courage and sacrifice" of those who died in the d—day landings. she was joined by 16 world leaders to commemorate the 75th anniversary of history's largest combined land, air and naval operation. in the sudanese capital khartoum, opposition activists say dozens of bodies have been pulled from the river nile, as the military cracks down on pro—democracy protesters. activists have rejected an offer of talks from the ruling military council, saying they cannot be trusted. president trump says not nearly enough progress has been made in talks with mexico to avert his threat to impose new trade tariffs on monday. the us is insisting on immediate measures to reduce the flow of migrants travelling through mexico to the us border. now on bbc news, hardtalk.

welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. as donald trump and family revel in the pomp and circumstance of a state visit to london, his staunchest political foes back home continue to plot a pathway to impeachment. my guest today is funding much of that effort. tom steyer is a californian hedge fund billionaire turned deep—pocketed backer of liberal causes. his focus was climate change. now, it's impeachment. he is a powerfulforce in the democratic party. but is he in danger of pushing the party in the wrong direction?

tom steyer, welcome to hardtalk. stephen, thank you for having me. would it be fair to say that, over the last couple of years, the impeachment of president donald trump has become your political obsession? well, let me say this. i started an organisation called nexgen america, that is the largest grassroots organisation, political organisation, in the united states, which did the largest youth voter mobilisation in american history last year, that knocked on 10 million doors with their partners in the organised labour movement, and that also ran three statewide propositions to push for 50% clean energy by 2030. so it's true that our organisation need to impeach has got over 8 million signatures, and i've spent

a lot of time doing town halls talking to people about the danger that trump presents to the people of the united states and to our way of life. but it's also true that our organisation has done a lot of grassroots, the most of any organisation. true, and that's why i mention your commitment to the climate change issue. you have been committed to that for many years. you have funded various democratic party campaigns. but as i say, in the last couple of years, i would like to know how much money you have spent on the need to impeach president trump movement, and in particular on a whole series of tv ads that have run across the nation? i honest to goodness don't have a hard number, stephen. i think our campaign has cost over 30 million bucks. yes, i've seen estimates that go as high as 60 or 70, just on the impeachment campaign. i think that's probably an exaggeration, but i don't think we have a hard number. but it's not far off, is it?

it's somewhere between what i said and what you said. what interests me is that you started calling for the impeachment of donald trump long before robert mueller‘s special counsel investigation was complete, and your list of reasons why trump has to be impeached goes far beyond any sort of legal cause. well, really what happened was this. let me go into why i think he should be impeached. we got 50—plus legal scholars, constitutional lawyers, to come up with the criteria that he met to be impeached, and they gave us ten or ii, and we put them on our website. but what i've been saying for the last year and a half is that mr trump has met the criteria for impeachment in public sight, very clearly. one is the obstruction ofjustice, which mr robert mueller did a two—year, exhaustive investigation into, and you can read it.

yes, and refused to reach a conclusion. well, actually what he said was — and i have read it. what he said was, i'm not allowed to draw a conclusion from this, other than that he's innocent, and i can't say that. so here is the rules forfinding him guilty. here is the evidence, and they all meet the rules. but he never said, therefore, he's guilty. he said the only people who can draw that conclusion are congress. he has all the information. they are the people who have to hold him to account. i've done all the work and all the investigation. here it is. that's one thing. well, we'll get back to that, but one more, there's too many. there's three. the second one's corruption. he takes payments from foreign governments, through his real estate operations and from american corporations that are under hisjurisdiction. and three, he's refused any kind of oversight from congress. he's refused to have anyone in the administration answer a subpoena, testify to congress, on this or anything else while they're investigating

him, for oversight. that is, all three of those are absolutely against the constitution, important refusals to do his duty as president, and is contrary to his oath of office. those are allegations. donald trump has responded by calling you, and i'm quoting him, wacky and unhinged, and to a certain extent one can see where he's coming from, when some of your reasons for saying that donald trump has to be impeached include things like bringing america to the brink of nuclear war, his attacks on the free press. now, you might not like his attitude to the press, but it certainly isn't an impeachable offence. well listen, as i said originally, stephen, we got constitutional lawyers to draw up what they thought. yes, but it doesn't mean that what they concluded was credible, in terms of impeachment. my point is, for a year and a half, i've gone around saying only two

