Ralph Nader Hour - Sunday, July 26, 2026

Summary

---

Ralph Nader Radio Hour — July 26, 2026

Main Theme

This episode centers on two urgent and contentious issues: the media's underreporting of deaths in Gaza and the Democratic Party's reluctance to pursue impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump. Ralph Nader is joined by Judge Andrew Napolitano for a probing discussion on these themes, examining press accountability, anti-Semitism accusations, political calculation, and the broader consequences for American democracy. The second half features listener feedback across recent episodes, with the panel responding to questions and critiques on democratic reform, progressive policy, and U.S.–Israel policy.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Gaza Death Undercount & Media Accountability

[03:59 – 14:27]

• Nader's Frustration with the Media: Nader expresses concern that mainstream U.S. media continue to cite only the Gaza Health Ministry's death counts, omitting countless victims still under rubble and many more dying from post-attack conditions. He references The Lancet’s estimate of nearly 200,000 deaths as early as 2024, contrasted with the officially reported figure under 75,000.

  "Most of Gaza is rubble... They don't take into account 5,000 babies born every month until recently into the rubble." — Ralph Nader [04:11]

• Napolitano’s Critique: Judge Napolitano argues U.S. media is beholden to pro-Israel lobbies, stifling intellectual honesty and self-censorship for fear of career repercussions. He notes alternative media are more likely to cite higher, more realistic death tolls, referencing Pat Buchanan’s notion of Congress as "Israeli occupied territory."

  "Anybody who tries [to report the true numbers] will be looking for a job." — Andrew Napolitano [08:00]

• Anti-Semitism Accusations: The panel discusses how accusations of anti-Semitism are weaponized to suppress dissenting voices critical of Israeli policy, with Nader emphasizing the "other anti-Semitism" targeting Palestinian Arabs.

  "Being accused of being anti-Semitic is just an occupational hazard... you just have to deal with it." — Andrew Napolitano [11:38]

• Public Awareness and Political Impact: Despite media bias, Nader points to broad U.S. public disapproval of the war, citing a Washington Post poll showing 69% opposition.

2. Democratic Party, Impeachment & Political Strategy

[16:12 – 27:36]

• Democratic Reluctance for Impeachment: Nader reveals insider information that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is discouraging impeachment actions, even as centrist Democrat John Larson’s resolution gains scant internal support.

  "Hakeem Jeffries is shutting down the Democrats... because Hakeem Jeffries is saying, we don’t want to talk about impeachment." — Ralph Nader [16:54]

• Napolitano’s Perspective: The judge speculates Democrats may be delaying impeachment proceedings until (and if) they win the House majority, at which point Rep. Jamie Raskin would head investigations.

  "If they don’t want to jump the shark, so to speak, they want to wait until the House has a majority." — Andrew Napolitano [19:05]

• Mobilizing Argument: Nader stresses impeachment is not just a constitutional process but a powerful way to motivate and rally Democratic voters, who remain uncertain of their party’s values and purpose.

  "It’s a great organizing tool to get people excited, to get them to turn out the vote..." — Ralph Nader [19:51]

• Napolitano Agrees on Strategy: Despite being a Libertarian, Napolitano sides with Nader on the urgency and value of impeachment.

  "The only way to stop the tyrant in the White House is for the Democrats to take control of the Congress and move immediately on impeachment." — Andrew Napolitano [21:34]

• Critical View on Trump’s Governance: Both decry Trump’s use of executive powers and the Supreme Court decision granting broad immunity, drawing analogies with authoritarian regimes.

  "This case... has unleashed Trump to disregard laws, to disregard the Constitution, to disregard treaties." — Andrew Napolitano [24:59]

3. Listener Mailbag: Progressive Reform, Media Ownership, Zionism, Election Integrity

[30:26 – 55:42]

• Small Donor Reform & Independent Media:
  • Listener Don Harris proposes a citizen-owned media conglomerate, funded by small donors as a corrective to bipartisan corporate party dominance.
  • Nader counters that small donor strategies do not guarantee a just agenda—pointing out both Republicans and Democrats now mine small donors—and challenges Harris to lead a pilot version.

    "Small donors don’t necessarily mean big democracy or justice, although they’re certainly preferred..." — Ralph Nader [32:00]

• Progressive Policy Agenda:
  • Listener Richard Bartholomew critiques the feasibility of a progressive “compact for America,” doubting tax reforms’ political viability and emphasizing the need to tax capital.
  • Nader highlights that raising the Social Security cap could expand benefits and reiterates the federal minimum wage’s importance.

    "There’s a huge discrimination on earned income compared to unearned income..." — Ralph Nader [37:17]

• Language of Zionism:
  • Nader agrees with a listener calling for use of “colonists” over “settlers,” clarifying that even Zionist critics like Omer Bartov acknowledge forced dispossession of Palestinians.

    "I think you’re right on the use of language, colonists instead of immigrant or settler..." — Ralph Nader [42:01]

  • Another listener asks about the Israeli Hannibal Directive and the plausibility of Israeli collusion on October 7th, with Nader noting lack of investigation and press silence.

    "What happened on October 7 has never had an official investigation in Israel because Netanyahu has opposed it..." — Ralph Nader [43:06]

• Trump Corruption, Impeachment, & Election Risks:
  • Listener SH urges immediate impeachment due to ongoing corruption and risks of Trump invoking the Insurrection Act to block elections.

    "He has to be impeached ASAP because people are suffering in the tens of millions..." — Ralph Nader [47:22]

  • Napolitano is on board, warning that executive overreach and DHS powers (including against "ANTIFA") threaten civil liberties.

    "They're killers. The whole Department of Homeland Security, which has become like the President's domestic...stormtroopers" — Andrew Napolitano [27:36]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Media Censorship and Bias:

  "The mainstream media in the United States is controlled by the lobby... don’t expect intellectual honesty from the mainstream media because anybody who tries it will be looking for a job." — Andrew Napolitano [07:25–08:00]

• On Accusations of Anti-Semitism:

  "If I criticize Pope Leo for something, does that mean I’m anti-Catholic?" — Andrew Napolitano [11:43]
  "The real anti-Semitism supported by U.S. weapons and tax dollars is the anti-Semitism against Palestinian Semites." — Ralph Nader [16:01]

• On Democratic Leadership Inaction:

  "They don’t want to talk about impeachment... you got over 85% of the Democrats, maybe 90% for impeachment..." — Ralph Nader [16:54–17:12]

• On Trump’s Power and Actions:

  "In July 2019 he said, under Article 2, I can do whatever I want as president. Exact words." — Ralph Nader [26:53]
  "He’s the easiest president to impeach you could ever conceive, because every day he gives them impeachable offenses boastfully and open." — Ralph Nader [27:11]

