'BradCast' 1/8/2026 (Trump to U.N., Rule of Law, World: DROP DEAD. Guest Jean Su, Center for Biological Diversity)

What they are doing is not to provide safety in America. What they are doing is causing chaos and distrust. Let us respond right now with our best versions of self. Working on it, Jake. They ain't making it easy. From Pacifica Radio in Los Angeles, this is the broadcast. As heard on KPFK, 90.7 FM in LA, and on dozens of other fine affiliate stations on both the still public airwaves and the internets around the country and the world. Blanketing Planet Earth. I'm Brad Friedman, your friendly investigative blogger, journalist, troublemaker, muckraker, and all around, swell fellow, says me from bradblog.com. We have, of course, been closely following, as I suspect all of you have, the horrific killing of 37-year-old American woman and mother, Renee, Nicole Good, up in Minneapolis on Wednesday by a federal ICE agent. The horrific lies told about the shooting by the DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and perhaps most appallingly by the President of the United States himself. Peaceful protests have been growing in Minnesota along with the calls for ICE to get the F out of Minneapolis, to quote its... Mayor Jacob Frye on Wednesday. And on Thursday was announced by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. That's essentially the state's version of the FBI, that the actual FBI was pardon the pun, icing the local authorities out of the investigation into the matter, despite or perhaps because of the state's ability to bring murder charges against the federal official who shot good. In the face, three times at virtually point-blank range. And if he was charged with murder and convicted, a presidential pardon would not get him out of those state charges. In any event, that story continues to develop today and is moving very quickly, but is currently getting a lot of coverage elsewhere. As it deserves, frankly. So while I suspect we will be jumping into coverage in some manner of that in the days ahead, for us here today, I want to focus on a few issues of note of the past 24 hours that have been somewhat obscured by that news out of Minneapolis, including some... New action from the courts against Donald Trump's unlawfully appointed top prosecutors around the country. And, of course, Desi Doyen's latest Green News report a little bit later. Yes, so there's that. But as we have a guest standing by in related news to Dez's Green News report and, frankly, stunning.

Climate News today. President Trump announced on Wednesday that he was withdrawing the U.S. from the bedrock international agreement that forms the basis for countries to reign in climate change. No, not the Paris Climate Agreement, which he already withdrew from shortly after taking office for a second time last year. But the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCC, UNFCC, UNF, C, which was established years earlier as the basis for what, as I understand it, eventually produced the Paris Accord, a voluntary pact among nations to keep global temperatures at relatively safe levels. The UNFCC treaty signed by... President George H.W. Bush back in 1992 and subsequently ratified by a two-thirds majority of Congress. In fact, it was ratified unanimously at the time by Congress. It has been in place for 34 years. It counts all of the other nations of the world as members. All of them, except for now, if Trump's unilateral withdrawal is found to be lawful. All of them except the United States of America. In a social media post late on Wednesday, the White House announced that Trump signed a presidential memorandum that pulled the U.S. from the climate pact and 65 other international organizations and treaties that, quote, no longer serve American interests. Perhaps they no longer serve Trump's interest. A little more than half of those are United Nations organizations. As this list begins to demonstrate what started as a pragmatic framework of international organizations for peace and cooperation. has morphed into a sprawling architecture of global governance, often dominated by progressive ideology and detached from national interests. That was the statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio about all of this. The administration said it was also pulling the U.S. from the top United Nations climate science body, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, as well as a host of other. major international environmental organizations, including the International Renewable Energy Association, which represents global clean energy interests, the International Solar Alliance, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Because, yeah, who needs renewable energy like solar, or for that matter, nature, apparently? The moves, according to the New York Times, cement the United States' isolation from the rest of the world when it comes to fighting climate change. The decision is not only an indicator of America's rejection of global diplomacy, it's a finger in the eye to the billions of people, including Americans, suffering through intensifying wildfires, storms, and droughts.