things, and then i said that he's not willing to talk to congress. and that's what i've said consistently, is one, he has obstructed justice, two, he's corrupt and has taken payment from foreign governments, which is absolutely against the constitution, and lastly, now he has refused to do hisjob as president and deal with other branches of government. of course, in the end, impeachment is a political process that has to take place in the us congress. do you think it is healthy for us democracy and us politics that a billionaire like yourself can plough, let's agree, tens of millions of dollars into tv advertising, other sorts of campaigning, which create this sort of sense of a movement demanding donald trump's impeachment, when all of the opinion polls, and indeed all of the political anecdotal evidence that democrats as well as republicans see on the ground across america, suggests the us public by a majority doesn't want it to happen? well, actually, if you look at what's going on, what we've done is run a petition drive. we have more than 8 million americans... in a country of well over 300 million. of which about 100 million vote.

so we've had 8 million americans sign a petition saying that he should be impeached. and when you go around, the way that americans will get their information is by televised tv hearings. that is what happened in 1974 with richard nixon, another corrupt president who had the exact same kind of ratings that you referto, until, infact, the people in washington held a series of televised hearings showing his corruption, and showing that in fact he was a president who was doing damage to the country. the people of the united states changed as a result of those hearings — after, not before. and so what we've been saying all along is put the evidence on tv. we had one hearing, which was michael cohen. it moved your numbers 6%. and in fact, all we have to do is let the americans, whether they're democrats, republicans or independents, see the information, and they will be revolted. you're suggesting that in fact he hasn't done anything wrong. that's absolutely untrue. no, it's really not important what i think, what i'm suggesting.

what i do think we need to come back to, because of your answer and because of the importance of due process, is a discussion of your contention that there is clear evidence of obstruction of justice. my contention to you is that the reading of the robert mueller report, what mueller said in the response to it, does not indicate that there is clear evidence of sufficient grounds for charges of obstruction ofjustice. because, frankly, robert mueller could have indicated that was his belief if he chose to do so. he didn't, he left it entirely inconclusive. and the attorney—general, the top legal officer of the united states, looked at the evidence in the mueller report and concluded there was no basis for criminal charges. can i respond to that? the attorney—general of the united states has become the absolutely dishonest tool of mr trump. 1,000 prosecutors have looked at the evidence that you say is inconclusive, and say this is an open—and—shut case to bring

obstruction of justice. do you believe in the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty? of course i do, but that is a principle for the law courts. this, as you pointed out, is a political case. we have a president of the united states who is not obeying the rule of law, who is trying to make himself above the law, and to put his interests ahead of the interests of the people of the united states. so... and that is not a trivial point. so, if you are to get your way, and the impeachment of president trump, it will become a political process. it will go into the us congress and be dealt with by the house of representatives. your big problem as a democrat is that the leader of your party in the house, speaker nancy pelosi, says impeachment is off the table. it is so divisive to the country that, unless there is something so compelling, overwhelming and bipartisan, i do not think we should go down that path. it is just not worth it. she is the speaker of the house, and what she is saying is that, if republicans don't go along with this, that i think we need

a bipartisan vote in the senate, and i'm not going to do this on a partisan basis, as a democrat. the only thing i can say is this. this is about the people of the united states, notjust people in washington, dc. i know the rules of impeachment, and they do occur in washington, dc. but the only way that this will happen in the real world is if we put the evidence in front of the american people. let them see that there is actually a fundamental attack on the rule of law, and democracy itself, coming from the white house. and if they, in fact, look at that on a bipartisan, non—partisan basis, from a patriotic standpoint, and see our country is under attack by its own leader, that we will in fact get the result that i'm talking about. well, i don't want to trade opinion polls with you all day, but if you insist on bringing it back to the feeling amongst the american people, i do have to just quote you the most recent polls. within the last month, ipsos/reuters poll — 57% of adult america say that continued investigation into trump would negatively interfere with government business. 54% of the nation — across the nation, the surveys most recently suggest 54% against impeachment. so you're not taking the public with you. my point is there's no way

