cable-television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. on the day texas representative al green pushed for president trump to be impeached on the house floor, political activists held an event to argue the legal case for impeachment. stier, aincluded tom billionaire and democratic party donor -- tom steyer. national press club, this is an hour and 20 minutes. rolling? >> good afternoon, everyone. my name is john.

i am the cofounder and president of free speech for people. free speech for people is a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization launched on the day of the supreme court's citizens united decision more than seven years ago, and dedicated to defending our constitution and reclaiming our democracy. we have been co-meeting with a group calling for an impeachment investigation of the president. more than 1.3 million americans have joined this campaign, and it is backed by a legal advisory prominent constitutional scholars across the country, including two law professors on this panel today. free speech for people is proud today to be joined by the need to impeach campaign for this press briefing to discuss the basis for a impeachment investigation of president donald j. trump.

today we are releasing a white paper and our panel will discuss the grounds outlined in that document. inill introduce our speakers the order they will be speaking. following the remarks, we will take questions and we will close with a public signing of feed of documents -- the white paper and the cover letter for the members of congress who will be paper today.s our first speaker is katharine ross, a law professor at george washington university law school. -- catherine ross. thebook in 2015 was named best book on the first amendment and one the critics choice book award. an elected fellow of the american bar foundation,

professor ross is a former chair committee steering committee member from the association of america outlaw school. prior to entering legal academia, professor ross was a litigator, where she won major litigation on behalf of the new york homeless population. she holds a phd in american history from yale university. -- professor ross will discuss the history and function of impeachment in the constitution and the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors. following professor ross, we rein, thefrom ron director of free speech for people. fein previously served in

environmental protection agency's office where he received the national notable achievement award and several other words. mr. fein is a graduate of stanford law school. the legalscuss grounds for impeachment investigation -- directing law enforcement to pursue political targets, advocating defiance of violence,d illegal abusing the pardon power, undermining freedom of the press, and recklessly threatening nuclear war. jenniferwill hear from taub.

securityesearched legislation and crime and she serves on the subcommittee concerning banking and financial reform and related matters. howfirst book made -- bankers made home mortgage is a thrilling business was published by yale university press. she was also the co-author of "corporate and white collar crime." it is in its sixth edition, published in 2017. has writtenub extensively on the financial crisis. prior to joining academia, she counsel ofociate

fidelity investments. she will discuss the president's businesses, the president's ongoing violation of the foreign and domestic emoluments clause's of the constitution. we will then hear from ben clements, the chair of the board of free speech for people. he is a former federal prosecutor and former chief legal counsel of massachusetts governor deval patrick. he is a founding member of his persons, representing and entities in white-collar does proceedings, complex this litigation and appeals, and providing advice in connection with political campaigns, government ethics, and related areas. his clients have included business executives and professionals, senior government officials, fortune 500 companies, small businesses, nonprofit institutions, and federal governments. he previously served as the chair of the massachusetts

governor task force on public integrity, a bipartisan committee that led to landmark legislation. mr. clements is a graduate of cornell law school. discuss the will following legal grounds for an impeachment investigation -- obstruction of justice, conspiracy with a foreign government to commit crimes against the united states, including violation of the federal campaign finance laws. mr. clements will also address why impeachment hearings should begin now. our final speaker will be tom s teyer. a progressive activist and environmentalist who believes we have a moral responsibility to ensure all americans have equal access to economic opportunity, education, and a healthy environment. he is a present -- president and --nextgennext gen

america which asked to predict the fundamental rights of every american. earlier this year, he started the needed to impeach campaign, which has garnered more than 3 million signatures on a petition calling for comfortable impeachment. the effort is backed by a $20 million ad buy, which includes two television advertisements and times square's billboards that will run through new year's eve, directing people to sign the petition at needtoim peach.com. he will discuss the campaign and why american people are calling for impeachment proceedings to begin now. our first speaker will be professor ross. professor ross: thank you, john. thank you for coming today. impeachment is an extraordinary remedy which should always be a course of last resort. as events quickly unfold it is imperative the citizens of this country understand the impeachment process and the

significant role the founders expected it to perform within our constitutional democracy. i will provide an overview of impeachment, its role, and the grounds that historically have been understood to justify it. first, what is impeachment and how does it work? is oftenimpeachment misunderstood and misused. impeachment occurs when the house of representatives votes to adopt articles of 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 allegations. if the committee after investigation recommends 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 and peaches, it doesn't -- in peaches, it

designates members to present the case to the full senate, which hits in trial over the official. 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 the senate convicts, removal from office is automatic and immediate. the second question that comes up is what purpose is impeachment designed to serve? the constitution largely models impeachment on traditions in the british parliament, as well as several state constitutions, both of which, as founding father james madison explained, a bridleimpeachment as the legislature can use to rein in an executive overreaches.