threats to the food supply and to biodiversity and other dangerous and costly effects of a warming planet. Gene Galbraith, a professor specializing in international law at the University of Pennsylvania, said the move, quote, sends a major signal around the world of U.S. disdain for climate policy. Quote, this is a short-sighted, embarrassing, and foolish decision, said Gina McCarthy, the White House Climate Advisor during the Biden administration, noting that the Trump administration was discarding decades of global collaboration. Quote, this administration is forfeiting our country's ability to influence trillions of dollars in investments, policies. and decisions that would have advanced our economy and protected us from costly disasters wreaking havoc on our country. The Center for Biological Diversity in a press release issued late last night described the withdrawal from the UN treaties as illegal with Gene Sue, the director of the group's energy justice program, noting, quote, Trump cutting ties with the world's oldest climate treaty is another despicable effort to let corporate fossil fuel interests run our government. She added, quote, it's foolish and downright deadly for Trump to turn his back on the climate devastation ripping across the U.S. and the world. Pulling out of this Senate-approved climate pack and dozens of other treaties is Trump's latest illegal executive overreach. Joining us now is Gene Sue, Director of the Energy Justice Program at the National Nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, where she is also a senior attorney. Gene Sue, it has been a while, but welcome back to the broadcast. Thanks for having me, Brad. So I want to discuss the climate and the economic ramifications for all of this in a bit. But as you are an attorney as well, as a climate champion, let's begin with the legal questions here. The first thing that occurred to me when I saw this news last night was, is it even lawful for Trump to pull out of this accord? unilaterally under U.S. law. Does he have the legal authority here in the U.S.? We'll get to our obligations to the U.N. in a moment, but does he have the legal authority in the U.S. even to simply, you know, unilaterally pull the U.S. out of a treaty that was approved by a unanimous vote of Congress, you know, without getting the approval from Congress to do so? So we would argue that no, it is not legal. It is an illegal exit from the treaty. So as you're saying, Brad...

The Constitution is crystal clear about how we can as a country enter treaties with other countries. And it says we need, you know, two-thirds vote of the Senate, which we got here in the UNFCC miraculously in the context of today. But the Constitution is silent on the withdrawal of treaties. And it's been debated over the years what it takes to withdrawal. And it's our legal view, along with other international law experts. that, no, it is not legal for a president to unilaterally undo what two-thirds of the Senate, and here a unanimous Senate passed. And in fact, The way that this should work is a reciprocal or mirror process where whatever it took to get you into a treaty, it should be the same to get you out. So it's pure common sense. And I think on that level, many people can see why this is illegal. Yeah. I mean, it does seem to be common sense. If two thirds voted us in, it seems like we'd have to get that same number to get out. But if he does not, in fact, have that authority to withdraw on his own without congressional approval, but he does it. or claims to be doing it anyway, who sues to stop him from violating the law? I know that his DOJ won't do it. And I suspect this particular Congress won't. But can a future... Congress, controlled by Democrats, do so? Or is all of this left to groups like the Center for Biological Diversity to litigate in U.S. courts? Yeah. So that's a great technical question, actually, outstanding. And who could bring this? And, you know, there's different pathways to get there. I think it's possible for congressional members to be able to bring a lawsuit like this because it undercuts their intention and the intention that, you know, Senate has, has, you know, brought over since 1992 on this. And there are potential other entities as well. But the, you know, The important part about all this is that we don't have time necessarily to wait for a new Congress if it ever returns back to Democrats. And we certainly can't guarantee that the next president will be under a Democratic administration. So I think, you know, now is the time to rally and figure out who has the best chance at overcoming these standing issues, as you're putting it. Who has the right to sue? And in many respects, several congressional members. do have that right. If he, in fact, does have the authority to pull the U.S. out of this treaty, especially with a compliant, you know, corrupt Supreme Court that seems to back him on just about everything, how difficult would it then be for a future not insanely corrupt president to have the U.S. rejoin this UNF-Triple-C and the other treaties and agreements for that matter?

So great question. And that's a separate question from the one that we just tackled. So we just tackled whether this is illegal to withdraw from a treaty under two-thirds vote Senate. Right. So the question of reentering is actually a different, interesting question. And the professor that you just mentioned before Professor Gabrives at University of Pennsylvania argues that actually it wouldn't be so hard for the U.S. to get back in. And her argument is that... The Senate in 1992 ratified the UNF triple C and President Bush signed us into it with the UN. So that is a, it's a separate, it's almost a, it is, it's a separate contract. So we had a domestic law that was passed and then a separate contract that was signed by the president with the UN and other countries. So her argument is actually with President Trump leaving, quote unquote, leaving the UNF triple C, Perhaps he is just undoing that signature that President Bush did, and that in fact, that Senate ratification vote from 1992 is still valid. So the argument would be that, hey, that 1992 still stands, that domestic, you know, check box has been checked. And all the president would have to do is just resign the contract with the UN to get back in. And we support that position. So it may not be as, you know, there's several ways to enter treaties. And one is the traditional way of two-thirds vote ratification. This one, we believe, is in a... And it is in a context where we can just undo the president's signature and redo it. Very interesting. Because if I remember my constitution, when a treaty is essentially becomes law with the two-thirds vote, that counts as if it is U.S. law, right? That's the same as passing the law on its own. On Thursday, the U.N. pushed back, saying the Washington remains responsible for its required monetary contributions to all of these treaties. A spokesman for the U.N. Security General Antonio Gutierrez said he regretted the decision or the announcement from Trump to withdraw from... 31 UN-related agencies, but noted, quote, as we have consistently underscored, assessed contributions to the UN regular budget and peacekeeping budget as approved by the General Assembly, are a legal obligation under the UN Charter for all member states, including the U.S. But again, who sues for that if, you know, if we don't meet our legal obligations at the U.N., and where do they even sue? Yeah, I mean, all fantastic questions. Litigation is certainly one route. And there have been cases in the United States where foreign countries have actually come in to sue in our U.S. district courts. So it's not, you know, it's been done before. It's not unprecedented that foreign governments could come in. And I don't know of the U.N. ever doing that, but, you know, one could look down that route.

