meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
#SistersInLaw

279: A Riot Is An Ugly Thing

#SistersInLaw

Politicon

News, Politics, News Commentary

4.910.2K Ratings

🗓️ 18 February 2026

⏱️ 20 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Get tickets for the #SistersInLaw Live Show in Denver, Colorado, on 4/23/26 at politicon.com/tour 

In this episode of Sisters Sidebar, Joyce Vance and Barbara McQuade emphasize the need for civic engagement and government accountability, and take your questions on ethics, resistance, politics, and the law.  They discuss how Congress can hold government officials like Pam Bondi accountable; how the law treats incitements to violence; the legal issues created by the label of domestic terrorism; protesters’ rights; the ethical responsibilities of DOJ officials; how gender affects how politicians are treated by the media; and more.

Start 2026 with style!  Get the brand new ReSIStance T-Shirt, Mini Tote, and other #SistersInLaw gear at politicon.com/merch

Additional #SistersInLaw Projects

#SistersInLaw Main Show

Jill’s Politicon YouTube Show: Just The Facts

Kim’s Newsletter: The Gavel

Joyce’s new book, Giving Up Is Unforgivable, is now available, and for a limited time, you have the exclusive opportunity to order a signed copy here

Pre-order Barb’s new book, The Fix, or her first book, Attack From Within, now in paperback. 

Add the #Sisters & your other favorite Politicon podcast hosts on Bluesky

Get your #SistersInLaw MERCH at politicon.com/merch

WEBSITE & TRANSCRIPT

Email: SISTERSINLAW@POLITICON.COM or Thread to @sistersInLaw.podcast

Get tickets for the #SistersInLaw Live Show in Denver, Colorado, on 4/23/26 at politicon.com/tour 

Get text updates from #SistersInLaw and Politicon. 

Get More From The #SistersInLaw

Joyce Vance: Bluesky | Twitter | University of Alabama Law | Civil Discourse Substack | MSNBC | Author of “Giving Up Is Unforgiveable”

Jill Wine-Banks: Bluesky | Twitter | Facebook | Website | Author of The Watergate Girl: My Fight For Truth & Justice Against A Criminal President | Just The Facts YouTube

Kimberly Atkins Stohr: Bluesky | Twitter | Boston Globe | WBUR | The Gavel Newsletter | Justice By Design Podcast

Barb McQuade: barbaramcquade.com | Bluesky | Twitter | University of Michigan Law | Just Security | MSNBC | Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

Welcome to this episode of Sisters Sidebar with Joyce fans and me, Barb McQuade.

0:08.4

If you have a question for us, please email us at Sistersin-law at Politicon.com or tag us on social media using hashtag Sisters-in-law.

0:18.5

But don't just type them. Your voices are so important, which is why we

0:23.4

want to hear them too. You can email us a voice memo using one of your notes apps, and we might play it on

0:30.5

the show. Before we get started, we're delighted to share that we'll be doing a live show in Denver, Colorado

0:36.6

at the Servantes masterpiece on April 23rd.

0:41.1

Tickets are available at politicon.com slash tour. We can't wait to see you there. Let's get started.

0:47.9

Our first question comes to us from Scott and Liberty, Pennsylvania. My name is Scott from Liberty, Pennsylvania. And my question to you is this,

0:57.1

exactly what statute could be used in order to criminally charge federal officers or their

1:05.4

superiors for inciting a riot? It seems like if we don't have one, we certainly need it. Thank you. Scott, thank you for

1:12.7

that question. I think it's terrific. We actually do have some statutes on the books that make it a

1:18.7

crime to incite either a riot or an insurrection. One of them is inciting an insurrection.

1:25.9

That is, you know, urging people to overthrow the government.

1:29.4

There's also another one called the Anti-Riot Act, which requires some elements of either

1:36.7

traveling across state lines or conspiring to travel across state lines for a group of people

1:43.0

to engage in acts of violence. So there are some,

1:47.7

you know, elements of each of those statutes that are required. But one of the reasons they are so

1:52.5

rarely charged is a Supreme Court case from the late 1960s called Brandenburg v. Ohio.

1:59.7

And what the court said there is that the First Amendment

2:03.5

protects speech unless you cross a really, really high threshold. And that is that your

2:11.0

words were both intended to elicit imminent lawless action and that it was likely to have that effect. So merely advocating

2:21.0

in the abstract that, you know, somebody ought to go storm January 6th, come January 6th, we'll be wild,

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Politicon, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Politicon and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.