. So, so what? Everybody should care. This is an important threat to our democracy if we let our presidents commit crimes. And the crimes of Donald Trump do so obliterate any crimes that Richard Nixon did. The corruption of his administration, of Donald Trump's administration, the grifting, the stealing of money, the lies, they are really just outrageous. So, yes, I wanted to weigh in on that. I'm glad you picked that question. Thank you.

[Barb McQuaid]

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. They have something for everyone, but we recommend the ultimate sampler 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.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Unlike a lot of 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 anything bad for you. Free from gluten, dairy, soy, GMOs and artificial ingredients. So you know what you're getting and you know you're treating yourself to the very best. Plus, all IQ Bar products are packed with clean, delicious ingredients that keep you physically and mentally fit. Like magnesium, lion's mane, yum yum, and more.

[Barb McQuaid]

Shouldn't you say roar after Lion's Mane Jill well, whether you're teaching podcasting, keeping up with the news, it can be hard to find time to get the nutrition and energy we need to beat the clock. That's why we're so glad we discovered IQ Bar and their awesome products. Their chocolate Sea salt plant protein bars are so convenient to carry around and when I'm in a rush. And the original Black IQ Joe is a powerful burst of delicious caffeinated mushroom coffee with everything from mint chocolate chip protein bars to blueberry pomegranate hydration mixes, vanilla spice coffee and more. There's so much variety, the only problem is deciding what flavor I want that day. So the Ultimate Sampler Pack is a must. You need to try it for yourself.

[Jill Wine Banks]

And I have tried all of the flavors and I love them. With over 20,000 five star reviews, I'm not the only one who loves them. There's 20,000 and still counting. More people than ever are fueling their busy lifestyles with IQ Bars, Brain and Body Boosting bars, Hydration mixes, and mushroom coffee. And their Ultimate Sampler pack includes all three. 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 sisters to 64,000. That's 64000. That's sisters to 64,000. Message and data rates may apply. See Terms for details. The link is in our show Notes.

[Barb McQuaid]

There's nothing better than owning a home. It's your sanctuary until something breaks. That's the worst. Things can be going well for years and suddenly the power is on the fritz or a pipe bursts and starts creating the indoor pool you never wanted. It can be a total disaster where you don't know who to call or what to do. And there's nothing worse than not knowing how much it will cost to get back to normal life.

[Jill Wine Banks]

It can be so confusing, especially because regular homeowners insurance usually does not cover a lot of day to day wear and tear like plumbing failures. H Vac, and heaven knows we all need that right now. H Vac is not usually included and when they break down, you're in real trouble or electrical issues, you're usually on your own. For those, that's where homeserve comes in. It's like a subscription for your home, and for as little as $4.99 a month, they've got your back. Repairs hit fast and hard, but don't stress out during a panicked search for a reliable contractor. Instead you could already be on the phone with HomeServ's 24. 7 hotline scheduling a repair.

[Barb McQuaid]

It's very simple. Choose a plan for your needs and budget and when something on your plan goes wrong, just call the 247 hotline to start the repair process. It gives you such peace of mind. Looking back, there are so many home ownership challenges that HomeServe would have helped us with. Now, thanks to one of their customized plans, if the water heater goes out or the faulty switch takes out power to your home office or HomeServe is the first thing we think of. We don't have to worry about being out of action. We can skip the initial shock and start getting things fixed right away. Before you know it, home feels like a sanctuary again.

[Jill Wine Banks]

HomeServe has helped homeowners like you for over 20 years with a trusted national network of 2,600 local contractors with nearly 4.5 million customers, a 4.8 out of 5 post repair rating, and an A on the Better Business Bureau rating scale. They're the real deal, so don't wait. Join the millions of customers who trust HomeServe for 50% less your first year. Go to HomeServe.com sisters that's HomeServe.com sisters for 50% less savings are compared to the renewal price void in Florida. The link is in our show notes.

[Barb McQuaid]

Well, Jill, I've got an audio question for you. This One comes from Dallas 1.

[Dallas]

Hi sisters, this is Dallas from Australia. You answered a question recently about restitution and pardons where you were saying that the restitution wasn't payable. If someone was pardoned for their crime, doesn't that mean that if someone's already been paid and they've spent the money, they would have to give it back? So yeah, I'm curious to know what happens in those cases. Thanks so much.