But the other way is that litigation is certainly just one way, and it's certainly not a guaranteed way to get enforcement of anything these days. So there are other ways to go about this, and countries and international bodies have other mechanisms. Everything from what President Trump is doing to the rest of the world, tariffs, for example, or boycotting goods. There are other ways that not even softer measures, but other measures internationally that can be taken outside. side of going to the courthouse in the U.S. All of these very tough legal questions, and I think a lot of ground that has not been tread until this particular president. Maybe a bit easier here. You note in the Center for Biological Diversity's press release last night on this, that, quote, pulling out of the UNFCCC is a different order of magnitude from withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, which Trump previously announced that he was withdrawing from... withdrawing the U.S. from. How so? Is it a different order of magnitude as you see it from the Paris Agreement and what will be lost for the U.S. by not being a part of the UNFCC? Yeah, so the UNFFCCC is the mothership of all collective climate. bargaining and negotiations around the world. So, you know, passed in 1992 by an overwhelming number of countries around the globe. And it's the, I call it the mothership, because from there, all these new agreements have spawned out. So the Paris Agreement is really the latest agreement, and that was passed in 2015, that spun out of this mothership. And, you know, it's a forest, basically, of different. agreement. So the Paris Agreement was just, you know, one of many. And the importance of the Paris Agreement is that it did actually, you know, put a particular threshold, a goal of what we should all be reaching towards, which is 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming. And that is, you know, that would stop countries like Tuvalu from completely going under and, you know, never existing again. So, I mean, that that was good as a goal. And it has, you know, basically commits countries to put out goals overall about how they're going to achieve that in terms of greenhouse gas. But that's only one of several different agreements and protocols that are that kind of spawn out of the mothership of the UNF triple C. So by removing the U.S. from that mothership, the U.S. and Trump. are making the U.S. a complete pariah on the globe. Like, you know, this is the game in town. Everybody is trying to push forward on solving the climate emergency, which is inherently a collective action problem. Right. And the U.S. leaving that has, you know, several ramifications. It basically, you know, stops it from at all, you know, negotiating or being part of.

global agreements on how to tackle the climate emergency. And then with, you know, with different economics rising like renewable energy, you know, all of that, the global climate treaty. ends up being a place where different governments can negotiate economic deals, you know, and really band together and say, we want the world to move off of fossil fuels and towards a renewable energy future. And so when you have the entire world and the global economy, the U.S. making those moves to the U.S. suffers by being a pariah on that. And in that way, U.S. consumers, U.S. citizens, we all suffer economically by being the odd man out. And I want to dig into some of those economical standpoints in a moment, but just from a climate standpoint. And I think there's like a one-year buffer before Trump's removal. actually legally takes effect according to the treaty, if in fact, by the way, his withdrawal is legal at all here in the U.S. But... So what does the rest of the world lose by not having the U.S. as a party to this particular treaty? Presumably they will go on without us, even if we aren't there. But at what cost does that come to them to not have us as part of those discussions and agreements and everything else? Yeah. So a couple of years ago in Dubai, all the countries, including the U.S., came together for a landmark decision. And that landmark decision was to transition the entire world off of fossil fuels. And the U.S. is one of the leading fossil fuel producers and exporters. And what the world loses is, you know, a key player who has the economic power. power to phase out fossil fuels in a meaningful way and not, um, and not, you know, continue, uh, you know, peddling those goods around the world and helping, you know, countries, uh, achieve their renewable goals in that transition. So, I mean, we are losing, uh, a major player who is a huge supplier of fossil fuels and also who has the economic ability to turn the world economy around. And so in that way, you know, that was very much President Biden's, you know, stance and an ability on many of these things that by investing money into our renewable energy industry here and by transitioning the portfolio itself in the U.S., that that is, you know, an economic as well as just a political signal that the world is turning.