• On DHS & Civil Liberties:

  "Do I want to abolish? I don't like the word abolish. You have to replace it...with a definable mission, accountable standards, and criteria for who's going to lead it." — Ralph Nader [53:03]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [03:59] Nader introduces Gaza death count underreporting and media complicity.
• [07:25] Napolitano on media bias, pro-Israel lobbies, and dangers to honest journalism.
• [11:38] Why progressive media figures shy away from Gaza death count/anti-Semitism charges.
• [14:27] The "Other Anti-Semitism," Palestinians as Semites, and rhetorical tactics.
• [16:12] Democrats’ resistance to initiating Trump impeachment.
• [19:05] Napolitano: Dems waiting for a possible House majority to move on impeachment.
• [21:34] Agreement that impeachment is essential for party mobilization.
• [24:59] Napolitano on the Supreme Court's "immunity" decision, Trump’s lawlessness.
• [27:36] Trump’s use of ICE/Homeland Security as personal enforcers.
• [30:26] Corporate crime report: DOJ leniency on corporate wrongdoing under Trump.
• [32:00] Listener: Small donor campaign finance reform and media ownership.
• [37:17] Listener: Critique of progressive agenda; Nader responds on income tax structure.
• [41:05] Listener: Zionism as colonialism; Nader on correct language/settler-colonial narrative.
• [43:06] Listener: Israeli policy, Oct. 7, Hannibal Directive, and accountability.
• [47:22] Listener: Impeachment urgency; Nader’s fire chief/arsonist analogy.
• [49:20] Trump’s threats to elections via Insurrection Act, panel’s alarm.
• [51:33] Labeling and criminalization of “Antifa” as an excuse for government overreach.
• [53:03] Panel: Should the Department of Homeland Security be abolished?
• [55:42] Listener: Florida’s election fraud and Rick Scott.
• [56:17] Closing remarks and show sign-off.

---

Conclusion

This episode stands out as a forceful critique of both media narratives and political inaction, emphasizing the consequences of silence and self-censorship in the face of humanitarian catastrophe and political misconduct. Through a blend of expert analysis, listener engagement, and pointed historical context, Nader and Napolitano deliver a sobering call to action—one demanding not only accurate journalism and accountability abroad but also democratic courage and constitutional defense at home.

Transcript

[Andrew Napolitano]

The devil himself would have feared to go to sea with that man.

[Ralph Nader]

John Goodman as Billy Bones.

[Andrew Napolitano]

If you see a man with one leg a walking up to this here inn, you'll tell old Captain Billy here what's what, won't you, Jim?

[David Feldman]

And Glenn Turman as the storyteller.

[Ralph Nader]

That night a hurricane hit the bayou and I had a bad dream.

[David Feldman]

With original score by Taj Mahal. That's Treasure Island. A telling for the new world on

[Steve Scrovan]

Phil and Ted's Sex Boomer Show, Tuesdays

[David Feldman]

at 2:00pm right here on KPFK.

[Ralph Nader]

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, 90.7 FM, KPFK Los Angeles. Antifa is not an organization at all. It's just an anti fascist position taken by millions of people in our country. They're trying to find the stereotypes just the way Hitler had to have stereotypes in order to attack and distract the population from his crimes. As well as Trump doing the same thing. Trump is looking, with the help of Rubio, to create a sinister organized threat to humanity called Antifa. Rubio is not getting anywhere with our allies. They think it's absurd and even the press thinks it's absurd. But it shows how desperate Trump is to find a stereotype that he can target. Because targeting immigrants is not enough, given his sinking polls and the prospects for November for his party. Stand up. Stand up.

[Steve Scrovan]

You've been sitting way too long. Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. My name is Steve Scrovan, along with my co host David Feldman. Hello, David. Hello, Steve. And our producer, Hannah Feldman. Hello, Hannah. Hello, Steve. And of course, we have the man of the hour, Ralph Nader. Hello, Ralph.

[Ralph Nader]

Hello. This one should interest you. It deals with, again, Judge Napolitano's view of the huge vote undercount of deaths in Gaza and why the press is not reporting it. And again, why the Democrat leadership in the House is against impeachment just the way Trump is, but for different reasons.

[Steve Scrovan]

That's right, Ralph. Our featured guest today is Judge Andrew Napolitano, whom Ralph has known since 1970, when Judge Napolitano was a Princeton student moderating a debate between Ralph and William F. Buckley. He says it was a draw. I'd like to know more about that. Today, these two old friends are going to talk about two of Ralph's abiding concerns. The death undercount in Gaza and the Democratic Party's reluctance to call for Donald Trump's impeachment before the midterms. That's the first half of the program. In the second half, we're going to dive into the Mailbag. And Ralph is going to respond to a bunch of your comments in our recent episodes featuring Celinda Lake, Dean Baker, Pratap Chatterjee and Omer Bartov. So stay tuned for that. Your name may come up, as always, somewhere in the middle. We'll check in with our relentless corporate crime reporter Russell Mokhyber. But first, here comes the judge.

[Russell Mokhyber]

DAVID Judge Andrew Napolitano is a former Superior Court judge, a syndicated columnist, and host of the Judging Freedom podcast. Judge Napolitano has taught constitutional law and jurisprudence at Delaware Law School and Seton Hall Law School, and He was Fox News's senior judicial analyst from 1997 to 2021, is the author of several books on the United States Constitution and including Freedom's anchor, an Introduction to Natural Law, Jurisprudence and American Constitutional History. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Judge Andrew Napolitano.

[Andrew Napolitano]

Happy to be here with you, Ralph.

[Ralph Nader]