[Jill Wine Banks]

I love that we're getting a question from Australia, the home of my beloved Brisbie. So that's really important to me and I love the question. You know, the answer is that if restitution has been paid, it's final and the person who got the restitution gets to keep it. It's a very complicated system. But yes, a pardon means that you're pardoned from everything, including paying restitution. So if you get pardoned before you pay, too bad for the person. Except they could bring a civil lawsuit, of course. But if you've already gotten paid, that person doesn't get it back. Barb, there's a question for you from Michelle in Connecticut. I'm wondering how a Constitutional Convention is called. Who can request it, and what processes do they have to go through? Who has to agree?

[Barb McQuaid]

Oh, this is a great question, Michelle. Every once in a while we hear about these calls for a Constitutional Convention to rewrite it or do other things. Our Constitution has a provision in Article 5 that says it can be amended. That was, I think, one of the strong points of the Founding Fathers that they thought, you know, maybe we didn't get everything right and we want to be able to amend this Constitution as we evolve as a society. And so in Article 5, it provides for two ways to amend the Constitution. Either two thirds of both houses of Congress decide they want to review an amendment, or the one you mentioned, which is a Constitutional Convention. And the way to have a Constitutional Convention is that the state legislatures need to approve them. So you would have to have a call for a convention from 2/3 of the state legislatures to have one. It's sort of a way of saying, we don't like what you're doing in Washington, but a lot of us out here in the country really want to change the Constitution. And then after the Constitutional Convention gets called, you would then need three quarters of the states to ratify. That ratification process is the same whether the Constitution comes up through 2/3 of both houses of Congress or 2/3 of the states. But that's how you would have a Constitutional Convention. States have their own ways of doing state constitutional conventions, but that's the way that it could be done within the United States. I think sometimes people are fearful that we'd have this Constitutional Convention and they would upend the whole Constitution. I mean, that would be a pretty radical amendment to say we're rewriting the whole thing. I think instead we do it amendment by amendment, one provision at a time. And I think that there's certainly some things we ought to look at, like, I don't know, abolishing the Electoral College or overturning Citizens United. I think that'd be a good one. All right, Jill, here's one more from Kyle.

[Kyle]

Hi, sisters in law. This is Kyle from New York. The Supreme Court has our attention more than ever these days. And that's partially because the general public has access to the Court's live streamed arguments. Does Congress have the ability to mandate that opinions and dissents should also be live streamed? I'm thinking about how Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissents often seem to be addressed to the wider public. Could the Justices release their own audio on their own? Thank you.

[Jill Wine Banks]

Thank you for that question, Kyle. I am a really strong believer that we need more cameras in the courtroom. And there's an interesting history to the cameras in the courtroom. There was a federal trial put into place and it worked really well. Nobody complained about it. Defendants didn't complain. Prosecutors didn't complain. Litigants in the Supreme Court, litigants in any court did not complain. It worked really well. And I believe that the best way for people to trust the courts is, is to see how they really, really work. Obviously, we're not going to have them in grand juries, but there's no reason why they can't be in every trial court and in every appellate court. And you're right, hearing the Supreme Court arguments is one way to really understand and appreciate what is going on in our court system. So I hope that this will be something that happens and that we have more Supreme Court decisions heard. I don't think that individual justices can sort of record their own thing and put it out there unless the Supreme Court agrees to it. But there's no reason why the conference of the Supreme Court can't say all court hearings can be televised. Television cameras now are little teeny things that won't interfere in the way they did in the shepherd trial. They're little teeny things that can be hidden away. Thank you all for listening to Sister's sidebar with Jill Winebanks. Me and Barb McQuaid keep sending us the questions. And remember, you can send us the questions by voicemail so that we can play your question on air. But you also have the choice of sending us an email asking us questions. Send it to Sisters sidebar at the or follow us and tag us on social media@sistersidebar. And please show some love to this week's sponsors because they make this show happen. That's IQ Bar and Home Serve. The links to all of those advertisers are in our show notes. Please support them to help keep this program going. And don't forget to pick up some Sisters and Law merch by going to politicon.com merch. We have some great stuff for you. And then remember to tune in every Saturday to Sisters in Law and on Wednesdays to this show. Sister Sidebar. Thank you for being listeners. See you soon. Unlike a lot of the stuff out there, these don't have to. Sorry, hold on. My pumpernickel. I'm starting again. My computer is doing bad stuff. Hold on.

[Barb McQuaid]

Yes. Okay. Can we pump her nickel for one second? Okay, Mr. Floopers, Meow wants to find the best cat mama in the whole wide world. Okay, Meow once. If it's Shiba time and I'm the best, I knew you loved me.

[Kyle]

Go from ignored to adored with Shiba Grilled. It's protein rich and made with real chicken or seafood Tap. To buy now or find at your favorite retailer.