the two bullets whizzing by my head. [laughter] my answer is i would be honored to serve the nation again and how that unfolds i don't know but for those to embrace with serving the country whatever form it makes sense to you. thank you very much.

>> law in policy institute, we try to uphold value of democracy and stactd for equal justice and rule of law and we work to craft and advance reform ares that will make america work for all of us. tonight we're proud to welcome the catch all a guy who spend almost as much time at supreme court as justices themselves. two year ago when he was arguing his 35th case, he broke a record set by the late marshal for most supreme court argument by a united states history. next week, neil will argue his 40th case a at the supreme court. also at the yiet under president obama he's the pall and patricia founder of national security law of a georgetown he's a partner

of a hogan levels he's played himself in an episode of house of cards. [laughter] and this is little more known fact he can hamilton lyrics on demand now written a remarkable case for the imoach m of donald trump join bid michael president of the center. mike sell a constitutional lawyer and writer, who is an expert on presidency and a american democracy. michael seived in clinton white house from '93 to ' 9 working for the last american president to face impeach m. we'll be making time for your questions tonight you should have found cards and pencils on your seats and pass them down aisle to make time for as many question as we can and with that gentlemen -- [applause]

>>good evening everybody, and welcome to this important conversation on a critical issue a critical moment in our country's history. a critical -- [inaudible conversations] a critical we're being listened to that's good. [laughter] trust me they've got the wrong room if -- you know. hello to everybody who is watching on c-span. it is aing big moment for the country and big moment for the constitution -- whoop -- it is not. can't think of everything. hello again. nothing is changed. [laughter] it is a big moment. did i mention that? there have only been three other

attempts to have presidential impeachment it is a core way our system over two plus centuries has invasion checking and blangsing and curbing the potential power of an impeach m chief executive. it is a moment when we're all learning a lotting together at the same time. and we're really fortunate and privileged here tonight to be hearing if from an talk p taught by as you've heard one of the country top scholar who written a new important new book called impeach. the case against donald trump. and we're all ready to learn and be students is tonight. neil, the most basic of questions, i suppose is why did you write this book and how did you write this book? [laughter] >> okay. well first of all i want to thank you michael and the

brennan center because what the brennan center does is so near and dear to my heart when i had privilege of arguing voteing rights act case in defending the constitutionality your work as center was so important in how i thought about about it and even just last week i was looking at the incredible piengdz and fees report that you put out another thing that i spent a lot of time litigating and thinking about, and you were at the forefront of really trying to make this country a better place. and it's such a privilege to be here. tonight with you-- so the book, though, it began because you know it was night of october fourth the book didn't exist as an idea until the night of october fourth and so i guess that's two monthing ago basically. i was at dinner with a bunch of my friends and i just written a piece on september 20th hour after ukraine l allegations broke saying that i thought it

was very significant and would lead to impeachment and many cowas notorious guy named george conway and when we wrote the piece in the post, a bunch of people including someone who claim to be nation impeachment expert we're like that's ridiculous and neil you don't know anything about politics nothing is going to happen. well, as, you know, events unfolded by october fourth it was clear that something was happening. that this was a very serious thing, and so i asked my friends around the table what should i do? i mean, i have call for doing a tv show, podcast this, that the other -- and i didn't know i wanted to ask them what would work because i thought this was simple. and incredit serious and what i was so worried about to have the same thing of what happened in the mueller investigation which see spin up the and nobody getting so confused that the truth kind of falls by the

wayside and i naively thought you heard me like a supreme court leader i'm not a person on tv. this is not what i dod but i need naively thought a year ago well maybe if i did that if i talked about it on tv and talked it to big audiences that people would understand the stakes and the truth is that chaff and everything overwhelmed it. so that's what i was asking them what is there to do? and one of my friend howard said well crown, you're going hate this but i really think you need to write a book. i said -- i can't write a book i have like five supreme court case this year, and everything else going on. and he's like no you need to do it and i said i can't do if t. he said you can do it in two week ib that's impossible. he said yes you have a great collaborator great coauthor and taught impeach element 20 times at georgetown you can do it. fibs no way i have four more glasses of wine and wept home