think like that, you know, you lose that type of leadership. And many people have noted that the U.S. not being there this year, you know, it felt very unmoored. And the U.S. still plays this important leadership role among countries to guide negotiations, to direct it, to make sure that it comes out with some outcome. So I think, you know, having said that, though, one hopes, and you know, we are seeing that. this year as well, that other countries will step into place. And one of the most inspiring parts coming out of Brazil was that I the government of Colombia and the Netherlands actually have taken up the mantle of being leaders on the global stage to phase out fossil fuels. And in April of this coming year, they're going to be holding the first ever summit of willing countries, willing countries who are ambitious and who want to phase out their fossil fuels in line with the Paris Agreement goals. So we see, you know, positive pieces coming out like that. But I think these are, yeah, this is the type of dialogue that's happening. Will we have, with the U.S. stepping out, will we have leaders to fill that vacuum? I think the answer is yes. And at the same time, it's also important that the U.S. is still there because of their major role in the economy and in the fossil fuel position. Right, because we're not just major. producers. We're also major users. So if the rest of the country, the rest of the world says, all right, we're going to get off fossil fuels. And the U.S. continues to burn them at, you know, unprecedented rates. Where do we actually get? And as far as Colombia, taking the lead, as you mentioned, along with Netherlands to hold a conference later this year, you know, of countries willing to talk about getting rid of fossil fuels. I guess that depends of, you know, whether Donald Trump decides to invade Colombia between now and then and overthrow that country. Yes. Yeah. Now, from a purely economical standpoint, which is something that you would think Trump might actually care about, all of this seems to be, you know, wildly short-sighted in that, as we've been reporting over the past year since Trump's return to power, his retreat on renewable energy. And international climate cooperation, et cetera, has allowed China to become dominant in clean energy tech on everything from, you know, solar panels, wind turbines. And as we reported this week on our green news report, electric vehicles, China's BYD now outpaces Tesla as the world leader in EV sales. How do we make sense of this move? Even from a Trump standpoint of, you know, whoever has the most money and most power wins. How does what he is doing here even make sense under his own rules in that regard? These are all great questions that you should be asking President Trump himself. Okay. Yeah, President Trump has been very clear about what industries matter to him. And it is short-sighted investment by fossil fuel companies. We don't have to look much past last.

Saturday to see that oil interests are very much ruling his government. And, you know, I mean, it's outlandish. what happened, the invasion, that is basically undermining 100 years of modern international law and eons before that. You do not go in and tackle a sovereign and kidnap them. You do now, apparently. You do now, apparently. But what it shows is this incredible short-sighted partnership between fossil fuels and this government. And this idea that, you know, coal was going down, fossil fuel companies were, you know, we're not in a, we're not as thriving under Biden. And so he has come in and basically created a renaissance where right now he is reinvigorating coal plants in the U.S. He is ensuring that gas plants are, you know, what are. are the primary source for the new AI data center bubble that he is also building. And so he has these partnerships with deeply entrenched corporate monopolists in this country. And he is literally going around the world and pillaging it for those interests. Which is swell for the coal industry, which actually has fewer employees than, you know, folks who work at pizza huts at this point. But what it means, you know, among other things. is that when these 200 or so nations of the world gather to discuss cutting greenhouse gases or anything else, climate related, the U.S. simply will not be there. The world will meet without us, which seems to me to be just a huge, huge gift to China for us to not even be in the room during that discussion. Is there anything that I'm missing there? No, you're not missing it. It is, and it's a national security threat. It's an international security threat. When we last spoke with you on this program, Gene Su, back in, it was November of 2024. It was just days after Trump was elected. to a second horrific term in office. You said on the show at that time, and I quote, going to hold you to this, Gene, we quote, we are basically facing a trifecta of monopolization of all three branches of government under a climate-denying fascist who has vowed to drill baby drill with no relief for any clean energy or any care for climate. You noted, quote, he will strip the Environmental Protection Agency and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. an entire administrative apparatus entirely smothered, stripped bare, and not functional in any way in terms of actually protecting our environment and our health and safety. And Gene, I believe you have been proven 100% correct on all of those points at this time. I should have placed a bet on that. You should. Well, you got it right. You nailed that. But.

