>> tom is a billionaire. a political activist and the democratic party donor. he spoke at an event arguing the legal case for impeaching president trump joined by law professors and activists with the group free speech for people. his remarks came on the same day the mechanic congressman al green of texas pushed for debate on articles impeachment on the house floor. lawmakers voted against the effort. the discussion iran one hour 20 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> that afternoon. i am the cofounder and president of free speech for people.

it's a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization launched on the day of the supreme court's citizens united ruling more than seven years ago and dedicated to defending our constitution and reclaiming our democracy. we have been co- leading with route to action, a campaign to impeach donald trump now, calling for impeachment investigation of the president. many have joined this campaign and it is backed by legal advisory board of constitutional scholars across the country including two law professors on this panel today. >> free speech for people is proud to be joining with the need to impeach campaign for this press briefing to discuss the legal case for an impeachment investigation of president donald j trump. >> we are releasing a white paper prepared by free speech for people and our

distinguished panel will discuss the legal rounds outlined in that document. i will introduce our panelists in the order in which they will be speaking. following their opening remarks, we will take questions from the media and we will close with the public signing of two documents, the white paper on a legal case friend pitchman investigation. >> our first speaker will be catherine ross. catherine is a constitutional law professor at george washington university law school. her book lessons and centuries ship how schools in court affect first amendment rights was named the best book on the first amendment by concurring opinions first amendment news and won the critics choice book award from the american education studies association. an elected fellow of the american bar foundation,

professor ross is a former chair of the steering committee on the unmet legal needs of children and former chair on the section of law and communitarianism of the association of the american law school. prior to entering legal academia, professor ross was a litigator in garrison new york where he won major impact litigation on behalf of the city's homeless population. a graduate of yale law school and holds a phd in history from yale university. professor ross will discuss the history of the constitution and the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors. following professor ross we will hear from mr. fine. he is the legal director of free speech for people he oversees the legal advocacy program. he previously served as assistant regional council in the united states environmental protection

agency new england office where he received epa's national gold metal for sectional service. , and achievement award and several other awards. he previously clerked for the united states court of appeals for the first circuit and douglas woodlock for the district of massachusetts. he is a graduate of stanford law school. he will discuss the following legal grounds for an impeachment investigation. the is directing law-enforcement to pursue political targets. he is abusing the pardon power, undermining freedom of the press and threatening nuclear war. next we will hear from jennifer, a professor at vermont law school. she researches and writes in the areas of corporate governance, financial market reform, securities regulation,

and white collar crime. she has testified as an expert between the banking committee and the subcommittee concerning banking and financial reform related matters. her first book, other people's houses, how decades bailout captive regulators and bankers made home mortgage a thrill in business was published in ma may 2014 by yale university press purchase also the co-author with the late kathleen of corporate and white-collar crime. it's published in 2017 by walters coor. in addition to the book, other people's houses, professor has written extensively on the financial crisis. period prior to joining academia, he was with fidelity investments and a graduate of

harvard law school. she will address corruption and the presence businesses, discussing the presidents ongoing violation of the foreign and domestic monument clauses of the u.s. constitution. we will then hear from the chair of the board of free speech for people as well as the legal committee. he is a former federal prosecutor and a former chief legal counsel to the massachusetts governor. he was a founding partner at the boston law firm, representing persons and entities in white-collar criminal proceedings, state and federal proceeding, complex business litigation and appeals and providing advice and i in government campaigns, ethics and related areas. his clients have included business professionals and them senior officials, small businesses and state and federal government. he previously served as the chair of the massachusetts governor's task force on public integrity. a bipartisan committee that led to landmark registration

overhauling the state ethics and campaign finance laws. he is a graduate of cornell law school. he will discuss the following legal ground for impeachment investigation. obstruction of justice and conspiracy with a foreign government to commit crimes against the united states including violations to campaign finance laws. he will also address why impeachment hearings should begin now. our final speaker will be tom. mr. stier is a progressive activist, philanthropist and environmentalist who believes we have a moral responsibility to ensure that all americans have equal access to economic opportunity, education and healthy environment. he is the president and founder of nexgen america which asked politically to prevent climate disaster, criminal prosperity and

protect the fundamental rights of every american. earlier this year he started the need to impeach campaign which has garnered more than 3 million signatures on a petition calling for present trumps and impeachment. it's backed by 20 million-dollar ad by which includes two television advertisements and time square billboards that will run through new year's eve, directing the public to sign the impeachment petition that need to impeach.com. mr. stier will discuss the campaign and why americans across the country are calling for impeachment proceedings to move forward now. our first speaker will be professor ross. >> thank you john. thank you all for coming. impeachment is an extraordinary remedy which should always be a course of last resort. as events quickly unfold, it's imperative that the citizens of this country understand the impeachment process and this significant role the founders expected to perform within the