Andrew, let's touch on two taboo subjects here. In terms of the main media, the vast death undercount in Gaza continues to be ignored. They use the qualified health ministry of Hamas for their figure and go no further. As a result, they're still talking about under 75,000 deaths since October 7, 2023. But in fairness to the health ministry, if you ask them what's your criteria, they say these are known people with names. We don't go any further. But we cannot count the tens of thousands under the rubble. Most of Gaza is rubble. There's no rescue machinery possible. They don't take into account 5,000 babies born every month until recently into the rubble. And they don't take care of the related effects of no food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, health care, medicines and so forth. And if we go back to almost two years ago in the prestigious medical journal Lancet, they had it at almost 200,000 and said it was a conservative estimate. And people who've done casualty estimates around the world say that the ratio of related deaths from the violent deaths, the Hamas figure, or violent deaths from bombings by Israel is anywhere from three to 13 times. So it's quite clear that when experts in explosive damage like Professor Paul Rogers out of Bradford University in England In April of 2025, he said the TNT equivalent of the Israeli Bombardment, bombs, artillery, etc. Equaled six Hiroshima bombs. And now it's over eight, maybe nine Hiroshima bombs. And he said it's much more lethal because these are targeted precision killings of mass civilians without shelter, any kind of protection whatsoever, and without health care, dying from their wounds if they don't die immediately. Now I have talked to reporters from the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and say all we have to go on is the Hamas figures, which are now still under 75,000. I said, well, you know how to do investigative reports. You know how to piece things together. Talk to the American doctors who spent weeks in Gaza, some of them almost killed in crumbling hospitals serving the injured. Talk to the UN agencies, talk to the international relief groups like Doctors Without Borders, talk to some academics. You know how to piece it together. You don't have trouble estimating the deaths under Assad in Syria. You say 500,000, you don't give a basis for that, but you use it. The same with Ukraine or Sudan. So with that background, Andrew, what is your take on all this? Because if you have a reasonably accurate figure or range where it can be a low of X and a high of Y, you have more intense military, diplomatic and civic pressure to get the humanitarian aid in, to stop the bombings, and to push for a resolve of this long standing conflict over there that's affecting the United States in so many ways. In terms of freedom of speech, public budgets, and all the things you've talked about on your program.

[Andrew Napolitano]

Well, we're talking about intellectual honesty amongst the mainstream media with respect to the Netanyahu regime and what it has been doing. There is no intellectual honesty. The mainstream media in the United States is controlled by the lobby, and the lobby, of course, is the Israeli and American donors who control the media and control the government. Our friend Pat Buchanan famously referred to the Congress as Israeli occupied territory. The same may be said about the mainstream media. You're not going to find these true numbers about Gaza articulated anywhere other than in the alternate media where, like on my program Judging Freedom, we cite that Lancet article all the time. The Lancet articles, unless it's been updated, is about a year and a half old. So that number's got to be over 200,000 by now. But don't expect intellectual honesty from the mainstream media because anybody who tries it will be looking for a job.

[Ralph Nader]

You know, it's just what you say. If the shoe was on the other foot, you think the media would allow the reporting of a low undercount. It's like the UN Agency put out a report that the Israeli snipers are deliberately targeting children and babies in Gaza. And there was also another wonderful article by Nicholas Kristof on mass rape of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli dungeons. And the New York Times reported both of those. But they didn't do any editorials. It's like they did no editorials on the war crime with the pager, explosives in Lebanon. So if the shoe was on the other foot, they would never do that. So I've talked to honest people, you know, like Gideon Levy, and he said, well, you know, Ralph, the Hamas figures are horrific enough. We really don't have to go any further. They're horrific enough. Well, would that operate if someone tried to say that only 600,000 Jews were killed by Hitler instead of 6 million?

[Andrew Napolitano]

I don't know, Gideon Levy, but that's not an appropriate answer. The job of the investigative reporter is to report truthfully, not to try and make some sort of a political point. But these reporters and editorialists who work for entities that are owned by or substantially influenced by the lobby are not being intellectually honest. Their goal is to advance the political narrative of the Netanyahu regime rather than, like, say, my friend Max Blumenthal, who's a quintessential example of the opposite of what we're talking about. Max risks his life to report accurately on these types of things. But there was a time when reporters for mainstream media were filled with people like Max. Now there's no one there. Nick Kristof did write a great piece. I saw that piece, and I applauded him for it. But the New York Times should have commented on it and written about it over and over again because it's profound. It just caused a kerfuffle in Tel Aviv and Washington for two or three days, and then it was off the front pages.

[Ralph Nader]

I think, Andrew, there's something else working with the honest press, because I invited Amy Goodman on the show to discuss this. She doesn't talk about impeachment. She had Al Green on a few days ago. He was the first to go for impeachment, and she didn't ask him any questions. She doesn't do the death undercount, although, you know, she's had one guest on years ago, but she doesn't touch that. And she said all kinds of devastating reports from Gaza. Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Graham. They're very honest. They won't talk about the death count. So here's what I think their problem is. They're afraid of people saying, oh, you're worse than Hamas terrorist. Estimate of 75,000. You must be anti Semitic. That's afraid of being accused of that. That's my guess. What do you think? These are honest journalists and you know them.

[Andrew Napolitano]

Yes. Well, you know, being accused of being anti Semitic is just an occupational hazard in this business when you're being intellectually Honest. And we've all been accused of this. This is a standard political technique by the lobby to tarnish the intellectual honesty of the speaker. You just have to deal with it and say the answer to that is no. And hel, I'm making my judgment on the basis of what people do, not on the basis of their religious affiliation. If I criticize Pope Leo for something, does that mean I'm anti Catholic? I mean, this is just ridiculous. But this anti Semitic allegation has been out there for generations and tossed around whenever a person tries to speak with intellectual honesty about the public policy of the Israeli regime and the genocide that it is perpetrating in Gaza and elsewhere and the land thefts in the west bank and in Lebanon, you know, you could go on and on and on and on and on because people like me have independence, because I have my own program. I don't worry about that. But a lot of other people do worry about it because they have mortgages to pay and mouths to feed. So they have to be careful what they say. But I do agree with you, Ralph. Hard for me to find something you and I disagree on, but I agree with you on the analysis here. It's a very sad state of affairs, which is why it's very important for the alternate media to be out there and to keep being intellectually honest. Let the chips fall where they may.

[Ralph Nader]

The irony is because, you know, history, Andrew, is a deadly antisemitism. Is Netanyahu against Arab Semites, Palestinian Semites. And Jim Zogby, who founded the Arab American Institute, and I'm sure you know him, gave a lecture at a Israeli university over 20 years ago called the Other Antisemitism. And we had a civil debate between two Jewish American and two Arab Americans on one of our websites. And they agreed that such a thing as anti Semitism against Arab Americans and Arabs in the Middle east, which is the other anti Semitism. It's not just verbal, it's not rhetoric. It's deadly fire from F16s and artillery, tanks. So this business of antisemitism, if you're against the Irish, they don't call you anti Gaelic. If you're against Germans, they don't call you anti Aryan. If you're against Russians, they don't call you anti Slavic. So why don't they just say anti Jewish? Why are they using anti Semitism? They because they want to tarnish anybody who criticizes the Israeli genocidal state of Netanyahu with the Nazi regime. What's your view of that?

[Andrew Napolitano]

Well, I agree with you 100%, in part because what you say is historically accurate, in part because I have been accused of that myself. You just got to let it roll off your back. Say no and hell no and be as intellectually honest as you can. But this is a very serious issue. This is not an academic debate and this is not just a debate amongst journalists. It's a very serious issue because the American public needs to know what's going on. It needs to know what's going on so that it can make informed decisions at the ballot box. And a major time for those decisions is coming up just in four months. So the American public needs to know what the American taxpayer dollars have been used to fund and what Trump has financed, notwithstanding his recent so called, I don't even know if he actually said it, so called attacks on Netanyahu. Personally. Some of this has resonated, as you know, with Democrats in the Congress. There was a recent vote on denying all funding to Israel and about 100 Democrats in the House voted in favor of it. Of course, nearly all, all the Republicans voted against it. Thomas Massie was one of the proponents of it. And a lot of young people in America, whether you call them socialists, social Democrats, Democrats, libertarians, progressives, are totally fed up with the Trump policies on Israel. A recent Washington Post poll, now it's a broad question. It doesn't ask about Israel, asks about the war. 69% oppose the war. I mean, that's an extraordinary negative number for an incumbent president to have to

[Ralph Nader]

endure, certainly, especially since most of the media pushes the other viewpoint. It's a tribute to the common sense of people who draw their own conclusions. You know, an Israeli official once said candidly that in Europe, when they are criticized, the Israeli regime they shout Holocaust and in the United States when they're criticized, they shout antisemitism. Meaning in effect, when they don't have any arguments, they don't have any evidence to advance, they use that defamatory phrase. Anyway, I'm glad we parsed this more than it's usually parsed. And to give people the information to return the charge and say the real anti Semitism supported by U.S. weapons and tax dollars is the anti Semitism against Palestinian Semites. And you can go to Jim Zogby, Z O G by and get his speech called the Other Antisemitism. Let's talk about impeachment as another. No, no. I said the other day, Andrew, that Chuck Schumer, Jeffries and Trump are all on the same side. They're against impeachment. For different reasons. And Jeffries is shutting down the Democrats in a unreported determination from signing on centrist Democrat John Larson's House Resolution 1155, with 13 carefully drafted articles of impeachment against Trump. And so he's only had two or three signatures, not even from his own delegation, because Hakeem Jeffries is saying, we don't want to talk about impeachment. He said to a reporter, when asked, he said, quote, I don't want to get ahead of that discussion, end quote. You don't want to get ahead of that discussion, Hakeem, you got over 85% of the Democrats, maybe 90% for impeachment, 66% of independents for impeachment, over 85, or almost 90% of the Democrats for impeachment. You even have the bar of the City of New York, Andrew, a corporate lawyer dominated bar with two white papers on Trump's executive power abuses, one released in December, one in March, and the conclusion in March was, quote, immediate impeachment of Donald J. Trump. That was their recommendation. Funny, the New York Times didn't cover that. That's a very influential bar association, as you know so well. What's the reason here?

[Andrew Napolitano]

I think the reason for Congressman, or I guess, Minority leader. I'm not sure what his actual title is. Hakeem Jeffries is he wants to wait until January, when he believes he'll be the speaker and the Democrats will have the majority, and then he's going to hand the impeachment over to Jamie Raskin. Now, Congressman Raskin is a former professor of constitutional law.

[David Feldman]

Why?

[Andrew Napolitano]

As I understand, it has done copious research and is prepared to commence the impeachment investigation as soon as the committee is organized in early January. That's the only reason I can think of. If they don't want to jump the shark, so to speak, they want to wait until the House has a majority. If there's some other reason, if they honestly don't think there are impeachable offenses here, well, then they're being irrational, overtly political, and without credibility at all. I can understand why they want to wait. However, if I were in the Congress, I would sign that resolution. That's just the way I am. But I can understand wanting to wait until. Congressman Raskin is the chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

[Ralph Nader]

Well, the other argument on behalf of the Democrats is impeachment is very popular. It's a great mobilizing movement. As you know so well from your books on constitutional law, Andrew, impeachment articles often raise bread and butter. Issues, for example, the impeachment article that evokes the take care clause to make sure that the laws are faithfully executed, deal with all the destruction of the health, safety and economic benefits programs in the federal government, environment and auto safety and other bread and butter type issues. So the argument, progressive Democrats who are for impeachment is saying this is a great organizing tool to get people excited, to get them to turn out the vote, not to get them to stay home as 7.1 million Biden Democrats in 2020 stayed home in 2024. And above all, it gives the answer to millions of Democrats who say, what's the Democratic Party stand for anyway? We don't know what it stands for. It's in disarray. It's in wishy washy, it's not courageous against the greatest tyrant by far that ever lived in the White House. So that's the other argument, and I think it's a much more powerful argument because the Democrats haven't even learned from Gingrich and put out a contract for the American people, weaving together only improvements in their livelihood and in their freedoms that resonate with people, including conservative families, who want many of the same things for their children. Where do you come down on the tactics here for November? They may be so cautious, they may not win.

[Andrew Napolitano]

I agree with you. Listen, I am not a Democrat, as you know, I'm a Libertarian. And much of what the Democrats will try to pass if they control either house of Congress, I would probably vote against, but not on these issues involving the tyrant and the White House. On these issues, I'm 110% with you. And the only way to stop the tyrant in the White House is for the Democrats to take control of the Congress and move immediately. On impeachment, you should have Congressman Raskin on. You'll have a very sophisticated constitutional conversation with him. You'll find him agreeing with our mutual friend Bruce Fine and me on all of these issues. The difference between Congressman Raskin and us is that he can do something about it. I mean, he is about to become, if the Democrats take the House, the second most powerful person in the House of Representatives after the speaker, when he becomes the chair of the Judiciary Committee. But to the extent that conversation about impeachment will energize voters to vote for Democrats in the fall, if for no other reason than that, that's a good reason to mention it. Now. That's a good reason for Democrats to sign Al Green's or the other fellow, I forget his name, Larson, their resolutions. But I understand speaker to be Jefferies willingness to hold this in abeyance. But you make a very, as you always do, Ralph, a very compelling political argument as to why they should raise it now. It'll get those 7.1 million Biden voters out to the polls.

[Ralph Nader]

Well, it's more pernicious in terms of the internal politics of the Democratic Party. As you know, Jimmy Raskin is part of the leadership, and he was leaning toward having a shadow hearing, which no one can stop him from having as a ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee on impeachment. And he scrapped it because Jeffrey said, we don't want to talk about impeachment at all. And then when we invited him to attend our second symposium on Capitol Hill on impeachment, which occurred on July 22, he said no, when we had every indication, because Bruce Fine, as you know, is a friend of his, that he would appear. So this is a big story for the press that they're not jumping on that. Jeffries is shutting down the overwhelming number of House Democrats who want impeachment. And he's using every lever to isolate Congressman John Larson, who is in a tough race in a primary in Connecticut. And he's in a district where the Democrats overwhelmingly are for impeaching and removing Trump. Describe the Trump dictatorship. Yeah, it isn't any more authoritarianism. He's ruling by executive order the way fascists overseas rule by decree, destroying the separation of powers and checks and balances and violating every law that might stand in his way. And he's enabled by the six injustices of the Supreme Court in the case Trump versus US that says you can't bring a criminal case against the sitting president for official duties. And then they didn't define official duties, as Justice Sotomayor eloquently pointed out in her dissent. Give us your read on the status of Trump, constitutionally and legally.

[Andrew Napolitano]

Well, the immunity Supreme Court decision that you just mentioned is truly one of the worst ever produced by a Supreme Court. I mean, it ranks up there with Dred Scott and the Japanese exclusion cases. It's just horrific. It's a political document, but it is the law of the land. This case, which has unleashed Trump to disregard laws, to disregard the Constitution, to disregard treaties. So he starts whatever wars he wants. He kills people on the high seas without any due process whatsoever. He imposes tariffs, as he recently did earlier this week, in defiance of an accurate Supreme Court opinion, in my view, that only Congress can impose taxes. He doesn't care about treaties. He doesn't care about international law. You mentioned Earlier. He doesn't care about basic laws that people have relied on for their sustenance, for their health care and their food. I mean, his behavior has simply been tyrannical to the nth degree. Look, he's been impeached twice. Both times for. Compared to what he's done in the second term, a pittance. What he's done in the second term is absolutely and utterly profound. He has failed to. To take care that the laws be enforced. He has failed to abide due process. He has failed to protect the right to free speech. He has failed to protect the right to privacy. He has failed to seek congressional approval before starting wars. He has ordered murders on the high seas. I mean, this is a long litany with which you and Bruce Fine and certainly Congressman Raskin and Congressman Greene and Larson are familiar.

[Ralph Nader]

What's amazing is he openly boastful about it. In July 2019, he said, Under Article 2, I can do whatever I want as president. Exact words. And then in January of this year, he said, in his view, there shouldn't be any elections in November. And then when he was asked by the New York Times, what is he obligated to obey, you know, like the Constitution and federal law and treaties, he said, my only restraint is my moral conscience. So he does the work for the Democrats. He's the easiest president to impeach you could ever conceive, because every day he gives them impeachable offenses boastfully and open. Look what he's done with ice and cities in the United States. Those are becoming his stormtroopers.

[Andrew Napolitano]

Yes, they are. They are stormtroopers. They're killers. The whole Department of Homeland Security, which has become like the President's domestic. As you say, stormtroopers shouldn't even exist. Ralph, I've enjoyed our chat. I apologize that I have to go.

[Ralph Nader]

Before you leave any of your books you'd like to have our listeners read.

[Andrew Napolitano]

You know, my latest book, which is about a year and a half old, is a treatise on natural rights called Freedom's Anchor, An Introduction to Natural Law Jurisprudence in American Constitutional History. We looked at every Supreme Court opinion that expressly accepts the concept that our rights come from our humanity and. And expressly rejects the concept that our rights come from our humanity. And we analyze them. It's 400 pages long. It's an academic book. There are 2,000 footnotes. The footnotes comprise the universe of everything written on natural law in the English language.

[Jimmy Lee Wirt]

From the National Press building in Washington, D.C. this is your corporate crime reporter morning for Friday, July 24th, 2026 Russell M. The Trump administration has moved sharply away from charging companies over the wrongdoing of employees, recently closing a string of criminal investigations with lenient resolutions or no charges at all. That's according to a report in the Wall Street Journal, matters involving Alibaba, Eagle bank and Abbott Labs. The department declined to charge companies even when prosecutors thought executives or managers were involved in the wrongdoing. In those cases, the department didn't long running prosecution of Turkish state owned bank Halbank for allegedly evading US Sanctions on Iran. And last year the Trump administration dropped charges against Boeing. The aerospace giant had been set to plead guilty to misleading air safety regulators, but instead paid a $243 million fine and received a non prosecution agreement for the corporate crime report charging companies over the wrongdoing of employees, recently closing a string of criminal investigations with lenient resolutions or no charges at all. That's according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. In matters involving Alibaba, Eagle bank and Abbott Labs, the department declined to charge companies even when prosecutors thought executives or managers were involved in the wrongdoing. In those cases, the department didn't charge any individuals. The Justice Department this year dropped its long running prosecution of Turkish state owned bank Halbank for allegedly evading US Sanctions on Iran. And last year the Trump administration dropped charges against Boeing. The aerospace giant had been set to plead guilty to misleading air safety regulators, but instead paid a $243 million fine and received a non prosecution agreement. For the corporate crime reporter, I'm Russell Mockaber.

[Steve Scrovan]

Thank you Russell. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. I'm Steve Scrovan along with David Feldman, Hannah and Ralph. Now we're going to dive into the mailbag and respond to some listener feedback. All right. From last week's show which featured David reading the ten point program, Robert Reich thought the Democratic Party should follow to win the November midterms. We got a number of responses. One from longtime listener Don Harris, who posts just about every week about small donor donations being the key to reforming the political system. And so this is what Don Harris says. He says another useless offer of a winning strategy for Democrats. They already have a winning strategy. They are one half of one big money party that wins every election. And here's his idea for reform. He wants you, Ralph, to organize citizens to demand small donor candidates and enforce that demand with our votes starting in 2026. He feels in just a few election cycles we can elect small donor candidates and purge the big money politicians and interest from our political process. He wants you to help form a non profit media conglomerate selling shares for $100 each. Their shares can only be owned by citizens and no one person can own more than 10 shares. These shares can only be sold for a hundred dollars as the purpose of owning the shares is for ordinary citizens to control the media and that's make money on the value of the shares. He says just 6 to 7% of the 150 million voters investing in one share would total $1 billion and could be just the tip of the iceberg. Think of all those radio stations that would be carrying the Radio Hour. What do you think of that plan, Ralph?

[Ralph Nader]

Well, I admire your persistence, Don Harris, but first of all, there's a difference between a strategy and agenda. A strategy is the means to an agenda and your small donor is a strategy. It's not an agenda, it's a hope that will produce a good agenda. And we're focusing on the agenda. Basically the kind of changes for the better in the livelihoods and life and freedoms of the American people and their posterity. The second is I used to agree with you when Bernie Sanders broke ground, as you know, and raised over $200 million in his first presidential campaign from small donors averaging about $28. But then the Republicans discovered the same treasure and now they have a lot of small donors. And I'm sure you wouldn't agree with these small donors for the Trump Republican Party. So you have to face up to the reality that small donors don't necessarily mean big democracy or justice, although they're certainly preferred to giant musk type millions of dollars of corporate PAC money. And then the other thing is, you know, you keep saying this can be done and $1 billion can be raised. Why don't you take the lead? Why don't you see if you can create a committed group in your community as a test case. Because we all know, you know, I remember years ago, you'll appreciate this, Steve. Somebody wanted to write a book on the New York Yankees and he went to publishers and he said, look, there are 3 million Die Hard Yankee fans. Think of the market and the publishers say they may be die hard Yankee fans, but it doesn't mean they're going to read a book on the Yankees. So why don't you test it yourself because you have such a strong belief in what you're saying instead of just throwing it on the table here. And you might realize that some of your friends are not as generous as you think they should be, either with their time or money. But thank you for your input.

[Steve Scrovan]

And Ralph, I just want to follow that up with a similar comment from an earlier show when we spoke to progressive pollster Celinda Lake a few weeks back. And it addresses a similar complaint about the Compact for America.

[David Feldman]

This is absolutely essential, first of all, is raising wages. And we all talk about the cost of living, the rising cost of living bills, et cetera. The biggest answer to getting affordability for American families is to get wages up. And of course, the federal minimum wage is just over $7 an hour. It's absolutely absurd. So we need to raise the wage. We should be talking about capping prescription drug prices or limiting prescription drug prices. The VA negotiates 399 prescription drugs. We can't figure out how to get Medicare to negotiate 10. Adopt the VA price list. This is not rocket science. Capping utility prices, making sure that data centers cannot dump utility rate increases on their voters. The most bipartisan issue out there right now is data centers. So they're equal pay for men and women. Still an issue for people. Women still paid less even though their families are relying on those two incomes because nobody can make it on one income anymore, unless you're musk. So there are a lot of proposals out there. Medicare for all, testing off the charts. Health care been taken away from record numbers of voters. And we often say things like, voters lose their health care. People don't misplace their health care. They misplace their keys. They get their health care taken away from them. And that's what's happened here. So Democrats need to lay out 10 concrete proposals and run on them. We have the critique of what's going on. We understand what's happening to real people's lives. The third leg of the stool is offering our alternative and a concrete alternative that people can pass on to their friends and family, that people can hold us accountable for. On the last of the 10 proposals on the contract needs to be something about campaign finance reform. We have to get corporate money out of politics or our system will continue to be rigged against us and rotting from the middle.

[Steve Scrovan]

This is from listener Richard Bartholomew, and He says this 10 point progressive compact for America needs substantial revision. Several proposals conflict with fiscal reality or with the political environment we're actually operating in. He says. To start, it's unclear how anyone proposes to increase Social Security benefits when the program already struggles to fund existing obligations. And he says a federal minimum wage is also a questionable federal priority. Most blue and purple states have minimum wages that significantly exceed the federal minimum. And he says the proposal to tax the super rich also ignores the current political landscape. With Donald Trump as president, there's no viable path to raising income taxes on high earners. The real key to taxing the wealthy is taxing capital, not labor. Historically, the founders supported taxing property to fund national defense. Today, roughly 80% of defense spending is financed by taxes on earned income rather than wealth or capital gains. An imbalance that deserves this attention. So what do you think about that critique?

[Ralph Nader]

Well, Richard, the last point you made is extremely accurate. There's a huge discrimination on earned income compared to unearned income, which is basically selling stocks and using money to make money, which has a lower tax rate. As you know, it's taxed at 20% maximum for capital gains selling stock and companies like Tesla or Exxon Mobil. And if you earn that money, you may have to pay a tax rate of 38%. And that's why private equity is so dominant, because they use money to make money. They have huge tax benefits, deductibles, and they can overwhelm competing forces that are based on going to work every day. Earned income, as far as the minimum wage, a lot of states are still at the $7.25. Others have raised it to 10, 12, 14. Very few have it to where it should be now, which is at least 1750 per hour. And so that's why the federal minimum wage was established in the first place, to make sure that states don't have a race to the bottom or try to compete to businesses. Come to our state. We have a low minimum wage compared to your wage, say in California or Massachusetts on Social Security. Look at the data that Congressman John Larson has brought together. He was chair of the Social Security subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee for many years when the Democrats controlled the House. And he thinks that if you lift the cap, which is now about 180 some thousand that's subjected to Social Security taxes to all the higher income people. In other words, there's no cap. If you make $2 million, you pay Social Security taxes on it. That can pay for increasing Social Security benefits that have been frozen for over 45 years. We're not talking about cost of living increases here, talking about the actual benefits. So those are my reactions. Keep up the commentary, Richard.

[Russell Mokhyber]

This is a comment about our show which featured Israeli genocide scholar Omar Bartov.

[Ralph Nader]

This is the situation that is created

[Steve Scrovan]

in which I describe as the moment of which Zionism, which was a movement that sought to liberate and emancipate Jews

[Ralph Nader]

who were a minority and a persecuted

[Steve Scrovan]

minority, in Europe becomes a state ideology that is increasingly ethnocentric, violent and expansionist, and the rotten fruits of that we see today.

[Russell Mokhyber]

It's from Richard Curtis. He writes, what Bartow seems not to want to admit is that nothing went wrong. This is simply the logic of Zionism from its beginnings, manifesting what it always wanted. Molly Crabapple has put this well, just consider the difference between the words immigrant and colonists. There had been centuries of Jewish immigrants in Palestine, but the Zionists were not immigrants. Immigrants move into an existing society. The Zionists were and have always been ideological colonists. They have no desire to coexist with their local population. Their goal has always been the domination and destruction of the local population. They are colonists. Zionism is simply an evil ideology, the ideology of colonialism. Nothing has gone wrong. We are just witnessing the full logic of Zionism and. And Molly Crabapple is the author of a new book about the Bund, which was a Jewish organization that was against Zionism in Europe.

[Ralph Nader]

Right?

[Russell Mokhyber]

Yeah.

[Ralph Nader]

Well, you're right to make out the point. These are not settlers. They're colonists in the west bank. And historically they did go to Palestine in order to have their own state. And there was a conflict between the early colonials who wanted to coexist and. And the more hardline, eventually dominant Zionists who wanted to expel the Palestinians from their lands. So you're right on that point, but I wouldn't criticize Omer Bartov on this. That's what he says went wrong is what you're pointing out, that they wanted to come and dispossess the Palestinians by force and seize their lands. So I think you're right on the use of language, colonists instead of immigrant or settler, but not with defaulting Omar Bartov, because that's what his analysis is based on, even though he may not use your words.