went to sleep. at 2 a.m. i woke up -- and i'm like i can do it. [laughter] and so i got up at 2 a.m. set up proposal a proposal a draft was done, and i made one phone call when it was a decent hour probably 9 a.m. and i made it to sammy somewhere around here. there -- so sam is the most brilliant wrung writer i know. and i knew this because i was invited i had the speech that freaked me out mine asked me to give commence m speech so i was totally freaked out back in may i did 48 drafts or something and i showed it to my friend brian who said you to do is have my son sam read it he's the best writer i know and he made the thing beautiful, and so -- on that night on that morning october 5th i called sam, and i

said hey, you know, i got this kind of crazy idea. you want to do it with me? and he's leak yeah. [laughter] so -- so that's how in two weeks basically and we went to the publish publishers and said you know who can print this the fastest and this is not the first book i ever did i'm not a book person, and you know it is so crazy like, you know, the the tree there's a tree shortage. and -- like the paper had some of the publishers use paper from china and trover trump was screwing around with that and half of the folk here tonight they said look if you can give us a final on october 25 ath we guarantee it will be in store on shelves -- november 26 so we did. so we could go today the book came out.

how fast do you type? >> i typed a 130 words a minute i learned on mechanical. >> second bock you can take a month. [laughter] >> solet take us become to philadelphia in the summer the sweltering summer of 1787. when the founders were drafting the constitution and we, of course, know a lot about it because of madison notes which were not released at the time. they didn't give that much thought overall to the presidency and it power. but they gave a lot of thought to this. why did they put impeachment in the constitution and where did they get it from? >> yeah so one of the reasons i wrote this book was to tell this story and some other stories because the neat thing about this and i know we're all like now and post hamilton so american history can be interest. this see really interesting, and simple and fun. and so the story about

philadelphia is that you know a lot of founders didn't actually think we needed impeachment in the constitution. like gary said you know, look we have reelections, the president ising going to run for reelection and this is before the constitution amendment that limbed president institute materials. so gary said look why don't we just basically use that to police airing executive or really evil executive vote them out of office, and others said madison and hamilton in particular said well wait a minute, what if you have a president who has beholden to former power what if you have a president who she's on the reelection. and that leads even gary to say oh, no we need impeachment clause in the constitution. so those remark public things about this is that -- if you were to -- if hamilton and madison err gary and others were here and you asked what's the case per

impeachment, this is literally it. [laughter] and there was a big debate in philadelphia about what should be the standard for impeachment offense and ultimately they seelingsed on phrase treason, bribery or other high crime and misdemeanors. there was an initial proposal that mall administration would be encompassed and that was rejengted because it would weaken the executive too much. that's something i believe and a i get so much hate mail about this from the left every day like why isn't child separation in there, for example as an all of impeachment? and so on -- like there's no one who, you know, i'm as torn up about child separation as anyone, and i think it is evil and grotesque. but i don't think that is what our founders thought of as a

high crime and misdemeanor i don't think they meant it for policy difference what is they really meant it for -- when you go back and study philadelphia, is one simple thing is the president putting his personal interests over those of the american people? and that's why that word high is in there. so high when in terms of high crime a and misdemeanors it doesn't actually mean a crime. it really means an offense against the state. and that's what had the word high is single kind of king and things like that. you're doing something that is a portrayal of your oath. you know as lawyers one of the term we use is pa fiduciary responsible you have a responsible you have to put your interest behind those subordinate and you have a president or something like that. you have to do that.

that's rile what i think the word high means here is that, and that's why the president that's why the founder settled i think on that formation it is a tight standard it is not something that's going to encompass policy differences but it doesn't always mean there has to be a crime and we know that a crime is neither necessary nor sufficient we learn this very early on in our history when we have a guy named burr who shot and killed hamilton. and burr was, of course, the sitting vice president at the time. and book tells a story and hope away and basically you know, there wasn't a call for burr impeachment he committed a crime. no doubt but it wasn't a high crime it wasn't a crime against the state. they're against people the public trust and therefore this was not impeachable offense. >> he didn't the shoot someone on fifth avenue. >> no --

in new jersey. [laughter] >> they were very choired about tyranny and they were worried about abuse of power and they talked a lot about what we knew jog washington wases going to be president and reassured themselveses while we don't have a crime well caesar but well that the president would be head of state and that removal of the head of state was something that had not really been done before and ben franklin said well the orem did i is assassination. why design with house vote for impeachment and senate engage no trial? >> so i think maybe take one step become and understand a little bit the constitution design. so our constitution and you know this is my view it's the view of i think many scholar but not all scholars but that our founders really did establish a strong presidency what i believe is a true unitary executive not the way that chainny and others have