structure of our constitutional democracy. i'm going to provide an overview of impeachment, its role and the grounds that have historically been understood to justify it. first, what is impeachment, and how does it work? the term impeachment is often misunderstood and misused. impeachment occurs when the house of representatives votes to adopt articles of impeachmen impeachment, a resolution that spells out allegations of wrongdoing by a public official. before that, the house would have directed one of its committees to investigate the allegation if the committee, after investigation recommends that the full house consider articles of impeachment, only a simple majority is needed to adopt the articles at which point the official has been impeached. after the house impeaches, it designates some of its members

to preven present full case. when a president has been impeached, the chief justice of the supreme court presides over the trial and at the conclusion of the trial, the senators vote on whether to convict. the senate requires a two thirds vote to convict in impeachment proceedings and if they convict, removal from office is automatic and immediate. the second question that comes up is what purpose is impeachment designed to serve? the constitution largely modeled impeachment on tradition in the british parliament as well as several state constitutions, both of which have founding fathers explained, regarded impeachment as a bridle that the legislature can use to rein in an executive who

overreaches. during the debates of the constitutional convention, madison argued that it was indispensable that some provisions should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, of the chief magistrate. in modern language, the president. joseph story, in his classic interpretation of the constitution elaborated. in england, he said, the constitutional maxim is that the king can do no wrong. in sharp contrast, the story wrote, the impeachment provision of our constitution acts as a check upon arbitrary power and compels the chief magistrate as well as the humblest citizen to bend to the majesty of the laws. in other words, we are a nation ruled by law.

impeachment offered an important reassurance to those who drafted and adopted the constitution. a reassurance that the american people who had just fought to overthrow the british king would not find themselves at the house of another desperate, to use the terms of the declaration of independence. madison explained, the two provisions of the constitution, in particular, protect against despotism. first that the president's term is limited to a certain number of years, and second that the president is impeachable at any time during his term of office. some scholars go so far as to say that the constitution would never have been adopted if it had not included provisions for impeachment. importantly, impeachment is not intended to punish the offending official, but rather to protect the body of politics by removing a lawless official in order to prevent further harm to the country.

finally, what are the grounds on which a president may be impeached? the constitution states that the grounds for impeachment are treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. treason and bribery have clear meanings, but what are high crimes and misdemeanors? again, trump commonly misunderstood. the phrase is a term of art that the framers understood from english history. high crimes refer to offenses committed against the state of public officials. high crimes and misdemeanors may, for example, threaten our constitutional order, or they may involve corruption that violates the public trust. impeachment and conviction by the senate do not need to be based on criminal acts. congress itself explained in 1989 that it has repeatedly defined other high crimes and misdemeanors to be serious violations of the public trust, not necessarily

indictable offenses under criminal law. indeed, less than one third of the impeachment by the house of representatives to date specifically involved a criminal statute or even use the word crime. federalist 65, written by madison again, explains that impeachment extends to the abuse or violation of some public trust. such violations may be political as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. it is generally agreed that he didn't mean political in the sense in which that word is used today. impeachment is not based on just anything that congress decides as gerald ford so famously and wrongly suggested. the renowned early 19th century commentator and

supreme court justice joseph story similarly summarized impeachable offenses as those committed by public men in violation of their public trust and duty. : through very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty. that brings us to more contemporary readings. in 2015, the nonpartisan congressional research service concluded that congress has historically used its impeachment power to reach a broad variety of conduct that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of office or it the grounds, the crs summed up,

generally but not always fall into two groups: abuse of power, behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office, and misusing the office for personal gain. finally the report explained that grounds for impeachment include abuse of a particular powers of government office. conduct that the congressional research service emphasized is unlikely to be barred by any criminal statute. only impeachment proceedings have the power to constrain such bad behavior by public officials who have not violated criminal law but are abusing their office in ways that damage the state. in concluding i note that every member of congress today swore an oath to support and descend the constitution. we, the people, who formed the republic should hold our representatives to that of. impeachment was designed as a safety valve for reigning in the

violation of the public trust. indeed, it's the failsafe at the heart of our constitutional structure and expressly designed to be used when a president threatens constitutional norms the institutions on which democracy rests or the rule of law. thank you. >> thank you, professor ross. our next speaker will be the legal director of free speech for people. >> thanks. i will begin with five categories of abuse of power that constitute grounds for an impeachment investigation and as professor ross noted not all impeachable offenses are ordinary crimes. these are not ordinary crimes but these five are serious abuses of power. these five categories are one advocating illegal violence to find the law.

