0:00

This is Reverend Dr. William

0:02

J. Barber and we are

0:04

listening to the Ralph Nader

0:06

Radio Hour. Stand up. Stand

0:08

up. You've been sitting way

0:10

too long. Welcome to the

0:12

Ralph Nader Radio. My name

0:14

is Steve Scroven along with

0:17

my co-host David Feldman.

0:19

Hello, hello David. Good

0:21

morning. And our trustee producer,

0:24

Hannah Feldman. Hello, hello

0:26

Hannah. Hello, Steve. And the man

0:29

of the hour, Ralph Nader, low Ralph.

0:31

Hello everybody, welcome to

0:33

the first few days of der Furer

0:35

Trump. It isn't that we didn't

0:38

warn you. Yes, Ralph, but we

0:40

begin the program today by taking

0:42

you back to the conflict that

0:44

we covered a number of years

0:46

ago over the Dakota Access

0:49

Pipeline at Standing Rock. As

0:51

many of you may recall, the

0:53

indigenous community and a

0:55

phalanx of other supporters... successfully

0:58

protested the extension of that

1:00

pipeline through their territory. This

1:03

was the spring of 2016. Although they

1:05

did not lead the protest,

1:07

Greenpeace USA stood in solidarity

1:09

with the water protectors at

1:11

Standing Rock. And now, Greenpeace is

1:13

being sued. They're being sued by

1:15

the builder of the pipeline, a

1:17

company called Energy Transfer Partners.

1:20

They're using a legal technique

1:22

known as a slap suit, SLAP. That stands

1:24

for a strategic lawsuit against

1:27

public participation. Our first guest, Deepa

1:29

Padmanaba, is Senior Legal Advisor at

1:31

Green Peace USA, and she will be

1:33

defending that organization on February

1:36

24th against a legal action that

1:38

has potential consequences beyond standing

1:40

wrong. First Amendment implications

1:43

for ordinary people. If energy

1:45

transfer partners manages to win this case,

1:47

it would set a precedent that threatens

1:49

to have a chilling effect on

1:52

the entire activist community. no matter

1:54

what the cause. Next up, we welcome

1:56

back former State Department

1:58

official Josh Paul. who resigned from

2:01

the State Department in October

2:03

2023 over his disagreement with

2:05

Biden administration's continued supply of

2:07

lethal military assistance to Israel

2:09

as it bombed Palestinian civilians

2:11

in Gaza. He spotted an

2:13

organization along with Palestinian-American Tari

2:16

Khabash called a new policy.

2:18

A new policy is an

2:20

attempt to align American policy

2:22

toward Israel with the values

2:24

that we as Americans purport

2:26

to hold. or at least

2:28

aspire to. Those foundational principles

2:31

of liberty, equality, democracy, and

2:33

human rights, as opposed to

2:35

how we've been acting so

2:37

far, which is being complicit

2:39

with an ethnic cleansing. We

2:41

look forward to talking to

2:43

Mr. Paul about how a

2:46

new policy will work to

2:48

accomplish that change. As always,

2:50

somewhere in the middle, we'll

2:52

check in with our tireless

2:54

corporate crime reporter, Russell Mokiber,

2:56

but first, let's talk about

2:58

a lawsuit that could have

3:01

a chilling effect on the

3:03

entire activist community. no matter

3:05

what the cause. David. Deepa

3:07

Padmanaba is senior legal advisor

3:09

at Green Peace USA, where

3:11

she works closely with environmental

3:13

activists seeking to exercise their

3:16

First Amendment rights to promote

3:18

systemic change. In September of

3:20

2022, she testified before the

3:22

House Committee on Oversight and

3:24

Reform on Green Peace USA's

3:26

experience with legal attacks from

3:28

extractive industries. and the importance

3:31

of federal anti-slap legislation. And

3:33

her work is focused on

3:35

defending Green Peace entities in

3:37

the U.S. against two slap

3:39

lawsuits attempting to silence the

3:41

organization's advocacy work. Welcome to

3:43

the Ralph Nader Radio Hour,

3:45

Deepa Pabenaba. Thank you so

3:48

much. Yeah, welcome, Deepa. Let's

3:50

tell our audience the status

3:52

of this case. As I

3:54

understand it, there were many

3:56

protests against this. conduit connecting

3:58

pipeline by a company named

4:00

Energy Transfer, who's Kelsey Warren,

4:03

a very aggressive Texas

4:06

multi-billionaire, whose company

4:08

owns a lot of pipelines, and

4:10

who is a huge donor to Donald

4:12

Trump after earlier supporting

4:15

Ron DeSantis for the

4:17

presidential nomination. So

4:19

he's known to be very, very

4:22

aggressive, and he's trying to shut

4:24

you down with a $300 million

4:26

lawsuit alleging all kinds of activity

4:29

by you. with indigenous tribes who

4:31

are on the front lines,

4:33

opposing for a variety of

4:36

reasons, the extension of

4:38

this pipeline in North Dakota.

4:40

Now, the case is Energy Transfer

4:42

versus Greenpeace. It's going

4:45

to trial next month, and

4:47

I want to provide a

4:49

framework for the listeners before we

4:51

get into the details on how

4:54

to fight back against such

4:56

lawsuits. They're called slap

4:58

lawsuit. listeners. So let's start

5:00

out. What is a slap lawsuit?

5:02

Thanks Ralph. First, I just want

5:05

to say such an honor to

5:07

be on your show. Yeah, so slap

5:09

lawsuits, slap stands for strategic lawsuits

5:11

against public participation.

5:14

And I wish we had a better

5:16

acronym. It's a little wonky, but

5:18

these are lawsuits that are

5:20

designed to intimidate and to

5:22

silence powerful voices. And what's important

5:24

for listeners to know is that

5:26

their intent is not to actually

5:28

win on the merits. They're not

5:31

designed to win in court, but being

5:33

dragged through a long lengthy expensive

5:35

legal process. The idea is that

5:37

if you're hit with one of

5:39

these lawsuits, it will succeed in

5:41

having the intended impact, which is

5:43

silencing, which is intimidating not only

5:45

the person or the entity that the

5:48

defendant in the suit, but others from

5:50

speaking out. That's right and

5:52

in past slapped lawsuits by

5:54

corporations intended to wear

5:56

down the citizen groups cost them

5:59

all kind of of legal fees. There

6:01

have been lots of lawsuits for

6:03

citizen groups just having a news

6:05

conference or citizen groups being part

6:08

of a town meeting or in

6:10

the case of Oprah Winfrey who

6:12

was sued by a Texas meat

6:14

company because she had a critic

6:17

of the meat industry on her

6:19

show that reached millions of people.

6:21

That case was settled. So this

6:23

is the first extension of suppression

6:26

of suppression of free speech. by

6:28

these artificial entities called corporations we'll

6:30

get to in a moment. All

6:33

right now, the case has been

6:35

filed and if you had an

6:37

opportunity to depose Mr. Warren or

6:39

any others so far. Yeah, and

6:42

one thing that I think point

6:44

that you would raise that I

6:46

think it's so important for listeners

6:48

to know is that we often

6:51

don't hear about slaps because most

6:53

slaps are filed against everyday people

6:55

who are just fighting. to protect

6:57

their rights to their homes, to

7:00

clean air, to clean water, and

7:02

they don't get the attention that

7:04

the green piece has. So, you

7:06

know, one of the things that

7:09

I know that we'll get to

7:11

later is that's a huge part

7:13

of our strategy is we're not

7:15

just fighting this for a green

7:18

piece, we're fighting this for the

7:20

movement and individuals who would never

7:22

have the opportunity to undergo almost

7:25

eight years of mass abuse. Okay.

7:27

built in inequality between the corporate

7:29

entity and real human being. For

7:31

example, as Deepa pointed out, when

7:34

these corporations file these lawsuits and

7:36

pay their lawyers big fees, that's

7:38

deductible under the income tax laws

7:40

on corporations. But the citizen groups,

7:43

who are already pretty poor to

7:45

begin with and have to pay

7:47

these attorney fees, they can't deduct.

7:49

It has to come out of

7:52

what they raise. They can't burden

7:54

the tax system. the way the

7:56

corporations do. So keep that in

7:58

mind as another example. in the

8:01

forthcoming battle to make

8:03

corporations constitutionally unequal

8:05

as artificial persons

8:07

to the supremacy of

8:09

real human being. That's one

8:11

of the big struggles that should

8:13

be forthcoming in our country.

8:16

All right, let's get to the

8:18

trial here. Are you doing any

8:20

mock trials yet with any public

8:22

interest law firms? Sort of a

8:24

dry run? Not exactly I

8:26

mean we have local council as well

8:28

based in the area so we have

8:31

very much a connection to the local

8:33

community and and believe we

8:35

have a story to tell that the

8:37

jury is going to want to hear

8:39

now if you do want to see about

8:42

a pro bono mock trial you can call

8:44

the litigation group of public citizen

8:46

and Washington DC they do

8:48

a lot of mock appeals

8:50

for plaintiffs who are filing cases

8:53

that are appealed to the U.S. Supreme

8:55

Court. So they may have some good

8:57

suggestions for you. Listen, you should know

8:59

that Congressman Jamie Raskin

9:02

has introduced legislation, obviously

9:04

going nowhere under Republican

9:07

control, to establish a

9:09

procedure to dismiss and

9:11

deter these strategic lawsuits

9:13

against public participation. Interesting

9:16

is that this latest

9:18

introduction was actually bipartisan.

9:20

Oh, that's very good. Yes, I can

9:22

see where that would be bipartisan.

9:24

Good point. Now, one of the press

9:27

reports says, quote, the lawsuit

9:29

is thrown Greenpeace USA, which

9:31

has been active since the

9:33

1970s, into turmoil. It's preparing

9:36

contingency plans for a number

9:38

of scenarios, including a bankruptcy.

9:41

The group's leadership and the board

9:43

have clashed over what would

9:46

constitute an acceptable

9:48

settlement with energy transfer.

9:50

according to people familiar

9:52

with the matter." End quote. Now for

9:54

what I know of Greenpeace and how

9:57

aggressive it is, I can't believe

9:59

us in action. statement, is it? I

10:01

don't think it's an accurate statement.

10:03

You know, a person who has been the

10:05

legal point on this for almost eight

10:08

years, that is not consistent,

10:10

but many people have different

10:12

opinions, and so that may be the

10:14

opinion of some individuals. Okay, and listeners

10:16

should know that even in the

10:19

unlikely event that Greenpeace loses this

10:21

case at the trial level and

10:24

is assessed damages, it can always

10:26

appeal and appeal and appeal. as far

10:28

as it can go. This isn't the

10:30

state court system of North Dakota, correct?

10:33

Correct. So there's no intermediate

10:35

level, so we would go directly

10:37

to the North Dakota Supreme Court.

10:39

And from there, if there are issues

10:41

of First Amendment to appeal, then of

10:43

course, we would be going to the U.S.

10:46

Supreme Court. That's good. Listeners should

10:48

also know that North Dakota used

10:50

to be one of the most

10:52

progressive states in the country. It has

10:54

a state-owned bank that's the envy.

10:57

of even commercial banks around

10:59

the country. It has never failed.

11:02

It's never asked for bailout.

11:04

It's never asked for subsidies

11:06

the way city group and

11:08

Bank of America and other

11:11

banks did some time to

11:13

time, especially during the Wall

11:15

Street collapse on the economy

11:17

of 2008, 2009, and it

11:19

also had great farmer

11:21

progressive groups that sometimes

11:24

actually spilled over into

11:26

Minnesota. It also had

11:28

Democratic senators for years

11:31

until the Democratic

11:33

Party abandoned North Dakota,

11:35

South Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming,

11:38

and Montana, and Utah,

11:40

and not even competing

11:42

against the Republicans,

11:44

therefore starting out with

11:46

12 Senate seats in the

11:48

pockets of the Republican

11:50

Party, with no competition

11:52

or challenge. In case you want

11:55

to know why the Democrats have

11:57

trouble keeping control over

11:59

the U.S. Senate. Now, give our

12:01

listeners some idea, Deepa, of

12:03

what claims this company is

12:05

making that is upsetting them

12:07

so much about what they

12:09

alleged Greenpeace USA did regarding

12:11

this pipeline project. Yes, I

12:13

think both sides have acknowledged

12:15

that this is likely the

12:17

biggest case ever in North

12:19

Dakota State Court. And part

12:21

of that is because it's

12:23

almost it's like multiple cases

12:25

in one. And so when

12:27

I talk about the claims,

12:29

I usually divide them. I

12:31

call them into buckets. There's

12:33

really three buckets of claims.