You also noted, quote, the bright spot in all of this, the place where we are going to see any movement on climate is at the state level and that what you were hearing at the time from people on the ground, quote, is that the initiatives that are happening at the state level are things that people can feel. They're able to see how climate initiatives will generate jobs they need in their own backyard. That gives us a bright spot of actual work to be done. Has that bright spot? played out over the past year as, as you had hoped, just over one year ago? Mixed results there. So we do have a group of states that are still leading on climate progress. And, you know, California is one of them. You're welcome. Yeah. Yeah, you're welcome. But in the case of California, unfortunately, the Trump administration has just revoked Gavin Newsom's push to ban the sale of gas vehicles by 2035. So there's many ways that the federal government has just hindered and also made Gavin Newsom a complete, you know, anti-Trump in all of this. I'm sure he appreciates it. But he's been a foil, a climate foil to Trump. So, you know, so we're seeing that. We're seeing different federal... different ways that Trump is hindering and cutting off the legs of states from being able to do or push as far as they can. Having said that, though, I think there are, you know, really important bright spots. And one of them that I'm, you know, more intimately involved with is the rise of... pushing back against dirty fuel data centers. And so, you know, we have a phenomenon now where, you know, Trump is signing big, you know, AI deals with, you know, Mark Zuckerberg sitting next to him and Sam Altman and, you know, and NVIDIA and all of these other companies. And one of the corporate schemes that is happening is Trump loves AI. He wants AI to be an export of the United States. InVIDIA chips are in demand. They are limited. And, you know, to build out. a real AI empire, these data centers need to be built. They need to be built quickly and they need to be powered. And so the fossil fuel industry and utilities have come into greater power at this point because those companies are benefiting from the huge buildout of data centers right now. And what we're seeing on a state level is really interesting community and grassroots pushback. say state, maybe it's a little bit divorced from the state governments and more from communities.

exercising their democratic rights in a really, like, incredibly inspiring way. And so we have seen communities in, in Arizona, in Indiana, in Virginia, in Georgia, all pushing back, saying that they do not want these new gas plants polluting their air and, you know, and increasing the climate threat all tied with data centers. And they do not want their rates to be raised. And so I think we're seeing this incredible. defense come out right now of people pushing for the stop of more fossil fuels and the transition for clean energy. And that is completely people powered on the ground. Yeah, and you named a lot of so-called red states there. And I guess it's, you know, maybe when they start building these centers in their communities, you know, where they can see them, it's, you know, a lot more tangible, I suspect, than, you know, greenhouse gas emissions, which you can't see, you can't really feel, you know, they're on a long-term scale. But when they're talking about moving into your community with these monster... you know, buildings and the cost that it's going to add to everybody's energy bill there, I guess that's something very real that people can stand out and say, essentially, not in my backyard, I suppose. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. You know, so much of climate does come back to what is tangible for people. And there's, you know, two different ways that that happens. One is your bill. And, you know, why are we still so reliant on? oil and car, you know, oil for our cars, when the fluctuating price of gas is something that every American feels who does, you know, who doesn't have electricity yet or an electric car. And it's, and it's deadly. We have talked to, you know, households out there are moms who have said that they have had to choose between, you know, transportation and getting around with their car and food. their electricity bill versus their internet bill. These are all medicine. These are all competing interest right now of what people here need to survive. And climate is absolutely part of that. If we continue to rely on fossil fuels, we are going to be beholden in our pocketbooks. And renewable energy and solar is far cheaper to survive on than these ridiculous overseas and internal as well, huge oil moguls that we're dealing with now. Well, the climate-denying fascist, as you correctly described him when we spoke a year or so ago, he's got a lot of tools in his toolbox. Some of them more legal than others. We'll see if what he's trying to do here is legal or not. I know folks like you and the Center for Biological Diversity will be pushing back at it. I say this fight ain't over by a long shot, even though this climate-denying fascist is making it real difficult for all of us. Gene Sue, the director of the Energy Justice Program and a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. You can find their work at Biological

And you can find jean on on the blue skies happily enough at a jean sue jean. Jean, always a delight speaking with you. Let's not make it a year before we do it again next time. Absolutely. Always a pleasure, Brad. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. Speaking of Trump. Well, frankly, not giving a damn about the rule of law, breaking the law whenever he feels like it. Let's take quick break here. We'll come back with a couple of stories about his so-called Department of Justice doing that very same thing. Breaking the law. Whenever they feel like it, including with and by some of the nation's top prosecutors. That and our Green News report. underscoring the necessity of those treaties we were just discussing that Trump is trying to walk away from. All that straight ahead on today's broadcast. I'm Brad Friedman.