two, of using the pardon power. three directing law enforcement to pursue political targets. for undermining freedom of the press and 25th, recklessly burning nuclear war. to set this in context as the late supreme court justice antonio scalia noted it is the proud both of our democracy that we have a government of laws and not of men. president trump takes a curfew which is foreshadowed in 2016 when he urged his supporters to knock the crap out of protesters. he promised i will pay for the legal fees. that discards the rule of law has continued throughout his presidency. for example, at a june white house meeting with native american leaders they complained to the president that federal law made it harder for them to mine coal. president trump's response was just do it. once you get it out of the ground are they can make you put it back in their? then in july he told police to be rough with arrested people

which police chiefs around the country understood as encouraging excessive force. in august, he issued a tweet that's appeared to suggest that members of the military should commit more crimes by executing muslim prisoners of war. that was two days after he insisted that there were very fine people among the violent white supremacist in charlottesville virginia. neo-nazis and whites from his openly expressed their appreciation as he retreated a white supremacist from britain. as president we can do more than just pay for the legal fees. with his political ally former sheriff joseph arpaio of arizona was convicted of criminal content of court for willfully violating a court order to stop the drivers illegally without section of the crime he offered that he was just doing his job and then he pardoned him.

that signaled that unscrupulous officials can follow trumps advice, violate individual constitutional rights and then when they lose in court they can violate a federal court order to stop doing that. mr. trumps pardon undercuts the constitutional guarantee of due process of law and the ability of courts to protect constitutional rights. the framers of our constitution worried about these problems in the federalist papers alexander hamilton warned that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics the greatest number have begun their career by attaining an obsequious court to the people commencing demagogues and tyrants. in the virginia convention that met in 1788 to debate whether to ratify the proposed constitution george mason was an opponent of the constitution warned that the president might pardon crimes which were advised by himself and so destroy the republic. but james madison often called the father of the constitution had a reply for george mason. he replied that if the president

use the pardon to shelter a person with whom he was connected in any suspicious manner then congress could impeach him and madison called this availability of impeachment for abuse of the pardon eight great security and that is not all. in 1925 the chief justice of the us supreme court former president william howard taft, opined that the president abused his pardon power that would suggest you resort to impeachment. president trump lack of respect for legal norms also extends to directing law-enforcement to pursue political targets. as we know he campaigned on a proper of [inaudible] but that is not about campaign rhetoric. over the course of 2017 since the inauguration mr. trump has repeatedly pressured the department of justice and the federal bureau of investigation to investigate and prosecute political adversaries including former campaign opponent hillary clinton and the democratic party. in 1940 robert jackson who is

the attorney general later served as a supreme court justice and the chief prosecutor in nuremberg warned that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power is picking the man or in this case, the woman and then putting investigators to work to pin some offense on her. the chief executive who uses law enforcement to persecute political enemies is characteristic of an authoritarian regime, not a constitutional republic. that is white republican and democratic presidents alike have respected the independence of law enforcement with the exception, of course, resident nixon in the second article of impeachment against president nixon specifically cited his use of federal investigative agency against political opponents. another dangerous of his power is the undermined freedom of the press which is enshrined in the first amendment and the supreme court has emphasized that only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose government. many presidents have contentious relationships with reporters and previous presidents have certainly sparred at times with

the media but previous presidents have understood the president's essential role in our democracy. from 2007 on world press freedom day then president george w. bush noted the united states values freedom of the press is one of the most fundamental political rights and necessary components of brief society. and undemocratic society where governments suppress and manipulate and control acts of information journalists are on the front line of the battle for freedom. president bush then went on to condemn harassment in journalists abroad. in stark contrast president trump has spent his entire presidency attacking the independent press as they can use and even the enemy of the american people. he suggest reporting the licenses of television networks with critical coverage. his a ministration has taken retaliatory measures against the independent press particularly news media that is subject him to critical coverage. furthermore his rhetoric has encouraged authoritarian

governments to attack the very us media the president trump criticizes. it endangers not only freedoms but the life and safeties of american journalists and as noted in origins of totalitarian the ideal subject of totalitarian rule is people whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist. president trump effort in danger the pillar of the first amendment and undermine the critical foundation of pre- society. finally, i have a brief note about the president's press against north korea on twitter and elsewhere threatening an attack. the situation in north korea is compensated and very difficult with no easy answers. the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and accepts the nation's foreign policy and is entitled to conduct diplomacy by unconventional means, if he chooses. but like all powers of the constitution confers on the president this too can be abused. by all accounts the country is

