Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
To night, Michael Brown joins me here the former FEMA
director talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, no, Brownie, You're
doing a heck of a job.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
The Weekend with Michael Brown broadcasting life from Denver, Colorado.
It is the Weekend with Michael Brown. I'm really happy
to have you joining the program today.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
A couple of.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Rules of engagement. If you want to text any question
or comment the message, the number on your message app
is three three one zero three, three three one zero three.
Just start your message with one of the keywords Mike
or Michael. Go follow me on X It's at Michael
Brown USSA. By the way, if you want to see
the trailer or the intro to that video hidden about
the effects of the lockdowns, I just reposted that earlier
(00:39):
on my timeline, so you'll find that on X at
Michael Brown USA. And then I would ask you a
big favorite, and that would be subscribe to the podcast
on your podcast app. Subscribe to the Situation with Michael Brown,
The Situation with Michael Brown. Once you find that in
your search bar, just hit subscribe. That will automatically download
(01:00):
for you every single day of the weekday program and
the weekend program too, so you get all of the
Michael Brown programming that you need. I'm want to go
back to two thousand and nine because in two thousand
and nine, the Environmental Protection Agency adopted a ruly that
one bureaucratic decision. That's where the now we've always heard
(01:25):
because I can go back when I was debating in
high school and one of our topics was about the
environment and whether or not we were going to enter
into a you know, this huge deep freeze, a new
ice age. I remember specifically the cover of Time magazine
talking about the New Ice Age. Well, that was just
(01:49):
there was just discussion about it. But in two thousand
and nine, when the EPA made this decision, that one
bureaucratic decision is what, in my opinion, unleashed the entire
climate his area that has hijacked our economy and in
so doing gutted businesses and warped our environmental priorities for decades. Now,
(02:11):
that decision in two thousand and nine was a ruling
by the EPA that declared CO two carbon dioxide a
naturally occurring gas that is essential to all life humans, plants, animals,
all life on this planet is dependent upon CO two. Well,
(02:34):
the EPA ruled in two thousand and nine that CO
two was a pollutant. Now one person has the power
to erase that decision with the stroke of a pen.
Will he do it? And who is that person? The
(02:56):
new Secretary of the Environmental or the new administrator, i
should say, of the Environmental Protection Agency? Former Congressman Lee Zelden.
Leez Elden has described in various places what he's discovered
related to fraudulent green energy spending as a green slush fund,
(03:16):
and he provides the details here. He is in Fox News.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
And get us a refund?
Speaker 4 (03:23):
Leez Elden's Trump's EPA administrator.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Is this a kickback?
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Is it theft? Is it grafted? What would you call it?
All the above? It's a green slush fund.
Speaker 5 (03:36):
Twenty billion dollars parked an outside bank towards the end
of the Biden administration, given to just eight NGOs. You
just named a bunch of them. These NGOs were created
for the first time, many of them, just to get
this money, and they're pass through. Is so, the EPA
entered into this account control agreement with these entities. Treasury
(03:59):
enters into a financial agent agreement with the bank and
they design it to tie the EPA's hands behind their back,
to tie the federal government's hands behind its back. So
when the money goes through the NGOs to subgrantees, many
of them also pass throughs. We don't know where it's going.
We don't have the proper amount of oversight. And as
(04:20):
you pointed out, it's going to people who are in
the Obama and Biden administrations.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
It's going to donors.
Speaker 5 (04:26):
It's not going directly, as you pointed out, thankfully you did,
it's not going directly to remediate that environmental issue, to
deliver cleaning air, land, and water. It's billions, tens of
billions of dollars going through their friends.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Well, they're going to say they didn't steal it.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
They're just going to say they got paid salaries and
then they donated it to some other subcontractor who got
paid salaries, and it eventually went to some kid to
pick up litter. Right, Because like at the end of this,
what's it like five percent of this money actually goes
towards the environment. How much actually it goes towards the
environment after it's been just stripped out.
Speaker 5 (05:04):
For salaries, right, and stripped out for salaries of middleman
after middleman, going through these multiple added layers.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
I'll give you example.
Speaker 5 (05:14):
On the other end of this, there was one CEO
who was serving on the White House Environmental Justice Council
for the Biden administration. While she was serving on this council,
she was CEO of an organization that applied for and
received twenty million dollars.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
So some people were able to with.
Speaker 5 (05:32):
The right connections beyond the receiving end of billions of dollars.
Others on the other end of this getting tens of
millions of dollars and the federal government not having oversight.
And I just mentioned the account control agreements that were
entered into an EPA and these prime recipients, they were
amending the account control agreements right up to the inauguration.
(05:53):
They were amended account control agreements, we found January thirteenth,
so they.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Were scrambling before you guys got in there, and they
the entire.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
They amended it.
Speaker 5 (06:04):
So yeah, they amended these account control agreements to reduce
EPA oversight and to make it easier for them to
pass through the money without getting.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
If you've listened to me on the weekday program I
have with I have painstakingly gone through these NGOs, these
non government organizations, and how they operate as a money
laundering scheme, so that politicians, primarily Democrats Republicans don't have
(06:35):
clean hands in these either. But politicians use these NGOs
as a way to take your hard earned money out
of your pocket forcibly through taxes, and then pay themselves
huge salaries, sometimes even while working in the White House.
You want made the comment at the very beginning of
(06:57):
day's program about how at one time Ukraine was one
of the most corrupt countries in the world. Maybe we
had to rethink that maybe we ought to consider that
the United States of America might be one of the
most corrupt countries in the world, which means that Doge Musk,
(07:18):
his team, Trump, Lee Zelden, the Cabinet, everybody has a
gigantic Mount Everest to climb to clean this up. Let's
go back to this one bureaucratic decision, because again it's
such a great example of how one bureaucratic decision can
(07:39):
unleash something as crazy as the Green New Deal and
all the environmental zealotry that we hear about today. And
it wasn't due not a damn thing. It lines the
pockets of elitis. It lines the pockets of those who
are connected somehow to somebody that can fund these NGAs,
(08:00):
and they pay themselves huge salaries. As I pointed out,
Lee Zelden now has the power to erase this one
decision with the stroke of a pen. Will he do it?
Speaker 1 (08:12):
So?
