Sit Down, RFK Jr. Quimby Jr.

The guys played a clip with "the world's worst voice" which led to Jack talking about a recent Simpsons episode. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is Amy Cony Barrett and mister Sower.

Speaker 2 (00:04):
So in the Special Council's Brief on pages forty six
and forty seven, he urges us, even if we assume
that there's even if we were to decide or assume
that there was some sort of immunity for official acts,
that there were sufficient private acts in the indictment for
the trial to go, for the case to go back,
in the trial to begin immediately. And I want to
know if you agree or disagree about the characterization of

(00:25):
these acts as private petitioner turned to a private attorney
was willing to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud
to spearhead his challenges to the election results private.

Speaker 3 (00:35):
As ALLEI, I mean, we dispute the allegation, but of.

Speaker 1 (00:37):
Course sounds private.

Speaker 2 (00:39):
Petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing
in court of a verification signed by petitioner that contained
false allegations to support a challenge It sounds private. Three
private actors, two attorneys including those mentioned above, and a
political consultant helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates
of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding and petitioner

(01:00):
and a co conspirator attorney directed that effort.

Speaker 1 (01:03):
Uh you read it quickly. I believe that's private.

Speaker 3 (01:06):
I don't want to.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
So those acts you would not dispute. Those were private,
and you wouldn't raise a claim that they were official
as characterised.

Speaker 3 (01:12):
We would say, your honor, if I made that. What
we would say is officials things like meeting with the
Department of Justice to deliberate about who's going to be
the acting Attorney General of the United States. Sure, communicating
with the American public, communicating with Congress about.

Speaker 1 (01:23):
Matters of enormous thank you. So that guy with the
world's worst voice. Uh rfk JR. I think this guy's worse. Yeah,
that's funny.

Speaker 4 (01:35):
So on The Simpsons the other night, one of the
characters dies and they're at the funeral home. And of course,
in classic Simpsons way, like every group of characters in
Springfield is also having a funeral at the same time, right,

(01:55):
because that's the way it does the old the old
Sea fare Ring Skipper is like having a parent. His
parrot died is having a funeral, But so may A Quimby.
He's having a he's having a he's having a funeral
for his for his aunt, and my aunt died, and
she said, And then one of the people in the

(02:16):
crowd stands up and says, you know why she died
because of the vaccine shut down?

Speaker 1 (02:21):
Sit down? RFK Junior Quimby Junior. What wow? Wow?

Speaker 4 (02:29):
Was hilarious. Anyway, back to what we were talking about.
This guy with the horrible voice, he is defending Trump
but admitting all of those things are private acts. Yeah, okay,
that's that's okay, So that would be outside of the immunity. Then, right,

(02:49):
the way most people are predicting it will go, or
the way it seems to be going.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
How about one more.

Speaker 5 (02:54):
This is the absolutely brilliant Samuel Alito, who is questioning
Mike Driben, who's the attorney for Jack Smith the Special Council.

Speaker 1 (03:04):
So he's the guy on the other side.

Speaker 6 (03:06):
Mister Sauer and others have identified events in the past
where presidents have engaged in conduct that might have been
charged as a federal crime. And you say, well, no,
that's not really true. This is page forty two of
your brief. So what about President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision

(03:28):
to in turn Japanese Americans during World War Two, couldn't
that have been charged under eighteen USC. Two forty one
conspiracy against civil rights?

Speaker 1 (03:38):
Today?

Speaker 7 (03:39):
Yes, given this Court's decision in Trump versus United States,
in which the Trump versus Hawaii excuse me, where the
Court said coramots who is overruled and President Roosevelt made
that decision with the advice of his Attorney general.

Speaker 1 (03:57):
That's a layer. Is that really true? I thought?

Speaker 6 (04:00):
I thought Attorney General Bettle thought that there was really
no threat of sabotage, as did Jaeger Hoover.

Speaker 7 (04:06):
So I think that there is a lot of historical controversy,
but it underscores that that occurred during wartime. It implicates
a potential commander in chief concerns, concerns about the exigencies
of national defense that might provide and as applied article
to challenge at the time. I'm not suggesting today, but

(04:30):
the idea that a decision that was made and ultimately
endorsed by this Court, perhaps wrongly in the Koramazu case,
would support criminal prosecution under two forty one, which requires
under United States versus Linear, that the right have been
made specific so that there is notice to the president.
I don't think that would have been satisfied.

Speaker 4 (04:49):
Are there any lawyers that don't sound like cartoon characters?

Speaker 1 (04:53):
Number one, Yes, And that was an interesting question from Gorsag.

Speaker 5 (04:57):
It was it also clear that none of this has
been decided that, but it does appear to be heading
in the direction of as mister Yost wrote, which I quoted,
how central is it to the duties of the office, as.

Speaker 1 (05:12):
Opposed to.

Speaker 5 (05:15):
Kind of peripheral to the office or entirely private, and
then he used the fancy word exigencies for our purposes,
it means, like David Yost was writing, how urgent is it?
How important is it? And how speedy does the president
have to be? So I think we're seeing a doctrine
kind of take shape in front of our eyes. Worth

(05:36):
observing again that this country has been around for a
hell of a long time. We've had a hell of
a lot of presidents, and we've never had to ask
or answer this question before. This is the era of lawfair.
Part of it the Trump's a bit nutty, yeah, part
of it is the era of lawfair. Part of it
is we.

Speaker 4 (05:55):
Used to be really careful about trying to elect people
that we trusted their judgment enough the you didn't think
you needed to go there.

Speaker 1 (06:05):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (06:06):
No, nobody the other side never feels that way about
whoever's elected now.

Speaker 1 (06:10):
But the.

Speaker 4 (06:12):
Exception for commander in chief stuff, I mean, that's so broad.
So can a president just drone anybody anywhere? I'm commander
in chief, it's a war thing, leave me alone. You's
got to be a limit, you would think. So.

Speaker 5 (06:24):
Yeah, And I tried to trot out a metaphorical example earlier,
where we're at war with Russia and the president invades
Belgium because he likes the cheese. A better example would
have been that the president's family is the country's greatest,
like multi billionaire cheese distributor, and invades Belgium for the

(06:48):
purpose of controlling their cheese for his profit. I mean,
that is an act as commander in chief, allegedly, but
it's obviously for personal gain.

Speaker 1 (07:00):
So where does this end? Oh?

Speaker 5 (07:02):
The other thing I wanted to say, and it's just
an observation of the times we're in. I don't mean
to be like discouraging or overly negative. But the great
the greatest example of putting country before politics was when
Nixon knew and could prove that Joe Kennedy fixed the
election in Chicago, won Illinois and took the White House.
But Nixon knew it would tear the country apart if

(07:23):
they prosecuted it, if they took that all the way
to the wall, and so he let it go.

Speaker 4 (07:28):
Partially because they understood the threat from the Soviet Union.
And we can't be, you know, messing around when we've
got an adversary out there. Nobody thinks that way anymore,
whereas now right we're under no threats from anywhere. Oh
wait a minute, oh golly gy, lots of threats from
all over. So my takeaway is dig up FDR, playing
him in the chair and put him on on trial.

Speaker 1 (07:49):
That's my takeaway.