not in the hands of a well-informed president who carefully considers detailed information and councils from senior advisers with full information and full decisional capacity and then to take a calculated risk involving strategic gamesmanship instead it appears that donald trump is blundering ahead without considering or even understanding the risks of the conduct. his own secretary of state have called him a moron and an idiot and in one case, immediately following a meeting of the nuclear weapons. the us and north korea leadership don't understand each other very well intentions are high. the presidents threat of invasion or bombing could easily lead to a misunderstanding or miscalculation resulting in the use of nuclear weapons by either side or both sides resulting in a loss of life. just this year the military court upheld a court-martial conviction and ten month prison

sentence against the sergeant for reckless endangerment because he failed to properly inspect parachutes. the risks of the president's press with the potential for millions due to one discard of the risk are far greater. as it appears, the president is making these threats with reckless or wanton disregard for the risks of millions of dust that is a great abuse of power. these serious abuses advocating illegal violence and undermining equal protection of the laws of using the pardon power, directing law-enforcement to pursue political targets, undermining freedom of the press and recklessly threatening nuclear war are not defined in the federal statutes as criminal offenses and the probably not part of special counsel muller's investigation for their high crimes and misdemeanors because they undermined the rule of law, subvert our constitutional democracy, and put us all in great danger of the type of the founders would have been nice. there is still time for us to recover from the damage that president trump has already done to the republic but the window may be closing. congress must act now.

thank you. >> thank you, ron. next figure will professor todd of vermont law school spirit. >> good afternoon. my name is jennifer todd and i'm a professor at vermont law school. i teach business loss courses including white-collar crimes. my work often focuses on the importance of full and fair disclosure and efforts to combat fraud and corruption. the famous phrase from watergate follow the money is my mantra. i offer my remarks solely on my own behalf as an academic and on behalf of my law school or any other association. today i will discuss why congress needs to investigate whether the president has been violating the constitution emolument banned from the moment he took office. but before i do that i want to address an issue that must be at the forefront of your minds.

why now? why should the house begin in impeachment investigation now? why shouldn't we wait until special counsel robert mueller finishes his work? my colleagues here have begun to address this and i will also try to begin answering this question by revisiting this special counsel in the station. while muller's mandate is quite broad it is not unlimited. he is investigating whether donald trump presidential campaign coordinated with the russian government to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. plus, he is authorized to investigate and prosecute other federal crimes that arrived arise in the course of the investigation such as money laundering. his power also includes prosecuting anyone who intentionally interferes with his investigation. perjury, false statements, destruction of evidence, destruction of justice and

witness tampering, as a few examples. notably absent from this list however are high crimes and misdemeanors that are impeachable offenses but not federal statutory offenses. this would include a violation of the foreign and domestic emolument fans of the u.s. constitution. the founders intended these to be impeachable offenses and if they are not federal felonies. as a side there are federal crimes like obstruction of justice for which there is an impeachable analog that requires a different levels of proof. in other words, regarding the employment clause violation no matter how long we wait muller will never get to those and regarding high crimes and misdemeanors congress has the right and the obligation to pursue this independently of the special counsel's criminal investigation. so now let me focus on the emolument clauses.

there are two anticorruption provisions in the united states constitution. their purpose is to ensure that the presidents faithfully served the people free from inducements, foreign governments, individual states or other parts of the federal government. this was found in article one section nine, clause eight says in plain language that in the absence of congressional approval the president may not accept any president or payment whatsoever for foreign governments and officials. this precision derives from the articles of confederation and was modeled after a 1651 dutch rule. this was discussed during the constitutional convention and in the virginia ratifying convention said this about the provision. that if the president is discovered violating the foreign emolument clause he may be impeached. the founders wanted to prevent foreign influence and corruption. the concern was that the

financial dependence and business interest could impact his foreign policy decisions. the word emolument covers any financial benefit and this includes ordinary fair market value transactions. in terms of president trump this with leases on building, room reservations, other similar business ties where money flows to the president from a foreign government for officials. i'd like now to highlight a few examples that appear in the white paper. as "the washington post" has reported trump has over a hundred companies that have done business in 18 countries and territories around the world. one particular emolument magnet is at the trump international hotel right here in washington dc. according to one report at least one foreign embassy was actively pressured to change an existing reservation from another location to the trump hotel by the trump organization.

in may turkeys foreign economic relations cosponsored a conference at the hotel in september malaysia's prime minister and entourage of dozens stayed at the hotel and in late october mexico's former ambassador to the us recorded that he had learned from a former us diplomat that the current us a department official protocol now emphasizes to world leaders they should use trump dc hotel for official visits. in addition to the trump hotel here foreign governments also spend money and trust other us properties at least two entities controlled by foreign governments pay rent or fees extra buildings. this includes trump tower at 725 avenue in new york, one of the largest tennis there is the industrial commercial bank of china and this bank which is controlled by the chinese government leases the entire 20th floor. the kingdom of saudi arabia owns the 4025th floor of trump world tower at the united nations plaza which is another

trump building in manhattan and kingdom phase annual building amenity charges which back in 2001 exceeded 85000 a year. also, in other location the trump national golf club in northern virginia and in september hosted the turkish airlines world golf club which is sponsored by the state owned turkish airlines. as npr recently reported it seems that the trump properties that are doing well are those for which he is visiting indicating according to that reporting that people are incurring their favor with the president in gaining access and that is why they are visiting those locations. in addition, extensions of credit for foreign governments and foreign trademark approval and foreign government permits and approvals of all take place since he took office. these foreign governments permits from indonesia, philippines, turkey, uae and the united kingdom.

let me just briefly turned to the domestic emolument clause. that is also known as the presidential salary cause. quite simply and this is article two section one, clause seven. this is an outright prohibition of the president receiving any payments from the us government or the state beyond his salary. by outright i mean there is no mechanism in the constitution for congressional approval. examples of this include using the position as president to track private golf club members increasing the membership fee from 100,000 before 200,000 a year. often maintains the government buildings where his hotel is located and also we've included in the brief of property in government travel in executive branch action that benefits businesses and other subsidies and tax breaks in indirect payments. in conclusion, some of the

conduct described in our briefing overlaps with the congressional investigation of special counsel robert mueller. some even overlap the pending civil litigation involving emolument and some of the issues we talk about that are grounds for impeachment have no other legal procedures. what is important is that in impeachment investigation is entirely separate from a criminal or other judicial proceedings. the purpose of the patient is not to punish for offenses but to remove from office and official friends the rule of l law. congress must not use special counsel investigation or other cases to dodge its obligation to conduct an independent investigation. the abuse of power, the corruption and the threat to our republic are here now. now is the time to act. thank you. >> thank you. our next speaker is chair of the board of free speech for people.

>> thank you, john. thank you all of you for being here today. it is good to see you all. as john said i'm going to talk about two additional categories of impeachable offenses. first, the trump campaigns conspiracy to violate the campaign finance laws in enlisting the help of russian nationals in the russian government colloquial sometimes referred to by the media as collusion as well as the president and other illegal effort to conceal those violations and second the broader course of obstruction of justice by the president with respect to the investigations into the russian interference in our election and third i will speak about why we can't wait and why we need congress to act now. let me start with the conspira

conspiracy. federal campaign finance laws prohibit foreign nationals, including foreign governments, from cultivating anything of value, such as valuable information, to a candidate, to a campaign, with respect to any united states election. those laws also prohibit a candidate or campaign or others acting on their behalf from soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign national or foreign government. we now know from what is in the donald trump junior e-mails or at least earlier this year there was our appears to have been a conspiracy that included at least three members of the donald trump campaign and donald trump junior, jared kushner and paul manafort to violate these laws and the three of them in

particular arranged for and participated in a meeting with russian nationals as part of an effort to obtain incriminating information about candidate hillary clinton having been told ahead of time that the information was being provided at the direction or at the behest of or on behalf of the russian government to assist the trim campaign. the evidence is still developing as the extent to which and when candidate trump may have known of that specific meeting but we do have publicly available evidence and information indicating that he was told months before just a couple of months before that june 2016 meeting with the russian by his then a foreign policy advisor george papadopoulos of mr. papadopoulos' efforts to coordinate with the russians and

to perhaps help set up a meeting between canada trump and vladimir. we also of course know that the president made it very clear his own support for the efforts to enlist the help of the russian in the campaign when they publicly called on the russian government in july 2016 tupac shakur hillary clinton's e-mails and release them to the united states media. perhaps even more important we know that while president the president engaged in an effort with his son and others to conceal these violations by personally dictating a statement given by donald trump junior that falsely suggested that the meeting with the russians had nothing to do with the presidential campaign. this act of concealment is part of a much broader pattern of obstruction of justice by president trump with respect to