[KPFK Announcer]

The next comment on the Omar Bartov show is from listener with the handle Sarah. They say, I was looking forward to this interview as another Israeli voice for peace and hope. Unfortunately, I sensed too much hope on the part of Mr. Bartov. He never seemed to acknowledge the Hannibal Directive or the possibility of Israeli collusion in the October 7 events. I see a far darker future for the Israeli regime. How can anyone believe at this point that these psychopaths can be reformed? I'm using that word judiciously, as does Norman Finkelstein, who could responsibly trust the Israelis ever to abandon their sadism, lust for power and racism. I find Nico Pellet a far more realistic and therefore useful voice. Having lived On a kibbutz close to Mr. Bartow's home, I witnessed in 1968, Israeli soldiers laughing about, quote, one bullet, two kills, unquote. Today, 60 years later, you can buy a T shirt with that slogan and a drawing of a pregnant Palestinian woman. How do you reform that?

[Ralph Nader]

Well, Sarah, you make some very good points. There are Israeli human rights groups and reservist groups like Breaking the Silence who would agree with your description of the dominant genocidal, dictatorial Netanyahu regime. And what happened on October 7 has never had an official investigation in Israel because Netanyahu has opposed it. There have been some resignations based on negligence by some in the military, in the government, but no disclosure. And I've often said that how could the most sophisticated multi tier border defense apparatus based on technology, human intelligence, spies, informants inside Gaza, people watching 24 hours a day, young Israeli soldiers and reporting back that disturbing things were happening, being ignored, and Netanyahu admitting that he got a copy of Hamas's plans a year before. And how can all this be put together without suspecting at least the Netanyahu, who is in political trouble, under prosecution for corruption, huge demonstrations against him for trying to usurp the independence of the Israeli judiciary, wanted the usual distraction that foreign powers in our country have done. And what better than to drop the border security and allow the Hamas fighters to come in? So that deserves a official investigation, as many members of the independent Israeli press, including the newspaper Haaretz, have been calling for the Hannibal Directive. I think people who don't know what it is, it means that if enemies of Israel are holding Israelis hostage or they're rushing them in vehicles back to Gaza after October 7th, they'll blow up everything to kill the fighters, even if it involves people in Israeli houses held hostage temporarily by Hamas on October 7th. And that accounted for some of the 1150 fatalities that day and the day after. And there are Israeli families who in their mourning, have accused the Israelis of, in effect, blowing up the vehicles and blowing up the homes, regardless of the presence of Israeli citizens there. It should be noted that of the 1150, some of them were Bedouins and migrant workers from abroad. Almost 400 of them were Israeli soldiers and police who were killed that day, and the rest were civilians. This can hardly compare with the hundreds of thousands of deaths of babies, children, mothers, fathers, civilians, completely defenseless in Gaza since October 7th.

[Steve Scrovan]

Now, a few weeks back, we did an interview with Pratap Chatterjee about the corruption in the Trump administration, as they outlined in the Corporatz Report MAGA Inc. And longtime listener and commenter who goes by the handle SH Is saying something here, Ralph, that dovetails very nicely with your discussion just now with Andrew Napolitano. And SH Says, okay, so now we know even more about Trump's corruption. Put that all together with all the other impeachable offenses he has committed and continues to commit. The question is, what are we going to do about it? As pointed out, he's making all this money because his name is on it and his position as president gives him the power to reward his quote, unquote investors. Once he is no longer president, the bottom will fall out of all of it. And he knows it, which is why he's proceeding lickety split to amass as much as possible before the Trump name isn't worth spit. Facts on the ground, as they say. So the question is, can we get him out now or do we have to wait until 29? Remember, even though he would be replaced in 28, he would still be president till January 29th with all the powers of the office. So it seems to me our job is to convince Congress to impeach him as soon as possible. Tell all the candidates running in 26 that we will not vote for them if they will not pledge to do so. The sooner the better. I have a feeling you're going to agree with that, Ralph.

[Ralph Nader]

Yes, SH well said. Very compressed. When an arsonist is burning down one apartment building after another in a neighborhood you don't have the head of the fire department say, now is not the time. We have to wait for the right time, which is what Hakeem Jeffries is saying. And so he has to be impeached ASAP because people are suffering in the tens of millions. The country's endangered, the country's being weakened, our laws are collapsing, our Constitution is being shredded by the most multi corrupt tyrant that ever resided in the White House. And he boasts about it. He doesn't keep it secret like Nixon tried to do. So impeachment now happened to have been the conclusion of the corporate lawyer dominated bar association in the city of New York. I mean, there you are. They documented it with footnotes and the mainstream press didn't pick it up. But around the country, there's tremendous support for what you're saying. Impeach him now. And even if they don't have the votes now, you build to a point where he does something so totally crazy, jeopardizing the Republicans even worse than they're being jeopardized in the November elections. Enough Republicans choose Their political survival over their fealty to Donald J. Trump in violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution and the congressional separation of powers.

[Russell Mokhyber]

When you watched Trump's speech, I don't know if you did, but at one point it just felt so natural after he presented this phony evidence of voter fraud and foreign interference. It just seemed that I was waiting for him to say, and so until we can guarantee safe and honest elections, I'm invoking the Insurrection act and canceling the midterms. How far away are we from that? And what would the reaction be?

[Ralph Nader]

Well, I'm glad you raised that, David, because people mocked this speech of his because so depraved, demented, full of fabrications, that even the mainstream press tore it apart immediately. There were three articles in the New York Times on one page taking it apart. But even the networks, who are often afraid of Trump suing them and threatening the local stations licenses, some of them took it apart right after the presentation by Trump. And I agree with their descriptions of the fabrications that were involved and the phony assurances of foreign interference and the insecurity of honest elections. I mean, look who's talking, right? I mean, he's trying to steal the election by a speech like this. And the tool, as you say, David, is to invoke the Insurrection act, which will allow the US to flood the local precincts and take over the local machinery in the states that may swing the result. And he's perfectly capable of doing that. In January, he said they didn't think there should be any elections and November, his dangerously unstable personality knows that he's got to block the Democrats from even winning one House in the Congress. And I would say that it could be considered likely that he will invoke the Insurrection act if he polls the Republicans in the Senate and they don't say that's the ultimate impeachable act. Mr. President, don't do it. That's the only thing that might stop him. But don't bet on any backbone by enough Republicans in the Senate, even though they may lose some of their seats by not standing up to Trump.

[Russell Mokhyber]

We should have Bruce Fein on to explain to the audience why it's so dangerous for the Department of Homeland Security to be able to kick open doors based on administrative warrants. I think most Americans don't understand what an administrative warrant is and the labeling of ANTIFA as both a domestic and foreign terrorist organization and how those two are, I think, very much related.

[Ralph Nader]

ANTIFA is not an organization at all. It's just an anti fascist position taken by millions of people in our country. They're trying to find the stereotypes just the way Hitler had to have stereotypes in order to attack and distract the population from his crimes. As well as Trump doing the same thing. Trump is looking with the help of Rubio, to create a sinister organized threat to humanity called Antifa. Rubio is not getting anywhere with our allies. They think it's absurd and even the press thinks it's absurd. But it shows how desperate Trump is to find a stereotype that he can target. Because targeting immigrants is not enough, given his sinking polls and, and the prospects for November for his party.

[Russell Mokhyber]

If Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization, he signed an executive order saying so. Doesn't that give the police and maybe even ICE the authority to detain anybody suspected of being an antifa sympathizer without having to go before maybe even a judge? Right.

[Ralph Nader]

Well, I think the federal judges would overturn this kind of arrest and inadequate warrant.

[Steve Scrovan]

Ralph, The Department of Homeland Security was created in the wake of 9, 11. Andrew Napolitano on our show earlier just said he was all for abolishing it. Would you be for abolishing the Department of Homeland Security?

[Ralph Nader]

Well, I don't like the word abolish. You have to replace it. It does have important functions. You know, we can't have open borders for pollution, for contagious diseases, for, let's face it, criminals that want to come over with illicit products and contraband. It goes the other way too. You know, a lot of US Weapons go down there illicitly into Mexico. So I don't like to use the word abolish. You have to replace it. You have to basically replace it with a definable mission, accountable standards and criteria for who's going to lead it, other than toting up to tyrant Trump and his bigoted hatred against immigrants.

[Steve Scrovan]

But we didn't even have it 25 years ago. So what did we do before that?

[Ralph Nader]

Well, we had the parts of it. For example, we had the Coast Guard is under the Department of Homeland Security. So they were separate agencies. And it was Senator Joe Lieberman who led the fight to put it all under one umbrella, which was very unfortunate.

[Russell Mokhyber]

What they used to do is presidents read intelligence briefings entitled Osama bin Laden intent on flying airplanes into buildings. So it was just Homeland Security was created because they needed an excuse for 9 11. They wouldn't own the mistake that they made.

[Ralph Nader]

Well, it was obviously an attempt to concentrate power further in one department there could be controlled rather than eight or nine different agencies.

[Steve Scrovan]

This next Listener comment comes from our interview with economist Dean Baker responding to Ralph's statement about Rick Scott when he was elected governor of Florida. And in that Ralph, you said he Rick Scott was rewarded by Florida voters and elected governor of Florida before he became a US Senator. Once again showing the voters are not doing their homework. This is widely publicized in Florida, his company's defrauding of Medicaid. Now listener who goes by the handle TCL says Ralph, I wish it were as simple as Floridians not doing their homework and electing Trick Scott governor and then U.S. senator. Everyone knew about his upcoding scam at Columbia prior to their merger with hca. The only thing we didn't know was who called off the dogs who told the FBI to stop investigating him. My guess, it was his business partner, then Senator Bill Frist. He's the only one with the clout to do so. As for winning the Senate election, that is easy to explain. The Broward DEC and Bill Nelson's campaign failed to screen the ballot design, which was flawed and cost Nelson 10,000 votes, the exact amount Trick Scott won by.

[Ralph Nader]

Well, that seems to be an accurate description, except I don't have the documentation on Senator Bill Frist from Tennessee at the time. But he got away with it. Rick Scott, he became governor and then became senator and then he became the senator in charge of campaign finance for the GOP in the US Senate, even tried to become Senate Majority Leader. The sheriff never caught up with Rick Scott and he is often running again with the prediction that he's going to be reelected easily because of the feeble Democratic Party in Florida.

[Steve Scrovan]

Thank you all for your questions and comments. Keep them coming @ralph nader radiohour.com I want to thank our guest again, Judge Andrew Napolitano. For those of you listening on the radio, that's our show. A transcript of this program will appear on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour substack site soon after the episode is posted.

[Russell Mokhyber]

Subscribe to us on our Ralph Nader Radio Hour YouTube channel and for Ralph's weekly column. It's [e-mail] for more from Russell Mokhyber, it's at corporatecrimereporter.com the American Museum of

[Steve Scrovan]

Tort Law has gone virtual. You can visit tortmuseum.org to explore the exhibits, take a virtual tour and learn about iconic tort cases from history.

[Russell Mokhyber]

To order your copy of the Capitol Hill Citizen Democracy Dies in Broad Daylight. It's@capitol hillcitizen.com and remember to continue the

[Steve Scrovan]

conversation after each show, you can go to the comments section@ralphnader radiohour.com and post a comment or question question on this week's episode.

[Russell Mokhyber]

The producers of the Ralph Nader Radio Hour are Jimmy Lee Wirt, Hannah Feldman and Matthew Marin. Our executive producer is Alan Minsky.

[Steve Scrovan]

Our theme music, Stand Up, Rise up, was written and performed by Kemp Harris. Our proofreader is Elizabeth Solomon.

[Russell Mokhyber]

Join us next week on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Thank you, Ralph.

[Ralph Nader]

Thank you. And I want to thank one of our listeners in South Florida who goes from one radio station to, to another trying to pick up our show, Steve David Hannah. And she's really working overtime to do that. And I want to pay tribute to her in a future commentary and perhaps have her on the show for a few minutes to show what other people could be doing as well to get what is conveyed on this show, shall we call it unofficial journalism to millions of of America.

[David Feldman]

Step up, step up.

[Steve Scrovan]

You ought to step up.

[Ralph Nader]

Rise up, arise up.

[Steve Scrovan]

I know you want to rise up.

[Ralph Nader]

The first time I heard KBFK, it was in the wee wee hours, maybe 2am Roy of Hollywood was on, right? And he was playing Alan Watts. And it was so surreal.

[Steve Scrovan]

I was like, what is this?

[Jimmy Lee Wirt]

What is this?

[Ralph Nader]

What kind of radio is this? You know, I mean, it just blew my mind and I got hooked right away.

[Andrew Napolitano]

Kpfk.

[KPFK Announcer]

As a KPFK listener, you expect to hear smart conversations about important issues. Every time you turn on the radio, we bring you facts and analysis, not partisanship or hype, so you can form your own opinions on the news. You count on KPFK for informed, insightful reporting. Don't take coverage like this for granted.

[Ralph Nader]

It's here for you.

[KPFK Announcer]

Thanks to the generous financial support of our listeners. Support the programming you rely on right now by calling 818-985-5735 or contribute online at kpfk.org.

[Ralph Nader]

Foreign.

[Andrew Napolitano]

I'm Chuck Foster, host of Reggae Central,

[Ralph Nader]

right here on kpfk. Join me Sunday afternoons from.