perverted it to mean basically president can do whatever he wants. but it is a strong presidency. hamilton says in federal 6 a president that can act with secrecy and dis. and has awesome power you want that because often times i know this is a shock to everyone congress can't get stuff done and so -- you need a president sometimes to come in and do an about when had there's a swift need to do so. and so step one of the founders thinking was -- we want to have a very robust presidency. e step two, is then the the constitution we're having between michael and i right now okay if you have a strong presidency, what do you do when that president air and when that president doing something grave wrong is hold to a foreign power and as michael says well, you know james ben franklin said if we don't have impeachment in the constitution, then alternative is assassination, obviously, not

a great result. and so impeachment is put in within a legal system to try and remove a president but again they wanted to do so only with a really serious bar, high crime misdemeanor, and then by process the in general the way our constitution work for ordinary legislation as well house and senate to pass it two to tango there's only four instances in constitution in which a single house can do something like the senate can vote to confirm nominee to judicial fellowship or ratty treaty but in general architecture is house and senate because they represent the distinct interest one more state interest one more popular. and so that's the way in which that compromised developed into the impeachment clauses i.t. the simple majority vote the in the house of representatives is enough to impeach.

a two-thirds vote in the senate is necessary to convict and a remove a president. and that two-thirds vote is also required for example for treaties. let's look at how that system has played out over the century since. since we've never actually got ton point of having the two-thirds vote to remove a president. one broad question -- looking at the andrew johnson impeachment, richard nixon impeachment, the bill clinton and time when congress chose not to impeach say it would be an example. there was the -- develop a notion that you needed perhaps abuse of public trust but needed to be actual crime involved also. is that actually necessary or is that all political way or where do you see that argument? >> i don't see that argue at all i don't think either

constitution scholar or president of these impeach ms is really about a standard that you need a crime. i do think and i hope we talk about that i do think crime were committedded here so if that's your standard trump, you know, easily meet it. but i don't think that is -- the lesson from those impeachments. and i just, you know, there's so many things that aren't crimes and certainly weren't crimes in 1787 that are undoubtedly impeachable offenses in the constitution as impeachable offense was not a crime in 1787 in the federal code. so i don't think it could -- that could be the standard but it would mean for example, the president undoubtedly has powers to, for example, just wake up and say i really hate justin trudeau i'm going to nuke him, and hopefully hypothetical. but -- [laughter] >> on macron so -- >> exactly. so you know, but you know now would be absolutely impeachable

offense and hard to pin it to some crime. there's nothing in the u.s. code that would be violated by the president's action there. so i don't think that's the standard. but i do think that each of the impeachment does teach various listens you mentioned johnson imoach some andrew johnson was a -- really a terrible president. and you know kind of got there a little bit -- or quite a bit by accident. and was impeached but he was impeached not because of, you know, what he was really guilty of which is -- you know selling racial division and trying to destroy and redo result of the civil war and reconstruction. but he's impeached for violation of the tenure of office act. which was a technical violation about when you could fire cabinet officials and indeed, you know, 735 year later supreme court said the president has the powered to what andrew johnson

was doing. so you know, that didn't actually capture the grab the of the complaint against president johnson. so to me the the lesson that is taken from johnson is not there must be a crime. in fact, the ten or injury of office act i think was a criminal statute as well as a civil one. but rather you know, the articles really have to they can't be like articles that leak we found you on this or that and it is a slam dunk. they've got actually to be the heart of what the complaint subpoena against the president. and so here, you know, the heart to me is the president cheat or attempting to cheat on the 2020 election with the help of a foreign government. and yes there's other stuff that can come in. but that's had the the heart of the complaint. >> one of as a former e speech writer one of my favorite things about the andrew johnson impeach system one of the of articles was that he went on speaking

tour and spoke in a, quote, loud voice. and abused congress in the speaking tour and this was considered a -- actually a breech of the norm of the time. the nixon impeach, of course, was and for those of you who don't remember -- after a year of congressional hearings and year of criminal investigation by special prosecutors, when it was voted out on a bipartisan basis by the house judiciary committee and summer of 1974. and i think most people regard that as thing having all of the ingredients of what really ought to be looked for and impeachment. what are you draw as lessons in analogy to trump situation from water gate and how that play out? >> i think one really important lesson is we think about nixon is note of the