Speaker 2 (08:12):
The foundation for all of this, this idea that CO
two is a pollutant. That regulatory disaster started in two
thousand and seven when the Supreme Court, in a case
called Massachusetts versus EPA, ruled that greenhouse gases included CO
(08:33):
two and if they could be considered pollutants under the
Clean Air Act if they were found to endanger public
health or welfare. Now, before I tell you about, let
me jump in that case. Massachusetts versus EPA came out
of a lawsuit by twelve states and a bunch of
(08:55):
environmental groups arguing that the Environmental Protection Agency had a
duty to regulate CO two emissions, particularly.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
From your car.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Now, one person, one bureaucrat decided that, oh, this is
a great opportunity to expand our power, to expand our control.
So yes, we're going to designate CO two as a
greenhouse gas emission, and that will allow us to regulate it. Now,
(09:33):
before I get into the details, I want you to
think very broadly for a moment about government regulation. If
government can regulate CO two, and that's what I'm exhaling
as I speak to you, does that not give them
the power to regulate me? As I leave this building today?
(09:57):
This building is surrounded by tree and bushes and grass
and all sorts of living plants that are using the
COEO two in the atmosphere from my car and from
me to engage in photosynthesis so they can grow and
grow and grow and release oxygen into the air so
(10:21):
that I can live. Oh, think about that a two
way street. But no, the EPA steps in and says,
what I'm doing is polluting. So what can Lee Zelden do?
Text the word Michael Michael to this number three three
one zero three. Go follow me on X. It's at
Michael Brown USA. Let'll be right back. Hey, it's a
(10:46):
meeting with Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me.
I appreciate you tuning in. Go follow me on X
formally Twitter, It's at Michael Brown USA. You can always
send me a text message anytime doesn't make any difference
when and I read them all the message on your
message out to numbers three, three, one zero three, just
use the keyword Mike or Michael. So let's go back
to this Massachusetts versus EPA ruling that said that the
(11:09):
EPA could include didn't have to, but you could include
CO two as a greenhouse gas and therefore regulated. Well,
that single ruling was a gift to all of the
members of the Church of the Climate activists, but it
still required the EPA to determine whether CO two actually
(11:31):
met the criteria of a harmful pollutant. In other words,
the court said, yes, you can declare it the pollutant,
but you still have to go through the process and
see whether or not meets the criteria that you have,
as the EPA have already established to determine what is
a pollutant and what is not. So in two thousand
(11:53):
and nine, the Obama administration, it's EPA, issued its famous
endangerment finding. Remember that it was called an endangerment finding,
and that's what declared that CO two and other greenhouse
gases posed a threat to public health. That ruling gave
(12:14):
the EPA enormous power to regulate CO two emissions across
almost any industry that produced CO two. Despite the fact
that you think about this for a moment, that ruling
gave them power because they found that CO two was
an endangerment to our health and to the environment across
(12:40):
all these industries, despite the fact that CO two doesn't
contain any poisons, It doesn't poison the air, it doesn't
contaminate water, and unlike a real pollutant like oh, I
don't know, sulfial dioxide or mercury or it's not a pollutant.
(13:04):
It's plant food. There you got CO two. The next
time you hear CO two, you think of plant food.
So the entire premise of the EPA is fraudulent. But
when they made that singular decision, what did that do?
That gave the unelected bureaucrats, That gave the administrative state
sweeping control over the backbone of modern civilization. What's the
(13:27):
backbone of modern civilization? You ask energy. Now, go back
to the Massachusetts versus EPA case for a second, because
then Associate Justice Entering Scalia saw right through the charade.
He wrote a dissent in Massachusetts versus EPA. He argued
(13:51):
that CO two doesn't even fit the legal definition of
a pollutant. The Clean Air Act was designed to regulate
substances that make air in a way that directly hurts
human health. CO two is what a plant food. CO
(14:12):
two is produced when you and I breathe. So Sclia
just dismantled that absurd claim. The Clean Air Act, he said,
was mant to target real contaminants, substances that make air
dangerous to breathe, not the very molecule that sustains plant life.
So if CO two is a pollutant, then every human
(14:34):
breath is an environmental violation. And by that logic, he said,
we should regulate forests. We should ought to regulate volcanoes,
We ought to regulate the oceans themselves. His point was
that the entire regulatory framework established by the EPA was
built on a foundation of deception. Now, I want to
(14:57):
put it in perspective. I always love the perspective. I
want you to think about as this, the air was
somehow unclean one hundred million years ago, when CO two
levels were what five times the level of CO two today.
(15:22):
So go back one hundred million years where the dinosaurs
suffocating under an EPA violation because CO two levels were
at two thousand parts per million.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
Oh, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Maybe it was the gas guzzling SUVs that made the
cretaceous air unclean because all those damn dinosaurs were driving
Ford SUVs or jeep grand cherokeees. You see, the entire
premise completely falls apart when you just start thinking logically
about it. Yet, it is the absolute backbone of the
(15:59):
regulatory grip that has stifled American industry and American ingenuity.
And for years, that regulatory I believe total overreach was
justified by one single doctrine, the Chevron doctrine, and that
(16:20):
doctrine permitted a federal agency to interpret vague laws as
they saw fit without any oversight. Until the Supreme Court's
lower Bright and Relentless cases. That doctrine is now dead
(16:41):
and agencies no longer have the unilateral authority to twist
legislative language into so it fits their agenda. You can't
do that. So the Weekend with Michael Brown, Hang tight,
I'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Tonight. Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director
of talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, No, Brownie, You're
doing a heck of a job. The Weekend with Michael Brown.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Hey, you're listening The Weekend with Michael Brown, broadcasting live
from Denver, Colorad. I'm glad to have you with me.
If you want to send me a text message, Remember
you can send a text message anytime. I read them all.
Just the number on your message app is three three
one zero three. Just use the keyword Mike or Michael.
Tell me anything or ask me anything. Go follow me
on X. It's at Michael Brown USA. I have a
(17:31):
lot of fun on X. You might enjoy it. So
recap real quickly. So. In Massachusetts versus EPA, the Supreme
Court says that the Environmental Protection Agency can declare if
they so, if it meets the requirements. If they can
declare that CO two, a naturally occurring gas plant food,
(17:52):
is a pollutant and therefore subject to their regulation. The
Chevron Doctrine, which says that bureaucracies can interpret vague laws
as they wish and in their favor, and Congress can't
oversee that or do anything about it, allow them to
use that loophole to declare that EPA is a pollutant
(18:17):
and that it is a dangerous pollutant that must be
regulated from whatever source, and that's where we get to
where we are today. So this regulatory overreach that's allowed
by the Chevron doctrine. And again to emphasize that's the
doctrine that said, and I use the past tense, said
(18:40):
that the bureaucracies can interpret vague laws any way they want.