investigations generally into russian interference in the election. beginning the very early stage of this presidency and for several months thereafter president trump engaged in a flurry of activity all designed to undermine and to interfere with and to ultimately shut down the fbi's investigation and the broader investigation into russian interference. within a week of his inauguration the president met and spoke privately with then director of the fbi james comey and tried to get a loyalty oath, essentially as a bride from james comey in exchange a quid pro quo for me been able to keep his job. soon after that even thohere we are now told by the president that he knew michael flynn had lied to the fbi he asked comey to go easy on flynn and then he asked comey to abandon the investigation completely and

then he improperly enlisted intelligent officials to interfere with the fbi investigation and when none of that succeeded in squelching the investigation he simply fired james comey and then he directed the attorney general and the deputy attorney general to come up with a false pretense for the firing. finally, he threatened james comey against going public with the conversation insinuating that he had comey on tape. there is simply no humanly rational explanation for this course of conduct other than that the president was attempting to obstruct the fbi investigation but if there were any doubt the president and then went on national television and told lester holt that is exactly what he had in mind and that the real reason he fired comey was because of the russian investigation. of course, he also told his friend the russian investor that that was the reason he fired mr. comey. the case of so compelling that

his lawyer and backers are now reduced to saying that the president is legally incapable of committing obstruction of justice because he has authority over the department of justice and therefore in their view he can do or say anything he wants with respect to any doj or any fbi investigation. this is a dress and dangerous argument. first of all, completely misunderstands the nature of obstruction of justice. the very reason that the law recognizes a criminal offense of obstruction of justice and recognizes as it up each of offense when committed by a federal official is that we recognize that certain acts may be perfectly legal on their face, by themselves, but if committed with a self-interested or other corrupt purpose of

interfering with the lawful government investigation they become illegal. this ludicrous argument offered by the presence defenders suggest something much more dangerous that we party talked a little bit about today. this is a president who believes and forces his supporters and subordinates to believe that because he is president whatever he does and whatever he says can do and that makes it legal. but this is a common additional democracy, not a monarchy. the last time a president took the view that when the president does it, it's legal, more than four decades ago congress stepped in to restore the rule of law in congress began impeachment proceedings against richard nixon and forced him from office. it was one of france's finest hours in today congress has faced a far more corrupted, far

more lawless president who has far less respect for the constitutional than even richard nixon and if we are to restore the rule of law and if we are to preserve our constitutional democracy we need members of congress to dig deep and find their conscience and find their backbones. to this point those are both few and far between in congress. aside from seven patriotic members of congress who have not seen conscious or backbone. in fact, we are hearing from many quarters perhaps most prominently from minority leader, nancy pelosi, the talk of impeachment is premature. we need more evidence and that we can't have impeachment been used as a political tool. in the face of the violation that you have heard us outline today which just scratched the surface these kinds of comments

would be laughable if they weren't so dangerous. we are not here talking about political differences or policy differences and were not even talking about borderline or questionable or minor high crimes and misdemeanors. were talking about a whole host of core crimes and misdemeanors that are unquestionably mutual. of the eight or nine categories that we have discussed today, at least four of them have very clear historical precedents as being impeachable offenses. ...

>> >> but also worth noting that the argument by then dismissing and removing the fbi director to stop the investigation foodies own campaign could be the impeachable offense but to believe that the removal of the meritorious federal office but as has outlined to clearly recognizes that impeachable contact recognized by the supreme court going after your political enemies by using

law-enforcement is one of the other articles of impeachment against nixon. so with a less historical record that is not impeachable to never have a president who defies the rule of law. i want to briefly highlight in we have covered this but why the notion that we need to wait a special counsel and first of all, the jurisdiction is limited to two of those areas. so with the corruption

undermining the constitutional rights those are all sufficient grounds on their own. second of all the evidence is already there congress does not need to wait it is overwhelming with an adequate basis and third invested asian is limited to criminal offenses and there is a much applied whether or not it is criminal. lastly, we cannot afford for the american people to wait moeller investigation is proceeding diligently and

effectively otherwise it will be over in the near term and in the meantime the reckless corrupt denigration of the rule of law and the risk as he presents catastrophic damage to the country or to the world is growing by the day. it is time for republicans and democrats to put country ahead of party it is time for republicans and democrats to put the constitution the national welfare the national safety this time for the impeachment investigation now. thank you. >> final speaker from the need to impeach campaign. >> afternoon thanks for

coming also to the profs for compelling legal analysis it was scary and depressing to hear about where we are and where we might be going at the same time the president claims to be above the rule of law is reassuring to hear such passionate defenses for the constitutional system. we will remain a nation of laws as long as voices like there's continue to speak up since we kicked off the need to impeach campaign the have and asked why such an extreme step and why now? the undeniable truth is that this is the unprecedented moment in history ascenders from both parties are seeking to limit the president's nuclear authority because he cannot be trusted with the launch codes you after the knowledge the president is a