substantive underlie crime there was the break-in and "watergate" e here it is cheat on election. but what's the president's reaction to investigation? how, you know, i have the privilege of working for two presidents i didn't work very closely with clinton i did work more closely in obama. and i have to sigh like obama instinct would be less about self-preservation and more about the preservation of the institution of the presidency. that's how he generally filtered stuff. i feel like nixon was our first president in a long, long time to really always do view through the lens of himself and so when the "watergate" of investigation started to unfold what did he do? he said none of my executive branch employees can go and testify it. in congress -- and i'm not going to turn over any information whether the senate do in response -- senate said okay we're going to start jailing executive branch

employee and thatted led nixon to actually back down not because he was principal an believed that mirren people should find out truth but didn't want folk jailed to see that happen, and so on march 12th, 1973 he backed down and allows his wpses all right his executive branch employees to give evidence in congress. but then later had as thes are discovered he said i'm not going to turn those over those are my personal private states he states executive privilege all sort of stuff all over them and investigators subpoena it. that goes to court. the dc district court rules very quickly that tapes have to be turned over nick sob justice jpt files an mench appeal to the supreme court. they skip over the court of appeals and the supreme court of the united states within two monthses of this case even starting or two and a half months april to july 15th, they

say nixon you have to turn up those tapes and none other than appointed by president nixon that has the rule of law and it is best, and you know if there's you know anything that i try to say in the book it is this vision of what justice is is. i mean it's literally the statue is lady justice is blind. the idea is it doesn't matter if you're rich or pour or republican or in the, man, woman, african-american or white whatever -- you should go the same basic standards and so in a bock ask i say -- all this is how i each any law student on day one everybody has biases if you like a korpg pretend that parties retired and think about it from the other side. and so with this -- i think any impeachment and i felt this was true in clinton as well while i was inned administration you think about -- if the shoe were on other foot if in this for ukraine if the

president was obama and did all of this. how would you feel? if he tried to go to cheat on his reelection campaign by going and getting information from another government? and now ting that question has to be asked and i'm sure we'll get into this later but particularly house report today with other 100 pages detailing the obstruction that -- that trump has engaminged in. you know how would you feel if a president clinton, obama, elizabeth warren, whomever, said oh this this impeachment inquiry against me is illegitimate i wouldn't bother or gag every executive branch employees i'll prevent every document me mail from try to be turned over. that's the end of our constitutional democracy. >> and in nixon imoachment the obstruction of the another investigation was one of the principle count that was obstruction of justice involving pay hush money to burglars but

obstruction of legitimate constitutionallal function that was part of it. it's pretty clear a move to impeachment is the difficulty of actually enforcing subpoenas and enforcing document requests and forcing check he is and balances. and the very first discussion as i understood it of executive privilege among george washington aids, they when they were talking about i think the j treaty or something like that. they said well, of course, if this were impeachment we would have to turn over everything that was in the constitution but this was strongest moment constitutionally is that right no hfnl 100% so everything michael say is right so you know, whether or not you can assert executive privilege if it is in the ordinary congressional investigation, that's something that happens this trump administration has been lit gadgetting in d.c.

it's something to a more limited exe tent have done and obama invoked executive privilege for fast and furious investigation but still turned over thousands of pages of documents. and there were i think 12 different hearings on the hill with government witnesses. as opposed to the kind of just absolute 100% stone wall that you have today. but that's all about ordinary investigations when it comes to impeachment, rules are very different so starting with i think the, you know, you've got the washington example your president poll in 1886 who really details in a long way. look nibble executive privilege he say there's all sorts of reason why presidents need to have some information that is secret but the one exception is impeachment because that's in the constitution. it is part of our laced into our kind of key safeguard for separation power, and just to make this not ab instruction but relevant today, so president, the white house counsel was

supposed to be the lawyer for the president c not the president. but this one -- i think only uses job as one thing. wrote a letter on sunday in this follows an eight panel letter that he wrote before the so-called crayon letter, and -- [laughter] and this one says basically impeachment investigation is ill religion we're going to participate or sending lawyers to complain that lawyer weren't allowed to come to it. and it say that we're doing what past presidents have done including nixon and clinton and no one to talk about -- clinton in your experience in a mommy. but -- you know, no president has ever invoik vehicled executive privilege on impeachment part anded or investigation but neither nixon nor clinton did so when it came to the the actual stuff about impeachment and

wasn't that your experience? >> yeah. well so -- in both nixon and clinton cases, in the nick nixon case a criminal investigation in the justice department and then two special prerts. and congressional hearings, as you know in the clinton dis, it was entirely in an investigation over course of a year done through the special prosecutor kenneth car, there were a lot of fights over witness and production of testimony could secret service agents be compelled to testify about what they heard or saw while protect the president and the white house for the very first and i think last time said it was protective privilege these were a lot of thing but they were in the context of a criminal investigation. ...