It's up to them, which I think is has been.
I've always thought that was unconstitutional because that's Congress giving
up it's and its duty under the Constitution to write
(19:03):
the laws, not the bureaucracy. But Congress doesn't want to
write laws because that takes too much energy, time, effort.
They don't have time to do because they got other
stuff to do. You know, they go they got parties
to go to. I know that's not fair to them,
but call somebody that cares. So the EPA decides that, yes,
we're going to make coeo to a pollutant and we're
(19:25):
going to regulate it under the Chevron Dorine doctrine. Well,
then comes along another Supreme Court case, Low for Bright
and Relentless, which overrules the Chevron doctrine. Agencies under the
new Supreme Court ruling no longer have the unilateral authority
(19:47):
to twist whatever vague legislative language congress rights into whatever
fits their agenda. They can't do that anymore. So. Just historically,
the Chevron doctrine was the legal loophole that will let
that allowed these unelected bureaucrats the administrative state to dictate
policy without congressional approval.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
But that is now gone.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
The Supreme Court, in other words, just stripped the EPA
of its ability to twist a vague law into a
regulatory weapon.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
You see, the.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Clean Air Act, the actual Clean Air Act itself never
classified CO two as a pollutant. That was a fabrication
created by the EPA of their own accord. They just
decided on their own. Now, why do you think they
would do that? Stop and thinking, why do you think
a bunch of bureaucrats sitting inside the Beltway in DC,
(20:46):
sitting around, you know, showing up to work at nine
o'clock and going to a long lunch, and hey, guys,
you know, have you ever thought about the fact that
if we make CO two, the very thing that we're
exhaling as we sit here eating our nice lunch, if
we make that a pollutant, that means that we can
go after any industry, any business, anything that creates CO two.
(21:11):
We just have to come up with a new rule
that says that CO two is a pollutant. Well, we
can interpret that, we can interpret the Clean Air Act
anyway we want to. Let's go back and write that
rule up. That's exactly what they did, because remember the
Clean Air Act did not classify COE two as a pollutant,
(21:31):
so they had to make up their own rule to
declare that it was. And without Chevron, without that doctrine,
the ability to make that fabrication to create that lie
no longer has any illegal cover whatsoever. That's gone. So
now the EPA's authority, it's not just in jeopardy, it's
(21:53):
gone without Chevron. Congress, hang with me here, with Chevron, Gohn.
With EPA no longer having the authority on their own
to just randomly declare COE too as a pollutant, Congress
has to now explicitly make that determination. And good luck, because.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
You're not.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
EPA, you'll never be able to convince three hundred and
fifty million Americans at what they're breathing every day is
a pollutant. While every person keeps breathing out forty thousand
parts per million of it, you can't do it. But
the consequences of that two thousand and nine ruling Massachusetts
(22:44):
versus EPA, it goes way beyond just the climate rhetoric.
In recent conversations online with professionals in the say the
PVC industry, they talk about how a huge, huge portion
of their focus is now diverted to meaningless decarbonization efforts.
(23:07):
I bet in your state there is a decarbonization unless
you live in a red state, but even there it
may still be going on. But if you live in
a blue state like I do in Colorado, or you
might in Illinois or New York or Massachusetts, you know
that there are efforts to decarbonize. And usually put this way,
(23:30):
we want to reduce the level of CO two emissions
by fifty percent by the year twenty fifty or twenty
thirty five or whatever, twenty twenty seven, whatever the year is.
They want to reduce the emissions from CO two because
CO two is is pollution and that's carbon, and we
want to decarbonize at the same time they're doing that.
(23:52):
Bull crop things like microplastics and drinking water or heavy
metal toxins are real air pollution contaminants. Now they just
ignore those, they completely ignore those, or they do stupid
things like outlaw plastic bags. You know, you go to
the grocery store in Colorado, or you can't even get
(24:15):
a place. You can't even pay ten cents for a
plastic bag in Colorado. So you do what I do.
I just go on Amazon and I order three hundred
of them and I just take them to the grocery
store with me. But in Colorado you can't get a
plastic bag because you've got to have your own bag
of some sort to put you know, the chicken that's
wrapped in plastic, or the milk that comes in a
(24:37):
plastic jug, or the fruit that you put in a
plastic sack, or whatever it is that you buy there.
You buy your bottled water that comes in plastic. You
put all you but you can't buy a plastic bag
although everything you use is contained in plastic. It's insane,
isn't it. You ever thought about how insane it is?
(24:59):
So now with this decarbonization effort, businesses like here in
Colorado are forced to burn billions at the altar of
decarbonization in the church of the climate activists, So this
obsession with co two has actually harmed the environment by
(25:21):
shifting attention away from real pollution. It's also driven up
costs across everything that you do that's manufactured, energy, and transportation,
and all of those policies that are making it more
expensive for you to do. Whatever you do gives zero
benefit to the bottom line of companies or to hear
public health, but they're enforced with a religious fervor by
(25:47):
these regulatory agencies. So if you just revoke this two
thousand and nine EPA endangerment finding with the stroke of
a pen, that means the Environmental Protection Agency would no
longer have any authority to regulate CO two as a pollutant. Bam,
(26:09):
that's just entirely gone. Now what would that do if
you just if lee Zelden just said, okay, the two
thousand and nine endangerment finding is hereby revoked, It'd be
like an executive order, except it's done in one of
the administrative agencies. Lee Zelden would literally have a memo
(26:32):
that says, I hereby revoke the two thousand and nine
endangerment finding that says CO two can be regulated as
a pollutant. Boom done. That would immediately do four things.
It would end the regulatory strangulation that American industry and
(26:52):
business is now souffronder, not all of it, but this one.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
Two.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
It would refocus environmental efforts on real pollution concerns. The
third thing it would do it would lower costs for businesses,
which means it lowers costs for consumers. And the fourth thing,
which I think is probably the most important. Do I
want to reduce costs absolutely? Do I want real pollution
(27:20):
dealt with absolutely? Do I want to end and deregulate
American industry absolutely? But most importantly, it would remove the
primary justification for these destructive climate policies that all these
environmental wackos keep pushing and for which we keep spending
(27:41):
billions of dollars in giving billions of dollars to NGOs
to go out and just pay themselves high salaries. That
would just dissipate, That would just go away. Lee Zelden,
do it. It's the weekend with Michael Brown. You want
to send me a text message. The number on your
(28:01):
messy JAPTI is three three one zero three. Use keywords
Mike or Michael. Go follow me on next right now
at Michael Brown. Ussay, I'll be right back. We're coming
to the end of another session of the Weekend with
(28:22):
Michael Brown, And as I always do, I want to
say thanks for everybody that tunes in, follows me on next,
sends me text messages, subscribes to the podcast, tells your
friends and your enemies, your mother in law, and everybody
about the program. I really do appreciate it because I
know you have other things you could be doing. In
the fact you're doing this, it means a lot to me.
(28:42):
So we're talking about CO two and how Lee Zelding
can eliminate with the stroke of a pen this idea
that CO two is a pollutant, and I just pointed
out the amazing change would have on the economy in
addition to saving taxpayers billions of dollars. But do you
(29:06):
want to comprehend just how much it is and how
widespread this fraud, this money laundering scheme is. The Department
of Justice is now investigating this green energy slush fund,
and Lee's Eldham was again on Fox News because who
(29:27):
else is going to cover it? Right, and he starts
describing it, we probably won't get through the entirety.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
So this story is getting a ton of attention the
EPA asking a watchdog to probe a twenty seven billion
dollar Biden era fund that was addressing the climate crisis
that had a goal of quote, revitalizing communities that have
historically been left behind.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
Okay, now, thinking about the stupidity of that. Pollution in
the atmosphere goes everywhere, It collects and dissipates, and it
moves hither and yon. It goes everywhere, but it focuses
on certain because the pollution is racist, you know that,
(30:20):
And so pollution goes after I don't know, minority places,
just maybe minority neighborhoods, just minority blocks.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
The Free Press reporting that twenty billion dollars was rushed
out the door at the end of the Biden presidency
to these nonprofit groups just before Trump took office. The
EPA says that one of the group's Power Forward Communities
was given two billion dollars in a grant, despite the
fact that they only had one hundred dollars on their
books of revenue in twenty twenty three. So who is
(30:50):
this group?
Speaker 2 (30:50):
Think about it? I want to that's that's a that's
a group I want to be a part of. We
had one hundred dollars in income last year and this
year we got two billion dollars and we didn't have
to do a damn thing for it. No, it just
plopped in our lap from you and you and you,
thank you. Two billion dollars.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
When did they pop up? Who are they? The APA
says that the group has ties to two time Democrat
candidate from Georgia, Governor Stacy Abrams, and the CEO of
the group says that Abrams has not received a penny
of this grant and has no relationship the group with
Abrams other than as an advisor. All right, so let's
bring in the person who's been looking at all of
this very careful license who became the EPA administrator recently.
(31:33):
Lee's Eldon. He will be attending the President's address this evening.
Thank you very much for being here. Good to have
you here today, mister Zelden. So you described these as
non government organizations that somehow were the ones to grab
this money that never was designated. As the Biden team
was on their way out the door. What happened? Who?
Speaker 5 (31:53):
I have received twenty billion dollars and you had these
and Joe, several of which didn't even exist before this
pot of money emerged. They designed this program to distribut
the twenty billion dollars to limit the government's oversight, tying
the hands behind the back of the EPA. So if
you asked me where all this money is going, I
(32:16):
actually don't know, and it was designed that way. So listen,
I would say that when you look at a system
that has twenty billion dollars go through eight pastors, which
many in many cases go to many other pastors, the
American taxpayer is already going the side out of the gate.
This isn't enough oversight. This should be reviewed. We want
(32:37):
to know about self dealing and conflicts of interest. We
want to re establish oversight that doesn't exist now. They
want to know what are our options at this point.
So I've been working closely with the Justice Department. They've
been investigating. There's currently a freeze on the funding.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
At the bank.
Speaker 5 (32:53):
We've been working with the Department of Treasury at a
call last night on all twenty.
Speaker 3 (32:57):
Seven billion a freeze or has some of it are
gone out?
Speaker 5 (33:00):
So the money that went to this to the bank,
that was twenty billion of it, almost all of that
money is still at the bank, not all of it,
Some of it.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
Did Let make just make sure I gets twenty billion
dollars or twenty seven billion dollars at the end of
the Biden administration got to sent to a bank and
the bank was going to distribute it to these NGOs
that didn't exist before the money landed in the bank.
Speaker 5 (33:26):
Right, and you have give you an example of self
Daylan you mentioned one as it relates to Stacy Abrams
and that two billion dollar recipient. The director of the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund gave five billion dollars to his
former employer. He left this employer to go work in
the Buying administration take over the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund,
and then gave his former employer five billion dollars. Another
(33:49):
story that came out in the Free Beacon was talking
about a recipient on the other end of the stream
receiving twenty million dollars that she applied for as CEO
while she was serving on the White House Environmental Justice Council.
This is filled up with people who served in the
Obama administration, served in the Buiyen administration are democratic donors.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
I'm here saying, not.
Speaker 5 (34:08):
Only should we not have slush funds that are distributing
money like this to left wing causes. I'm not here
advocating that instead they should go through right wing causes.
This should not exist, period. This is tax dollars. And
whether you're talking about one hundred thousand dollars to save
or one hundred million to save or twenty billion dollars
to save, we need to be more serious in this
(34:30):
town about protecting precious harder and tax dollars. We have
a zero tolerance policy at EPA for any waste or abuse.
Speaker 6 (34:38):
That's just the way that it should be. Now, I
want to pause because don't shoot the messenger. So we've
now known about this for and this is one of
my frustrations, and having been inside the belly of this beast,
I understand how it is. But we've now known about
(34:59):
this for a week or longer for that matter. As
I pointed out prior to this break to this particular segment,
that Leez Elden can undo the whole CO two mess
with the stroke of a pen. So ask yourself this question,
(35:20):
why hasn't it been done?
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Now? I'm for I kind of like the fact that
Donald Trump is acting likable in a China closet, because
that's what we voted for We wanted to see the
apple Clark turned over. Whatever cliche you want to use.
I want to know misters Elden as a lawyer, I'm
(35:43):
telling you, not giving you advice, but I'm telling you
that my legal mind says that you can undo this
whole COEO two as a pollution thing with one a
one paragraph order signed by you. Why haven't you, Why
haven't you? Thanks for tuning in everybody. Everybody have a
(36:04):
great weekend. I'll see you next weekend.
To night, Michael Brown joins me here the former FEMA
director talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, no, Brownie, You're
doing a heck of a job.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
The Weekend with Michael Brown broadcasting life from Denver, Colorado.
It is the Weekend with Michael Brown. I'm really happy
to have you joining the program today.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
A couple of.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Rules of engagement. If you want to text any question
or comment the message, the number on your message app
is three three one zero three, three three one zero three.
Just start your message with one of the keywords Mike
or Michael. Go follow me on X It's at Michael
Brown USSA. By the way, if you want to see
the trailer or the intro to that video hidden about
the effects of the lockdowns, I just reposted that earlier
(00:39):
on my timeline, so you'll find that on X at
Michael Brown USA. And then I would ask you a
big favorite, and that would be subscribe to the podcast
on your podcast app. Subscribe to the Situation with Michael Brown,
The Situation with Michael Brown. Once you find that in
your search bar, just hit subscribe. That will automatically download
(01:00):
for you every single day of the weekday program and
the weekend program too, so you get all of the
Michael Brown programming that you need. I'm want to go
back to two thousand and nine because in two thousand
and nine, the Environmental Protection Agency adopted a ruly that
one bureaucratic decision. That's where the now we've always heard
(01:25):
because I can go back when I was debating in
high school and one of our topics was about the
environment and whether or not we were going to enter
into a you know, this huge deep freeze, a new
ice age. I remember specifically the cover of Time magazine
talking about the New Ice Age. Well, that was just
(01:49):
there was just discussion about it. But in two thousand
and nine, when the EPA made this decision, that one
bureaucratic decision is what, in my opinion, unleashed the entire
climate his area that has hijacked our economy and in
so doing gutted businesses and warped our environmental priorities for decades. Now,
(02:11):
that decision in two thousand and nine was a ruling
by the EPA that declared CO two carbon dioxide a
naturally occurring gas that is essential to all life humans, plants, animals,
all life on this planet is dependent upon CO two. Well,
(02:34):
the EPA ruled in two thousand and nine that CO
two was a pollutant. Now one person has the power
to erase that decision with the stroke of a pen.
Will he do it? And who is that person? The
(02:56):
new Secretary of the Environmental or the new administrator, i
should say, of the Environmental Protection Agency? Former Congressman Lee Zelden.
Leez Elden has described in various places what he's discovered
related to fraudulent green energy spending as a green slush fund,
(03:16):
and he provides the details here. He is in Fox News.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
And get us a refund?
Speaker 4 (03:23):
Leez Elden's Trump's EPA administrator.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
Is this a kickback?
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Is it theft? Is it grafted? What would you call it?
All the above? It's a green slush fund.
Speaker 5 (03:36):
Twenty billion dollars parked an outside bank towards the end
of the Biden administration, given to just eight NGOs. You
just named a bunch of them. These NGOs were created
for the first time, many of them, just to get
this money, and they're pass through. Is so, the EPA
entered into this account control agreement with these entities. Treasury
(03:59):
enters into a financial agent agreement with the bank and
they design it to tie the EPA's hands behind their back,
to tie the federal government's hands behind its back. So
when the money goes through the NGOs to subgrantees, many
of them also pass throughs. We don't know where it's going.
We don't have the proper amount of oversight. And as
(04:20):
you pointed out, it's going to people who are in
the Obama and Biden administrations.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
It's going to donors.
Speaker 5 (04:26):
It's not going directly, as you pointed out, thankfully you did,
it's not going directly to remediate that environmental issue, to
deliver cleaning air, land, and water. It's billions, tens of
billions of dollars going through their friends.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Well, they're going to say they didn't steal it.
Speaker 4 (04:41):
They're just going to say they got paid salaries and
then they donated it to some other subcontractor who got
paid salaries, and it eventually went to some kid to
pick up litter. Right, Because like at the end of this,
what's it like five percent of this money actually goes
towards the environment. How much actually it goes towards the
environment after it's been just stripped out.
Speaker 5 (05:04):
For salaries, right, and stripped out for salaries of middleman
after middleman, going through these multiple added layers.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
I'll give you example.
Speaker 5 (05:14):
On the other end of this, there was one CEO
who was serving on the White House Environmental Justice Council
for the Biden administration. While she was serving on this council,
she was CEO of an organization that applied for and
received twenty million dollars.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
So some people were able to with.
Speaker 5 (05:32):
The right connections beyond the receiving end of billions of dollars.
Others on the other end of this getting tens of
millions of dollars and the federal government not having oversight.
And I just mentioned the account control agreements that were
entered into an EPA and these prime recipients, they were
amending the account control agreements right up to the inauguration.
(05:53):
They were amended account control agreements, we found January thirteenth,
so they.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Were scrambling before you guys got in there, and they
the entire.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
They amended it.
Speaker 5 (06:04):
So yeah, they amended these account control agreements to reduce
EPA oversight and to make it easier for them to
pass through the money without getting.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
If you've listened to me on the weekday program I
have with I have painstakingly gone through these NGOs, these
non government organizations, and how they operate as a money
laundering scheme, so that politicians, primarily Democrats Republicans don't have
(06:35):
clean hands in these either. But politicians use these NGOs
as a way to take your hard earned money out
of your pocket forcibly through taxes, and then pay themselves
huge salaries, sometimes even while working in the White House.
You want made the comment at the very beginning of
(06:57):
day's program about how at one time Ukraine was one
of the most corrupt countries in the world. Maybe we
had to rethink that maybe we ought to consider that
the United States of America might be one of the
most corrupt countries in the world, which means that Doge Musk,
(07:18):
his team, Trump, Lee Zelden, the Cabinet, everybody has a
gigantic Mount Everest to climb to clean this up. Let's
go back to this one bureaucratic decision, because again it's
such a great example of how one bureaucratic decision can
(07:39):
unleash something as crazy as the Green New Deal and
all the environmental zealotry that we hear about today. And
it wasn't due not a damn thing. It lines the
pockets of elitis. It lines the pockets of those who
are connected somehow to somebody that can fund these NGAs,
(08:00):
and they pay themselves huge salaries. As I pointed out,
Lee Zelden now has the power to erase this one
decision with the stroke of a pen. Will he do it?
Speaker 1 (08:12):
So?
Speaker 2 (08:12):
The foundation for all of this, this idea that CO
two is a pollutant. That regulatory disaster started in two
thousand and seven when the Supreme Court, in a case
called Massachusetts versus EPA, ruled that greenhouse gases included CO
(08:33):
two and if they could be considered pollutants under the
Clean Air Act if they were found to endanger public
health or welfare. Now, before I tell you about, let
me jump in that case. Massachusetts versus EPA came out
of a lawsuit by twelve states and a bunch of
(08:55):
environmental groups arguing that the Environmental Protection Agency had a
duty to regulate CO two emissions, particularly.
Speaker 1 (09:04):
From your car.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
Now, one person, one bureaucrat decided that, oh, this is
a great opportunity to expand our power, to expand our control.
So yes, we're going to designate CO two as a
greenhouse gas emission, and that will allow us to regulate it. Now,
(09:33):
before I get into the details, I want you to
think very broadly for a moment about government regulation. If
government can regulate CO two, and that's what I'm exhaling
as I speak to you, does that not give them
the power to regulate me? As I leave this building today?
(09:57):
This building is surrounded by tree and bushes and grass
and all sorts of living plants that are using the
COEO two in the atmosphere from my car and from
me to engage in photosynthesis so they can grow and
grow and grow and release oxygen into the air so
(10:21):
that I can live. Oh, think about that a two
way street. But no, the EPA steps in and says,
what I'm doing is polluting. So what can Lee Zelden do?
Text the word Michael Michael to this number three three
one zero three. Go follow me on X. It's at
Michael Brown USA. Let'll be right back. Hey, it's a
(10:46):
meeting with Michael Brown. Glad to have you with me.
I appreciate you tuning in. Go follow me on X
formally Twitter, It's at Michael Brown USA. You can always
send me a text message anytime doesn't make any difference
when and I read them all the message on your
message out to numbers three, three, one zero three, just
use the keyword Mike or Michael. So let's go back
to this Massachusetts versus EPA ruling that said that the
(11:09):
EPA could include didn't have to, but you could include
CO two as a greenhouse gas and therefore regulated. Well,
that single ruling was a gift to all of the
members of the Church of the Climate activists, but it
still required the EPA to determine whether CO two actually
(11:31):
met the criteria of a harmful pollutant. In other words,
the court said, yes, you can declare it the pollutant,
but you still have to go through the process and
see whether or not meets the criteria that you have,
as the EPA have already established to determine what is
a pollutant and what is not. So in two thousand
(11:53):
and nine, the Obama administration, it's EPA, issued its famous
endangerment finding. Remember that it was called an endangerment finding,
and that's what declared that CO two and other greenhouse
gases posed a threat to public health. That ruling gave
(12:14):
the EPA enormous power to regulate CO two emissions across
almost any industry that produced CO two. Despite the fact
that you think about this for a moment, that ruling
gave them power because they found that CO two was
an endangerment to our health and to the environment across
(12:40):
all these industries, despite the fact that CO two doesn't
contain any poisons, It doesn't poison the air, it doesn't
contaminate water, and unlike a real pollutant like oh, I
don't know, sulfial dioxide or mercury or it's not a pollutant.
(13:04):
It's plant food. There you got CO two. The next
time you hear CO two, you think of plant food.
So the entire premise of the EPA is fraudulent. But
when they made that singular decision, what did that do?
That gave the unelected bureaucrats, That gave the administrative state
sweeping control over the backbone of modern civilization. What's the
(13:27):
backbone of modern civilization? You ask energy. Now, go back
to the Massachusetts versus EPA case for a second, because
then Associate Justice Entering Scalia saw right through the charade.
He wrote a dissent in Massachusetts versus EPA. He argued
(13:51):
that CO two doesn't even fit the legal definition of
a pollutant. The Clean Air Act was designed to regulate
substances that make air in a way that directly hurts
human health. CO two is what a plant food. CO
(14:12):
two is produced when you and I breathe. So Sclia
just dismantled that absurd claim. The Clean Air Act, he said,
was mant to target real contaminants, substances that make air
dangerous to breathe, not the very molecule that sustains plant life.
So if CO two is a pollutant, then every human
(14:34):
breath is an environmental violation. And by that logic, he said,
we should regulate forests. We should ought to regulate volcanoes,
We ought to regulate the oceans themselves. His point was
that the entire regulatory framework established by the EPA was
built on a foundation of deception. Now, I want to
(14:57):
put it in perspective. I always love the perspective. I
want you to think about as this, the air was
somehow unclean one hundred million years ago, when CO two
levels were what five times the level of CO two today.
(15:22):
So go back one hundred million years where the dinosaurs
suffocating under an EPA violation because CO two levels were
at two thousand parts per million.
Speaker 1 (15:34):
Oh, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Maybe it was the gas guzzling SUVs that made the
cretaceous air unclean because all those damn dinosaurs were driving
Ford SUVs or jeep grand cherokeees. You see, the entire
premise completely falls apart when you just start thinking logically
about it. Yet, it is the absolute backbone of the
(15:59):
regulatory grip that has stifled American industry and American ingenuity.
And for years, that regulatory I believe total overreach was
justified by one single doctrine, the Chevron doctrine, and that
(16:20):
doctrine permitted a federal agency to interpret vague laws as
they saw fit without any oversight. Until the Supreme Court's
lower Bright and Relentless cases. That doctrine is now dead
(16:41):
and agencies no longer have the unilateral authority to twist
legislative language into so it fits their agenda. You can't
do that. So the Weekend with Michael Brown, Hang tight,
I'll be right back.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Tonight. Michael Brown joins me here, the former FEMA director
of talk show host Michael Brown. Brownie, No, Brownie, You're
doing a heck of a job. The Weekend with Michael Brown.
Speaker 2 (17:10):
Hey, you're listening The Weekend with Michael Brown, broadcasting live
from Denver, Colorad. I'm glad to have you with me.
If you want to send me a text message, Remember
you can send a text message anytime. I read them all.
Just the number on your message app is three three
one zero three. Just use the keyword Mike or Michael.
Tell me anything or ask me anything. Go follow me
on X. It's at Michael Brown USA. I have a
(17:31):
lot of fun on X. You might enjoy it. So
recap real quickly. So. In Massachusetts versus EPA, the Supreme
Court says that the Environmental Protection Agency can declare if
they so, if it meets the requirements. If they can
declare that CO two, a naturally occurring gas plant food,
(17:52):
is a pollutant and therefore subject to their regulation. The
Chevron Doctrine, which says that bureaucracies can interpret vague laws
as they wish and in their favor, and Congress can't
oversee that or do anything about it, allow them to
use that loophole to declare that EPA is a pollutant
(18:17):
and that it is a dangerous pollutant that must be
regulated from whatever source, and that's where we get to
where we are today. So this regulatory overreach that's allowed
by the Chevron doctrine. And again to emphasize that's the
doctrine that said, and I use the past tense, said
(18:40):
that the bureaucracies can interpret vague laws any way they want.
It's up to them, which I think is has been.
I've always thought that was unconstitutional because that's Congress giving
up it's and its duty under the Constitution to write
(19:03):
the laws, not the bureaucracy. But Congress doesn't want to
write laws because that takes too much energy, time, effort.
They don't have time to do because they got other
stuff to do. You know, they go they got parties
to go to. I know that's not fair to them,
but call somebody that cares. So the EPA decides that, yes,
we're going to make coeo to a pollutant and we're
(19:25):
going to regulate it under the Chevron Dorine doctrine. Well,
then comes along another Supreme Court case, Low for Bright
and Relentless, which overrules the Chevron doctrine. Agencies under the
new Supreme Court ruling no longer have the unilateral authority
(19:47):
to twist whatever vague legislative language congress rights into whatever
fits their agenda. They can't do that anymore. So. Just historically,
the Chevron doctrine was the legal loophole that will let
that allowed these unelected bureaucrats the administrative state to dictate
policy without congressional approval.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
But that is now gone.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
The Supreme Court, in other words, just stripped the EPA
of its ability to twist a vague law into a
regulatory weapon.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
You see, the.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Clean Air Act, the actual Clean Air Act itself never
classified CO two as a pollutant. That was a fabrication
created by the EPA of their own accord. They just
decided on their own. Now, why do you think they
would do that? Stop and thinking, why do you think
a bunch of bureaucrats sitting inside the Beltway in DC,
(20:46):
sitting around, you know, showing up to work at nine
o'clock and going to a long lunch, and hey, guys,
you know, have you ever thought about the fact that
if we make CO two, the very thing that we're
exhaling as we sit here eating our nice lunch, if
we make that a pollutant, that means that we can
go after any industry, any business, anything that creates CO two.
(21:11):
We just have to come up with a new rule
that says that CO two is a pollutant. Well, we
can interpret that, we can interpret the Clean Air Act
anyway we want to. Let's go back and write that
rule up. That's exactly what they did, because remember the
Clean Air Act did not classify COE two as a pollutant,
(21:31):
so they had to make up their own rule to
declare that it was. And without Chevron, without that doctrine,
the ability to make that fabrication to create that lie
no longer has any illegal cover whatsoever. That's gone. So
now the EPA's authority, it's not just in jeopardy, it's
(21:53):
gone without Chevron. Congress, hang with me here, with Chevron, Gohn.
With EPA no longer having the authority on their own
to just randomly declare COE too as a pollutant, Congress
has to now explicitly make that determination. And good luck, because.
Speaker 1 (22:21):
You're not.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
EPA, you'll never be able to convince three hundred and
fifty million Americans at what they're breathing every day is
a pollutant. While every person keeps breathing out forty thousand
parts per million of it, you can't do it. But
the consequences of that two thousand and nine ruling Massachusetts
(22:44):
versus EPA, it goes way beyond just the climate rhetoric.
In recent conversations online with professionals in the say the
PVC industry, they talk about how a huge, huge portion
of their focus is now diverted to meaningless decarbonization efforts.
(23:07):
I bet in your state there is a decarbonization unless
you live in a red state, but even there it
may still be going on. But if you live in
a blue state like I do in Colorado, or you
might in Illinois or New York or Massachusetts, you know
that there are efforts to decarbonize. And usually put this way,
(23:30):
we want to reduce the level of CO two emissions
by fifty percent by the year twenty fifty or twenty
thirty five or whatever, twenty twenty seven, whatever the year is.
They want to reduce the emissions from CO two because
CO two is is pollution and that's carbon, and we
want to decarbonize at the same time they're doing that.
(23:52):
Bull crop things like microplastics and drinking water or heavy
metal toxins are real air pollution contaminants. Now they just
ignore those, they completely ignore those, or they do stupid
things like outlaw plastic bags. You know, you go to
the grocery store in Colorado, or you can't even get
(24:15):
a place. You can't even pay ten cents for a
plastic bag in Colorado. So you do what I do.
I just go on Amazon and I order three hundred
of them and I just take them to the grocery
store with me. But in Colorado you can't get a
plastic bag because you've got to have your own bag
of some sort to put you know, the chicken that's
wrapped in plastic, or the milk that comes in a
(24:37):
plastic jug, or the fruit that you put in a
plastic sack, or whatever it is that you buy there.
You buy your bottled water that comes in plastic. You
put all you but you can't buy a plastic bag
although everything you use is contained in plastic. It's insane,
isn't it. You ever thought about how insane it is?
(24:59):
So now with this decarbonization effort, businesses like here in
Colorado are forced to burn billions at the altar of
decarbonization in the church of the climate activists, So this
obsession with co two has actually harmed the environment by
(25:21):
shifting attention away from real pollution. It's also driven up
costs across everything that you do that's manufactured, energy, and transportation,
and all of those policies that are making it more
expensive for you to do. Whatever you do gives zero
benefit to the bottom line of companies or to hear
public health, but they're enforced with a religious fervor by
(25:47):
these regulatory agencies. So if you just revoke this two
thousand and nine EPA endangerment finding with the stroke of
a pen, that means the Environmental Protection Agency would no
longer have any authority to regulate CO two as a pollutant. Bam,
(26:09):
that's just entirely gone. Now what would that do if
you just if lee Zelden just said, okay, the two
thousand and nine endangerment finding is hereby revoked, It'd be
like an executive order, except it's done in one of
the administrative agencies. Lee Zelden would literally have a memo
(26:32):
that says, I hereby revoke the two thousand and nine
endangerment finding that says CO two can be regulated as
a pollutant. Boom done. That would immediately do four things.
It would end the regulatory strangulation that American industry and
(26:52):
business is now souffronder, not all of it, but this one.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
Two.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
It would refocus environmental efforts on real pollution concerns. The
third thing it would do it would lower costs for businesses,
which means it lowers costs for consumers. And the fourth thing,
which I think is probably the most important. Do I
want to reduce costs absolutely? Do I want real pollution
(27:20):
dealt with absolutely? Do I want to end and deregulate
American industry absolutely? But most importantly, it would remove the
primary justification for these destructive climate policies that all these
environmental wackos keep pushing and for which we keep spending
(27:41):
billions of dollars in giving billions of dollars to NGOs
to go out and just pay themselves high salaries. That
would just dissipate, That would just go away. Lee Zelden,
do it. It's the weekend with Michael Brown. You want
to send me a text message. The number on your
(28:01):
messy JAPTI is three three one zero three. Use keywords
Mike or Michael. Go follow me on next right now
at Michael Brown. Ussay, I'll be right back. We're coming
to the end of another session of the Weekend with
(28:22):
Michael Brown, And as I always do, I want to
say thanks for everybody that tunes in, follows me on next,
sends me text messages, subscribes to the podcast, tells your
friends and your enemies, your mother in law, and everybody
about the program. I really do appreciate it because I
know you have other things you could be doing. In
the fact you're doing this, it means a lot to me.
(28:42):
So we're talking about CO two and how Lee Zelding
can eliminate with the stroke of a pen this idea
that CO two is a pollutant, and I just pointed
out the amazing change would have on the economy in
addition to saving taxpayers billions of dollars. But do you
(29:06):
want to comprehend just how much it is and how
widespread this fraud, this money laundering scheme is. The Department
of Justice is now investigating this green energy slush fund,
and Lee's Eldham was again on Fox News because who
(29:27):
else is going to cover it? Right, and he starts
describing it, we probably won't get through the entirety.
Speaker 3 (29:37):
So this story is getting a ton of attention the
EPA asking a watchdog to probe a twenty seven billion
dollar Biden era fund that was addressing the climate crisis
that had a goal of quote, revitalizing communities that have
historically been left behind.
Speaker 2 (29:57):
Okay, now, thinking about the stupidity of that. Pollution in
the atmosphere goes everywhere, It collects and dissipates, and it
moves hither and yon. It goes everywhere, but it focuses
on certain because the pollution is racist, you know that,
(30:20):
And so pollution goes after I don't know, minority places,
just maybe minority neighborhoods, just minority blocks.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
The Free Press reporting that twenty billion dollars was rushed
out the door at the end of the Biden presidency
to these nonprofit groups just before Trump took office. The
EPA says that one of the group's Power Forward Communities
was given two billion dollars in a grant, despite the
fact that they only had one hundred dollars on their
books of revenue in twenty twenty three. So who is
(30:50):
this group?
Speaker 2 (30:50):
Think about it? I want to that's that's a that's
a group I want to be a part of. We
had one hundred dollars in income last year and this
year we got two billion dollars and we didn't have
to do a damn thing for it. No, it just
plopped in our lap from you and you and you,
thank you. Two billion dollars.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
When did they pop up? Who are they? The APA
says that the group has ties to two time Democrat
candidate from Georgia, Governor Stacy Abrams, and the CEO of
the group says that Abrams has not received a penny
of this grant and has no relationship the group with
Abrams other than as an advisor. All right, so let's
bring in the person who's been looking at all of
this very careful license who became the EPA administrator recently.
(31:33):
Lee's Eldon. He will be attending the President's address this evening.
Thank you very much for being here. Good to have
you here today, mister Zelden. So you described these as
non government organizations that somehow were the ones to grab
this money that never was designated. As the Biden team
was on their way out the door. What happened? Who?
Speaker 5 (31:53):
I have received twenty billion dollars and you had these
and Joe, several of which didn't even exist before this
pot of money emerged. They designed this program to distribut
the twenty billion dollars to limit the government's oversight, tying
the hands behind the back of the EPA. So if
you asked me where all this money is going, I
(32:16):
actually don't know, and it was designed that way. So listen,
I would say that when you look at a system
that has twenty billion dollars go through eight pastors, which
many in many cases go to many other pastors, the
American taxpayer is already going the side out of the gate.
This isn't enough oversight. This should be reviewed. We want
(32:37):
to know about self dealing and conflicts of interest. We
want to re establish oversight that doesn't exist now. They
want to know what are our options at this point.
So I've been working closely with the Justice Department. They've
been investigating. There's currently a freeze on the funding.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
At the bank.
Speaker 5 (32:53):
We've been working with the Department of Treasury at a
call last night on all twenty.
Speaker 3 (32:57):
Seven billion a freeze or has some of it are
gone out?
Speaker 5 (33:00):
So the money that went to this to the bank,
that was twenty billion of it, almost all of that
money is still at the bank, not all of it,
Some of it.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
Did Let make just make sure I gets twenty billion
dollars or twenty seven billion dollars at the end of
the Biden administration got to sent to a bank and
the bank was going to distribute it to these NGOs
that didn't exist before the money landed in the bank.
Speaker 5 (33:26):
Right, and you have give you an example of self
Daylan you mentioned one as it relates to Stacy Abrams
and that two billion dollar recipient. The director of the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund gave five billion dollars to his
former employer. He left this employer to go work in
the Buying administration take over the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund,
and then gave his former employer five billion dollars. Another
(33:49):
story that came out in the Free Beacon was talking
about a recipient on the other end of the stream
receiving twenty million dollars that she applied for as CEO
while she was serving on the White House Environmental Justice Council.
This is filled up with people who served in the
Obama administration, served in the Buiyen administration are democratic donors.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
I'm here saying, not.
Speaker 5 (34:08):
Only should we not have slush funds that are distributing
money like this to left wing causes. I'm not here
advocating that instead they should go through right wing causes.
This should not exist, period. This is tax dollars. And
whether you're talking about one hundred thousand dollars to save
or one hundred million to save or twenty billion dollars
to save, we need to be more serious in this
(34:30):
town about protecting precious harder and tax dollars. We have
a zero tolerance policy at EPA for any waste or abuse.
Speaker 6 (34:38):
That's just the way that it should be. Now, I
want to pause because don't shoot the messenger. So we've
now known about this for and this is one of
my frustrations, and having been inside the belly of this beast,
I understand how it is. But we've now known about
(34:59):
this for a week or longer for that matter. As
I pointed out prior to this break to this particular segment,
that Leez Elden can undo the whole CO two mess
with the stroke of a pen. So ask yourself this question,
(35:20):
why hasn't it been done?
Speaker 2 (35:23):
Now? I'm for I kind of like the fact that
Donald Trump is acting likable in a China closet, because
that's what we voted for We wanted to see the
apple Clark turned over. Whatever cliche you want to use.
I want to know misters Elden as a lawyer, I'm
(35:43):
telling you, not giving you advice, but I'm telling you
that my legal mind says that you can undo this
whole COEO two as a pollution thing with one a
one paragraph order signed by you. Why haven't you, Why
haven't you? Thanks for tuning in everybody. Everybody have a
(36:04):
great weekend. I'll see you next weekend.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.