All Hell Breaking Loose
February 1, 2020
Maximum Wage/Universal Basic Income
February 15, 2020
Show all

Alan Grayson/Coronavirus

Ralph welcomes progressive firebrand and former congressman, Alan Grayson to discuss his book, “High Crimes: The Impeachment of Donald Trump,” where he argues that it is hard to find an impeachable offense Trump did not commit. Then, infectious disease expert, Dr. Michael Osterholm, returns to give us the latest on the coronavirus pandemic and how to protect yourself.”

Alan Grayson is the former US Representative from central Florida, an area that includes Orlando. A Harvard educated lawyer and businessman; Mr. Grayson served one term from 2009 to 2011 and then another from 2013 to 2017. And now, he has written a book about impeachment, entitled High Crimes: The Impeachment of Donald Trump.

“‘Electability’ is a concept that has been employed by the right-wing of the Democratic Party – the corporate right-wing of the Democratic Party – to overrun progressive values and progressive candidates. And it works over and over, and over again. There are two things that (Democratic) right-wingers say in order to try to curry favor and suppress the progressive impulses of the Democratic Party. They say that they will be able to win moderate votes that progressives can’t win – a fact that has never been demonstrated in real life… And they say they can raise lots and lots of money from corporate interests that are open to bribing the Democratic Party.”
Alan Grayson, former congressman and author of High Crimes: The Impeachment of Donald Trump

“The Stockholm Syndrome in the Republican Party is pervasive these days. He’s (Donald Trump) holding them all hostage.”
Alan Grayson, former congressman and author of High Crimes: The Impeachment of Donald Trump

Dr. Michael Osterholm is a professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. He is the author of the 2017 book, Deadliest Enemy: Our War Against Killer Germs. And from June 2018 through May 2019, Dr. Osterholm served as a Science Envoy for Health Security on behalf of the US Department of State.

“In terms of this situation in China, what we really have is about 1.8 billion people who their food sources include lots of wild or game animals and exotic species like bats that you and I would not have normal contact with. In addition, much of the processing of these – slaughtering and so forth – occurs in the markets of these very crowded cities in which you’re creating the perfect mixing vessel for viruses and people and disease.”
Dr. Michael Osterholm: director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota

“In this case, we actually have really quite good genetic information on this virus (coronavirus), such that we can say with almost certainty this thing was like a lightning strike, probably in the last two weeks of November, when it jumped from an animal species to a human. As far as what that animal species was that caused the direct infection in the human, we’re not sure, but this is a bat virus over and over again.”
Dr. Michael Osterholm: director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota

Ralph Nader Radio Hour Ep 309 Transcript (Right click to download)


  1. Mark Hughes says:

    On American union membership, indeed it’s high watermark is in the 1950s when it was around 35% membership or so. However that’s unfortunately still pathetic, as in at least one of the Scandinavian countries (I think Finland) the *current* union membership is in the upper 80%. However, had the New Deal not deliberately left blacks out of its benefits, there would have been not only a higher union membership back then, but union presence might not be eviscerated today.

    Not surprising that all the young people in DC are there for their careers and not the public good. I’m so glad David said this. Because I do get sick hearing some of the Left’s leaders say that they’re so inspired by young people. I like Robert Scheer a lot, subscribe to “Scheer Intelligence”, but he’s probably the one who does it the most. I heard this ‘our children are our future’ crap about my generation three decades ago, and nothing’s gotten better. One could argue, rather easily, things have gotten worse. I wish the Left’s leaders would stop worshipping young people, they aren’t some monolithic group. Down here in the southeastern US, I see young people all the time. Let me assure everyone of at least this; there’s little inspirational about them. Where they’re not intellectual victims of the historical fascist southern culture, they’re subjected to the worst public school systems in the nation. Those who do go off to college end up being careerists. So let’s stop with this worship of the young. Almost as sickening as soldier worshipping. Matter of fact, older people might be a more valuable resource. Why? Because they’ve lived it more.