12:35

The first bucket are claims

12:37

around defamation. So, energy transfer

12:39

alleges that the Greenpeace entities

12:41

made false statements that cause

12:43

them and originally in this

12:45

case, there were over 80

12:47

statements that they alleged were

12:49

defamatory and now we're down

12:51

to nine statements. And those

12:53

9 statements fall into 3

12:55

main categories. So the 1st

12:57

category or statements that we

12:59

made that the pipeline traverses

13:01

or crosses standing rock to

13:03

tribe ancestral land. The 2nd

13:05

category statements we made that

13:07

energy transfer desecrated cultural resources.

13:09

And then the 3rd category

13:11

or statements made about energy

13:14

transfer and its contractors use

13:16

of excessive 4. I think

13:18

the important thing for listeners

13:20

to know is this wasn't

13:22

the case of Greenpeace employee

13:24

sitting at their computer just

13:26

deciding to invent a statement

13:28

1 day by the time

13:30

Greenpeace made any statements. All

13:32

of this was widely circulated

13:34

widely accepted in the public.

13:36

And for many of these

13:38

categories, we relied on the

13:40

standing rock to try believing

13:42

that they are the ones

13:44

who are the authorities over

13:46

questions about the boundaries of

13:48

their lands and the status

13:50

of their culture resource. So

13:52

that's defamation. The 2nd bucket

13:54

is closely related to defamation

13:56

and that's tortuous interference with

13:58

contractual relations. So, energy transfer

14:00

alleges. that Greenpeace Entities made

14:02

false statements to banks. And

14:05

based on these false statements,

14:07

banks who were involved with

14:09

financing the Dakota Access Pipeline,

14:11

they pulled their financing, there

14:13

were delays in financing costs, there

14:15

were increased financing costs, they

14:17

allege that all of these banks made

14:19

their decisions based on Greenpeace State. We

14:22

know that many of the banks involved

14:24

in the financing had their own

14:27

commitments to social and sustainability practices. And

14:29

as will be shown at

14:31

trial, there is no evidence that any

14:34

bank made any decision based on a

14:36

Greenpeace State. Third bucket has

14:38

to do with on -the -ground claims. And

14:40

those are things like trespass. And that's really

14:42

the bucket that makes it very

14:44

clear that this attack is so

14:46

much bigger than Greenpeace. It's really

14:48

attack on all of our movement. And

14:50

what they're trying to establish is

14:52

what I call, like expanding this idea

14:54

of collective protest liability. We're

14:57

basically, they're trying to create

14:59

this precedent that if individuals

15:01

have any involvement in training

15:03

at a protest, they should

15:05

be held accountable for every

15:07

single thing that happened. So in

15:09

other words, individuals are involved

15:12

in training principles of de -escalation,

15:14

of safety, of non -violence, that

15:16

they should be held accountable

15:18

for the actions of unknown

15:20

protesters who, for example, use Molotov

15:23

cocktails to burn construction equipment.

15:25

And so that is obviously an

15:27

attempt to create a very

15:29

chilling impact on anybody's ability or

15:31

decision to engage in protest

15:33

at all. This idea we saw

15:35

at Standing Rock, probably over

15:37

a hundred thousand people show up

15:39

in this idea that if

15:41

you have any involvement in training

15:43

these principles, you could be

15:45

held accountable for anybody. And we

15:48

know that these protests and often

15:50

the agitators are infiltrators. And

15:52

so that's just a very dangerous theory

15:54

that's trying to be a step. Yes. It's

15:57

sort of a perverse use

15:59

of the doctrine of... joint and several

16:01

liability under tort

16:03

law. Now, the bulk of the

16:05

opposition was by Native

16:08

Americans. Tribes, they were supported

16:10

by Native American tribes

16:12

all over the country. It

16:14

was the cause of the labor. They

16:17

were on the ground. They were

16:19

protesting. Why isn't energy transfer

16:22

suing these tribes as well?

16:24

Just to add to that, one of

16:26

the things that's always so interesting when

16:28

I talk about this case, and like

16:30

I said, I've been working on these

16:32

legal fights by energy transfer for eight years,

16:34

the first question for anybody

16:36

who knows anything about the protest

16:38

is, was Greenpeace even there? The

16:40

Greenpeace have any involvement? And that's there

16:42

and where the truth is, is that

16:45

this was not a Greenpeace campaign. And

16:47

that was very intentional. And so

16:49

our very limited involvement

16:51

was solidarity. the indigenous

16:53

tribes, the indigenous water

16:55

protectors that we're carrying this fight.

16:58

And so, I mean, the question that

17:00

you raised is an excellent one.

17:02

And personally, I don't think

17:04

that energy transfer likes the

17:06

optics of going after indigenous

17:08

people. I think that it's much

17:11

easier to go after the big

17:13

greens, the agitators, things like that.

17:15

And they probably would be dealing

17:18

with a much more difficult ER.

17:20

campaign if they went after members

17:22

of tribes or other indigenous water.

17:24

Yes, I think they're really afraid

17:26

to file lawsuits against these

17:29

Native Americans, not only for

17:31

the optics, but they have a real network

17:33

all over the country now. It's

17:36

not the old days, you know,

17:38

when these tribes are isolated, they

17:40

would take children into boarding schools

17:42

hundreds of miles away, the U.S.

17:45

government separating from their families, which

17:47

has warranted an apology. by

17:49

the federal government a few

17:51

months ago for doing that

17:54

after a very powerful series

17:56

of media exposies led by

17:58

the Washington Post. that worked

18:00

on this for years. So that's

18:02

an interesting aspect. Now,

18:05

let me go back to the

18:07

depositions. Tell me, have you

18:09

had depositions of these officials

18:11

of the corporation? We have

18:13

had more than 100 depositions in

18:15

this case between both sides

18:17

and third parties. So yes, definitely

18:20

some energy transfer employees,

18:22

many third parties, many

18:25

Greenpeace employees, who name you. Did

18:27

it include the boss, Kelsey

18:29

Warren, the energy transfer? Kelsey

18:32

Warren was deposed in this

18:34

case. He was? Yes.

18:36

Well, congratulations. The litigants who

18:38

lost their loved ones in

18:40

the Ethiopian crash in

18:42

the 737 Max by Boeing have

18:45

not been able to get

18:47

the federal judge yet to

18:49

approve depositions at that time

18:51

CEO and head of the

18:53

border directors who've gotten

18:55

off Scott Free. So already

18:57

you're ahead of the Boeing

19:00

tort litigation by the families

19:02

who lost their relatives

19:04

in that crash at 550

19:06

miles an hour outside Addis

19:09

Ababa in Ethiopia. Yeah, and

19:11

I'll just think it didn't come

19:13

easy. They they fought to the

19:15

nail. It even went to

19:17

the North Dakota Supreme Court,

19:19

but also did prevail. And

19:22

did you get valuable information

19:24

from these depositions? Their lawyers

19:26

often coach them to become

19:28

prolific in avoiding answering the

19:30

question directly. All of the

19:32

depositions, obviously, can't get into

19:35

detail, but stay tuned to trial if

19:37

you can be there in North Dakota,

19:39

that would be great. But one of

19:41

the things I'll just say is that

19:43

every deposition confirms and validates

19:46

the fact that Greenpeace

19:48

was not involved with these protests.

19:50

When I was practicing a long

19:52

time ago in Connecticut, depositions

19:55

were automatically filed publicly in

19:57

the court and anybody could go and

19:59

read them. But the corporate law

20:01

firms have managed to get more

20:03

and more protective orders and make

20:06

these depositions secret. Are these depositions

20:08

under a protective order? There is

20:10

quite a bit of information and

20:13

evidence in this case that is

20:15

subject to a pretty extensive protective

20:17

order. And tell our listeners how

20:20

clients like yours are coerced into

20:22

a green to a protective order.

20:25

Because ordinarily you wouldn't want it,

20:27

you'd want it public. All the

20:29

questions and answers. Yes, definitely, but

20:32

you know, it also does go

20:34

both ways. You can imagine for

20:36

an entity like Greenpeace USA turning

20:39

over some of our most confidential

20:41

and sensitive information to a fossil

20:43

fuel company like energy transfer. We

20:46

also have a lot of sensitivity

20:48

about their ability to share that.

20:50

And so it's very complex and

20:53

it works both ways and there

20:55

are times where We absolutely believe

20:57

that information should be in the

21:00

public domain and then there are

21:02

there's another side to it. I

21:05

wanted our listeners to know about

21:07

that. By the way, the listeners,

21:09

I'm sure you know this, but

21:12

people all over the country who

21:14

often want to speak out against

21:16

corporate power, corporate control, corporate pollution,

21:19

corporate crime, corporate fraud, this and

21:21

that are afraid. And when you

21:23

say why don't you speak out?

21:26

And they say, I don't want

21:28

to be sued. Now, back in

21:30

the 60s and 70s, people never

21:33

said that, because they didn't experience

21:35

these slap suit by aggressive corporations.

21:38

Corporations knew better than to incur

21:40

adverse publicity. They had more self-restraint

21:42

than they do today, which illustrates

21:45

the avalanche of advancing corporate power

21:47

and corporate supremacy over what's left

21:49

of our republic and democratic and

21:52

democratic Let me ask you a

21:54

very fundamental question. When I went

21:56

after General Motors and the Corvere,

21:59

General Motors... couldn't sue us

22:01

because at that time they

22:03

didn't have any precedence to sue

22:05

on behalf of artificial

22:07

entities like General Motors

22:10

Corporation. In other words,

22:12

how can you defame an artificial

22:14

entity? You can defame

22:16

human beings, you can

22:19

defame corporate executives,

22:21

so how do you defame an

22:23

artificial entity? Or how

22:25

do you defame a product like

22:27

a Corvare? or a pinto, or

22:29

anything else that you can

22:32

see and exhibits at the

22:34

American Museum of Tort Law,

22:36

which I hope you will go and

22:38

take a public tour free virtually.

22:40

Go to Tort Museum.org. Have

22:42

you raised that issue at

22:44

all as a defense? How can

22:47

you defame an artificial

22:49

entity? Well, unfortunately

22:51

I do think that there is case

22:53

law on defamation against

22:56

corporations. The one thing...

22:58

that they do have to establish

23:00

as a heightened standard. I mean,

23:02

defamation, they are allowed to bring

23:04

defamation claims, but they are a

23:06

public figure. And so not only

23:08

do they have to go through

23:10

common law defamation, but they have

23:12

to establish actual malice. That, okay, let's

23:14

say that these statements are determined to

23:16

be false, which they are not, but

23:18

if they were, they have to be made

23:21

with a much heightened degree

23:23

of maliciousness, of willful disregard for

23:25

the truth. I hear you and

23:27

I wish we were there

23:29

but unfortunately there are instances

23:31

of defamation cases involving corporations. Well

23:34

you make an interesting point because

23:36

it's very hard to prove malice.

23:38

That's the thrust of the Sullivan

23:41

case where the Supreme Court said

23:43

that you can sue a public figure

23:45

but you have to show that the

23:47

public figure not only defamed you

23:49

but did with malicious intent. So

23:51

that augurs well for your case. Is

23:53

that correct? That's correct. Yeah, I mean,

23:56

we believe these statements are true. So

23:58

we shouldn't even get there, but But

24:00

yes, if there's any question as

24:02

to the truth of the statements,

24:04

then they will go down and have

24:06

to ultimately prove actual malice

24:09

here. Okay. Last question before we

24:11

go to Steve and David and

24:13

Hannah is this, for people around the

24:15

country who want help and advice on

24:18

how to deal with threats to

24:20

initiate slap suits or actual

24:22

slap suits by corporations criticized.

