Ralph talks to Hassan El-Tayyab, from the Friends Committee on National Legislation, about how the US urgently needs to resume food and medical aid to Yemen in order to avert an even more serious humanitarian tragedy. And James Zirin, author of “Donald Trump in 3,500 Lawsuits” comes back to update us on the status of Trump’s legal issues, and why they are taking so long to resolve.
The Tax Break Industrial Complex
May 23, 2020
Will We Be Able To Vote?
June 6, 2020
Hassan El-Tayyab is the lead lobbyist on Middle East policy for the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Previously, he was co-director of the national advocacy group Just Foreign Policy, where he led their lobbying work to advance a more progressive foreign policy in the Middle East and Latin America. He played a major role in the successful passage of the War Powers Resolution to end US military aid to the Saudi-UAE coalition’s war in Yemen.
“The U.S. has been directly involved in the destruction of Yemen’s healthcare system. And it’s unconscionable for us to back away now and not give them the support they need. And not work to end our military support for the war.”
Hassan El-Tayyab, lead lobbyist for the Friends Committee on National Legislation
James Zirin is an accomplished lawyer and the former Assistant US Attorney in the Southern District of New York. He is the host and producer of the talk show, “Conversations with Jim Zirin,” which discusses politics, foreign relations, national security, and culture. He has written multiple books, including Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3500 Lawsuits.
“[Donald Trump] is immune, the Justice Department would say, from criminal prosecution while he’s president. I guess it remains open that they might indict him afterwards.”
James Zirin, author of “Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3500 Lawsuits”
Trump’s Freedom for the Thought HE Loves by James Zirin
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
5 Comments
I’m reasonably sure you have criticism of Obama and some of his unconstitutional and illegal policies.
And I would add Comey’s laundry list on Hillary, which might need a prosecutor with a mind better than Biden.
Obama is out of office. I think it is futile to wait for a “Prosecute Obama and his officials for crimes” episode.
That is the problem. You didn’t run as a Democrat but you protect all their corruption and cronyism. Where is the “Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter are violating anti-Trust?” episode, or is what’s good for Google good for America (remembering GM). Unsafe at any download speed.
Why is it more important to ignore or even defend the huge stinking pile of Democrat dirt? Yes, the GOP has its heap of compost on fire, but it is not that the Democrat Dumpster Fire is that much less odious.
.”Where is the “Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter are violating anti-Trust?” episode”
All it would take is a quick search to answer your own question. But don’t worry, we’ll do your homework for you:
https://www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/google-is-god/;
https://www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/clean-waterthrowing-rocks-at-the-google-bus/;
https://www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/the-existential-threat-of-big-tech/
https://www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/amazon-takes-over-the-world/
https://www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/facebook-must-be-restructured/
For future reference, there is a “Show Categories” window on the right lower hand side of the web page. Click on that to find shows on particular topics.
I too feel like the show’s obsession with Donald Trump lately is leaving a large unfilled void where a rich systemic criticism would be more appropriate and more productive. This stuff isn’t going to go away when he’s gone. In fact, if the system keeps delivering kleptocrats like Clinton, Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, etc. when the pendulum swings to the Democrats, then the next time it swings back to a Republican we’ll get someone WORSE than Trump. Isn’t that why you ran for office in the first place, Ralph? The SYSTEM is fundamentally broken and focusing on personalities isn’t going to fix it.
Now isn’t it about time the show addressed the looting of the American working class with the trillions of dollars Congress, in a bipartisan orgy, has been feeding to financial oligarchs while they give table scraps to people in desperate need of relief? An entire generation has been robbed of a functioning government by the crippling austerity measures that will be imposed after this to pay back meaningless debts. There is no denying we are now living in a Depression and to continue to pretend that some “rule of law” can get us out of this mess if we just get some courageous prosecutor to go after all the criminals in government isn’t living in reality. The rule is that the ruling class is lawless.
One thing that will not be found by searching the show categories is the episode on One Demand that Ralph said on Washington Journal (10-24-2018) he would do.
One Demand is an idea that all citizens can use to work together on the common issue of getting the big money out of our political process by demanding small contribution candidates and enforcing that demand with our votes. An idea that Ralph said on Washington Journal deserved to be heard.
To help you with your homework my question comes around the 13 minute mark of Ralph’s Washington Journal appearance on C-Span’s website.
It shouldn’t be hard to fit in a segment as you seem to have trouble finding guests for the radio hour. Why else would so many recent episodes contain Ralph welcoming his guests BACK? (maybe you should change the theme song to the theme from “Welcome Back Kotter”.)
Short of making good on his statement to have me on the radio hour to discuss One Demand, an explanation of why Ralph has changed his mind doesn’t seem to me to be too much to ask.
If there is some reason Ralph has changed his mind or finds the idea for One Demand lacking it would be nice to know what Ralph finds lacking in One Demand (or me). It is impossible to address and/or fix what Ralph may think is lacking if Ralph will not tell me what it is.
Thank you for your incredible work in support of our democracy. Would you please discuss the viability of the Democrats overturning the imbalance of the Supreme Court by adding three or four judges, in other words, stuffing the Court.