for the public to understand this. 57% of adult america say that continued investigation into trump would negatively interfere with government business. 54% of the nation — across the nation, the surveys most recently suggest 54% against impeachment. so you're not taking the public with you. my point is there's no way for the public to understand this. we've had one hearing. it moved impeachment polls 6%. we should be having a dozen hearings. and in fact, when you say it's going to interfere with the the business of the united states government, the business of the united states government in washington, dc is at a standstill, stephen. i don't know if you're aware of it, but if you look at the big issues in the united states, comprehensive immigration reform — not possible to be discussed. gun violence — off the table. climate — we're the only country in the world that's not in the paris accord. we have an inability to discuss

energy policy at any level. sorry, are you suggesting to me that going down the track of a full—fledged impeachment process is going to improve the possibilities of getting things done in washington? well, let me give you a scenario where in fact that is exactly true, because what i'm positing and which i believe to be entirely true is that this government is at system failure — an inability to even discuss, let alone pass, legislation on the major issues of the day. so let's talk for a second about the idea that we actually have a series of hearings, at which americans across the country get to see exactly what the president is doing, get to react to it, and come to the conclusion together that there is something they can do. you are so fundamentally out of sync with many, many elected representatives of the party you have backed for so many years. we talked about nancy pelosi, but on the ground, it's people like hakeem jeffries, a congressman who is in the democratic caucus, who has told the new york times

very recently, listen, we didn't campaign on impeachment. we didn't campaign on collusion, or obstruction ofjustice. what we campaigned on was lowering healthcare costs, and that's what we should be focused on. 0k, let me make a couple of points about american politics. hakeem jeffries is the number five person in the democratic party in the congress. he is part of the leadership that reports on a daily basis to the speaker, nancy pelosi. 0k, let me ask you a question. you're telling me that because he's connected to nancy pelosi, who you no longer speak to, you're telling me that all of these people are totally misreading the interests of their own party? let me make a point to you, listen for a second. they're saying that what we campaigned on was healthcare costs. 0k, let me ask you the question. what is the chance there's going to be something done on healthcare costs

between now and 2021? well, i wouldn't think it's good. but it could be a whole lot worse if you undertake a partisan, toxic war — which the white house, by the way, says bring it on. they've said, and i'm going to quote you the campaign managerfor trump 2020, brad parscale, says the more they beat the drum for impeachment, the more that emboldens our campaign. bring it on. 0k, let me make two points. mr trump has lied 10,000 times by the count of the washington post, so there's no reason to trust anything he says. secondly, when people talk, if you polled people before the election, they would say healthcare was their number one thing. but the real question is why? it was not that healthcare suddenly became an issue in 2018, what happened was the republicans three times try to take away the affordable care act, which would remove healthcare from tens of millions of americans and they came within one vote in the senate from doing so. so if you actually look at what happened in 2018, the number of democratic voters went up to two—thirds. not because they suddenly discovered they needed to go to the doctor, but because the republicans were trying to take away their healthcare, were doing a lot of destructive things.

so when you say it wasn't about the impeachment of mr trump, i beg to differ. it was very much about the threat that mr trump represents to the people of the united states that made the turnout by democrats to go from 35 million four years ago to 59 million. that was not the problem. the problem is that many democrats don't agree with you, but let's leave that on one side. but this is just a data—driven question, stephen. i, well, i just want to ask you one very simple question, i think it's simple. which is more important to you, right now? impeaching donald trump or getting a democrat into the white house in 2020? but you're asking me this question as if for some reason impeaching donald trump is going to give donald trump a better chance? not at all. i'm just asking you which is your priority. which is more important to you today? the impeachment of trump or working to get a democrat in the white house? i believe that impeaching mr trump

is critical for america and i also believe it is the single thing that is worst for donald trump. let me quote to you... because there's an impression that you're giving that somehow it's a choice and it's not. it's not my impression, i'm just trying to put to you different opinions from inside the party that you have financed to the tune of many tens of millions of dollars over the last three orfour years. david axelrod, who knows a thing or two about winning presidential elections because he was one of the key strategists and advisors for barack 0bama, he has described your determination to use your money to push the impeachment campaign as, and i'm quoting him, "a vanity project", which is doing the democrats no good. he did say that about a year ago. but you want to know something? we are the peop— and he said that and that implied somehow we were going to hurt them in 2018. but in fact, we were the largest grassroots organisation in the united states, we did the biggest turnout of youth in the history of the american — of america, the turnout of people under 30 went from 18% four years ago to 41%, that's the largest generation in america.