>> it is emphatically the case that clinton resisted as much as he could but he did cooperate and certainly thought to start investigating that matter either the constitution ability just to say it is a fraud and a hoax. >> but that was built on some modicum of good faith by the

president and actors in congress. even though madison and federalist 51 with the checks and balances. but i don't think they envision this level of shamelessness that we are seeing. so we have a president who just doesn't care about the legacy he has created only cares about right now and himself. >> maybe if they were worried about their own party it has been a parlor game but what those impeachments have played out in a world of fox news. and turn to that impeachment.

even before they knew at the mall report was saying and had been reluctant up until that. but when this came down there was very little hesitation. you embrace that as well. why ukraine and not russia emoluments clause and everything else. >> this is different for a few reasons that this involves the president's actions soul moeller was really what the trump campaign did in 2016 as a candidate. the allegations here of strong

presidency and also impeachment the president was using his powers foreign affairs like holding a paid and when you could have a white house meeting and flexing the powers but to do so for personal ends is different we would feel horrible running for the highest office in the land but there is something distinctly wrong with the person who is a sitting president using the powers that way. if this president gets to do it and every president gets to do it and even that one check in the constitutional religion will --dash reelection goes

against the campaign. so moeller is bogged down with a serious investigator there are a bazillion facts all the stuff has to be translated in all of these peripheral figures that have to be indicted in russia and other places the investigation takes a long time and because of that that ukraine is really simple and to the third point here you have a smoking gun the president himself released what he called the perfect transcript beautiful and perfect also not really beautiful unless you are seeking to remove him from office than it looks pretty good. [laughter] >> even the colonel testified

at left biden out. >> exactly. so yes it wasn't even complete there is stuff missing that could be highly damaging to the president it is unusual the whole thing is a little weird you have a call of a foreign government the guy who testifies against you from your own administration says to implicate biden everything seems shady but even just in what was released it so damning. the reason i wrote the book is remember i said i thought trump would throw up a lot as he did with moeller but to focus on this transcript that's all you need to

understand the president should be impeached because in the july phone call the president of ukraine says i really want these javelin missiles. then donald trump says okay. but i need a favor from you and then goes in wanting to investigate the bidens and the transcripts. so they often forget the word though so much so house minority leader mccarthy was on television and being asked about a quid pro quo and he said but it says i need a favor from you though and he says it's not in there and they say yes it does.

and this is like lindsey graham at the beginning there was no quid pro quo absolutely we would have to look at it and then of course there is totally a quid pro quo now i don't know what he is doing. hiding under the better something. >> so throwing up the dirt that has been a defense strategy up until now if you are hired to be donald trump's lawyer. [laughter] god for bid. >> is there another option? [laughter] do you decline to answer? what argument would you make quex. >> we're seeing all the arguments play out. they are collapsing.

first the president said there are no first-hand witnesses it is all hearsay there were but that defied the president's orders and testified for those who heard the phone call like vin men and then also why there are first-hand witnesses because he is gagging them he took the bravery to hide that. so that has fallen apart and then he says this is about citing corruption which is a weird argument because right before that trump cut the budget for fighting corruption in ukraine asking if there's any place in the entire world you cared about corruption there's 194 countries so the one magical place he cares to

appear as his chief political rival son has an interest and then finally the new one from the house report ukraine was a really corrupt country and we could not get the aid because it was so corrupt. there's two problems with this. number one the trump administration just before had certified ukraine was not corrupt and could receive the aid that was the official determination as opposed to rudy giuliani if the claim is ukraine is a corrupt country wide you pick up the phone and call a corrupt country and asked them to launch an investigation into a united states citizen? the very fact it was corrupt was part of the attraction not

the thing they were trying to avoid that's why they were doing it. so that is fallen now we have the impeachment process he doesn't have due process rights. that was a tough one to overcome because the way the constitution works the house is in the impeachment phase it's like a grand jury criminal investigation so trump is complaining my lawyers don't get to participate and saying i don't get those protections and that's true on the criminal side absolutely you have a right to be present in the criminal trial and to cross-examine witnesses until your story absolutely. but that is on the senate side

so it just occurs then. he says it is so 141 - - unfair the supreme court should jump in. that's not a thing the supreme court cannot stop in impeachment. [laughter] back with the recent case in 1993 it involved a different nixon as a federal judge with the unfortunate last name of nixon but nixon claims similar stuff in the supreme court unanimously said we have no role of the impeachment. >> so now fast-forward a few weeks look at the senate trial we know the house judiciary committee begins with law

professors as trump's lawyers said overeducated professors being the problem and we know chairman schiff did an extraordinarily skilled job even with the shenanigans around him. and the chief counsel of the intelligence committee even through earlier this year i would like to say we treat him well but there may not be witnesses before the house judiciary committee and let's

assume the house actually does vote to impeach. then we are really off to the races in the way that folks understand is unlike what most of us expect so what happens then. >> so first i will begin with a caveat because there was a wrinkle injected yesterday that i don't think we don't know the implications yet but there is a case in dc that involves don mcgann whether or not information and the mueller report can be turned over to congress and in that lawsuit in fact the house general counsel said we need this information we want to determine if president trump lied to mueller i did train

them. [laughter] but 35 year justice department veteran a very careful lawyer so there must be something going on there and the judge last week ruled and said the information is got to be turned over to congress there has been a subpoena in context of impeachment trump has an emergency stay she rejected it in the strongest language i have ever seen against the justice department it almost just makes fun it is almost disingenuous his position but that will go on a rocket docket to the dc circuit second highest court and then to the supreme court but the trump arguments i don't expect

the supreme court to hear this case so i think that subpoena will stand so when that stands the question is then what does it do to the other witnesses that trump has gagged that are in the shadows like john bolton or mike pompeo or nick mulvaney? if so that scrambles the impeachment calendar in the house of representatives looking to impeach the end of this month or by the holidays. if that unfolds the house may say we want to wait and get more information? with house judiciary committee depositions, who knows. but ultimately something will go to the senate where if it's with all of this extra

information or just limited to ukraine and the obstruction but when that happens there will be a trial. mitch mcconnell has said he will follow the senate rules which require a trial. at that point i think public opinion will shift. i think right now this is all been fact gathering you will see the president on trial in a solemn proceeding in the senate do you think a president can really do this? do you want that in our system? it doesn't matter you can be the hardest trump supporter in the world but that is the legacy you are leaving for our country. i think we will see a real change in the way the people of congress will think about

this. >> so reading a question from the audience relating to the fascinating role of the chief justice in this process the only time i believe the chuff on - - the chief justice is given any responsibility to preside over impeachment trials. >> i think that's right he has statutes like the head of the smithsonian. [laughter] >> the things that you learn. >> do you believe chief justice roberts when conducting the trial actively pursue justice or just act as an administrator? how much is in his hands with compelling testimony or how much is fought out between the other senators? >> it remains to be seen the

chief justice has argued 39 cases before him he is a remarkable man and someone who has fairness in his dna he has reached agreements i have disagreed with but nothing based on anything but the law think the question was fundamental justice? >> sometimes the law and justice are two different things and he is someone who follows the law you will not get a presiding official to say what is the just thing to do but more the legal thing but that means chief justice roberts clerked for chief justice rehnquist i think they are cut from the same cloth in

terms the institutional world this one takes a lot from his former boss rehnquist. because you were there during clinton but my sense of the impeachment proceedings he basically got out of the way but he didn't do much so much so at the very end he commented i did very little and i did it well. [laughter] >> was that your impression? >> even and away from receiving to be intrusive he had written a book about impeachments and the role of the chief justice and the special robe with stripes that he borrowed from the gilbert sullivan character but he had a senate that was less

polarized than the current senate but he stayed out of the way but the big fights in the clinton trial were over whether there would be live witnesses are not in in the end there were three witnesses in front of the senate and they were done by videotape so one of the questions of course especially the testimony has not happened in the house if they will call people to testify nobody knows what they will say then they are working without a net so with that precedent that is followed the senators that their at their desks day in and day out for days on end all whole set of arcane senate rules that as soon as the houseboats impeachment the chief justice is sworn in so the vice president cannot stage a coup