The Bradcast and the Green News Report are 100% independent, 100% listener supported. But we can't do it alone. We need you. Please help us bring real facts to listeners at independent stations around the nation. Please drop by bradblog.com slash donate. That's bradblog.com slash donate. And thanks. He sure is good at it, isn't he? Welcome back to the brandcast, Brad Friedman from brand blog.com. So, yeah, along with my conversation in the previous segment with Gene Sue, the shooting on Wednesday in Minneapolis by a federal ICE agent, the point-blank murder of a 37-year-old mother, Renee Nicole Good, and the subsequent apparent attempt by the FBI to prevent state authorities from... Even investigating and prosecuting the matter, well, it is frankly just one more, all of these, just more data points in the Trump administration's war on the rule of law in this country. And I think we're going to have to get used to that idea for the next three years. Or until something changes, we are going to have to accept the fact that the rule of law, as we know it, at least at the federal level, simply does not exist. We're somehow, as a nation, we're going to have to survive that for a while. That's the situation that we're now in, I think. And for yet more evidence of that as of today, there are now judicial rulings that five different Donald Trump top prosecutors, U.S. attorneys in five different states, are serving unlawfully in those posts. In the Central District of California here in Los Angeles, in Nevada, in New Jersey, in the Eastern District of Virginia, and as of today, in the Northern District of New York. I'll get to the details on that in a moment. But as to Trump's U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, you probably know her name by now, Lindsey Halligan. She was Trump's tax attorney with no... prosecutorial experience before he tapped her late last year to replace his previous U.S. attorney in the district after the previous one refused to bring Trump's revenge charges against his former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Now, despite, as I said, no experience as prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan was named in that role. She was somehow able to get grand juries to agree to indict both James Comey and James before a federal court subsequently found that Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully appointed as U.S. attorney without Senate confirmation.

The indictments against both James Comey and James were subsequently dismissed by a federal judge for that very reason. And while the statute of limitations had run out on the supposed crime by James Comey. Several more efforts to re-indite Letitia James on supposed mortgage fraud crimes by a federal prosecutor who was brought in to Virginia from Missouri to the Eastern District of Virginia. Several other attempts were rejected, were no billed by two different grand juries, which is virtually unheard of. And this week, according to NBC News, a federal judge on Tuesday ordered Trump ally, Lindsey Halligan, to explain why she continues to call herself the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, even though another judge determined back in November, that she had been unlawfully appointed to the position. A U.S. District Judge this week, Judge David Novak of Richmond, Virginia, a Trump appointee, by the way. NBC News doesn't mention that in their coverage, but he's a Trump appointee. He issued a three-page order demanding to know why Lindsey Halligan is still serving in the post. Lindsey Halligan, the judge noted, is also still referred to as U.S. attorney by the Justice Department in official documents. They don't care about the rule of law either. They don't care about what any judge has to say about anything. The judge's order in Virginia, NBC observes, is unusual because he issued it on his own, not at the request of defense attorneys. It came in a case involving a carjacking and attempted bank robbery suspect who was indicted last month in Virginia. Judge Novak in this case gave Lindsey Halligan seven days to respond in writing, quote, explaining the basis for identification of herself as the United States attorney, notwithstanding U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Curry's contrary ruling back in November. The judge said she also set forth the reasons why this court should not strike Ms. Lindsey Halligan's identification of herself as United States Attorney from the indictment.