clear and present danger to the american people. you know what and congressional democrats space and members of his own party and administration know it. that is why over 3.3 million americans have already demanded a strong and historic response. levy me clear this is not a question of policy for cabinet picks are the focus to serve corporate profits or the tax proposal or the health proposal or the budget the matter how deeply we disagree with all of that part of this crisis stems from recklessness and gross abuse of power. i am not a legal scholar of like everybody else here but you have heard explanations how his actions amount to impeachable offenses

violations of the millions clauses and obstruction a long list that means they have no shortage of reasons for the constitutional standard for impeachment so what is the appropriate response to the president did president takes actions our previously thought unthinkable to put the health and safety of the american people a risk? as once noted a bad president ought to be kept in fear of the impeachment our congress has a moral obligation and a constitutional duty to act that these legal scholars have laid out today the administration wants to focus the public's attention on campaign pollution they

did this because they know there is no legal statute and it distracts from a clear violation. llord have evidence the campaign and transition teams collaborated with a hostile power and they're already indictments over it the president has twice admitted to obstructing justice and with the honest accounting of his record shows deep-seated disdain for democratic institutions and american values. we although the authoritarian impulses and while we can say that so far they have constrained the worst of his behavior as it is now the question how long they can control them or he will leave them then if not

broken. with the very health of our democratic self-government. but said d.c. establishment and leaders in congress impeachment is premature to and they want to call that a distraction. in effect become a they say that they know better than the american people but we followed conventional political wisdom into this mess and more of the same will not lead us out when members tried to temper our calls for impeachment we have to recognize that not acting is also a choice. it is an action with potentially devastating consequences. that choice signals matter

how far out of bounds he takes us we know this if we do not forcefully respond he will continue to devolve is the interest behavior will continue to escalate and chip away at their rule of law as long as he is an office we cannot hope with patience this president will rise to the occasion of his office he will not because it is not in his major economic expect his advisers to restrain his lawlessness. they can they serve at his pleasure because they rely on his hard-core supporters

in real need to wait for the special prosecutor's investigation to conclude what needs to be done. of god bless robert moeller but we don't need his findings to understand the danger this president represents to all of us each and every day. over the last year we have been reminded of essential human truths the march of history does not follow that the progress though great power is invulnerable while freedoms and liberties may be defined and by a higher power it is time to recognize the need for citizens to act with the other leaders in washington want to or not.

for everyone to understand to take a courageous stand we're calling on the american people to demand his impeachment with more than 3 million to confront the liars and deniers and raised their voice with powers to remind members of congress that their job is to represent us and protect our interest to do what is right to join us to push an end to the presidency. 229 years our constitution represented a promise we to form a society with dignity and justice for all under god. and equal treatment under the law. this of land by for the people it is the will of the people.

today the president opposes an existential threat to that promise that we cannot endure for another 229 years. >> thanks tom now we will open for questions. so if ron could outline the grassroots activity taking place finish the question of impeachment has them on the table?. >> we have a grass-roots campaign active around the country with some success we are encouraging people to use local governments as an opportunity.

with a guide for local activist with 20 cities and towns around the country calling upon congress to call on those investigations we know others are in progress through town meetings and city councils also we got a lot of people to have meetings with members of congress obviously there is more work to be done but we think we're off to a great start and people are fired at to get moving on this. >> "usa today" but the question is for tom but how do you break through? that

people are active about health care so hard to break through and specifically with bill and the advertising and petitioned you really have a plan to put pressure on members of congress that you can summarize?. >>. >> our strategy very straightforward is to go to the american people to in effect get them to participate in the direct democracy as opposed going to the members of congress so that it becomes overwhelmingly obvious for those that are sitting at the table.

if you look at the polling you will see if it is true of the people are scared of the president and he makes them extremely nervous about their future facts and they agree he should be impeached but they are way ahead of those officials. we are not convincing anyone but to give them a forum but in effect to restore the democracy to get the will of the people of back but i am aware this has to be a long billed to get the momentum so what will happen over time almost on a daily basis

there is an argument of many of which have been explained of why we are right or people think it is not the time or not urgent that every single day there is evidence they are wrong. so there is a combination of momentum of the increased participation by the public and increased evidence the people that the lay to take no action will save the decision is made is a bad one. >> sometimes i fake to get people to step forward i know there are organizations like move on preparing the readiness effort should the

president fired special counsel moeller web site you can go to to find out the local place to flood the streets to meet and the plan is it is down to details of the fiery is an ounce before 2:00 p.m. in it is everywhere at 5:00 or after that is the next day at 12:00 noon. so other grass-roots organizations are incredibly well-organized and i certainly hope that could be the moment to bring people together. >> remember 1974 with nixon. i am sure you were a toddler but fear there were the watergate hearings the

longtime of momentum building for the people of america who don't spend there-- focused on politics together could experience a was going on in order to absorb the information of what was going on and become aware of what had happened and the players in what they were like and leading up to congress's decision to impeach him and his decision what to resign was a long process of information and momentum around the idea what happened was improper and the impeachment was the necessary process that is what we are undergoing right now. it is a very serious and sober undertaken in also

doesn't happen overnight but we have to the understand called reckless in abusive and dangerous this president is in raise their voices together to make it decision and that is the process we are in the middle of. >> and the watergate hearings were also a way to educate the american public because they have full-time jobs but very courageous members of congress and the way that they handled those witnesses to explain the of constitutional provisions and it took a very long time

from beginning to end then that is another response is it premature? it will not happen overnight and while it is quicker than the criminal process of appealing to the supreme court, it is a painstaking and collaborative unfolding for go that doesn't mean it then send a resolution but that it isn't that much longer through new and amazing developments. >> but to elaborate not so much of convincing the american people or convincing them to do something about it. polls show 50 percent that is more than opposing

impeachment these numbers are extraordinarily high. never this early in the presidency has been that kind of support for impeachment not even the lead up to the nixon impeachment proceedings were those kinds of numbers so the american people are there the question is bringing congress around. >> i with bloomberg news having a lot of sway asthma the politicians that you talk about maybe expressing concern for also people who attend to rely of the political affiliation. so to take a stand on

impeachment?. >> i will outline of little more clearly of what next in america really does as a grass-roots organization to citizen contact to engage the citizen does we can. so to talk to young people are going door-to-door we knocked on $12.5 million of 370 college campuses in

registered over 8 million people for so when people think of us or vienna as a political donor of what we do so when i think about what we're doing with this campaign it seems to be exactly the same thing that we're trying to enable the broadest democracy and the united states to specifically looked at those communities because we believe the broadest democracy is the answer to our problems we really are going to the american people for a reason that they will lead in the election -- elected officials have to follow so as opposed to we

go directly to the american people to ask them to raise their voices that they recognized in their heart they agree with us and over time it is an unstoppable force in american society. >> you do write checks and hold fund-raisers but nancy pelosi next year as a result >> do we have a litmus test? the answer is no we will go about our business to get the grass roots organization

honestly that is the overwhelming bulk and that is something that we believe it as valuable in and of itself and entirely consistent. >> we talk about not waiting for the investigation to conclude but do you think waiting would hurt the tenses or you don't want to drag it out?. >> i think the main point we don't need to wait because of the daily threats because of that damage happening to our democracy and

constitution but i do think there is a misguided notion from some circles that if we just wait and -- wait for the of moeller investigation to conclude we will have the smoking gun we're waiting for. we have had so many smoking guns that the grounds for impeachment are so beyond the pale there is a very real danger what moeller has to say is a lot more of the same stuff that does make it easier to say we already knew that he was corrupt and obstructed justice the we didn't do anything about it so why now? that is the danger.

>> so with the conspiracy and obstruction of justice so isn't that he enough why are you focusing such as the financial conflict of interest?. >> moeller focuses on obstruction of justice why are all the others being listed?. >> as many people mentioned this is about rule of law and president trump hopefully will be the only president me ever have we have future elections and future presidents it is a terrible precedent to violation of the

constitution if we do not address them them what message does that send to a future president? that is up to moeller to prove anything his grand jury would indict people to the house of representatives so there is some debate with my former law professor if they could be indicted and prosecuted i believe that they can but it is a whole different process even if they were why should we have someone still in office not only for their past crimes. >> part of that protective

purpose of impeachment is to prevent president trump to commit these offenses but also the complete erosion of norms and that is why we concluded in particular to those statutory provisions others are based on abuse of power and not tied to a specific statutory provision but he had shattered to the norms to constrain previous presidents but not with this provision what you can or cannot do as president if not then the president is taken not only for trump of future presidents that is why it is important not including those grounds that

it would validate for future presidents as well as trump himself. >> still looking at that investigation which is why we issue the white paper today and also jointly to impeach to the united states congress we will know close with the public sighting of that document thank you for being here. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

select edit states court of appeals for the fourth circuit. [inaudible]