24:24

by these citizens and they

24:26

could be conservative citizens liberal

24:29

citizens it doesn't matter they're

24:31

vulnerable there used to be

24:33

a clearinghouse citizen group in

24:35

Denver Colorado that would answer

24:38

questions is that still operating and

24:40

if so can you give them their website

24:42

I'm not familiar with that group but

24:44

we do have another group so

24:46

back in 2016 and 2017 when the

24:48

original civil RICO cases were filed against

24:51

the Greenpeace entities all of these fights

24:53

started out as as RICO Many groups

24:55

across issue areas were deeply concerned that

24:58

this would be the new tactic used

25:00

to go to attack labor, to attack

25:02

human rights, to attack every kind of

25:04

organization imaginable. And so what we did

25:06

at that time, Greenpeace USA was a

25:08

part of it, as well as other

25:10

groups, is we've created a coalition called

25:13

Protect the Protests. And so

25:15

protect the protest is a coalition

25:17

of organizations to provide support for

25:19

individuals who are threatened with slaps, who

25:22

receive cease and desist letters, who might

25:24

want. help either finding a lawyer communication

25:26

support because we know that the individuals

25:28

bringing these lawsuits want to fight to

25:31

happen in silence. So a big part

25:33

of the work that needs to be

25:35

done and that we do is to

25:37

bring attention to them. So people can

25:40

visit protect the protest.org find a lot

25:42

about the coalition and then if they are

25:44

in a situation where they need some assistance

25:46

they can fill out a form online and

25:49

somebody from the coalition will respond.

25:51

Excellent. Well listen as you know now

25:53

the Greenpeace case is not just Fighting

25:55

to defend Greenface's right of free

25:57

speech, but fighting to defend all

26:00

citizens right of free speech. Anna?

26:02

Briefly, I want to circle back

26:04

to the RICO card, which is

26:06

I think one of the more

26:09

ludicrous, absurd, as a civilian, absurd

26:11

points of the story. Could you

26:13

briefly, this is something that you

26:15

already kind of got cleared, so

26:17

it's a victory that you already

26:20

have in your pocket, but could

26:22

you briefly say what described the

26:24

RICO claim that they were making

26:26

against you and the implications if

26:28

they were allowed to pursue that

26:30

claim. The implications that would have

26:33

on basic rights to freedom of

26:35

assembly and speech. Yeah, absolutely. So

26:37

in 2016 and 2017, we were

26:39

hit with these back-to-back RICO cases.

26:41

One was, 2017 was energy transfer

26:43

and 2016 was a Canadian logging

26:46

company called Resolute Forest Prada. And

26:48

these cases were brought by the

26:50

same lawyers at that time cast,

26:52

with Benson Torres. And they were

26:54

shopping this tactic around basically building

26:57

a business model that this is

26:59

the key, you know, the corporations

27:01

to destroying the work of advocacy

27:03

groups and the ability for groups

27:05

to work together. And so these

27:07

were both one case, was originally

27:10

filed in federal court in Georgia.

27:12

We got moved to California. The

27:14

other one was federal court in

27:16

North Dakota, and we got the

27:18

RICO claims in both cases dismissed.

27:20

And this was civil RICO. This

27:23

is different from what we're seeing

27:25

in cop city. But you can

27:27

imagine this was a huge threat.

27:29

I mean, first of all, to

27:31

be hit back to back for

27:34

Greenpeace USA, we were looking at

27:36

two cases that cumulatively sought goes

27:38

to $1 billion in damages. And

27:40

then this idea that working with

27:42

others was a criminal conspiracy, you

27:44

know, equivalent to being part of

27:47

mob activity, just the public narrative

27:49

was quite damaging. And I should

27:51

note that particularly with the RICO,

27:53

It's not just the lawsuits, but

27:55

a lot of these companies also

27:58

sign. simultaneously launch PR campaigns and

28:00

they have their contractors just pushing

28:02

out, you know, getting their narrative

28:04

out. We're seeing that in the

28:06

energy transfer case much more as

28:08

we get closer to trial. And

28:11

so the incredible thing in this

28:13

sort of journey that we forget is

28:15

that these were huge wins because now there

28:17

actually is precedent. There is good law on

28:19

the use of civil RICO against

28:22

advocacy organization. We unfortunately don't have

28:24

the same for criminal RICO like

28:26

we're seeing a cop city which is

28:28

still a huge threat. But since that

28:30

time, we haven't seen any news or

28:32

RICO cases filed. And so that

28:35

really was a big win. Unfortunately,

28:37

what happened in the energy

28:39

transfer case is that the federal

28:42

judge throughout RICO, he declined to

28:44

rule on the state claims. And

28:46

so what energy transfer did is

28:49

one week later, they took those

28:51

state claims ran to North Dakota

28:53

State Court. And that is

28:55

the case that's currently going to

28:58

trial. Steve? in this case that's

29:00

going to trial on February 24th?

29:02

Yeah, this case and the timing of

29:04

it, you know, this case was originally

29:06

set to go to trial in this

29:08

past summer, but it got moved, it

29:10

was continued to February and

29:12

giving the timing of it in

29:15

the new administration. I mean, this is

29:17

a real test on what the future of our

29:19

First Amendment right will look like. This

29:21

is a test case. We know

29:23

that other corporations are looking at

29:26

similar tactics. And so when I talk

29:28

about. not fighting this just for

29:30

Greenpeace, but fighting it for the

29:32

movement. We really believe that if

29:34

we can show corporations, there's

29:36

that inside the courtroom legal

29:38

strategy, but part of our

29:41

strategy needs to be outside of

29:43

the courtroom to show while you think

29:45

you make a shrink, you make a

29:47

silent, actually those on the other side of

29:49

this will come out of this stronger.

29:51

And so it's really critical. for

29:54

us to

29:56

be able

29:59

to in court room, green

30:01

piece is more than just a

30:03

set of entities, right? Green piece

30:05

is a movement. And so you

30:07

can't silence, you can't bankrupt, you

30:09

can't destroy a movement. And the

30:11

idea is that other corporations, considering

30:13

this tactic, they'll look and say,

30:15

well, it doesn't matter whether you

30:17

win or lose in the courtroom,

30:20

we don't want to galvanize the

30:22

public, we don't want to make

30:24

the movement that much stronger. And

30:26

the one thing I want to

30:28

name is the Wall Street Journal

30:30

article named that. some investors were

30:32

concerned that this lawsuit could create

30:34

a quote reinvigorated protest movement. And

30:36

so that concern that this kind

30:38

of act that could backfire, that

30:41

is really critical. And so that's

30:43

where the non-lawyer, the other folks

30:45

really stepping in to pay attention

30:47

to this fight, we have an

30:49

online petition at our website, Greenpeace

30:51

on trial.org, to tell energy transfer,

30:53

drop this lawsuit. It's really critical

30:55

for energy transfer to see that

30:57

they're not just going up against

30:59

Greenpeace. they're going up against groups

31:01

that Greenpeace may have never even

31:04

worked with. And that's also part

31:06

of what protective protest does. And

31:08

so we really believe that we're

31:10

going to see a lot of

31:12

these kinds of attacks. We already

31:14

are seeing attacks against journalists. We're

31:16

seeing attacks against activist groups. The

31:18

playbook to destroy dissent is just

31:20

going to continue to grow and

31:22

escalate from all branches of government.

31:24

We have H.R. 9495 to deal

31:27

with now. And so when we

31:29

can see these pivotal fights that

31:31

actually can alter the trajectory moving

31:33

forward, it's time for everybody to

31:35

step in. And I know I'm

31:37

biased in the Greenpeace fight, but

31:39

I really believe that Greenpeace is

31:41

one of those fights that the

31:43

future of democracy, the future of

31:45

the First Amendment will look different

31:48

depending on what happens. And give

31:50

that website again? Greenpeace on trial.org.

31:52

And there's a sign on there.

31:54

And if you... Sign the sign-on

31:56

letter you will automatically get we're

31:58

going to be doing a lot

32:00

of work in the lead up

32:02

to trial and so you'll automatically

32:04

get those updates and information.

32:07

We've been speaking with Deepa

32:09

Padmanaba as senior legal advisor

32:12

at Green Peace USA. Thank you

32:14

for your very precise replies

32:16

to these questions. Deepa. Last

32:18

point, if anybody wants to

32:20

support Green Peace USA with

32:22

a contribution, what would be

32:24

the website? Our website is Green.

32:26

You should be taken directly to

32:29

the USA site there if you're

32:31

based in the US. Otherwise, it's

32:33

Greenpeace.org back slash USA. Thank you.

32:35

Well, we're looking forward to the

32:37

trial. What city is it in

32:39

in North Dakota? Mandan, North Dakota.

32:42

So that's just across the river

32:44

from business. There you are listeners.

32:46

Get engaged in this because

32:48

it affects your right of

32:50

free speech wherever you live,

32:52

work, and raise your families

32:54

against these corporate dictatorial. policy.

32:56

Thank you. Thank you so much Ralph. I

32:59

really appreciate the opportunity to be on

33:01

your show. Thank you. We've been speaking

33:03

with Deepa Pappanaba. We have a

33:05

link to her work at Ralph Native

33:07

Radio Hour.com. Up next we welcome

33:09

back State Department whistleblower Josh

33:11

Paul who has founded an

33:14

organization that outlines a new

33:16

American policy for Middle Eastern affairs.

33:18

But first let's check in with

33:20

our corporate crime reporter Russell Mokiber.

33:23

From the National Press Building in

33:25

Washington DC, this is a corporate

33:27

crime report a morning minute for

33:29

Friday, January 31, 2025. I'm Russell

33:31

O'Ciber. Hawaii and Texas residents united

33:34

during a virtual meeting last week

33:36

hosted by the Federal Aviation Administration

33:38

to overwhelmingly oppose SpaceX's latest plans

33:40

for rocket launches. SpaceX asked the

33:43

FAA to increase the number of

33:45

rocket landings from five a year

33:47

to 25 a year. The company

33:49

owned by Elon Musk also asked

33:52

the FAA to expand the landing

33:54

zone to around 20 times its

33:56

current size. The rockets take off

33:58

from Boca Cica and Tech. and

34:00

land in the Pacific Ocean near

34:02

Hawaii or the Indian Ocean near

34:04

Australia. Last week, Native Hawaiians and

34:07

Hawaii residents joined the public meeting

34:09

to express outrage, often saying the

34:12

FAA has not made an environmental

34:14

impact statement to determine what effects

34:16

the landings would have on marine

34:19

life. That's going to report in

34:21

the San Francisco Chronicle. For the

34:23

corporate crime reporter, I'm Russell Mochab.

34:26

Thank you, Russell. Welcome back, Hannah

34:28

and Ralph. The last time we

34:30

spoke to Josh Paul, he had

34:33

just resigned from the State Department

34:35

over the United States government's complicity

34:37

in the genocide the Israeli government

34:40

was perpetrating on the people of

34:42

Gaza. He's back to give us

34:44

an update on what he's been

34:47

doing since. David? Josh Paul is

34:49

co-founder of a new policy. He

34:51

resigned from the State Department in

34:54

October of 2023 due to his

34:56

disagreement with the Biden administration's decision

34:58

to rush lethal military assistance to

35:01

Israel. in the context of its

35:03

war on Gaza. He had previously

35:05

spent over 11 years working as

35:08

a director in the Bureau of

35:10

Political Military Affairs, which is responsible

35:13

for U.S. defense diplomacy, security assistance,

35:15

and arms transfers. He previously worked

35:17

on security sector reform in both

35:20

Iraq and the West Bank, with

35:22

additional roles in the office of

35:24

the Secretary of Defense U.S. Army

35:27

staff. and as a military legislative

35:29

assistant for a member of the

35:31

U.S. House Armed Services Committee. Welcome

35:34

back to the Ralph Nader Radio

35:36

Hour, Josh Paul. Thank you very

35:38

much. Honored to be with you

35:41

again. Welcome back, Josh. The State

35:43

Department now is being run by

35:45

Secretary of State Rubio, former Senator

35:48

from Florida, very aggressive in terms

35:50

of foreign policy. One might call

35:52

it a militarized version of foreign

35:55

policy. Do you expect more members

35:57

of the State Department to quit?

35:59

protest the way you did? Thank you Ralph.

36:02

Well I think that the time for

36:04

quitting in protest over Gaza unfortunately

36:06

in many ways is greatly behind

36:08

us. I think there will be

36:10

a significant number of state department

36:12

officials who will be leaving in

36:14

the coming days weeks and months

36:16

and this is a result of

36:18

a book from the Trump administration

36:20

to gut America's diplomatic corps much

36:22

as they did at the start of

36:24

the previous Trump administration but even

36:26

more so this time around. What

36:29

I'm hearing from former colleagues in

36:31

the State Department is a sense

36:33

of immense despair as they see

36:35

breezes being placed on US foreign

36:37

assistance programs, including programs that do

36:40

an immense amount of good around

36:42

the world and just a concern

36:44

about the overall and impending collapse

36:46

of American diplomacy. Yes, they

36:49

don't seem to respect much

36:51

the foreign service people at

36:53

embassies around the United States,

36:55

which used to be. a

36:57

major bulwark of state department

36:59

diplomacy before it turned into

37:01

like a militarized variance of

37:03

government, which certainly contradicts

37:06

its charter of over 200

37:08

years ago, which talked about

37:10

focusing on diplomacy and

37:13

customs issue. So let's go

37:15

into the issue of continuation

37:17

of the Biden support with

37:20

weapons diplomatic cover and other

37:22

arm-twisting any nations. that

37:24

dared to protest the

37:26

shipment of weapons to

37:29

enable Netanyahu's genocide of

37:31

the Palestinian people in

37:34

Gaza, increasing now in the

37:36

West Bank, still in Lebanon.

37:38

Do you see any light between

37:40

Trump's emerging position?

37:42

Is it worse than Biden, less

37:44

than Biden, or still open

37:47

for hope or dread? So I

37:49

think there are a few things to

37:51

pick up heart there. The first is

37:53

I think we have to acknowledge the

37:55

precedent set by President Biden, not only

37:57

in his unconditional support for Israel.

37:59

and its attacks on Gaza, its

38:02

violations of international humanitarian law, but

38:04

also in President Biden and Secretary

38:06

Lincoln's willingness to set aside U.S.

38:08

laws when it came to, in

38:10

particular, security assistance and arms transfers

38:13

in order to continue that support.

38:15

That is a precedent that I

38:17

think all Americans should be concerned

38:19

about, regardless of their thoughts on

38:22

the conflict itself, because we don't

38:24

want our presidents ignoring U. and

38:26

we want a Congress and a

38:28

judicial branch that is willing to

38:30

enforce those laws, neither of which

38:33

we had under President Biden, and

38:35

he has now handed that condition

38:37

over to President Trump, who will

38:39

surely exploit it in both the

38:41

same and new ways when it

38:44

comes to President Trump's position on

38:46

US support Israel. So first of

38:48

all, I would say that what

38:50

we face in America is a

38:53

problem set that runs much deeper

38:55

than any change in administration than

38:57

any political party. that is an

38:59

entrenched dynamic within American politics, an

39:01

entrenched set of both political and

39:04

economic incentives across our electoral system

39:06

that are maintaining US unconditional support

39:08

for Israel, regardless of what the

39:10

American people might want. And we've

39:13

seen in the last year, poll

39:15

after poll across both Democrats and

39:17

increasingly Republicans, showing that the American

39:19

people do want a change, do

39:21

not think that we should be...

39:24

complicit in a genocide, complicit in

39:26

violations, gross violations of human rights

39:28

by partners such as Israel that

39:30

use American weapons. I think that

39:32

what we will see in the

39:35

Trump administration, unfortunately, certainly based on

39:37

President Trump's initial round of appointments,

39:39

is very much a continuation, if

39:41

not a deepening, of President Biden's

39:44

approach. In fact, we have already

39:46

seen President Trump lift the pause,

39:48

the sole pause that President Biden

39:50

imposed on 2000 pound bombs. We

39:52

just saw a delivery in the

39:55

past few days of the first

39:57

of 130 new armored buildings. to

39:59

the IDF that will be used

40:01

to destroy Palestinian homes in the

40:03

West Bank. And so while I do

40:06

think that President Trump will be keeping

40:08

an eye on his base and certainly

40:10

an ear on some important regional voices,

40:12

and there I would say there are countries

40:15

in the region who are trying to push

40:17

back, from the starting point it looks rather

40:19

grim. Well, just to step back

40:21

for our listeners, Joshpah was referring

40:23

to six federal laws that

40:25

condition the shipment of weapons

40:27

to foreign countries. For example...

40:29

any countries that violate human

40:32

rights, any countries that obstruct

40:34

US humanitarian aid from

40:37

entering, would not receive US

40:39

weapon shipments. So Biden

40:41

and Lincoln were violating and

40:43

Secretary of Defense Austin.

40:45

They were all violating six

40:47

federal statutes in shipping

40:50

weapons to Netanyahu. Actually,

40:52

they almost admitted it at one

40:54

point when they warned Israel. that

40:56

if it didn't let some humanitarian

40:59

trucks in, they may invoke some

41:01

of these laws that they have

41:03

been violating despite their oath of

41:05

office to observe the laws of the

41:08

land. So let's go back just for

41:10

a moment. There's a debate in

41:12

liberal circles in the US as

41:14

to whether Trump is worse or

41:16

better or about the same. Is

41:18

Biden? You permitted a little speculation

41:21

here before we go to the

41:23

contemporary scene. If Trump was

41:25

president. during October 7th instead

41:28

of Biden. Do you have any doubt that

41:30

he would have supported Netanyahu

41:32

and weaponized the genocide

41:34

the way Biden did? I think it is

41:36

very likely that he would have

41:39

certainly at the start taking very

41:41

much a similar approach to President

41:43

Biden's of opening the floodgates of

41:45

American weaponry and disregarding, as you

41:48

said, laws that apply to the

41:50

provision of security assistance. I do

41:52

think that he would have been

41:54

more persuadable to shift perspective over

41:57

the course of the last 15

41:59

months. than President Biden was because

42:01

the one difference between them is

42:03

when it comes to Israel, President

42:06

Biden, was very much an ideologue.

42:08

A self-proclaimed ideologue, President Trump on

42:10

the other hand, it's very clear

42:12

in all of his foreign policy

42:14

transactions, is a transactionalist, is always

42:16

asking what is in it for

42:19

his administration or for him. And

42:21

I think that that would have

42:23

created certain opportunities to be more

42:25

swayed by again voices within his

42:27

own base. by voices within Saudi

42:29

Arabia or elsewhere in the region,

42:32

speaking of his own base, would

42:34

a President Trump have continued on

42:36

such a path knowing or being

42:38

aware of the electoral consequences in

42:40

a way that the Biden and

42:42

then, you know, Harris campaign did?

42:45

I doubt it. So I think

42:47

if there is organization, if there

42:49

is movement, there is an opportunity

42:51

for shifts. But again, I think

42:53

the problem is that the spectrum

42:56

of what President Trump could do

42:58

while it may... have some space

43:00

for improvement, also has a lot

43:02

of space for degradation and for

43:04

things getting worse, and I think

43:06

that's where we are starting. Well,

43:09

Trump, when he was president, as

43:11

you know, Joshua, he supported annexation

43:13

of the West Bank, and he

43:15

moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem

43:17

from Tel Aviv, and he endorsed

43:19

the legality of keeping the Golan

43:22

Heights conquered by Israel prior conflict.

43:24

Now, do you credit Trump as

43:26

being the Sina Kwanone for the

43:28

short-term ceasefire that's now underway in

43:30

Gaza? I would certainly credit the

43:32

change in administration, and I do

43:35

think that President Trump's staff, including

43:37

Stephen Wyckoff, the new US special

43:39

envoy to the Middle East, did

43:41

play an important role. I don't

43:43

know that Prime Minister Netanyahu would

43:45

have come to that ceasefire agreement.

43:48

absent the Trump administration coming into

43:50

office and wanting to give Donald

43:52

Trump a sort of quick win

43:54

as he was entering office, let's

43:56

not overstate that win. It is

43:58

absolutely vital for that. to be

44:01

a ceasefire. It is absolutely vital

44:03

for humanitarian assistance to flow in.

44:05

It is absolutely vital for

44:07

hostages to be released from both sides.

44:09

But a ceasefire that, you know, first of

44:11

all we need to see it stick and

44:14

hold into and through phase two and

44:16

then phase three. And of course the

44:18

ceasefire does nothing to address the

44:20

underlying political dynamic that will

44:22

continue to create and generate

44:24

harm and suffering for the people

44:27

of Palestine. It's not a

44:29

good sign that Trump has

44:31

not objected to the continuation

44:33

of bombing and bulldozing

44:36

and kidnapping Palestinians in

44:38

the West Bank. So Netanyahu

44:40

seems to have shifted his

44:43

battleground more to the

44:45

West Bank, that has about

44:47

3 million Palestinians in him,

44:49

and he is clearly violating

44:51

the Lebanon ceasefire. He is

44:53

damaged or blown up over

44:56

1,000. houses in South Lebanon

44:58

since the ceasefire started in

45:00

Lebanon. His troops are still

45:02

in South Lebanon. They're damaging

45:05

villages and they're preventing

45:08

their inhabitants who escape to

45:10

the north from going back to

45:12

their villages. Is that a

45:14

bad sign? Is that augur negatively

45:16

for Donald Trump that he can't

45:19

tell Netanyahu what he should be

45:21

doing? So, I mean, let's acknowledge that Benjamin

45:23

Netanyahu is a very kenny politician

45:25

and he is a politician who

45:27

ran rings around Joe Biden. Netanyahu

45:29

is going to be coming to Washington

45:32

DC, to the White House. He is

45:34

the first foreign leader that President Trump

45:36

has invited to the White House on

45:38

February 4th, and I think that we can

45:41

expect that he will come with a

45:43

cunning plan to run rings around President

45:45

Trump. perhaps offering a deal

45:47

such as the continuation of the

45:49

ceasefire interface to in exchange for

45:51

certain commitments from the US. I

45:54

think President Trump should be well aware

45:56

that it is the US that has the

45:58

upper hand in any negotiation. with Israel

46:00

as by far the more powerful

46:02

partner, the partner that is the

46:05

source of most of Israel's defense

46:07

capabilities of its diplomatic protection of

46:09

Benjamin Netanyahu's personal protection from the

46:11

International Criminal Court. And so I

46:14

think the question for Donald Trump

46:16

is, will he let Benjamin Netanyahu

46:18

run rings around him too? Well,

46:20

we had Gideon Lezy, the columnist

46:23

for Harris newspaper in Israel, on

46:25

the show recently, and he made

46:27

an interesting statement. He said, Netanyahu

46:29

was not afraid of Obama, and

46:32

he wasn't afraid of Biden, but

46:34

he's afraid of Trump. At the

46:36

time when I heard that, I

46:38

probably should have said, Gideon, it's

46:41

also reciprocal. Trump is afraid of

46:43

Netanyahu, and the powerful Israel government

46:45

can do no wrong lobby in

46:47

the United States. How would you

46:50

comment on that? has proven to

46:52

be a transactionalist and of course

46:54

can be deeply unpredictable. So I

46:56

think that there's probably a greater

46:59

need for pact on the part

47:01

of Prime Minister Netanyahu, but as

47:03

you just referred to, I think

47:05

he can also depend at the

47:08

end of the day regardless of

47:10

what direction President Trump may wish

47:12

to go on the deep well

47:14

of the report that has been

47:17

built over many years at great

47:19

expense within and across American politics

47:21

in support of the Israeli government

47:23

can do no wrong lobby, as

47:26

you just called it, who, you

47:28

know, whether through the personnel that

47:30

have been appointed, that have been

47:32

brought in around President Trump, whether

47:35

through a Congress that seems to

47:37

always vote in favor of whatever

47:39

that lobby wants, will continue to

47:41

stand up for Prime Minister Nuz

47:44

and Yahoo's interests, which of course

47:46

are not America's interest. Let's go

47:48

to your new group. Josh Paul,

47:50

you resigned under protest. which is

47:53

a tradition in this country, but

47:55

you've taken it to the next

47:57

step. You not only gave the

47:59

reason for your resignation, you were

48:02

part of the approval process in

48:04

the State Department for weapons systems

48:06

to foreign countries and you would

48:08

have reasonable debates inside the

48:11

State Department, pro and con

48:13

to this country or that country,

48:15

but when it came to Israel

48:17

there was no debate. It was

48:20

just automatic and you could not

48:22

tolerate that as a member of the civil

48:24

service. So now you have started

48:27

a new group. It's called a new

48:29

policy. And you want to change

48:31

the dynamic in Congress, which

48:33

is the basis of this whole

48:35

devastating empire

48:37

practices all over the world,

48:40

by funding it, allowing wars

48:42

to be declared by

48:44

the president, not holding

48:46

the president accountable

48:48

to constitutional statutory

48:50

provisions, as we

48:52

mentioned earlier, the

48:54

six federal statutes that

48:57

are being violated. Tell

48:59

us about this group, a new policy and

49:01

who your co-director is. Yes, thank

49:03

you. So a new policy was co-founded

49:05

by myself and by another one

49:07

of those who resigned from the

49:10

Biden administration, Tarik Habash,

49:12

a Palestinian-American who was

49:14

a Biden political appointee in

49:16

the Department of Education. And

49:18

it was both Tarik and my

49:20

observation while we worked in government,

49:23

and I think just as much

49:25

since we left government. that as

49:27

much as US policy towards

49:29

Israel, US actions towards Israel

49:31

manifest as a policy problem,

49:33

at their root, they're actually

49:35

a political problem. That there is

49:37

a unique political set of circumstances

49:40

that prevents open policy discussion even

49:42

within government and in the US

49:44

public sphere on our college campuses,

49:46

in our private sector, whose roots

49:48

are not the policy issues. I

49:50

think a lot of people understand

49:52

the policy issues. I've talked to a

49:54

lot of, for example, members of Congress in the

49:57

last year, who in private will say what we

49:59

are doing. is wrong. Our weapons are

50:01

being used to commit war crimes.

50:03

But of course I can't say

50:05

that out loud. I can't say

50:08

that publicly. And that is because

50:10

what we face is a set

50:12

of political economic incentives for elected

50:14

officials that has taken away that

50:16

sort of free debate, that open

50:18

discussion that is key to functioning

50:21

in a democracy when it comes

50:23

to US policy towards Israel. And

50:25

so what a new policy is

50:27

here to do? is to bring

50:29

balance back to that, to first

50:31

of all shift the narrative and

50:33

help American people and I think

50:36

they already do intuitively understand that

50:38

what we are doing in our

50:40

complicity in our unconditional support to

50:42

Israel is not in America's interest.

50:44

It is in direct contravention of

50:46

our values and that at the

50:49

same time there is a need

50:51

to take the immense momentum that

50:53

has been generated the immense. number

50:55

of people across America of all

50:57

breeds of all backgrounds who have

50:59

stood up in the last year

51:01

to say not in our name

51:04

and to channel that into America's

51:06

politics in a way that our

51:08

system is designed to respond to

51:10

and in part that means lobbying

51:12

and engaging with communities across America

51:14

in part I'm sorry to say

51:17

that means engaging in election finance

51:19

and ensuring that there is money

51:21

behind candidates who are willing against

51:23

candidates who are you know, not

51:25

willing to speak their minds or

51:27

who are so braven as to

51:30

bend to Prime Minister Nisen Yahoo

51:32

and those who represent his interest.

51:34

Tell us about your co-director. Yeah,

51:36

so Tarakabash grew up in Middletown,

51:38

Ohio, actually in the same high

51:40

school as JD Vance went to,

51:42

but a few years behind him.

51:45

He is a very proud Palestinian

51:47

American who was working as a

51:49

presidential appointee for President Biden in

51:51

the Department of Education where he

51:53

was leading on issues such as...

51:55

student loans and other education policy.

51:58

He resigned on January third of

52:00

2024 because as a Biden political

52:02

appointee he could not serve a

52:04

president who did not see him

52:06

who did not recognize the humanity

52:08

of his own people. I can only

52:10

imagine how very difficult that was

52:13

having campaigned for President Biden having

52:15

served the Biden administration to then

52:17

have essentially the White House spit

52:19

in his face and say we

52:21

are going to arm the killing

52:23

of your people and there is nothing you

52:25

can say or do about it. since leaving

52:28

Tarak has been a very very

52:30

strong voice for a better policy

52:32

and also one who understands middle

52:35

America having grown up in the

52:37

Ohio suburbs and so I'm you know

52:39

really is a fantastic colleague and I

52:41

think the two of us make a great

52:43

team together. Can you give us

52:46

slowly the website for your new group

52:48

titled a new policy so people

52:50

can connect and see if they

52:52

want to engage and support? Yes,

52:54

and I would say to your

52:56

listeners, please do visit us. You

52:58

will learn more about our policy

53:00

platform, more about how we are

53:03

going about our work, and more

53:05

about ways to support us, whether

53:07

by signing up for our mailing

53:09

list or contributing, or there are

53:11

various ways of support. You can find

53:13

all of those on a new policy,

53:15

as all one word, a new policy.org.

53:17

That's a new policy, one word,

53:20

ORG, are you getting some good

53:22

reception among the, say, five dozen

53:24

members of Congress who have

53:26

displayed some critical independence

53:28

in what they say

53:30

and do about the

53:32

Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Yes, and not

53:35

only them, I will say that, you

53:37

know, because our message is clear that

53:39

ultimately we are here to pursue American

53:41

interests. American values. I don't know what

53:44

other lobby groups whose interests they are

53:46

here to pursue, but we are here

53:48

to put American interests and values in

53:50

the front. And because of that, we've

53:52

been able to speak with scores of

53:54

members of Congress and congressional offices, both

53:57

in the House and the Senate, both

53:59

Democrats. and Republicans, and I think

54:01

this is, let's be clear, going

54:03

to take a long time. This

54:05

is going to be the work

54:07

of multiple election cycles. This is

54:10

going to be, as they say,

54:12

an iterative process. But I think

54:14

there is an understanding certainly behind

54:16

closed doors, well beyond the few

54:18

members of Congress who have been

54:20

willing to speak up on this.

54:22

And if we can engage in

54:24

the process and bring together both

54:27

the voters and the money necessary

54:29

to demonstrate that there is a

54:31

political win here, and I think

54:33

that is increasingly... the case, then

54:35

we will see change. Our position

54:37

is to support Palestinian self-determination. I

54:39

think that, you know, whatever form

54:41

that takes, it has been a

54:43

long time that America has been

54:46

dictating what the outcome of the

54:48

peace process should be, and I

54:50

think that the history here is

54:52

that we have not followed through

54:54

on those commitments. I think the

54:56

most important thing is to hear

54:58

from the Palestinian people themselves what

55:00

direction they would like to go

55:02

in. A confederation is one option,

55:05

a two-state solution is another option.

55:07

a one-state solution is another option

55:09

but ultimately self-determination is a right

55:11

of all peoples and we our

55:13

job is to stand firm behind

55:15

the direction the Palestinian people would

55:17

like to go in and of

55:19

course the direction that is in

55:21

the best interest of all people

55:24

in the region all people's right

55:26

to self-determination and over just and

55:28

lasting peace well we're out of

55:30

time Josh we've been talking with

55:32

Josh Paul who is the co-founder

55:34

of this group a new policy

55:36

one-word Tarak Habash, who also resigned

55:38

from the Biden administration's Department of

55:40

Education due to this disgraceful policy

55:43

toward Gaza. And we urge our

55:45

listeners to get in touch, get

55:47

feedback, if you want to support

55:49

a new policy, I'm sure you'll

55:51

be very welcomed into this growing

55:53

effort to bridge the gap between

55:55

the expanding demand by the American

55:57

people as opposed to for peaceful

55:59

resolution of this country. and the

56:02

continuing belligerent and genocidal support that

56:04

is reflected regularly in our U.S.

56:06

Congress and White House. Thank you

56:08

very much Josh Paul. Thank you very

56:10

much. It's been an order. I want to

56:12

thank our guests again, deep up Padmanaba

56:14

and Josh Paul. For those you listening

56:17

on the radio, that's our show

56:19

for you, podcast listeners. Stay tuned

56:21

for some bonus material we call

56:23

the wrap-up. A transcript of this

56:25

program will appear on the Ralph

56:27

Nader Radio Hour sub stack site

56:30

soon after the episode was posted.

56:32

Subscribe to us on our Ralph

56:34

Nader Radio Hour YouTube channel, and

56:36

for Ralph's Weekly Column, it's free.

56:38

Go to nader.org. For more from

56:40

Russell Mokiver, go to Corporate Prime

56:43

Reporter.com. To order your copy of

56:45

the Capital Hill Citizen, Democracy Dives

56:47

and Broad Daylight, go to Capital

56:49

Hill Citizen. And remember to continue

56:51

the conversation after each program, go

56:53

to the comment section at Ralph

56:55

Native Radio Hour.com and post a

56:57

comment or question on this week's

56:59

episode. The producers of the Ralph

57:02

Nader Radio Hour are Jimmy Lee

57:04

Wert, Anna Feldman, and Matthew Marin.

57:06

Our executive producer is Alan Minsky.

57:08

Our theme music, Stand Up Rise

57:10

Up, was written and performed by

57:12

Kemp Harris. Our proof reader is

57:14

Elizabeth Solomon. Join us next week

57:16

on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Thank

57:18

you, Ralph. Thank you very much. Log

57:20

into this new group by Josh Paul

57:23

called a new policy. Hi, this is

57:25

Jimmy Lee Wert and welcome to

57:27

the wrap-up. First, Ralph and

57:29

Greenpeace, USA Legal Advisor,

57:31

Deepa Padmanaba, discuss whether

57:33

Greenpeace can turn the

57:35

tables on energy transfer

57:37

partners by suing them

57:40

back. Well, North Dakota, as you

57:42

know, is one of about a dozen

57:44

states that doesn't allow you to

57:46

sue back. These are called anti-SLAPP

57:49

suits, for example. In California,

57:51

you did initiate years ago,

57:54

Greenpeace, an anti-SLAPP suit, and you

57:56

actually won an award. Can

57:58

you explain that? Yeah, so... There's

58:00

a slight difference between an anti-slap

58:02

lawsuit and an anti-slap motion. And

58:04

so what we did in California

58:06

is California has a very strong

58:09

anti-slap law. And just so listeners

58:11

know, there's really no disincentive for

58:13

corporations to bring these kinds of

58:15

lawsuits. You know, it's a drop

58:17

in the bucket for them to

58:19

bring this kind of litigation, but

58:21

for community organizations, for nonprofits, for

58:24

individuals on the receiving end, as

58:26

we discussed before just. having this

58:28

kind of massive lawsuit hanging over

58:30

your head is often enough to

58:32

back away to silence yourself. And

58:34

so 36 states, I think it's

58:36

about 36 now, have what's called

58:38

anti-slap legislation. And what that allows

58:41

for to do is it allows

58:43

the case to be dismissed at

58:45

a much earlier stage if it

58:47

is determined that the lawsuit attacks

58:49

First Amendment protected activity. it also

58:51

provides for a deterrent cost shifting.

58:53

So if it is found that

58:56

the lawsuit a tax first amendment

58:58

protected activity, then the plaintiff bringing

59:00

the lawsuit has to pay the

59:02

fees that were incurred to defend

59:04

the lawsuit. And so in the

59:06

first lap lawsuit that we dealt

59:08

with, which was filed by Resolute

59:11

Forest Products, that case was actually

59:13

originally filed in Georgia, which at

59:15

the time had a very weak

59:17

anti-slap law. And many of these

59:19

corporations engage in forum shopping. They

59:21

look for jurisdictions where there is

59:23

no anti-SLAPP law or a week

59:25

one. And there really was no

59:28

nexus to Georgia. The lawsuit should

59:30

have never been brought in Georgia.

59:32

So we successfully got moved to

59:34

California. And there we filed an

59:36

anti-SLAPP motion and we were awarded

59:38

for the three Greenpeace entities that

59:40

were sued, around over $800,000 in

59:43

attorneys. And so that gives you

59:45

some insight into... the difference between

59:47

a state that has an anti-slap

59:49

law like California and as you

59:51

mentioned North Dakota which does not

59:53

have an anti-slap law so we

59:55

never were able to get the

59:58

case thrown out early on. on

1:00:00

those brown. Next, Ralph and Josh

1:00:02

Paul dig into a bunch

1:00:04

of other issues concerning American

1:00:06

culpability in the genocide of

1:00:09

Gaza, starting with the Freedom

1:00:11

of Information Act request by

1:00:13

Ralph's office to the State

1:00:15

Department about the number of fatalities

1:00:17

in Gaza. We know that the

1:00:19

State Department knows a lot about

1:00:22

the Hamas under of some 47,000

1:00:24

death serves Hamas purposes. They

1:00:26

don't want to have publicized.

1:00:28

that over 400,000 Palestinians

1:00:30

have been killed, probably

1:00:33

more than the entire number of

1:00:35

U.S. soldiers killed in World War

1:00:37

II, and much more than the number

1:00:39

of people killed in Hiroshima

1:00:42

and the resident combined. And

1:00:44

this is just on a

1:00:46

population of just 2.3 million

1:00:48

people in an area about the geographical

1:00:51

size of Philadelphia.

1:00:53

From your work inside the

1:00:55

State Department. Over these many

1:00:58

years, what's your characterization of

1:01:00

the State Department's knowledge

1:01:02

about death counts in

1:01:04

disaster areas or war areas

1:01:06

around the world? So I think

1:01:09

that is a very important question.

1:01:11

The State Department does track

1:01:13

both civilian harm resulting from

1:01:16

U.S. weapons as well as

1:01:18

disasters around the world. I

1:01:20

would say certainly at the point

1:01:23

that I left the State Department.

1:01:25

it was not that focused on

1:01:27

Gaza and did not have that

1:01:29

much capability to examine every single

1:01:32

condition but of course the US

1:01:34

government writ large does have technical

1:01:36

means to assess populations and to

1:01:38

assess as well casualty counts. I

1:01:40

don't know to be honest that

1:01:42

the State Department would have all

1:01:44

that accurate an assessment of how

1:01:46

many people have been killed in

1:01:48

Gaza. It may have a more

1:01:50

accurate account or counting of how

1:01:52

many people are left in Gaza.

1:01:54

and I think that the latter

1:01:56

probably tells you the former. Well the

1:01:58

Israeli to admit... to dropping 100,000

1:02:01

tons of explosives on Gaza,

1:02:03

this tiny enclave, and the

1:02:05

implication is that that kind

1:02:07

of devastation on schools, refugee

1:02:10

areas, watermains, electricity, hospitals, clinics,

1:02:12

ambulances, fleeing refugees, mosques, churches,

1:02:14

etc. Take a far greater

1:02:17

toll than the official figure

1:02:19

by Hamas of 47. You

1:02:21

will recall the Assistant Secretary

1:02:23

of State testified in November

1:02:26

2023 before the House of

1:02:28

Representatives and said out of

1:02:30

school that the estimates of

1:02:32

death by the then bombardment

1:02:35

of Gaza by the Israeli

1:02:37

Air Force were greater than

1:02:39

the official Hamas figure. And

1:02:41

she was musled after that.

1:02:44

And nor has the State

1:02:46

Department said another word. So

1:02:48

this is what's really troubling

1:02:50

because it does make a

1:02:53

big difference in the intensity

1:02:55

of the diplomatic, political, and

1:02:57

civic pressure to end that

1:03:00

conflict to let in humanitarian

1:03:02

trucks, which are now being

1:03:04

let in, at least temporarily.

1:03:06

If the figure that was

1:03:09

publicized is over 400,000 and

1:03:11

counting, and also from disease,

1:03:13

untreated wounds. that lead to

1:03:15

sepsis, so many other collateral

1:03:18

harms from the bombardment and

1:03:20

no food, medicine, no electricity,

1:03:22

no fuel, and no water.

1:03:24

It would make a difference.

1:03:27

So I do think that

1:03:29

the State Department does have

1:03:31

a lot of information along

1:03:34

with AID having information about

1:03:36

higher estimates that are quite

1:03:38

credible, wouldn't you say? I

1:03:40

think that's right. And of

1:03:43

course there are also the

1:03:45

very credible estimates put out,

1:03:47

for example, by the Lancet.

1:03:49

journal and other estimates by

1:03:52

medical professional. and analysts around

1:03:54

the world that again, you

1:03:56

know, put a casualty number

1:03:58

far higher than the official

1:04:01

numbers. So I think that

1:04:03

is right. And of course,

1:04:05

as you note, Israel has

1:04:07

dropped an explosive load on

1:04:10

this tiny area of Gaza

1:04:12

that is equivalent to more

1:04:14

than six Nagasaki bombs. And

1:04:17

that's just an incredible amount

1:04:19

of devastation. We've all seen

1:04:21

the photographs of what Gaza looks like

1:04:23

in the wake of that ferocity. And

1:04:25

so I do agree that the suffering

1:04:27

has been immense and the casualty count

1:04:29

is surely, surely higher than that

1:04:32

which has been publicly enough. Well

1:04:34

there certainly is a

1:04:36

racist anti-Semitic element here,

1:04:38

anti-Semitism, the other anti-Semitism

1:04:41

against Palestinian Arab Semites

1:04:43

because the US government has no

1:04:45

problem estimating a number of deaths

1:04:48

under the Assad regime, that 500,000

1:04:50

civilians, their estimate, they have

1:04:52

no trouble estimating death. in the

1:04:55

Sudan, they have no trouble

1:04:57

estimating death in the

1:04:59

Ukraine war theater, but

1:05:01

somehow they shut their mouth and

1:05:03

don't even credit the

1:05:05

Palestinians with the right to

1:05:07

have their own dead counted

1:05:09

by US weapons shipped to

1:05:11

Israel. It's always easier, isn't

1:05:14

it, when we're talking about deaths

1:05:16

not caused by US weapons? When

1:05:18

we're talking about deaths caused by

1:05:20

Russia, caused by Sudanese militias or

1:05:22

whatever it might be, I think

1:05:24

it's much easier for the US

1:05:26

and frankly for the people working

1:05:28

for the US government to acknowledge

1:05:30

the facts than it is when

1:05:32

we are talking about deaths caused

1:05:34

by our own munitions made here

1:05:36

in factories in the United States

1:05:38

authorized to be shipped by US

1:05:40

government officials, I think that that as

1:05:43

well is a factor in why the

1:05:45

US has been so hesitant. to acknowledge

1:05:47

the devastation that it is party to

1:05:49

the violations that it is complicit.

1:05:52

Well it's not so inhibited with

1:05:54

the weapons that ships to Ukraine.

1:05:56

Next they discuss the importance

1:05:58

of whistleblowers. long-time advocate,

1:06:01

some people would call me the

1:06:03

pro-genitor of the whistleblower of the

1:06:05

whistleblower rights movement in our country.

1:06:07

Going back to the early early

1:06:09

1970s, I'm pretty astonished at the

1:06:12

tiny number of whistleblower resignations from

1:06:14

the State Department, AID, Defense Department,

1:06:16

in protest of the suffocating suppression

1:06:18

of internal discussion and debate, internal

1:06:20

discussion and debate in these... department

1:06:23

regarding the Israeli genocide in Gaza

1:06:25

and the possibility of a wider

1:06:27

Middle East conflict which could flare

1:06:29

at any time. I must say,

1:06:32

Joshua, I was really surprised when

1:06:34

I heard about your resignation. I

1:06:36

thought there would be another six

1:06:38

to a dozen in the following

1:06:40

six or seven months, but it

1:06:43

hasn't occurred. And you know, when

1:06:45

you do quit, you can invoke

1:06:47

certain whistleblower protection rights under federal

1:06:49

law. We worked hard to get

1:06:52

these laws enacted. How do you

1:06:54

explain the posity of resignations here?

1:06:56

We're not asking for hundreds of

1:06:58

people quitting the state department or

1:07:00

AID, but so few have followed

1:07:03

your example. Well, I mean, first

1:07:05

of all, I would say that

1:07:07

I don't know that anyone was

1:07:09

following my example. I think those

1:07:12

that did resign, and there are

1:07:14

over a dozen who did so

1:07:16

publicly, which is, you know, honestly

1:07:18

a number comparable to the Iraq

1:07:20

war, if not higher. You know,

1:07:23

each did so on the grounds

1:07:25

of what they were seeing and

1:07:27

on their own moral standing. And

1:07:29

although it is, as I say,

1:07:31

just a few, just over a

1:07:34

dozen people. If you look at

1:07:36

where they resigned from and why

1:07:38

they resigned, it is a very

1:07:40

compelling story. There is a US

1:07:43

Army major Harrison Man who left

1:07:45

the Defense Intelligence Agency where he

1:07:47

was part of the intelligence sharing

1:07:49

program with Israel. There is Hala

1:07:51

Rarit who was the US spokesperson,

1:07:54

Arabic language spokesperson, to the Middle

1:07:56

East. You know, there are a

1:07:58

number, there is Anel Sheline. who

1:08:00

worked on US democratization programs in

1:08:03

the region. There are folks from

1:08:05

the Department of Interior, from the

1:08:07

White House. I mean, I think

1:08:09

it is a very widespread and

1:08:11

very compelling story that is told

1:08:13

by these resignations at the same

1:08:15

time. I think that there are

1:08:18

deep disincentives that go well beyond

1:08:20

any one issue or government service

1:08:22

to resigning. Of course, people's health

1:08:24

care is dependent on their jobs. As

1:08:26

we know, and I think this is

1:08:29

just as true for government servants, civil

1:08:31

servants, for anyone else, many Americans live

1:08:33

paycheck to paycheck. And I will also

1:08:35

say that there are many, many people

1:08:37

who stayed in government, who I think

1:08:39

very much agreed with me and with

1:08:42

the other resignees, but who felt they

1:08:44

were in positions whereby staying, they could

1:08:46

either make a difference or at least

1:08:48

would worry about being replaced by someone

1:08:50

who might be even more recalcitrant, even

1:08:52

more cold-hearted on this issue. And so

1:08:54

I do think that a lot of

1:08:57

people stayed in and really had a

1:08:59

tough time in doing so, but were doing

1:09:01

so in order to do good. Why don't

1:09:03

these government unions speak

1:09:05

up more? That's a very good

1:09:07

question. I think, you know, in

1:09:10

part, of course, government unions are

1:09:12

in some ways much weaker than

1:09:14

the unions were familiar with outside

1:09:16

of government. Because of the prohibitions,

1:09:19

for example, on striking.

1:09:21

cannot for example even take an hour

1:09:23

out of their day their workday to protest

1:09:25

which is why you will have seen for

1:09:27

example so many of the government protests

1:09:30

that did happen during the last

1:09:32

15 months happened during the lunch break

1:09:34

so there is as a starting point a

1:09:36

weakness and then again there are the

1:09:38

same I think entrenched political interests that

1:09:40

have also weighed on a lot of

1:09:43

the private sector unions there have been

1:09:45

some very important voices speaking up

1:09:47

on this from the union world, from

1:09:49

the UAW, from the airfelt, CIO, but

1:09:52

there have been other unions such

1:09:54

as the International Association of

1:09:56

Machinists who have been silent on this

1:09:58

in part because many of their employees'

1:10:00

jobs relate to the production of

1:10:02

munitions that have gone to Israel,

1:10:05

but also because there has been

1:10:07

political pressure from the outside. And

1:10:09

I think one of the challenges

1:10:11

for us, particularly in this time,

1:10:13

particularly in the next few years,

1:10:15

is to build the coalitions that

1:10:17

make it clear that it is

1:10:19

not that Palestine can be separated

1:10:21

off from every other issue, but

1:10:23

the Palestine and Palestine-related free speech

1:10:25

is a leading indicator for attacks

1:10:27

on all of our rights. and

1:10:29

must be addressed as a part

1:10:31

of those rights in unison with

1:10:34

everything else that we want to

1:10:36

stand up for. And on these

1:10:38

really Palestine issues that prompted these

1:10:40

resignations or these whistleblower quitting, your

1:10:42

assessment of the mainstream media coverage,

1:10:44

reporters, columnists, and editorial writers, three

1:10:46

different sectors. Yeah, so by and

1:10:48

large I think the mainstream media

1:10:50

coverage has been absolutely dismal. I

1:10:52

will exempt one group... from that

1:10:54

criticism and that is frankly reporters.

1:10:56

I think there are a lot

1:10:58

of reporters both in the mainstream

1:11:00

and in outlets like Republica and

1:11:02

elsewhere but including in the mainstream

1:11:05

who have done their best to

1:11:07

do some incredible reporting. What I've

1:11:09

heard from them and I've talked

1:11:11

to many of them is that

1:11:13

they have been stymied by editorial

1:11:15

boards by publishers who do not

1:11:17

want to draw the wrath. of

1:11:19

you know again this Israeli pro-Israeli

1:11:21

government or Israel government can do

1:11:23

no wrong lobby and so I

1:11:25

think that has been one of

1:11:27

the main challenges there's also I

1:11:29

would have to say being a

1:11:31

very sad and very dehumanizing undervaluing

1:11:34

of the reporters who are actually

1:11:36

present in Gaza and that is

1:11:38

of course Palestinian reporters many of

1:11:40

whom over a hundred of whom

1:11:42

have been killed if not far

1:11:44

higher than that. whose voices I

1:11:46

think are vital whose voices we

1:11:48

have heard and seen those of

1:11:50

us who use for example social

1:11:52

media but whose voices have not

1:11:54

been allowed to enter the

1:11:56

mainstream American media,

1:11:58

and that is

1:12:00

also a tragedy. I

1:12:03

mentioned the three categories,

1:12:05

Josh Paul, editorial reporter,

1:12:07

and columnist, because of

1:12:09

the differences between these

1:12:11

journalists. For example, when

1:12:14

the Israelis booby -trapped hundreds

1:12:16

of pagers and walkie

1:12:18

-talkies in Lebanon in

1:12:20

their drive to destroy

1:12:23

Hezbollah, and there were a

1:12:25

lot of civilian casualties here, a

1:12:27

doctor was killed in a hospital, for

1:12:29

example, when he had one of

1:12:31

these pagers blowing up. Leon

1:12:33

Panetta was on national

1:12:35

TV that Sunday, former

1:12:37

CIA director and secretary

1:12:39

of defense, and he

1:12:42

called it, quote, a clear

1:12:44

act of terrorism, end

1:12:46

quote. Here's an establishment figure.

1:12:49

And so I was waiting for

1:12:51

the editorials to come from the

1:12:53

Washington Post, New York Times, Wall

1:12:56

Street Journal, just off

1:12:58

of the reporting by the reporters of

1:13:00

this act of terror, which

1:13:02

killed hundreds and injured thousands

1:13:04

of people in Lebanon, and

1:13:07

there were no editorials to this date

1:13:09

on this subject, not one.

1:13:12

And the columnists have not

1:13:14

been much better either for

1:13:16

those three newspapers. Now,

1:13:19

Ralph pitches some strategic ideas to

1:13:22

Josh Paul. Would you

1:13:24

agree that one of the priorities

1:13:26

should be to have leading Israeli

1:13:28

and Palestinian peace

1:13:30

activists in the Israeli camp,

1:13:32

they represent former ministers

1:13:34

in the Israeli cabinet,

1:13:36

former mayors of Israeli

1:13:38

citizens, leading intellectuals,

1:13:41

and they've been in touch with their

1:13:43

Palestinian peace advocates as

1:13:45

well? Would you agree

1:13:47

that it's about time to end

1:13:50

the taboo by APAC

1:13:52

since 1948, even before

1:13:54

APAC was formed, prohibiting

1:13:57

these people from

1:13:59

attending? congressional committees,

1:14:01

the House Foreign Relations Committee,

1:14:04

the Senate Foreign Relations

1:14:06

Committee, and testifying and

1:14:08

informing the American public

1:14:11

that there's another side to

1:14:13

this Israeli genocide machine and

1:14:15

that is outspoken peace advocates

1:14:18

like the six who signed the letter

1:14:20

to Congress urged him to

1:14:22

disemvite Netanyahu from speaking

1:14:24

to a joint session of Congress.

1:14:27

Isn't that something that a new

1:14:29

policy? to strive to break the

1:14:31

grip somewhat of a pack on Congress

1:14:33

and let these peace advocates have

1:14:35

their say. We are working to bring

1:14:38

voices from across the Palestinian

1:14:40

and Israeli communities who are

1:14:42

supportive of peace to Congress

1:14:44

and you're absolutely right. You

1:14:46

know there is a former

1:14:48

Mossad director who has been

1:14:50

bitterly critical of Prime Ministers

1:14:52

and Yahoo's approach. Former Israeli

1:14:54

Prime Minister Ehud Barab. has

1:14:56

also spoken up and been

1:14:59

very vocal, what's interesting

1:15:01

to me is that there is actually

1:15:03

more debate on the pages of Israeli

1:15:05

newspaper Haarets than you will find on

1:15:07

the pages of the New York Times

1:15:09

when it comes to criticism of what

1:15:12

Israel has been doing in Gaza. And

1:15:14

so I think, you know, the fact that

1:15:16

we face a situation here in America where

1:15:18

it is harder politically and socially to

1:15:21

criticize a foreign government than

1:15:23

it is to criticize our

1:15:25

own government is absurd. And I

1:15:27

do agree that bringing more voices

1:15:29

to Congress, making that disconnect more

1:15:32

clear, is an important part of

1:15:34

this work. And in the December 13th,

1:15:36

2023 issue of the New York Times,

1:15:38

16, the leading Israeli human rights

1:15:41

groups, including rabbis for peace,

1:15:43

including veterans of the Israeli

1:15:45

reserve forces, while breaking the silence

1:15:48

or the refusenics, and of course

1:15:50

the leading civil rights group, that's

1:15:52

the lamp, had an article in

1:15:54

the New York Times. asking

1:15:57

Biden to stop the

1:15:59

catastrophe. in Gaza, end quote, which

1:16:01

of course he ignored, and that

1:16:04

didn't lead to any editorial by

1:16:06

the New York Times, and they

1:16:08

should be given a voice on

1:16:11

Capitol Hill at these public hearings.

1:16:13

But I must say, Joshua, this

1:16:15

recommendation that you just heard has

1:16:18

been made year in and year

1:16:20

out, and the pro-Palestinian rights people

1:16:22

in the U.S. have never given

1:16:25

it a priority. You have to

1:16:27

break the grip in the taboo

1:16:29

of APAC on Capitol Hill. which

1:16:32

by the way is a group

1:16:34

that has a person attached to

1:16:36

every member of Congress as Congressman

1:16:39

Massey said on a Tucker Carlson

1:16:41

show months ago. He's a Republican

1:16:43

from rural Kentucky. He said when

1:16:46

he talks about the Palestine-Israel issue

1:16:48

with his Republican colleagues informally, they

1:16:50

say to him, oh, let me

1:16:53

get to my APAC man and

1:16:55

then I'll get back to you.

1:16:57

So I hope that you with

1:17:00

this group a new policy will

1:17:02

form a coalition. with other groups

1:17:04

in this country that have similar

1:17:07

missions of peace and priority for

1:17:09

American interest on this conflict will

1:17:11

make this a real priority and

1:17:14

get the 60 or 70 members

1:17:16

of the House who I think

1:17:18

would immediately sign a resolution to

1:17:21

open up the House Foreign Relations,

1:17:23

Senate Armed Service Committee. Do these

1:17:26

voices from Israel leaders or retired

1:17:28

people or retired from the Israeli

1:17:30

FBI, from the Israeli CIA, from

1:17:33

the Justice Ministry, and many leading

1:17:35

Israelis who have strongly, defiantly disagreed

1:17:37

with Netanyahu and who accused him

1:17:40

of destroying Israel and Israel's democracy.

1:17:42

Not only the Palestinian people. Yes,

1:17:44

no, I think it is very

1:17:47

important for us to bring voices

1:17:49

of peace from the region. I

1:17:51

also think that there are many

1:17:54

American voices that Congress needs to

1:17:56

listen to listen to. Two, for

1:17:58

example, the people of the city

1:18:01

of Los Angeles. whose city can't

1:18:03

afford the fire engines to fight

1:18:05

the catastrophic fires at a time

1:18:08

that we are sending billions of

1:18:10

dollars in weapons assistance to Israel.

1:18:12

The people of North Carolina who

1:18:15

have suffered through natural disasters and

1:18:17

hurricanes and been told here is

1:18:19

$700 for you again at a

1:18:22

time when the US Congress is

1:18:24

sending more and more money to

1:18:26

kill children overseas. I think there

1:18:29

are many American voices. whether they

1:18:31

are concerned about foreign funding, whether

1:18:33

they are concerned about our freedom

1:18:36

of speech that Congress needs to

1:18:38

hear, and it is our job

1:18:40

to bring those voices before Congress.

1:18:43

If people want more information in

1:18:45

addition to your website, a new

1:18:47

policy.org, would you recommend the Washington

1:18:50

report that has been coming out

1:18:52

six times a year in magazine

1:18:54

fashion that was started by former

1:18:57

US ambassadors to the Middle East

1:18:59

when they retired? Yes, and I

1:19:01

think there are a lot of

1:19:04

good news sources here. I'd also

1:19:06

recommend something called the Institute for

1:19:08

Middle East Understanding, IMEU.org, which puts

1:19:11

out a lot of really solid

1:19:13

analysis that is very high opening.

1:19:15

I just know it was brought

1:19:18

to my attention, Josh Ball, that

1:19:20

there was an ad in the

1:19:22

New York Times on Tuesday, January

1:19:25

28th. It was an 8th of

1:19:27

a page ad by a new

1:19:30

group called... The Israel Palestine Confederation.

1:19:32

It's an idea to bring the

1:19:34

two groups together and the website

1:19:37

is I.P. Confederation.org. I represent an

1:19:39

Israel P. Palestine Confederation.org for listeners

1:19:41

who want to find out what

1:19:44

this is all about. Finally, Steve

1:19:46

and David jump into the discussion.

1:19:48

Josh, how do you make the

1:19:51

case aside from... the values case,

1:19:53

which I think in American history

1:19:55

you could say is more aspirational

1:19:58

than real, how do you make

1:20:00

diplomatic case that our policy toward

1:20:02

the Middle East is not good

1:20:04

for America in practical

1:20:06

terms? Yeah, thank you. So I think

1:20:08

that the answer there is very clear

1:20:10

that what America has been doing

1:20:13

for the last 15 months,

1:20:15

including under the current

1:20:17

administration under President Trump,

1:20:19

has been first of all creating

1:20:21

the impression and probably a valid

1:20:23

one, that we are hypocritical. that

1:20:25

the rules-based order we espouse is

1:20:27

for us and our partners or

1:20:30

is for our adversaries but not

1:20:32

for us, that it applies one

1:20:34

way but not the other. We

1:20:36

have been undermining our credibility and

1:20:38

our appeal in countries around the

1:20:40

world, from Southeast Asia to Europe

1:20:42

to Latin America. We have been

1:20:44

undermining the international rules-based order that

1:20:46

generations of Americans labored to build

1:20:48

since World War II. We have

1:20:51

been undermining our own defense

1:20:53

readiness. We've been doing immense

1:20:55

harm. in so many ways

1:20:57

through American interest through a

1:20:59

policy that puts another country's

1:21:01

interest or even another country's

1:21:03

interest ahead of America's.

1:21:05

I might add distorting public

1:21:08

budgets and priorities here in

1:21:10

America, suppressing free speech here

1:21:12

in America, and corrupting the

1:21:14

Congress to become the most

1:21:16

belligerent genocidal machine in

1:21:19

American history. That's right, which

1:21:21

at the end of the end of the day...

1:21:23

undermines the confidence of the

1:21:25

American people in our own

1:21:27

democracy when they see that

1:21:29

our politicians are not reflecting

1:21:31

our interests, but reflecting the

1:21:33

interests of a lobby or a foreign

1:21:36

government at the end of the day

1:21:38

that is deeply damaging to

1:21:40

our own democracy. David from

1:21:42

Brooklyn? Thank you. I want to circle

1:21:44

back to something you just said.

1:21:47

Donald Trump talking about Gaza being

1:21:49

cleaned out. He said that Jordan and

1:21:51

Egypt need to do a better job

1:21:54

accepting Palestinians. He wants

1:21:56

to just clean out Gaza.

1:21:58

Is that ethnic cleansing? by definition

1:22:00

is that advocating for ethnic cleansing?

1:22:02

There's already an arrest warrant issued

1:22:04

by the International Criminal Court for

1:22:07

Benjamin Netanyahu. Is it against the

1:22:09

law domestically here in the United

1:22:11

States for a president to advocate

1:22:13

for ethnic cleansing or is that

1:22:15

the president's First Amendment right? So

1:22:18

it's first of all regardless of

1:22:20

the technicalities of American law where

1:22:22

it very well may be. Although,

1:22:24

as we were discussing, you know,

1:22:26

there are a host of American

1:22:29

laws, including the Implementing Act of

1:22:31

the Genocide Convention, including the War

1:22:33

Crimes Act, that are just not

1:22:35

being enforced when it comes to

1:22:37

the US relationship with Israel and

1:22:40

its actions in Gaza and in

1:22:42

the West Bank, it is clearly

1:22:44

an endorsement of ethnic fencing and,

1:22:46

you know, absolutely shocking coming from

1:22:48

the lips of an American president.