and they vote at a ali—point spread democrat to republican. so whatever david axelrod says, what the truth is, is that the programmes that we ran had more influence in turnout, which is the actual reason the democrats won the house, than anybody else. so whatever he was saying, what we did was change that election in a way that nobody else did. how upset are you by the state of the democratic party today, then? because we've talked about the current leadership in the congress, let's talk about the frontrunner for the presidential nomination. ijust looked at a poll before i came into the studio, joe biden was scoring 32% amongst democrats. the next up was bernie sanders at 1a%, neither, it has to be said, is a fresh or new voice in the democratic party. but the interesting thing isjoe biden, like nancy pelosi, has made it plain. he doesn't think impeaching the president is the route to power in 2020 for the democrats. how disappointed are you by that?

well, let me make a point. of the 2a announced democratic candidates, over half of them are for impeachment. sure. and how many of those are doing well in the polls? well, i think you've got to put in — joe biden is really the only leading contender who is not for impeachment. and he's cut — he is, as you say, he is trying to carve out for himself a position as sort of the moderate, the person who is in the middle, who is not taking on progressive causes, but is in effect moderating between the progressive wing of the party and moderate republicans. that's his — that's where he's trying to establish himself. why didn't you run? because last year you were clearly toying with it. you tempted and taunted a few reporters by saying that you weren't entirely sure what you were going to do. you've now said that you're not going to run for 2020. why? look, i said, ‘to me the biggest threat to the country is the president', that the biggest impact i could have was trying

to make sure that america stood up for the rule of law. who are you going to back, then? biden‘s at 32%. you've got to find someone to stop him if you want your kind of democrat to get to the white house. if you want a fighter who will push the impeachment of president trump, who is it? but, stephen, let me say this, you are acting like this is a one issue off by itself. the democratic party has a — is, you know — we're a — publicly — commonly described as a large tent. there are progresses in the democrat party, a bunch of them are running for president and they are very progressive on climate, they are very progressive on economics, there is a whole host of issues where there's in the democratic party, a range. who do you think right now has the voice that is closest to yours? look, we have spent a lot of time trying to figure out... give me a name. no, i'm not going to. why not? and i'll explain to you. because we're trying to figure out

the right strategy to push the power down to the people so they can make the smartest decision. and if you look at what we've done, that's what we do. we registered people to vote, we encouraged — we go door—to—door to encourage them to vote and we help get them to the polls. so what we're trying to do with propositions on the ballot to change the law directly, with turnout to vote strategies and by petition drives is actually not what you're describing, which is one person going to have his way with the system, but actually, to take the power away from elites and give it to the people so that the populations that don't participate, who are underserved and underrepresented actually can have their voices heard. that is a very interesting point to make. so that's what we're going to try and do in 2020 as well. well, my question to you would be how does a california, liberal, progressive, billionaire hedge funder become the guy who reconnects the democrats to those states that donald trump took in 2016 and which swung the election?

i'm thinking michigan, i'm thinking west virginia, i'm thinking 0hio, i'm thinking wisconsin... how, given everything you have described as your set of values, are you going to be the guy to reconnect the party with those voters? look, the people — in michigan, what we're going to do is what we did. by the way, michigan, wisconsin, pennsylvania were all huge democratic victories in 2018 and the reason was that democrats turned out. in fact, what you're — there's a real question. and i inherently disagree with what you're saying. because what we're saying is the way that michigan and wisconsin and pennsylvania become democratic is by giving people a straightforward, honest message about what they care about and getting them to turn out. in fact, there are many more democrats in the united states than republicans. and impeachment, which i come back to, gets in the way of that core message. i absolutely disagree. what we are pushing and impeachment is to do it now. this is something that is

a multi—month, but not a year—long process, not a six—month process. the whole — we've been pushing for hearings now to have this happen, let the american people see what it's in, make a decision and then move on. but in fact, this is something that is time—bound and urgent and that at some point it goes away. in a word, if you don't get your way... no, no, i want to answer your question because you are challenging me about me being the person in wisconsin, in michigan and pennsylvania. we were there. were were in every college campus in those places. but we're almost out of time and i've got one more important question. we were getting people to turn out and vote with their values, not imposing our values but making democracy work, which is what is not evident. what i said to you is we have a breakdown in democracy in the us. it's because people don't believe in the system. because 80% of the people think is a sham and what we're trying to to do is rebuild the idea of by and for the people, everyone gets an equal vote. so that's exactly what we're doing. that's what our organisation does and that's what needs to happen