  2. Afdal Shahanshah says:

    And why does the current Ukraine regime (which includes a literal neo-Nazi battalion) deserve our weapons in the first place? Because some unelected official in the permanent state bureaucracy said so? This talk with Grayson was another sad Democratic-Party-serving interview. Ralph, PLEASE, come back to reality already. Stop fixating on Trump so much and letting him steal your critical thinking skills. We’ve heard enough from the McResistance in the Democratic Party. They give Trump more money that he asks for in obscene military bills, and they remove provisions from defense authorization acts that explicitly deny his ability to start war with Iran. Out of one side of their mouths they claim he is an existential threat to democracy, and they give him the tools to be abused out of the other side.

    Pelosi’s ripping up of Trump’s speech is pure spectacle. Yeah, Nancy Pelosi is so “unintimidated” by Trump that she refuses to impeach him for war crimes. You wanna know why? Because she’s complicit in them. Pelosi knew all about the torture program during the Bush presidency and she did nothing about it. That’s a war crime. Nancy Pelosi is not a “magnificent human being”. Far from it, Pelosi is a rotten, corrupt plutocrat to her core, she’s one of the most evil people in the federal government, an enemy of the working class through just about every vote she’s ever made. She’s a hundred-millionaire member of the ruling class who waited 3 years to impeach Trump for exposing Joe Biden’s corruption instead of moving the moment he violated the emoluments clause or became a war criminal with that missile strike on Syria. It’s completely laughable to hear a self-proclaimed “progressive” heap such a disgusting, undeserved compliment on her.

    The impeachment trial was a spectacle from the beginning used to distract people from progressive debate during the Democratic primary and keep Bernie Sanders sequestered in the Senate just before the Iowa caucus. It’s a giant political game, and you’ve let yourself get massively distracted by the spectacle, Ralph. I appreciate you spending one show on all the actual impeachable offenses Trump has committed, but once was enough. That’s all it deserved.

    Now how about we talk about all the methods the Democratic Party used to cheat Bernie Sanders and his supporters in the 2016 elections and are doing so again in 2020 (an Election Justice USA guest)? How about we talk about the incredible, Herculean efforts third parties have to go through to get ballot access and any sort of media attention in America (a Green Party guest)? How about we talk about Duverger’s Law, the systemic cause of America’s two-party system, and what people can actually do about it (a Center for Election Science guest)? Because if we can’t talk about why we get people like Trump in the first place, then you better prepare for four more years of him.

    • Mark Hughes says:

      Indeed this impeachment thing was spectacle, I for one did not take it seriously, as much as Ralph may not like to hear that. In this modern era, there have been multiple impeachments with zero removals from office. Clinton was impeached but never removed, Nixon was allowed to ‘step down’ before the hammer came down, then was pardoned by Ford. Anyone who thought Trump was going to be removed when his party controlled the Senate was just being naive. Of course it’s entirely possible the Democrats did this knowing it would fail but would serve to bolster their faux image of being a stand-up party. Regardless of the Founders’ intentions, regardless of how serious it’s supposed to be, the reality of it in America is it’s a total mockery of functioning parliamentary politics.

      This reminded me of hearing someone (maybe Jimmy Dore?) talking about the push for universal healthcare in California a few years ago when Schwarzenegger was governor. As the story went, the Democrats at the time controlled the California State Legislature and began to really ‘push’ for UHC to keep up its liberal image in the state, but knew that Arnold, a Republican, would veto it. This was really okay with the Democrats because their donors from Big Pharma didn’t want UHC, but they false-pushed this anyway for, again, image purposes. Evidence of this lies in later years when Jerry Brown, a Democrat, was governor, and when the Dems had their chance at passing UHC in California, they shelved it in committee. Funny how that works. Of course Steve being a Californian may be able to shed light on this story.

      Fast forward to this crap impeachment, the Democrats, as Afdal stated perfectly, have aligned with Trump on major issues. But they pushed for impeachment anyway in order to keep its anti-Trump image intact for its constituency. Trump does serve a purpose for the Democrats – he’s the strongman who will push the agendas of the Democrats’ donors and take the heat for doing it. It’s in this way that the Democrats can get their agendas moving forward while keeping their image up.