in this matter. So the judge is saying, you've got to let me know why I shouldn't remove your name from this entire case. Well, it's very nice of that Trump appointed judge to give Lindsey Halligan the opportunity to defend herself, which is something that the Trump administration has routinely denied to immigration detainees. And she's got seven days to do it. The judge's order goes on to say that Lindsey Halligan, quote, shall further explain why her identification does not constitute a false or misleading statement to the court. Judge Novak also alluded to potential disciplinary action and demanded that Lindsey Halligan sign her response, whatever it may be, before next Tuesday. In other words, this judge does not want to get some explanation from Pam Bondi about why Pam Bondi believes the courts were wrong, and then Lindsey Halligan is still the U.S. Attorney, etc. In late November, as noted, Judge Curry found that the Justice Department had violated the Constitution by appointing Lindsey Halligan as a U.S. attorney, leading to the dismissal of the criminal cases against James Comey and James. Judge Curry at that time ruled that all actions, quote, flowing from Ms. Lindsey Halligan's defective appointment, including securing and signing Mr. James Comey's indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power. She at the time issued a separate similar ruling in the James case, saying Lindsey Halligan had exercised power. She, quote, did not lawfully possess. And there she is still possessing it here in January. Apparently, Lindsey Halligan is still serving as the U.S. attorney, or at least is calling herself as much in official legal documents. It's kind of amazing. They're just completely ignoring not just the rule of law and the Constitution, but a judge's mandate on this. Judge Novak acknowledged on Tuesday that the November ruling regarding Lindsey Halligan's appointment had been appealed, okay, but he said that since the order had not been paused. It remains the, quote, binding precedent of the district and is not subject to being ignored, unquote. Good for him. Yes. Other judges in the district, NBC notes, have previously expressed their frustration with Lindsey Halligan, including one, who apparently now places an asterisk next to Lindsey Halligan's name on every document, every court document. And next to that, she refers to Judge Curry's ruling from November. This is just absurd. It's how the rule of law is just falling apart. It's getting embarrassing. But of course, to work for Donald Trump, you know, having no sense of self-respect does seem to be a prerequisite. And Lindsey Halligan does seem to fit that description nicely, I guess.

It's what the administration has now been doing in these four other cases as well. So 120 days go by, the judges in the district say no, we're not going to extend these people because they suck. And the judges are saying, nope, they got to go. And the administration is simply ignoring those judges to simply keep these legal losers in place. Judge Schofield issued the decision as part of a case brought by, wait for it, New York Attorney General Letitia James's office, who was seeking to quash grand jury subpoenas that Sarkone had served on her office. Subpoenas were seeking information about two massive civil fraud cases that James successfully brought against, wait for it, Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association. Sarkone, quote, personally directed the issuance of both subpoenas. His is the only name on the subpoenas and the documents sought are returnable to him personally. The judge wrote, She noted that after Sarkone quit, quote, claimed the title of acting U.S. attorney, he used that authority to subpoena a state law enforcement office that the president had publicly cast as a political adversary. Again, just like what we saw with Lindsey Halligan in Virginia. I'll put you in place so long as you go after my enemies. Judge Schofield wrote, quote, grand juries are not meant to be the private tool of a prosecutor, much less one not lawfully appointed. When the executive branch of the government skirts restraints put in place by Congress and then uses that power to subject political adversaries to criminal investigations, it acts without lawful authority. Subpoenas issued under the authority. are invalid. She wrote, finding Sarkone is disqualified from that investigation. So maybe they'll keep him around, but he ain't going to work on that investigation anymore. And we'll see how long the judges in that district in Northern New York allow this guy to stay around. Once again, that's your supposed rule of law presidency. Tell me again how much you love the rule of law, Donald Trump. A president and an administration who does not give one single damn about the actual rule of law. And for now, at least, the lower courts ain't having it. That's good. They, at least, are pushing back, even as the rest of us are buckling up at this point for the lawlessness still to come from these lawless cretons in power. Green News Report is next. I'm Brad Friedman. You are listening to the broadcast.

Hey, this is Brad. Please consider supporting whichever progressive media outlet is supporting you and the things that you care about. Most, just like us, do not receive corporate or political support. We all need your support to counter the powerful corporate media echo chamber. Right now, as much as ever. If you choose to support us, you can do it really easily, safely, and quickly via brandblog.com slash donate. From Desi Doyan and myself, thank you. How long have you had this cold that you gave me, Desi Doyen? At least a week. I think it's been about two weeks. I've had it for one. Which means I still have another week to go. Really? Really? Hope not. Oh, man. Worst Christmas gift ever. Let's get to it our latest green news report. They have a great mining history that's gone rusty. So steel, aluminum, minerals. Trump's takeover of Venezuela is about much more than oil, experts say. All proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan crude oil and products will first settle in U.S. controlled accounts at globally recognized banks. Trump's White House will store Venezuela's oil revenue outside the U.S. Treasury. Oh, man. Plus, one year after two catastrophic, deadly fires, Los Angeles builds a slow road to recovery. All of those stories and more straight ahead from bradblog.com. I'm Brad Friedman. And I'm Desi Doyen. Stand by for six minutes of independent green news, politics, analysis, and snarky comment. Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world, especially now that Diddy is locked up. Oh, man. This is your Green News report.

Okay, Desi Doyen, one year since the horrific wildfires out here in Los Angeles, where we had to evacuate ourselves for a short time. Not going to happen this year with nothing but rain over the past week or two. I know you've got some thoughts on that, but what do you got for us today? Yes, we will get to that in just a moment. But first, in the days since the Trump administration's takeover of Venezuela, the U.S. military has seized two more Venezuelan oil tankers. Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will take delivery of 30 to 50 million barrels of Venezuela's oil immediately. About a three-day supply for the U.S. Wow. The revenue will not go to the U.S. Treasury. but to an external fund that Trump will control, which legal experts say violates the Constitution's separation of powers. A fund known as Trump's pocket. Other analysts say that Trump's stated goal of controlling Venezuela's oil may actually be a politically convenient public mask for the U.S. Pentagon's actual agenda to gain strategic control of Venezuela's critical mineral reserves, which are necessary for manual. manufacturing advanced weapon systems and to erode China's chokehold over the global critical mineral supply chain. Up in Alaska, Juno has been hit with an absolute onslaught of record-breaking heavy snow in recent days, more than seven feet that has collapsed roofs and sunk boats in the harbor. In the Pacific Northwest, a relentless string of atmospheric river storms over several weeks have caused widespread flooding and significant infrastructure damage, including destroying parts of Washington State's Highway 2, cutting off a corridor vital to rural areas and outdoor tourism. So it's not great news that the New York Times reports that the Federal Emergency Management Agency plans to eliminate at least a thousand disaster recovery staff positions. in January, part of the Project 2025 agenda to dismantle FEMA and force states to bear the burden and costs of disasters. Incredible. The Guardian reports that a growing chorus of emergency management experts are sounding the alarm that the Trump administration's deep cuts have left the U.S. more vulnerable to natural disasters. Crackdowns on climate science, mass layoffs, gutting of science and frontline federal agencies have all dangerously arrested. roaded federal capacity to respond, even as the country is already struggling to keep pace with severe storms. Finally, Southern California is drying out after a series of atmospheric river storms and extreme contrast to one year ago this week when the Palisades and Eaton fires erupted in record hot, dry conditions, eventually destroying more than 16,000 structures and killing at least 31 people, becoming two. of the most destructive and deadly wildfires in California history. Rebuilding is underway, but progress is slow, despite reforms to accelerate permitting. Bloomberg News reports that some residents are finding reconstruction will cost more than their insurance companies will cover. Some have sold their land to developers. Others have joined class action lawsuits against electric utility Southern California Edison, whose power lines are suspected of sparking the Altadine.

Blase. The Trump administration initially provided about $2 billion in immediate aid, but has not acted on California's request for additional recovery funds, leaving survivors without long-term federal support. Recent analyses show that FEMA has covered a smaller portion of damage costs in California than in other comparable disasters. California Governor Gavin Newsom, in an interview with MS Now, also says that Trump's tariffs have raised costs and immigration raids have caused labor shortages slowing the recovery. We're not happy with the rate of that, but we are pleased to see the progress. And again, it's meaningful, but it's impacted. The challenges, the headwinds. of immigration policy and terror policy are hurting the recovery and making it more costly. For much more on all of these stories and the ones who couldn't get to today, check out our website at greennews.bradblog.com. I'm Brad Friedman. And I'm Desi Doyen. And this has been your Green News Report.

Yep, one year ago this week. Indeed. And, you know, it's all a very complicated story, but, you know, L.A. is moving forward. Are we? Yes. Okay. Slowly but surely. I'm going to hold you to it. Got to get out. My thanks again to our guest today, Gene Sue, of the Center for Biological Diversity, to our producer, as always, Desi Doyen, and to all of you for spending a portion of your day or night with us. If you missed any portion of today's program or any other we have ever done since the beginning of time, you can download them all for free. at bradblog.com to share with those you love, both love or hate. Your pick. Up to you. No paywall there. Thanks to those of you who hit a donate button when you stop by to help Desi and I. We are going through DayQuil and NyQuil like it's going out of business. So, you know, please feel free to hit one of those donate buttons while you're there, or you can go straight to Bradblog.com. slash donate. I think that's it. Is that it? Yes. You can find Desi on the social media. She is at Green News Report. And I am. The Brad Blog. The Brad Blog, especially on Blue Sky. You can also find me via email. I am Bradcast at bradblog.com. We will see you there at all of the above. Until we're back next week for more whining about my cold. Until then, we hope you have a great weekend. I'm Brad Friedman. Good luck world.