and this goes back a long way it could turn into something that's taken more seriously than what we see typically going on. >> the proceedings will be different and it's not just because the risen to jim jordan equivalent in the senate but i think the senate does have a rulebook it hasn't really changed and then to pick up on what you were saying the second feature is he will enter on the side giving more foundation to the american people that is consistent with not doing too much in the role to let the people decide don't try to let these gag orders so that could

be an interesting strategic choice for the house managers because there are those like bolton who undoubtedly have information but the prosecution already has the smoking gun and the transcript that's a complicated question but we want this testimony from these folks to call them and subpoena i do not see this chief justice standing in the way to say no the president can get away. >> i always thought why would he go from what he thought was his duty to give mitch mcconnell his day at the office? it seems like his task is pretty straightforward. >> he will not approach it to have the other side and easier

day but what is the right thing to do under the law and when it comes to impeachment since it is a public decision you have to get the information for that determination to be made that's why this is so significant and why no president has challenged it up until this one. >> with the white house clinton impeachment it was surreal and one of the things that did happen that we may see that the president has a right to appear in the senate clinton did not avail himself of that. but he did give his state of the union address in the middle of the trial his

approval rating was closed at 70 percent the public resoundingly as opposed they had to adjourn the trial and jut on - - go over to the house and then go back to the trial. we could see a trump state of the union if the house fights in the middle of the trial. but we knew it was very unlikely he would be at a certain point removed none of the articles even have a majority. so what are we to do for the republican senators looking the other way and not voting to impeach? what do you expect from senators of his own party? and whether they will take it seriously or act as partisans?

>> the republican talking point this is in the bag we have the party in lockstep but in the house i don't think it's true in the senate as we start to focus on this. with such velocity it's been too much and already we see popular opinion changed quite a bit. i don't have the soft bigotry for but our country is built on the idea of meeting these expectations whether 1776 or 1787 or 1863 or civil rights movement or marriage equality. and to say it's the right thing to do.

this is not hard. this is easy i don't care about fox news twitter fragmentation i do believe there is a core that believes in the rule of law and decency and following the basic principles and to put the country first. i am not one to say the towel has been thrown in but if it is if you cannot say after knowing what you know you don't stand for anything. that will be a very sad day for this country on one side

of the aisle. and not ever recalling the republicans out. and to say this is okay? >> this is an interesting question given the solemn playing out do three impeachments in relatively few years of nixon and clinton and trump show a decay of the democratic system? of the first 200 years it was regarded as a legitimate. - - illegitimate is that a normalization of weaponization and is that a bad thing to

suggest they are misbehaving? >> with those individuals and to where it's impeaching obama from talk radio. nobody in the obama administration hired a lawyer they have lawyers for the lawyers who defend the lawyers to defend the trump administration. that's the greatest job program in the world. [laughter] but in general we see a society that may be less guided by a moral compass in general than before.

but there were any number of transgressions. but sure we can elect people on both sides. >> after a scandal it is often the case there is a. every form. that was true in the progressive area with a great deal of political scandal and true after watergate where you had a wide range of responses with the public financing system, the special prosecutor statute the ethics in government act and the creation of the fright phone - - the fisa court wide ranging reform that followed and

watergate babies. and the most important thing is we get back to a common conversation that the shoe will be on the other foot and you need to have a set of principles from the other party is in power you don't switch everything up and say now i believe something else. and with that executive power. and then you never hear anything about it. with that grand document and i

am so worried. what i'm most worried about but then they take what trump did and do it again. and those that agree with that is a legacy he is leaving. do whatever you want your core supporters will be there and if you are funny enough they just let you get away with it. democrats are perfectly capable of doing all those things. so to me, the biggest reform and with that tax returns be made public.

things like that. but the most important thing is to regenerate a common conversation and here we are at nyu law school that has stood for these ideas. almost every lawyer gets this. that is what the system is based on. that is the genius of my country and many have similar stories. >> on that note i would want you arguing my case. and with that explanatory ability thank you for being

here and what you have done with this book we are grateful you came to nyu school of law. this is for those listening at home i am president of the center for justice and on behalf of the brennan center of justice thank you for coming please keep up with our work by following us on social media. books are for sale and he will be signing them at the signing table. thank you for being part of this. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> welcome. i'm a student here and president of the student association and on behalf of the association and to work at our campus this evening to have a conat