  3. Donald Klepack says:

    An Alan Grayson supporter, so I was thrilled to listened to the show and planning to buy the book. I listened to all 13 articles of impeachment that you posted and I felt he House leadership chose the worst one as a basis for impeachment. There was some evidence for a Quid Pro Quo but the Republicans had clear counter arguments and it was not a high concern for the American Public. My question is for Alan Grayson and you; how are we going to defeat Donald Trump in 2020. I know it’s not Ukraine, since Trump is more popular now then ever.

  4. Bruce K. says:

    Alan Grayson … why do Nancy Pelosi and Democrats have to maintain consistency that no one cares about for 40 years while Trump can be inconsistent over the span or a few hours?

  5. Bruce K. says:

    Come on … these guys, i.e. the ( Republican / Uniparty ) oligarchy have so much money and power, and can manipulate the media to the point where we will have riots or crazy people, or fake crazy people committing violent acts and possibly assassinations or bombings or whatever.

    There is no way to assail, change or even influence this corporatocracy these days. There has not been law and order in this country except in the public imagination and in the movies and cartoons for … possibly forever.

    If we vote in a Left Wing administration, such as Sanders or Warren, do you think the establishment will allow any change, or even any of their power to be usurped. The people in the Democratic Party for the most part, at least the rich ones come form the very corporatocracy they supposedly exist to shield the people from.

    The Democratic Party is a joke. Look at Obama “the radical” and how much he was undermined by the media.

    We have to wean people off the current media, which most people are sick of anyway, and then replace it with something better.

    There needs to be a solid 70% majority of the people to agree on and demand any policy – loudly and explicitly, otherwise it is just wasting time.

  6. Dennis Etler says:

    Dr. Michael Osterholm doesn’t apparently know much about China. First off, the population of China is 1.4 billion, not 1.8 billion as he stated and secondly, to say that “their food sources include lots of wild or game animals and exotic species like bats that you and I would not have normal contact with,” shows total ignorance of what he is talking about. As a field archeologist, I’ve lived and worked in China and traveled throughout the country to cities big and small and into the remote countryside. I speak the language and I can tell you that the food sources of the vast majority of Chinese people do not “include lots of wild or game animals and exotic species like bats that you and I would not have normal contact with.” The only place some wild or game animals were consumed was in the far remote southern province of Yunnan which is an extension of Southeast Asia that has a high number of ethnic minorities. I lived in Wuhan for two years as a researcher and, again, the vast majority of people do not eat “wild or game” animals.” Many “exotic species” to Western tastes are eaten, but these are commercially produced products that are sold in large quantities and are not “wild or game animals.” In all my travels throughout China, I’ve never heard of nor seen bats as a food item. The “exotic food items” can also be found in any Asia Food Market in the US. The wet markets deal in standard foods like chickens, hogs, etc. which can easily come in contact with the virus from bat droppings or other similar sources that occur wherever the source species lives. It’s disappointing that someone like Dr. Osterholm is so ill-informed and spreads such misinformation to a large audience.

  7. Margaret Walsh says:

    We need a new center of Federal Government in the CENTER of the COUNTRY…built green…high speed transportation…high tech communication…TRANSPARENT…..unleashing armies of citizen lobbyists…Department of Agriculture already there……thank you for your consideration…

  8. Clarence says:

    At the very end of the Wrap after this episode, Steve (I believe it was Steve) asked “Where is everybody?”, referring rhetorically to the relatively open and yet unused legislative branch we have in the United States, where congresspersons are accessible to anyone who wants to walk into their legislators’ offices (with the caveat that the person should know what he or she wants before speaking in order for the transaction to be efficacious).

    The answer to this question is simpler than it appears, and does not necessarily entail the apathy or lack of attention to democratic duty that the question might have suggested: they’re working! They have jobs, or are trying to find them, because otherwise they cannot survive.

    This is the part of the jobs and employment discourse that rarely, if ever, comes up, that is, the role that jobs play in preventing political participation, or more pointedly, the exercise of political rights, as Walter Karp put it circa 1968. It deserves way more attention at every point on the political spectrum, but much more so on the left, which in the shadow of Marx has romanticized labor as much as any exponent on the right of the Protestant Work Ethic.

    This podcast of Karp’s NPR interview (which it is hard to imagine would be broadcast today) has the details: He talks about the function of jobs, and the uses of employment as a form of political pacification, toward the end, but the interview is worth hearing in full.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.