for the united states to go back to being a vibrant, proud country. and a yes or no answer, please. laughter. if you don't get your way, impeachment into the house of representatives as you say, now, will you walk away and take your money away from the democratic party? first of all, you don't understand. we don't give money to the democratic party. we run programmes to energise voters and get them to come out and vote. it doesn't go through the democratic party. we run independent programmes really try and push power down to the people. so we're going to stop doing that. i guarantee we're not going to stop doing it. am i going to pout and take my ball and go home? stephen, what we're trying to do is something that we can't walk away from. we are in a crisis in the united states. you are acting as if this is partisan bickering over small ball. this is not partisan bickering about small ball, this is a question about democracy existing in the united states itself. if the president doesn't have to obey the law, if the president is a king who does — gets to do what he wants, fine, let's establish that. but if you want to set that precedent, i certainly don't. i don't think it's one

you can walk away from, i think it's one that will endure and it will make us a much worse country. tom steyer. stephen. that was more than one word, but i thank you, i thank you for it. laughter. thanks for being on hardtalk. thank you. hello there. it's been a really wet period for northern ireland. the best part of a month's rainfall has fallen in a day, that's nearly 50 millimetres of rain. fortunately, it doesn't look as wet through the day ahead but there will be showers around, notjust in northern ireland, but elsewhere. at the moment, we're sandwiched between these two areas of low pressure. this one has taken precedent.

and through the night that's brought some intense storms across the low countries which have been making their way northwards through the night across the southern north sea, just flirting with english coastlines. so don't be surprised if you see some lightening here and even catch some rain. but elsewhere, a little bit of dawn fog and a cool start with temperatures in single figures. given it'sjune, i think it will feel quite fresh this morning. but otherwise, some sunshine. before this rain makes its way into northern scotland, still potentially intense and heavy and for the northern isles, a wet day. but for northern ireland, near the area of low pressure, not as wet as it was yesterday, but with some slow—moving and heavy showers it's just persistent, heavy rain for the northern isles. we could see 15—20 millimetres of rain falling here through the day. heavy showers following on behind. and elsewhere across england and wales, i wouldn't like to rule them out anywhere, there could be a rumble of thunder but it doesn't look as wet or as cloudy in southern and eastern areas as it was yesterday evening. so some stronger sunshine around. but almost the calm before the storm

after the thunderstorms, we've got this more dominant area of low pressure bringing, we think, some disruption to iberia and the low countries, france in particular. it has been named as storm miguel. it's expected — so we're keeping a watch and brief — but it's expected to bring some very wet and windy weather towards our shores on friday. so it's heavy, driving rain, only slowly moving northwards, as it brightens there will be heavy thunderstorms following, so even though it's relatively warm air coming from the south, it won't feel that way with driving wind and rain. it does, however, look drier for northern scotland and quite warm in the north—west highlands, we could see 20 degrees. but by saturday, that low pressure's bringing the wind and the rain to the north. further south, by the time we get to sunday it's a day of sunny spells and showers. now saturday, let's put some more detail on that. you can it's thoroughly wet for some parts of england and scotland. northern ireland, heavy, slow—moving showers. still a few showers in the south and breezy, so it won't feel the 18 or 19 that we might see but it will be gradually drying up. sunday looks as if the winds ease, the rains pulling away, but there'll still be plenty of showers around. so, not ideal but it does look

like at the moment look like the drier, slightly warmer day of the weekend. as ever, there's more on the website.

this is the briefing. i'm sally bundock. our top story: 75 years on, preparing to commemorate the d—day landings on the beaches of northern france, veterans and world leaders will remember one of the biggest military operations in history. this is live footage of what is happening now on the beaches of normandy. a change of climate in denmark, mette frederiksen is set to be the country's youngest ever prime minister after fighting the election on environmental issues. borders and brexit. donald trump is rebuked after suggesting a wall could work out well for ireland. in business: