Loading summary
Transcript81 lines
- [00:00]
Ralph Nader
The majority of the American people reject that entirely.
- [00:06]
Ian Masters
Well, Alex Lawson, I thank you very much for joining us here today.
- [00:10]
Paul Rogers
Thank you so much.
- [00:11]
Ian Masters
And this has been Background Briefing. I'm Ian Masters and I'd like to thank producers Graham Fitzgibbon, Asher Price and Sacha Lyndon Cohen. If you missed any of today's program and would like to explore our vast archives, you can find us at backgroundbriefing.org where we include extended interviews searchable by topic and have made it easier for you to sign up for daily email updates and provide links to resources, articles and books discussed on the program. Also, you can find links there to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts and we highly encourage your ratings and reviews on these platforms. Find us on Twitter bluesky and facebookanmastersmedia and our new social media manager, Luke Suswood is also posting highlights from the show on YouTube, TikTok and Instagram @ianmasters media. So please do help us reach more listeners by sharing this program with friends, family and colleagues. And I'll be back tomorrow with another background briefing@backbriefing.org Bye for now.
- [01:20]
Hannah Feldman
Foreign
- [01:23]
John Bonifaz
I'm Esti chandler. Starting Sunday, April 5, Middle east in Focus is expanding back to a full hour. Join Negwa, Ibrahim and me every Sunday from 1 to 2pm for the news
- [01:36]
Paul Rogers
and views you won't hear anywhere else.
- [01:39]
John Bonifaz
As always, we'll bring you deep dive coverage from Palestine, Israel and Gaza to to the latest from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon and track the shifting dynamics in Egypt, Yemen, Jordan and the Gulf States. That's one full hour of Middle east in Focus, Sundays at 1pm Only on KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles and online@kpfk.org around the world.
- [02:10]
Ralph Nader
Hello, this is Ben Taylor and you're listening to KPFK 90.7 FM in Los Angeles.
- [02:17]
Paul Rogers
This is John Nichols of the Nation magazine and you're listening to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Stand up.
- [02:24]
Bruce Fine
Stand up.
- [02:25]
Paul Rogers
You've been sitting way too long.
- [02:32]
Steve Skrovan
Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. My name is Steve Scrovan, along with my co host David Feldman.
- [02:36]
Paul Rogers
Hello David.
- [02:37]
Steve Skrovan
Hello Steve. And our illustrious producer, Hannah Feldman. Hello Hannah.
- [02:43]
Hannah Feldman
Hello Steve.
- [02:44]
Steve Skrovan
And the man of the hour, Ralph Nader. Welcome back, Ralph.
- [02:48]
Bruce Fine
Welcome back, listeners. We have a very urgent program today.
- [02:52]
Steve Skrovan
That's right, Ralph. Our first guest today is international security expert and emeritus professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University in the UK Paul Rogers. Professor Rogers is going to share his expertise with us with regards to the war in Iran, which despite White House statements to the contrary, ain't going so great. He'll describe some of the many ways in which the war is going poorly for the US And Israel, the roles that Russia and China are playing and the role that Europe is not playing. Next up, we welcome our resident constitutional law scholar Bruce Fine and returning guest John Bonifaz to discuss the impeachment of Donald Trump. John Bonifaz is co founder and president of the organization Free Speech for People, which spearheaded the Impeach Trump Again campaign. John and Bruce will join us to talk about the upcoming bipartisan impeachment symposium that they're organizing for next Wednesday, April 8th in the Rayburn Building in Washington, D.C. this event will be live streamed and we'll give you all the details on how to watch it later on in the program. As always, somewhere in the middle. We'll check in with our relentless corporate crime reporter Russell Mokiver. But first is Operation Epic Fury turning out to be Operation Impotent Fury. David Paul Rogers is emeritus professor of peace studies in the Department of Peace Studies and International Relations at Bradford University and an honorary fellow at the Joint
- [04:20]
John Bonifaz
Service Command and Staff College.
- [04:23]
Steve Skrovan
He is open Democracy's international security Correspondent. Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour.
- [04:30]
Paul Rogers
Paul Rogers, very pleased to be here.
- [04:33]
Bruce Fine
Welcome indeed, Paul. Our listeners are going to receive some special information based on your expertise and analysis. You don't avoid the phrase peace studies, even though you're an expert on war devastation and security and environment. So let's get underway. We want to get your views on Iran. It is now four weeks from the criminal war of aggression, violating the UN Charter and international law and our own federal statutes, not to mention our Constitution, requires war to be declared exclusively by Congress. How do you see the situation? There are people in this country who think that even though Iran is being battered mercilessly by Israel using American weapons and Trump's military, that right now it has the upper hand by its control over the Strait of Hormuz. Can we have your assessment here?
- [05:31]
Paul Rogers
I think if you look at the war overall, then essentially the three I use the term, it's a crude term, participants, the one that is basically doing bad most badly is the United States, followed by Israel, followed least by Iran, relatively speaking. The Iranians, particularly the Revolutionary Guard Corps, are closer to where they wanted to be, which just is not true of the United States and certainly isn't true to a very large extent of Israelis as well. In other words, the war is going badly for the people who are determined to try and defeat Iran. Now, that is not just, you know, somebody who you might consider on the left, like me, the retired head of MI6, which is our rough equivalent of the CIA, said this on a BBC program just a couple of nights ago. A pretty traditional mainstream magazine, the Economist, holds a similar view that, in fact, this war has gone very badly for Trump. So this is not a fringe view. This is becoming. Now, I wouldn't say a mainstream view, because most of the print media obviously is pretty far right wing, but you're getting this kind of analysis being put forward by people who have a much wider respect, if you like, in the ordinary population. And this is one thing which I think is really surprising. Now, if you want to go into detail, obviously, what the Israelis were hoping for was regime termination in Iran, which would lead on to some sort of surrender, which would involve them to have more or less untrammeled access to Iran as a whole, particularly any nuclear program that existed. The American view, well, it's pretty difficult from an outsider to determine exactly what Trump was expecting and the people around him. But the trouble is, you have such a high level of sycophancy around Trump that she's never going to sort of hear the truth, even if he's able to understand it. I think the point here is that the United States is in the real difficulty because that decision has to be taken, and in my view, taken within the next week, whether they are going to go for major ground operations or whether they're going to declare victory and get out. And that's not an uncommon view among people in Britain that the best thing for Trump to do is to get the hell out of it before he gets into bigger problems. I'm not familiar with the view in the United States. So that's a fairly common view in Britain now, because this is an unwinnable war as far as he is concerned. And, of course, what the Revolutionary Guard Corps has done, it's almost impossible to conceive. They are still able to fire missiles. They're probably able to make some of their classes of missile, particularly the drones and backstreet warehouses, and are set up to do this. They've been preparing for the best part of 25 to 40 years for this kind of war. And one has to remember, people to forget this, that the Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran was born out of the Iraq Iran war of what was in 1980 through to 1988. And as soon as you had the revolution in 1979, Iran was subject to a huge attack by the Iraqis, and they survived. And in fact, by the end of that period they, if anything, had the upper hand, even though in that first tanker war, the United States has sunk key units of the Iranian navy, hitting a lot of people. There's a very long history among the Revolutionary Guard Corps of expecting a war like this. They've been preparing for it in many different ways and it is paying off for them. And almost from the start, they recognize the long term significance of the straighter homosca. And of course, you have the possibility of that extending to the other strait that the Houthis at least oversee if they don't control. And what you're seeing now is something which I think has surprised almost all the supporters of Israel who will now begin to admit that this is not going according to plan. Where we go from here is another matter. I mean, what is actually happening now almost as we speak is the Pentagon under Hesareth is putting as many forces as it can into the region. I mean, there was the report in the U.S. naval Institute Proceedings, I think just yesterday. There's another carrier battle group has now set sail. It's the George H.W. bush, I think Nimitz class battle carrier and that left Norfolk, Virginia just yesterday. And the assumption is all the sort of scuttlebutt is that this is going to be reinforced. The other two battle groups already there, one in the Eastern Mediterranean and the other in the Arabian Sea. In other words, again, I know I'm giving a long winded answer, but as far as the military wing of things within the Trump world, the push now is to get a lot of forces there. So if there's a possibility of going to war seriously, they will do it. Now if that is the case, then I think it's going to be utterly disastrous. That's why I think it is now. But of course, even if the United States pulled out completely, that leaves one thing which we're forgetting and that of course is Israel under Netanyahu. And given what they're doing in Lebanon at present and the casualties they are starting to take there, that makes things extremely complicated. It's also worth remembering that we have recent news that the US Armed Forces, the Pentagon is using the A10 Warthog already, this very powerful anti ground effect aircraft. It's already in use almost probably over Iran itself as well as around the Strait of Hormuz. The Apache government are already used and they're being used of course, also in Iraq. And everybody tends to forget that there are powerful pro Iranian factions in Iraq which are actually causing considerable problems for the Iraqi government and the Americans. So it's a complicated situation. But briefly, this war has started to come apart. And if the Americans under Trump don't recognize this soon, I think it's going to be a hell of a mess and may well call into question the survival of Trump, even given his hold that he seems to have on some parts of the American electorate.
- [11:28]
Bruce Fine
Well, we have a Pentagon that doesn't remember the lessons of the Iraq war by Bush and Cheney. Criminal war of aggression. It's worth noting that the US Government backed Saddam Hussein and Iraq's invasion of Iran after the Iranian revolution to the hilt, including giving licenses to U.S. companies to provide Saddam Hussein with the raw materials for chemical warfare, as a Senate report documented. But to come to the present, you know, Trump has already declared victory in one of his zigzags. You know, he talks about obliterating and then he talks about declaring victory and letting the Europeans deal with the Strait of Hormuz because it doesn't affect us, because we have more oil and gas than we consume and we're exporters. So he's over a very dangerous, unstable personality is in the White House these days and he doesn't really know what he's doing. And Lindsey Graham, the war making senator, has his ear and the hawks in the Pentagon and have his ear. But you have retired generals and admirals who are very much against what is going on in Iran at the present time. And in your article you really give information that I haven't read in the Post In Times, for example, you say, quote, tehran has long prepared for confrontation over the straight Hormuz, including amassing a fleet of more than 1,000 fast attack crafts, thousands of mines, numerous shore based anti ship missiles able to range widely over the Gulf, swarms of drones to saturate anti missile defenses and cruelest armed subservice craft, end quote. You know, our press has talked about the Iranian presence, but not with that kind of specificity. And the same is true with the damage Iran is causing inside Israel and in the areas of the Gulf states where US has military bases. We're not getting the full truth here. Is it a reality that the damage in Israel and the recent attack at Dimona near the nuclear weapons facilities are quite serious?
- [13:43]
Paul Rogers
Well, yes. I mean one's got to be careful here because there's an awful lot of utter rubbish on the net as well? No, wildly excessive estimate, but no, it is a lot more serious than we're being led to believe. Now in the UK we have one or two non government organisations, I think particularly of declassified uk, which Gets this information out is rarely picked up even by the BBC and certainly not by the mainstream press, most of which is, you know, what we call the billionaire press. One or two papers, the ultra left wing Morning Star, which is a daily, it only has a circulation of maybe 20,000 or so, does publish this sort of stuff. The Guardian does to some extent. But otherwise you have to go to groups like the one that I write for Open democracy. The material is available, but it's available. You've got to be able to look and you've got to know from maybe many years of experience, which is more reliable than others. But in fact, if you look at the American military journals, Defense News, Military Times and the rest, look at them sort of carefully so that over time you tend to learn which are the more accurate ones, then a lot of this stuff does actually appear. Now, the quote about all those different facilities that the Republican Guard have comes in fact partly from. From an academic who works mainly in English, but actually has spent much of a career in leading Iranian University and I think is still based there. So it's coming from sources, but there's so much information available, if one knows where to look, in Western sources, particularly military sources, that turns out to be so accurate so many times. The Dimona thing is of interest because of course, Dimona, it's about five miles outside the city center that you have this large facility in which the Israelis did produce their nuclear weapons. And one of the things, curiously, is that people tend to forget that Israel is a major nuclear power with a wide variety of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. People tend to forget that. And that, of course, is imprinted right across Arab security thinking and indeed Persian security thinking, that you have that position for a start. But to take the example of Dimona, the city was hit, I think, probably by a number of missiles. They were not close to the Dimona facility, but close enough to show that they could do it. And I think that in fact was an Iranian warning. The more significant one in some ways was the attack that took place last Friday, which was against the Prinsultan Air Base about, I think it's a good maybe 100 miles, 50 to 100 miles southeast. I think of Riyadh, the capital city. In that case, the attack was mainly against American facilities. And we don't know the exact number, but at least six major American planes, one an airborne early war plane, one of the AOX planes, and at least five refueling planes were either destroyed or damaged. And of course, a dozen American soldiers personnel were actually wounded. I think Two of them very seriously. Now that was a very precise attack and it was against a facility which one would have expected would be massively guarded. All the bases within easy reach of Iran, you would expect that one to be very well guarded. And I suspect that some things that the analysts were pointing out to their credit about two or three weeks ago was there was a possibility that once again the Iranian Revolutionary Guard had thought this through. What they were doing was using some of their, this is three weeks ago, using some of their older missiles, ones which weren't so accurate, weren't so reliable and firing them first because the only way to destroy them before they landed if you didn't know exactly what they were, was to use your own very modern interceptor missiles which basically cost an arm and a leg to make. So essentially you're using maybe a missile which cost three quarters of a million to a million dollars weapon, basically a missile which could be created in the back for a few thousand dollars. And I think this is what they were doing. And there's a suspicion, I've got no evidence for this, but I suspect it based just on observational experience. What the Iranians are doing is they've already saved some of their most competent missiles, most accurate ones, towards the end of what they see as a war. And essentially this means that we may see bigger losses and more successful attacks. They've already been more than is widely reported. And Prince Sultan1 I think is one of the rare exceptions which did get into one or two of the American military journals fairly quickly and all part of them that they're at least publishing it.
- [18:18]
Bruce Fine
Let me tap into your technical expertise here because there's sort of a constant new arms race going on here. In one of your articles you say Tehran is in the process of acquiring stocks of the Chinese anti ship missiles that Beijing claims are the most effective weapon of its kind. The 180 mile range surface hugging CM 302 period, end quote, could be used to attack our ships, including aircraft carriers. On the other side, Ukrainians are sending 200 technicians to show the Israelis in the US a new interceptor that's much, much cheaper than the ones they are using that are so expensive against drone attacks. Are these going to change things at all in terms of the strategies of both sides?
- [19:11]
Paul Rogers
They may do. I think certainly the last report that was in the open press about the Chinese thing was there were negotiations underway to bring in some of these missiles into Iran. To my knowledge they've not arrived yet. But certainly the Chinese think they're extremely affectionate. Again this is another aspect of the war. People tend to think Iran is on its own against these huge odds. Well, it isn't. I mean, in many ways, certainly Russia and certainly China have a real interest in what is happening. And as far as China is concerned, they will not help directly. They will not, in other words, as far as we know, arm Iran without payment. They will see them as a reasonable customer. And I think more widely than we realize. The farther you get away from, I think, D.C. if I may, then I think you see the world in a rather different way, particularly across the global South. It is certainly seen in a different way. So the end result of that is, I think too, we have to use sort of pretty wide interest in analysis and seeing a wide picture from a lot of different angles. And I would come back to a point which I think is a fair point made earlier. Essentially the Iranian Republican Revolutionary Guard Corps has been working towards this time for decades and essentially they will not be easily dislodged. It could happen eventually, but I think it's highly unlikely. On the other hand, I mean, somebody asked me four night ago, what do you think the odds were of Trump actually declaring victory and leaving? And I thought the chances are probably as much as one in four at a particular stage. Now, given the way the weapons are building up, the forces are building up, potentially three carrier battle groups with all their facilities. We now have a base in Britain, the Fairford base, which is essentially an American base. It's one of only three outside the United States in which you can even fly the B2 from, because the B2 has to have very special facilities. And the three bases are Fairford, Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and Guam over in the West Pacific. The only other place you can actually base the B2 is actually in the United States itself. So that means that Britain is significant there. And also B1B, the Lancer and the old B52, there are already, I think, 22, 21 or even 23 possibly of those now based at Fairford in Gloucestershire, because essentially that is a far shorter flight through to bomb targets in Iran than it is to fly directly from the United States, which you can do with air to air refueling. So in other words, there are all these issues as well. And I would actually argue that Britain is far more involved than, than the British government will actually admit. And that is getting through, but again, not through the mainstream media at the current time. So it's a further complication. But just to come back, I would say the chances now of Trump declaring victory and leaving are less than 1 in 4. I think it's more likely to be 1 in 6, 1 in 7, if you believe in these odds. In other words, I think with all the buildup that is happening now day by day and what we've seen over the last seven days, I think it is more likely that the United States under Trump is going to stay in this war because the war machine is so powerful and influential. And I have to say I think it's going to be a disaster for the United States.
- [22:28]
Bruce Fine
When you mentioned that the best way for Trump to deal with this is to declare victory and get out of the way, that doesn't mean Israel is going to stop bombing day after day Iran. So that will complicate things. But in one of your articles, you pose an intriguing hypothesis that even if Trump doesn't want to declare victory and leave the area and stop the military attack, he may be forced to do so because, and I'm quoting you here, the oil rich Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are immensely wealthy in terms of sovereign wealth funds alone. We're talking about over $4 trillion in and there are many other investment strengths to play with, end quote. I assume you're talking about they're selling in vast quantities US treasury bonds, which would be devastating to the US Bond market and its consequences. Is that correct?
- [23:28]
Paul Rogers
It's one of the possibilities. There are others as well. The way in which the Arab states, particularly the really, really oil and gas rich ones, and one would probably the most important there are Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi of the Emirates, the really wealthy one there, and certainly Kuwait and obviously Britta as well. These have such big, basically control ownership of assets in the United States and indeed in Britain. I might say that they are in a position to do a lot of threatening even if it doesn't go beyond that. But the bond markets are key obviously here. That would be one thing. And you know, I've talked to people who sort of work in that field, including in the Middle east, who point this out that in fact, don't underestimate. Even though at the moment the Saudis are saying can you carry on bombing and increase the bombing behind the scenes, I think it may be very different. This is where I think at least one should posit this possibility that the United States may come under very unexpected pressures from unexpected quarters. I wouldn't put it higher than that. It's a thing which I think is very well worth mentioning, something which I've not seen actually mentioned elsewhere either in the mainstream press, or indeed the more radical press.
- [24:41]
Bruce Fine
Well, one of the pressures on Trump is Republicans can lose big in the November elections. And this war is figuring in the dropping polls in the US supporting Trump, they've dropped to the lowest yet at 35%. And that doesn't argue well for the Republicans in Congress who want to retain control. So that may be another factor in his calculation if he can stop his zigzagging attitude. That is really unsettling people here. They don't know where he stands and what he's doing and who he's listening to in any given day or time of day. Let's go to Lebanon. Is it true that the Israelis are suffering casualties in southern Lebanon at nighttime, and they've only gone in to Lebanon a few kilometers because of the resistance?
- [25:31]
Paul Rogers
We don't know for sure. The Israelis are really playing this extremely quietly. We know, I think four were killed very recently now, four for the Israelis is quite serious compared with the way they now operate and getting indications from a number of sources at the very least, that Hezbollah is proving to be much more difficult to bring under control. And this is why the Israelis are steadily saying they're going to shift more people, drive more and more people out of that part of southern Lebanon. So it is more or less clear, in which case they can then, they believe, deal with Hezbollah. Now, Hezbollah, by all stretches of the imagination, should be absolutely on its knees after what it's experienced over the last two or three years, but it doesn't seem to be. And all I would say here is that something is going on there which is difficult to determine because of the very high level of secrecy. But one suspects it is proving quite a lot more difficult, and I want to put it stronger than that, than the Israelis ever expected. But then, of course, you know, there's been this such an extraordinary degree of what I would have to call arrogance, both on the Israeli and the American side, and the assumption that these would be, if not walkovers, then relatively straightforward. And time after time, that is proving not to be the case. There's been this underestimating of Iranian capabilities, despite the huge damage that they received, the number of catalysts and the rest, they seem to be capable of doing it at a level which people just did not expect. Now, as you absolutely said earlier on, how can one believe this when we have the experience of both Afghanistan and Iraq, and if Lebanon, Libya for that matter, as well, these were wars which on any stretch of the imagination were major military failures. But that is not realized among society generally. In Britain And I don't know whether it is in the United States, but these have been failed wars. Yet the United States and Israel seem not to recognize this. And the Israelis, as I say this phrase that one uses in case of Israel, impregnable in its insecurity, it is still in a trap. And one could argue that Israel in the long term is even less secure than it was when it started this last war.
- [27:42]
Bruce Fine
Well, it doesn't seem to have much strategy in Lebanon other than to slaughter thousands of people in southern Beirut, which is considered a Hezbollah political party support area. Most people don't understand Hezbollah has members of parliament. They're elected group, not just a fighting group. And the Israelis show no signs of restraint. They're taking a chunk of Syria, they're taking a chunk of Lebanon. There's talk of even greater advances and control in neighboring countries. And the US Simply is unwilling to control this regional empire of Netanyahu. It just looks at so many variables out of control here. Just a matter of Trump's peak could lead to disaster. His ego being attacked can lead to disaster. But the thing he cannot ignore is the economic impact here. There are millions of stickers which have Trump's picture on gas pumps in the US Pointing to the gas price, saying, I did that. And the Republicans are getting very, very queasy in Congress about their knee jerk loyalty to, to this tyrant, to this dictator. So we have a huge domestic political crisis that are going to put pressure on him to get out of the Iranian war. Now, if he does, will the European countries move to try to open up the Strait of Hormuz either by diplomacy or otherwise, because they are more affected
- [29:19]
Paul Rogers
by that than the US by diplomacy, yes, undoubtedly. And by military means? Not directly. I mean, the view among the European military would be mad to go into any kind of war with the Iranians present in the very narrow confines of the Strait of Hormuz? I don't think that's on. Of course, the interesting thing happening here is that insofar as any kind of negotiation might proceed, it looks like it's going to focus more on unexpected countries. In fact, it's quite probable that Pakistan with Egypt and maybe one or two other countries, including Turkey, Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt and maybe one or two others are forming a kind of new kind of coalition to see if they can find some way of bringing pressure to bring this war to an end. Now, remember that those countries in different ways will be considered allies of the United States, where they're moving on. And I think there's a new sort of center of potential diplomatic power coming in. India, of course, being all I mean, the ones that are normally talked about over here are essentially Turkey, obviously Egypt and India, and of course, with the lead coming elsewhere from Pakistan. Now, that's in its early stages. It may lead to a sort of a new center. But I take your point, what you're saying about Trump and Netanyahu. I think in that article, when I talked about Trump saying declare victory and get out, I think I put a little bit at the end of that article saying that he had to put huge pressure on Israel in the process. Because when push comes to shove, one has to remember this did not start as an American war against Iran. It started as an Israeli war against Iran, of course, in Israel itself. But one always has to remember it is not uniformly supporting Netanyahu. There is an opposition. It's not really the parliamentary level, but among many Israelis, there's a real concern about the way things are going. So here again, there's a degree of uncertainty which may turn out to be something which is going to be valuable in the long term. But I have to say that speaking as an attempted analyst, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. All one has to say we are in incredibly uncertain times. We, I think, is what makes it so important that people who really want to look for genuine peace are as loud as they can be in trying to seek that.
- [31:42]
Bruce Fine
Well, thank you very much, Professor Paul Rogers. We welcome your insights. We welcome your role as a public intellectual who believes in educating the public and not just writing books and papers and academic journals. If people want to follow you, do you have a website you can give them?
- [32:01]
Paul Rogers
No, I don't myself, I'm afraid. But I write on a weekly basis for open democracy.
- [32:07]
Bruce Fine
Thank you very much.
- [32:09]
Paul Rogers
Thank you for listening. Thank you for having me. I've really appreciated the opportunity.
- [32:13]
Bruce Fine
You're welcome.
- [32:15]
Steve Skrovan
We've been speaking with Paul Rogers. We will link to his work@ralphnaderradiohour.com when we come back. We'll speak to Bruce Fine and John Bonifaz about the impeachment symposium they are hosting in Washington this week. Now let's check in with our corporate crime reporter, Russell Mokhiber from the National
- [32:31]
Russell Mokhiber
Press building in Washington, D.C. this is your corporate crime reporter Morning minute for Friday, April 3rd, 2026. I'm Russell Mokhyber. What if the federal government settles a major corporate crime case with a lenient deferred prosecution agreement, but doesn't alert the press and the public about it in the case of Phillips, 66, the Justice Department put out a press release in November 2024 announcing a criminal indictment of the company. The criminal trial was scheduled to begin last month in Los Angeles, but when the case was settled in January 2026, there was no press release announcing the settlement. The result of no press release announcing the settlement, no adverse publicity. In November 2024, a federal jury in Los Angeles returned a six count indictment charging Phillips with violating the Clean Water act by illegally discharging hundreds of thousands of gallons of induction industrial wastewater from its Carson Oil refinery into the Los Angeles county sewer system. But there was no criminal prosecution, no finding of guilt, and no corporate probation. Instead, Phillips agreed to enter into a three year deferred prosecution agreement. No monitor, no finding of guilt, no corporate probation, no press release. For the corporate crime reporter, I'm Russell Mulkheimer.
- [33:40]
Steve Skrovan
Thank you, Russell. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. I'm Steve Scrovan along with David Feldman. Hannah and Ralph. Our next guests are spearheading the effort to impeach Donald Trump.
- [33:51]
Hannah Feldman
Hannah John Bonifaz is a constitutional attorney and the co founder and President of Free speech for people. Mr. Bonifaz previously served as the Executive Director and General Counsel of the National Voting Rights Institute and as the Legal Director of Voter Action. He is the author of Warrior the Case for Impeaching George W. Bush and the co author with Ron Fine and Ben Clements of the Constitution Demands the Case for the Impeachment of Donald Trump. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. John Bonifaz, thank you, Hannah.
- [34:26]
John Bonifaz
Honored to be back with all of you.
- [34:28]
Hannah Feldman
And Bruce Fine is a constitutional scholar and an expert on International Law. Mr. Fine was associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan and he is the author of Constitutional the Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy and American Empire before the Fall. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Bruce Fine.
- [34:49]
Ralph Nader
Thank you for inviting me.
- [34:50]
Bruce Fine
Welcome back, John and Bruce. A lot of people in this country have been waiting for Congress to start impeachment proceedings. After all, Trump is the most impeachable president in history. He towers above all the others with his daily overt, boastful, blatant impeachment violations. He gives the most thorough content to the phrase in the Constitution of high crimes and misdemeanors. However, the Republican dominated Congress has declined to even contemplate such an act and the Democrats have been led by Hakeem Jeffries and Senator Schumer, who don't want to raise the impeachment issue until after the election? Well, the only real time there's leverage on the Republicans to abandon their president is they think they're going to lose control of Congress in November. So with that background, we want to explore with our listeners what's going on around the country that's ahead of the politicians in Washington and an event that's going to be held up at Congress on April 8, where the issue of impeachment will be confronted front and center. Let's start with you, John Boniface. You started early with impeachment drive George W. Bush. You have had a petition out since Trump took office that has many hundreds of thousands of signatures. Could you describe what's going on out there and what you're doing?
- [36:20]
John Bonifaz
Yes. Thank you, Ralph. Good to be back with you. So@impeachtrumpagain.org, we have a campaign to press Congress to carry out its sworn duty on under the Constitution to invoke the impeachment power against this lawless president. And we have been documenting on a daily basis the multiple abuses of power this president has committed. We are now up to 27 grounds for impeachment, all of which include subheadings. And it's all detailed there for people to read. @impeachtrumpagain.org we also have a petition that now has nearly 1.1 million signers calling on Congress to do its job and to invoke the impeachment power. And in addition to that, we've been engaged in working with advocates across the country to lift up this call. There were many different messages around impeachment at the no Kings rallies across the country. We worked with many organizers to lift up that message, and we're going to keep doing that. And of course, this impeachment hearing that you and Bruce Fine are organizing next week, April 8, at the Rayburn House Office Building, is critical to demonstrate that Congress needs to do its job. It needs to carry out the responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution in the face of this lawlessness coming from Donald Trump.
- [37:43]
Bruce Fine
You know, more Americans want to impeach him than don't want to impeach him. And the gap is growing as the outrage gasoline prices, food prices, violating his pledge to never engage in endless wars and basically pushing people around in red and blue states as workers, consumers, communities, breaking contracts for renewable energy in the red states, laying off or firing 300,000 federal workers. I mean, it's just finally being driven home to where people live, work and raise their families. The importance here is the majority of Democrats obviously would want to be impeached in Congress and removed from office. But they haven't decided to hold shadow hearings. There's nothing obstructing them from holding shadow hearings in committee rooms with influential witnesses and the press there. So on April 8, as you said, John, we're going to have a civic hearing in effect on the war in Iran. The corruption, bribery, extortion of Trump and his and his circle and Trump's underway already attempt to scuttle or manipulate the November elections by the Insurrection act being invoked and trying to federalize militarily the exclusive state jurisdiction over elections articulated in our Constitution.
- [39:14]
Ralph Nader
I think we need to be even more candid about the nature of the crimes. This is not just illegal wars under the Constitution. He is committing the crime of aggression, the same crime that we sentence Nazis to death at Nuremberg for committing aggression against Poland, against Denmark, against Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, etc. The crime of aggression that we defined and continue to divide is a war not in self defense. Now that is a characteristic of Kermit, what we're doing in Iran. Iran was not at all threatening the United States. So this is criminal activity by the President of the United States, not just a civil violation of the Constitution. Moreover, he's resorted to murder. We're now approaching 200 murders in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific of so called drug traffickers. Never been proven to be drug traffickers. And even if they were, we have criminal law enforcement that doesn't mean using the military to kill people that we think murder them, that we believe may be engaged in some kind of criminal activity. And what's truly horrifying, Ralph and John, is that there's no limiting principle. He's staked out the position that he can identify any person in the world, citizen or non citizen. Say, you are an enemy of the United States, I'm going to exterminate you. That's the beginning and end. Now this is what is defined as a dictator by any ordinary use of the English language. We need to get away with authoritarian. Oh, he's pushing the envelope. This is what dictators do. He stated, I can do anything I want. And he does it. He kills people, he deports them without due process, he spies on them, he suppresses free speech by using the government to penalize anyone who says anything that's critical detracts from Mr. Trump. I mean, it is impossible to conceive of the framers thinking anyone like Donald Trump giving his words and his action would remain in office more than a fortnight if Congress was doing its duty.
- [41:12]
Bruce Fine
And also he's a co belligerent with Israel and Gaza, as Biden was. And he's certainly responsible for mass civilian deaths in Iran and over 5,000 innocent civilians killed in Lebanon by his proxy, Netanyahu. Let me ask you this question, Bruce. Why do you think, given that the Democrats impeached Trump on the Hunter Biden Ukraine scandal, hardly a big tabletop issue, why do you think the Democrats leadership, not the rank and file, the leadership, doesn't want to talk about impeachment? John Larson broke ranks last week, Congressman Larson from Connecticut, and he introduced 17 articles of impeachment, which you drafted into a House bill that people can rally around. And he sent out a dear colleague letter to his colleagues in the House of Representatives. This is what happens when citizens begin to energize their own representatives in Congress. But why do you think the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate have a taboo on impeachment?
- [42:23]
Ralph Nader
I think the taboo is lessening a little bit. But I think there are two dynamics at work. One, they are constitutionally illiterate. They have no clue what the impeachment standards are and how the framers intended the impeachment clause to work. That's number one. Number two, they still live in this twilight zone that they fear that the Republicans lost when they impeached Bill Clinton and therefore they want to take impeachment off the table. And then there's a third element that's even more repugnant. They think Trump is becoming unpopular. They want to leave him in office so they think they can run against him and do better in 2026. So they would sacrifice the country in order to try to obtain, you know, an electoral advantage. This is in the wake Mr. Trump calling for the execution of six members of Congress for simply preparing audio that reflects the Uniform Code of Military justice principle. You're obligated to disobey clearly illegal order. And yet the Democrats still, you know, treat this as a Tea party. But all those, I think, are working in tandem to make the Democrats very, very, very timid and reticent on this score.
- [43:32]
John Bonifaz
If I could just add on those helpful points, Bruce, that the momentum is continuing to build. As we know, when Congressman Green introduced articles of impeachment back in June of last year on the then illegal bombing of Iran, articles which we helped to draft at Free Speech for people, he had 78 of his colleagues, total of 79 members of Congress to advance those articles. He then introduced in December, articles of impeachment, specifically on those threats that Trump made to execute members of Congress because of that video and on the intimidation of federal judges. And he had 139 join him. Total 140 members of Congress. 77% increase in terms of the members of Congress voting to advance articles of impeachment. And importantly, Hakeem Jeffries, Catherine Clark, Pete Aguilar, the leadership on that. On the Democratic side in the House, they issued a statement just before the vote saying they would vote present rather than voting not to advance the articles. Because they said, in their words, it would take thousands of hours of testimony, weeks and weeks of hearings to get to a place where they would support articles of impeachment. Well, you know, we are not living in conventional times here. There are clear as day abuses of power that have occurred that don't require thousands of hours of witness testimony and weeks and weeks of hearings. But nevertheless, their statement led to some 45 members of Congress voting present rather than voting no on the articles. So what we have here is momentum, but we have to keep the pressure on. And these members of Congress, whether they be Democrats, Republicans or Independents, they all need to hear from their constituents that they have a duty, a sworn duty, to protect and defend the Constitution. The oath that they took, the same oath that Donald Trump took and claims he doesn't want to comply with and clearly has not based on all of his actions. But these members of Congress have that duty and they need to be pushed to carry out their sworn duty.
- [45:30]
Ralph Nader
Yeah. If I could just elaborate on. I agree with everything you said, John. Elaborate on the point that, well, it's going to take years or very, very protracted kind of hearings to have a vote on Trump. And that's ridiculous. Just use Trump's own words. What does it mean when the President of the United States says openly it has never retracted, the only restraint on my power is not the Constitution. It's not the will of the American people. It's my moral conscience that is indistinguishable from King Louis XIV of France saying, I am the state. That is an impeachable offense. You don't need to wait at that point to know what his intent is. And if you read the Declaration of Independence, it says the time to rid a government of its authority is when it evinces a design to reduce you to serfdom. That evinces a design to reduce us to serfdom. I can do anything I want unless my moral conscience says otherwise. This is ridiculous. Somebody walks into your home, John says, going to light a match and burn it down. I'm going to turn an arsonist you sit there and say, well, I'll wait till it happens. No, you get rid of them immediately. That is the situation we confront.
- [46:37]
Bruce Fine
Unlike the Nixon administration with the one time Watergate violation, the impeachable offenses of Trump go on 24 hours a day and he's boastful about it. The interesting thing about any trial in the Senate is all they got to do is just put on the table, everything's bragged about, that represents high crimes and misdemeanors from A to Z. He boasts about it, he brags about it, he double downs about it. So we'll see. What we want the listeners to do is call your local senator and representative, call the local office of your senators and representatives, and tell them that you want the Constitution's provision. The only thing he doesn't control, compared to the six injustices of the Supreme Court, there seem to be on this side. The only thing he doesn't control is the impeachment authority in the Constitution. And if it is exercised, it is not reviewable by courts at all. It in effect says, you're fired.
- [47:38]
Ralph Nader
The Apprentice. Yeah.
- [47:39]
Bruce Fine
Any questions from Steve or David or Hannah?
- [47:43]
Steve Skrovan
John, I'll direct this to you. Since you mentioned the 27 grounds, impeachment to Trump, how many of those are unique to Trump and have not been committed by other presidents? Because I would think that would also be a reason that the Democrats are hedging.
- [48:00]
John Bonifaz
I would say the vast majority of them are unique to Trump. Threatening to execute members of Congress is unique to Trump. Kidnapping people off the streets and sending them to foreign torture prisons is unique to Trump. Freezing public funds that have been duly appropriated by the United States Congress and not distributing those funds is unique to Trump. Attacking the United States judiciary, refusing to comply with multiple court orders issued by federal courts across the country is unique to Trump. Engaging in these murders on the high seas, as Bruce has highlighted, these paramilitary attacks on people in the Pacific and in the Caribbean is unique to Trump. Now, it's true that, that there have been other violations of the war powers clause, and that was documented in the book I wrote on impeaching George W. Bush that dealt with a case that I helped to bring challenging the illegality and unconstitutionality of the Iraq war. But the scale, the scale of the war powers violations today is unique to Trump. And this current new illegal and unconstitutional war against Iran is threatening the entire world. And so I think that whether they be Democrats or Republicans or Independents, they have to wake up and recognize they have a duty here. And, you know, for those who Say, well, we have to wait. We can't have this conversation now. You know, we need to be building the case now, as we have been@impeachtrumpagain.org, i know, as Bruce and Ralph and many others have been doing, we need to be building that case now and not waiting around some magic day when we can start using the I word. This is the power that we the people have through Article 2, Section 4, the impeachment clause. And we need to be invoking it now at this critical moment in our history.
- [49:49]
Ralph Nader
I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I do think it's important. These are crimes of aggression for which we sentence Nazi leadership to death at Nuremberg. It's unconstitutional, bad enough, but these are crimes, international crimes, universal crimes, that when we had the authority, we sentenced others to death.
- [50:10]
Steve Skrovan
But Bruce, if I, if I may interrupt, Bruce, couldn't you say that about Obama and his drone killing of Aliwaki or Bill Clinton sending a missile into Iraq and not hitting the chemical place that he wanted and killing civilians? And wouldn't that be something that the Republicans could throw at you and say, oh, you didn't do it when these guys did it?
- [50:32]
Ralph Nader
Well, number one, one missile attack doesn't constitute a war of aggression and occupation like what we're doing in Iran. Obviously war has scales and there's a crossing point. And I think no one denies we're at war with Iran, slaughtering and bombing. So that's the scale is what distinguishes between a one time attack and a war of aggression. And even with regard to Libya, the Republicans there, they did sue, but they weren't trying to impeach him. So that's a different level. But in some sense I want to acknowledge an underlying truth of the question. A lot of presidents have done a lot of bad things for sure, and we're not exculpating them. Is there a political element in that? Yes, there is. But it's better to have some justice than none. Because if we have non justice, you're living under a dictatorship. But we don't want to be naive and suggest, well, Trump is unique in the history and nobody else has done anything at all like it. But certainly at the scale that he's done and the massive violations of human rights, he's in a class by himself, what the lawyers call sui generis.
- [51:44]
Steve Skrovan
Because I can see that the argument that I've heard made all the time in all different contexts is you just have Trump derangement syndrome, you just don't like Trump. So Anything he does. And all this throwing the kitchen sink at him is just a manifestation of this syndrome.
- [52:04]
Ralph Nader
Ralph, me and John have been trying to impeach presidents, Democrat, Republican, for decades for these illegalities. The idea that we picked out Trump is absurd. Look at my history, that half of my life devoted to getting presidents impeached or moved from office. So that shows the absurdity of the claim. One of the first things I remember, I think Ralph and I wrote Joe Biden was soon as that he's elected president and took the oath of office. And Joe, you remember in 2007, you're running for the nomination of the Democratic Party and said you're going to impeach and remove George W. Bush if he taxed Iran without a declaration. You're sitting there, you're running these wars without a declaration. Libya, whatever. You better stop all these wars now or, or you're going to be hoisted on your own petard. Of course he didn't do anything. That was the letter we sent to Joe Biden, probably the first one he got. He refused to answer it. So the idea that this is a partisan, at least among us, is factually absurd.
- [53:00]
Bruce Fine
Also, Steve, in a little more than a year, Trump has bombed localities illegally in 10 countries and counting 10 countries. He really has a madman as Secretary of Defense, which in the first term was not the case. He had Secretary of Defenses who actually restrained him. Let's go to Hannah.
- [53:20]
Hannah Feldman
This conversation took a turn I'm very excited about. I've gone on record. I am in favor of impeaching early and impeaching often, just like any other job performance review. So, John, I'll ask you this, and obviously, Bruce, if you have opinions, I want to set up a permanent committee on impeachment so we don't have to worry about who's starting an investigation. Always be investigating. John, set up this committee for me. How do we get this off the ground talking Congressional committee, presumably, unless.
- [53:55]
John Bonifaz
So Bruce Fine would need to be the chair of it, and it would be very quickly implemented to hold hearings and to introduce articles of impeachment. But to be clear, I think you're right, Hannah. We need some clear sense for the public to understand that the impeachment power is there to address multiple abuses of power that have been committed by either the President or other federal officials. And that includes, certainly in this case, many members of his cabinet. And I think that permanent committee would send that clear message and we would have that kind of action. But I do want to just come back to David's question to Highlight that there is another way to to deal with accountability for the crimes that Donald Trump and his co conspirators are committing when we can't rely obviously on the U.S. justice Department today because it's an arm effectively of the Trump White House and that is state and local prosecutors. And at Free speech for people, we have been sending detailed letters to state attorneys general and local DAs across the country making clear that they have their own sworn duty to enforce state criminal laws against federal agents and those directing them for crimes that they are committing in their states. And imagine if we had multiple prosecutions happening today against these ICE agents who are running rogue over the laws across the states, violating state criminal laws, kidnapping people, assault and battery, illegal detention, and in the case of Alex Preddy and Renee Good, outright murders. Imagine if we had multiple prosecutions happening for not just those federal agents, but those who are directing them, including Donald Trump and the co conspirators at the highest levels of our government. We need to see some state AGs and DAs step up where the US Justice Department is not going to enforce the law.
- [55:43]
Ralph Nader
John, how do we get around the Trump versus US decision of the US Supreme Court?
- [55:47]
John Bonifaz
I'll tell you how. Thank you for that question. Trump v. U S Provides presidential immunity for official acts. Kidnapping is not an official act. Assault and battery is not an official act. Murder is not an official act. Illegal detentions are not an official act. We have to remember that Jack Smith, the special counsel whose case came before the Supreme Court, went back to the federal district court after Trump the US and made clear that he was going to prove that everything in their indictment was still going to go forward because none of it dealt with official acts. Now, he didn't get the chance to prove that because of course Donald Trump took power again and he ultimately couldn't continue with the prosecution and resign. But he was even making the case after Trump v. US that his case would survive. And I think there are a lot of cases in this country right now where we have seen documented with our own eyes and the film and all that people can see across the world of federal agents running roughshod over the laws. And Donald Trump goes on 60 Minutes and is presented with some of these ICE abuses and says they're not doing enough. He says that directly to the reporter. So he's sanctioning this lawlessness by this private army unleashed to terrorize the American people and he needs to be held accountable by state AGs and DAs.
- [57:02]
Bruce Fine
Well, we're out of time. We've been speaking with John Boniface and Bruce Fine, guests who have been on our show before. April 8th is the event and the House of Representatives. We're a civic initiative to highlight impeachment and get it underway. Lay the groundwork. It's never too early to do the right thing. It will galvanize a lot of groups around the country, often small groups who've been pushing for impeachment. Give them a focal point on Congress as well as a message to the media to start looking into this themselves from an investigative point of view. The nexus between the Constitution's impeachment provision and all the impeachable offenses of Donald Trump. And above all, we hope this event will help make impeachment a common issue in all the candidates campaigns from now until November. So the American people often say, what's your position? Candidate on a street crime will say, what's your position on impeaching tyrant Trump and his dangerous unstable pursuits. What is your position on impeaching Trump? Every candidate should be asked that question and we hope will further that attentiveness on April 8th.
- [58:21]
John Bonifaz
This event will be live streamed on April 8th starting at 9am to 1:30pm and people can check out our Facebook page at Free Speech for People as well as our YouTube channel to find that live stream link. I also believe Lights on with Jessica Denson is going to be live streaming it as well as other sources. So this will be broadcast in many different ways. C SPAN may cover it, but even if they're not covering it, people can get the live stream via those channels.
- [58:50]
Bruce Fine
Thank you John.
- [58:51]
John Bonifaz
Thank you Ralph. Great to be with you again.
- [58:53]
Bruce Fine
Thank you Bruce.
- [58:55]
Ralph Nader
Hey, thanks Ralph for inviting again stalwarts both.
- [58:59]
Bruce Fine
Thank you very much.
- [59:01]
Steve Skrovan
I want to thank our guests again, Paul Rogers, Bruce Fine and John Bonifaz. For those of you listening on the radio, that's our show for you podcast listeners. Stay tuned for some bonus material we call the Wrap up featuring Francesco de Santis with in case you haven't heard, and a lot more from Paul Rogers about Gaza. A transcript of this program will appear on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour substack site soon after the episode is posted. The producers of the Ralph Nader Radio Hour are Jimmy Lee Wirt, Hannah Feldman and Matthew Marin. Our executive producer is Alan Minsky. Our theme music, Stand Up, Rise up was written and performed by Kemp Harris. Our proofreader is Elizabeth Solomon. Join us next week on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Thank you Ralph.
- [59:44]
Bruce Fine
Thank you everybody.
- [59:47]
Ralph Nader
Stand up, step up, you ought to
- [59:51]
John Bonifaz
step up, rise up, arise up.
- [59:54]
Ralph Nader
I know you want to rise up, stand up.