1:22:50

I think we also need to

1:22:53

pay attention to our own history

1:22:55

and our own history's lessons here

1:22:57

when you think about... the notion

1:22:59

of expelling hundreds of thousands over

1:23:01

a million Palestinians into foreign countries

1:23:04

that reminds me very frankly of

1:23:06

the trail of tears in which

1:23:08

tens of thousands of indigenous peoples

1:23:10

here in America were marched from

1:23:12

Florida from Georgia into the West

1:23:15

with many dying along the way

1:23:17

with much suffering what is this

1:23:19

what are we talking about here

1:23:21

in the Palestinian context if not

1:23:23

a second trail of tears we

1:23:26

should remember our own history and

1:23:28

be ashamed. David, you know, treaties

1:23:30

that the US is a signatory

1:23:32

of have the force of federal

1:23:34

law and forcible removal of civilian

1:23:36

population is a distinct war crime

1:23:39

under the Geneva Convention. The distinct

1:23:41

war crime described as such is

1:23:43

not left to implication. And now

1:23:45

it's time for in case you

1:23:47

haven't heard with Francesco De Santis.

1:23:52

Our top stories this week have

1:23:54

to do with the betrayal of

1:23:56

the so-called Make America Healthy Again

1:23:59

or Maha. movement. First

1:24:01

up, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Trump's

1:24:03

nominee to lead the Department of

1:24:05

Health and Human Services, found himself in

1:24:07

the hot seat Wednesday as his

1:24:09

confirmation hearings began. Kennedy, who

1:24:12

is facing opposition both from Democrats,

1:24:14

regardless of anti -vaccine rhetoric is

1:24:16

dangerous, and Republicans, who view him

1:24:18

as too liberal, struggle to answer

1:24:20

basic questions during these hearings. Perhaps

1:24:23

most distressingly, he shilled for

1:24:25

the disastrous Medicare privatization

1:24:27

scheme known as, quote -unquote,

1:24:30

Medicare Advantage, at

1:24:32

one point saying that he himself

1:24:34

is on a Medicare Advantage plan,

1:24:36

and that, quote, more people would

1:24:38

rather be on Medicare Advantage than

1:24:41

traditional Medicare. Kennedy

1:24:43

went on to say most Americans would prefer to

1:24:45

be on private insurance. As

1:24:47

Matt Stohler of the American

1:24:49

Economic Liberties Project writes,

1:24:52

this is, quote, basically Cato

1:24:54

Institute -style libertarianism. Meanwhile,

1:24:57

the Trump administration is signaling they intend

1:24:59

to scrap a proposed EPA

1:25:01

rule to ban forever chemicals from

1:25:03

America's drinking water, per

1:25:05

the spokesman review at a

1:25:07

Spokane, Washington. Per

1:25:10

this piece, per

1:25:12

floral alcohol and

1:25:14

polyfloral alcohol substances, abbreviated

1:25:16

PFAS, are a set

1:25:18

of man -made chemicals used in thousands

1:25:20

of products over the decades. High

1:25:23

levels of them have been

1:25:25

linked to cancers, heart disease,

1:25:27

high cholesterol, thyroid disease, low

1:25:29

birth weight, and other diseases,

1:25:31

end quote. Shoving PFAS

1:25:33

regulation was high on the

1:25:35

Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 wish

1:25:38

list, though the Trump team

1:25:40

had previously sent mixed messages

1:25:42

on the topic. Trump's

1:25:44

pick to oversee regulation of dangerous

1:25:46

chemicals is Nancy Beck, a longtime

1:25:48

executive at the American

1:25:50

Chemistry Council. As

1:25:53

if those portrayals weren't enough, Trump has

1:25:55

also selected Ms. Kaley Buller as the

1:25:57

Chief of Staff for the U .S. Department

1:25:59

of Agriculture. In the past year, Buller has

1:26:01

served as president and CEO of

1:26:03

the National Oil Seed processors association.

1:26:06

More simply put, she is the

1:26:08

top seed oil lobbyist in the nation. This

1:26:10

is perhaps the most illustrative

1:26:12

example of the Mahabate and

1:26:14

switch. Not only is the Trump administration

1:26:17

spitting in the face of

1:26:20

their own supporters and doing

1:26:22

the opposite of what they

1:26:24

promised in terms of cracking

1:26:26

down an ultra-processed unhealthy food.

1:26:28

They're doing so in an

1:26:30

openly and brazenly corrupt manner.

1:26:32

Under Trump, regulatory agencies are

1:26:34

on the auction block and will

1:26:37

be sold to the highest bidder.

1:26:39

In more health news, legendary

1:26:41

investigative journalists see more Hirsch

1:26:43

has come out with a

1:26:45

new story, and it's a doozy.

1:26:48

According to Hershey's sources,

1:26:50

the Trump administration mishandled

1:26:52

the COVID-19 pandemic long

1:26:54

before the public knew

1:26:56

anything about the virus. He writes,

1:26:58

quote, I learned this week that a

1:27:00

U.S. intelligence asset at the Wuhan

1:27:02

Institute of Arology in China, where

1:27:04

the COVID virus was first

1:27:07

observed, provided early warning of

1:27:09

a laboratory accident at Wuhan

1:27:11

that led to a series

1:27:13

of infections that was quickly

1:27:15

spreading and initially seemed immune

1:27:17

to treatment. Hirsch continues, early

1:27:19

studies dealing with how to

1:27:21

mitigate the oncoming plague based

1:27:23

on information from the Chinese

1:27:25

Health Ministry about a lethal

1:27:27

new virus were completed in

1:27:29

2019 by experts from America's

1:27:31

National Institutes of Health and

1:27:33

other research agencies. Yet, despite

1:27:35

their warnings, a series of prevention

1:27:38

actions were not taken until the

1:27:40

United States was flooded with cases

1:27:42

of the virus. Most damningly,

1:27:44

Hirsch's sources claim that, quote,

1:27:47

all of these studies have

1:27:49

been expunged from the official

1:27:52

internal records in Washington, including

1:27:54

any mention of the CIA's

1:27:57

source inside the Chinese laboratory.

1:28:00

This would be among the

1:28:02

most hadastrophic cases of indecision

1:28:04

and a most sweeping cover-up

1:28:06

in modern American history. Watch

1:28:08

this space. Meanwhile, and more

1:28:10

foreign affairs news, progressive international

1:28:12

reports that quote, for the

1:28:15

first time in history, Members

1:28:17

of the United States Congress

1:28:19

have drawn to members of

1:28:21

Mexico's Kamara de de putados

1:28:23

to quote oppose the escalating

1:28:25

threats of US military action

1:28:27

against Mexico and Call to

1:28:29

quote strengthen the bonds of

1:28:31

solidarity between our peoples and

1:28:33

quote This move of course

1:28:36

comes amid ever rising tension

1:28:38

to United States and our

1:28:40

southern neighbor particularly as the

1:28:42

GOP has in recent years

1:28:44

taken up the full-blown invasion

1:28:46

of Mexico This letter was

1:28:48

signed by many prominent U.S.

1:28:50

progressives including Rashid It's Lieb,

1:28:52

Ilhan Omar, Summer Lee, AOC,

1:28:54

Greg Kesar, and Raul Grohava,

1:28:56

as well as 23 Mexican

1:28:59

deputies. One can only hope

1:29:01

that this show of internationalism

1:29:03

helps forstall further escalation with

1:29:05

Mexico. Turning to the issue

1:29:07

of corruption, former New Jersey

1:29:09

Senator Robert Menendez was sentenced

1:29:11

to 11 years in prison

1:29:13

for his role in a

1:29:15

bribery scheme that included him

1:29:17

acting as an unregistered agent

1:29:20

of the Egyptian government, per

1:29:22

the DOJ. Until 2024, Menendez

1:29:24

had served as the chairman

1:29:26

or ranking member of the

1:29:28

powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee,

1:29:30

an ideal perch for a

1:29:32

crooked politician. During sentencing Menendez

1:29:34

broke down and weepily begged

1:29:36

the judge for leniency Yet

1:29:38

almost immediately after the sentence

1:29:40

was handed down Menendez changed

1:29:43

his tune and started sucking

1:29:45

up to Trump in a

1:29:47

transparent attempt to secure a

1:29:49

pardon Axios reports Menendez said

1:29:51

quote President Trump was right

1:29:53

this process is political and

1:29:55

it's corrupted to the core

1:29:57

I hope President Trump cleans

1:29:59

up the cesspool and restores

1:30:01

integrity to the system. Unfortunately,

1:30:04

Trump's fragile ego makes

1:30:07

him particularly susceptible to just

1:30:09

this sort of appeal. So

1:30:11

it would be no surprise if

1:30:13

he does grant some form of

1:30:16

clemency to the disgraced senator. Likewise,

1:30:18

New York City Mayor Eric

1:30:20

Adams appears to feel the

1:30:22

walls closing in with regard

1:30:24

to his corrupt dealings with

1:30:26

his Turkish benefactors. And just

1:30:28

like Menendez, Adam's strategy appears to

1:30:31

be to ingratiate himself with Trump

1:30:33

world. On January 23rd, the New

1:30:35

York Daily News reported that Adams

1:30:38

had pledged to avoid publicly criticizing

1:30:40

Trump. Adams had previously called

1:30:42

Trump a quote-unquote white supremacist.

1:30:45

Adam's simpering seems to be

1:30:47

having the intended effect. On

1:30:49

January 29th, New York Times

1:30:52

reported, quote, senior justice department

1:30:54

officials under President Trump have

1:30:56

held discussions with federal prosecutors

1:30:59

in Manhattan about the possibility

1:31:01

of dropping their corruption case

1:31:03

against Adams. This story notes that,

1:31:05

quote, the defense team is led by

1:31:08

Alex Spiro, who is also the personal

1:31:10

lawyer for Elon Musk. Our final three

1:31:12

stories this week have to do with

1:31:14

organized labor. First, Bloomberg

1:31:16

Labor reporter Josh Idlson reports

1:31:19

Trump has ousted National Labor

1:31:21

Relations Board General Counsel

1:31:23

Jennifer Abruzzo. This alone is

1:31:25

a tragedy. A Brutso has been

1:31:27

nothing short of a crusader on

1:31:29

behalf of organized labor during her

1:31:32

tenure. Yet, more troubling news quickly

1:31:34

followed. Trump has unlawfully sacked Gwyn

1:31:36

Wilcox, a Democratic member of the

1:31:39

Labor Board, with no just cause.

1:31:41

As Idlson notes, The law

1:31:43

forbids, quote, firing board members

1:31:46

absent neglect or malfeasance. And

1:31:48

quote, Wilcox was the first

1:31:50

ever black member of the NLRB,

1:31:53

and her unlawful removal gives Trump

1:31:55

a working majority at the board.

1:31:58

Expect to see a rapid slew. of

1:32:00

anti-worker decisions in the coming

1:32:02

days. In some good news,

1:32:04

independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reports

1:32:07

that union collective bargaining agreements

1:32:09

have successfully, quote, thwarted Trump's

1:32:11

return to work order. Instead,

1:32:14

the administration has been forced

1:32:16

to issue a new order,

1:32:18

stating, quote, supervisors should not

1:32:21

begin discussions around the return-to-in-person

1:32:23

work with bargaining unit employees

1:32:26

until HHS fulfils its collective

1:32:28

bargaining obligations, and quote. In

1:32:30

other words, even while every

1:32:33

supposed legal guardrail, institutional norm

1:32:35

and political force of gravity

1:32:37

wilts before Trump's onslaught. What

1:32:40

is the one bullwork that

1:32:42

still stands strong, protecting everyday

1:32:44

working people? Their union. A

1:32:47

final story is a simple

1:32:49

one. Deckman Labor Journalist Alex

1:32:51

Press reports that in Philadelphia,

1:32:54

the first to Whole Foods

1:32:56

grocery store as voted to

1:32:58

unionize. The nearly 300 workers

1:33:01

at the store voted to

1:33:03

affiliate with United Food and

1:33:05

Commercial Workers Local 1176. Whole

1:33:08

Foods was sold to Amazon

1:33:10

in 2017, and since then,

1:33:12

the E-tail giant has vigorously

1:33:15

saved off unionization. Could this

1:33:17

be the first crack in

1:33:20

the dam? Only time will

1:33:22

tell. This has been Francesco

1:33:24

to Santa's, but in case

1:33:27

you haven't heard. And that's

1:33:29