at thethe debates constitutional convention, madison argued it was "indispensable that some provision be made defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate" language, the present. joseph story and his history of the constitution and elaborated. in england, he said, the constitutional maxim is the king can do no wrong. in sharp contrast, the impeachment provision of our constitution ask as a check up on 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. an importantffered

reassurance to those who drafted and adopted the constitution, a reassurance that the american cause toho had just overthrow the british king, would not find themselves at the hands of another desperate, to use the terms of the declaration of independence. explained to provisions of the constitution in particular protect against despotism. first, the president's term is limited to a certain number of years, and second, the president is impeachable at any time during his term of office. some scholars go so far as to say 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 politic by removing a lawless official in order to prevent further harm to the

country. finally, what are the grounds may behich a president impeached? the constitution states the grounds for impeachment are highon, bribery, or other crimes and misdemeanors. treason and bribery have clear meanings. but what are high crimes and misdemeanors? terms commonly misunderstood. the phrase is a term of art the framers understood from english history. high crimes referred to offenses committed against the state by five -- five public officials. they may mean threatening constitutional order, corruption that violates the public trust. impeachment and conviction by the senate do not need to be based on criminal acts. congress is self explained in high crimes and

misdemeanors are serious violations of the public trust, not necessarily in die double offenses-- indictable under criminal law. federalist 65, written by madison again, explains that applies to the abuse or violation of some public trust. some violations may be, madison said, political as they relate damage done to the society itself. it is generally agreed he did not mean political in the sense that word is used today. impeachment is not based on just anything that congress decides, as gerald ford so famously and wrongly suggested. 19th century commentator and

summarizedrt justice impeachable offenses as those committed by public men in violation of their public trust and duties and he elaborated -- impeachment reaches beyond crimes to offenses in the discharge of duties of political office that grow out of personal misconduct or gross neglect or usurpation or habitual disregard of the public interest. them, he said, 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 congress has historically used it impeachment conduct that is

incompatible with the office. --falls into three 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 grounds for impeachment included abuse of the particular powers of a government office, conduct 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 their power.busing every member of congress today swore an oath to support and defend the constitution. we the people should hold our representatives to that oath.

impeachment was designed as a safety valve for reining in the violations of the public trust. indeed, it is the failsafe at the heart of our public toucture, expressly designed be used when a president threatens constitutional norms, the institutions on which the mock receipt rests, or the rule of a. thank you. -- the rule of law. thank you. --n: hank you, professor thank you, professor ross. ronnext speaker will be fein. fein: thank you. as professor ross noted, not all in feasible offenses are ordinary crimes. these five categories are --

advocating illegal violence in , undermininghe law the protection of the law, abusing pardon power, three, directing law enforcement to pursue political targets, four, undermining freedom of the press, and fifth, recklessly threatening nuclear war. to set this in context, as late supreme court justice antonin aalia a once noted, we have government of laws, not of men. but president trump takes a cruder view. he urged his supporters " ofnock the crap" out protesters and he would pay their legal fees. this regard has continued. call miners said that it was hard for them to --

in july, he told police to be the rest ofh people, which police chiefs around the country understood as encouraging excessive force. in august he issued a tweet that appeared to suggest that members of the military should commit war crimes by executing muslim prisoners of war, two days after he insisted there were "very fine people" among the white supremacists in charlottesville, west virginia. white supremacists openly appreciated that aiding comfort. but he can do more than pay for legal fees when supporters commit acts of violence. when his political ally, former sheriff joseph arpaio of arizona, was convicted of contempt of court for willfully ignoring a court order to stop detaining latino drivers illegally, trump argued he was "just doing his job" and

pardoned him. that signaled that unscrupulous individuals could all his advice, ignore constitutional rights, and when they lose in court they could violate a federal court order to stop doing that. his pardon undercut the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. the framers of our constitution worried about these problems. in the federalist papers, alexander hamilton warned, those men who overturned and liberties of republics, the latest number have begun their career as mincing demagogues and tyrants. in the virginia convention that met to decide whether to ratify the constitution, george mason warned the president might "pardon crimes which were advised by himself." and so destroy the republic. james madison had a reply for george mason. he replied that if a president

used the pardon to shelter a person with whom he was connected in any suspicious matter, congress could impeach this ad thus called great security. that's not all. in 1925, the chief justice of the supreme court, former president william howard taft up find if a president used his pardon power, that would suggest a resort to impeachment. president trump's lack of respect for legal norms also extends to protecting legal targets. 2017, sincerse of the inauguration, mr. trump has repeatedly pressured the department of justice and federal federal bureau of investigation to investigate and adversarieslitical including former campaign opponent hillary clinton and the democratic party. jackson, thert

attorney general, who would later serve as a supreme court justice and the chief prosecutor at nuremberg, want the greatest prosecuting power was picking the man or the woman and putting investigators to work winning some offense on her. i chief executive who uses law-enforcement to persecute political enemies is characteristic of an authoritarian regime, not a constitutional republic. that is what republican and democratic presidents have respected law enforcement, with the exception of richard nixon. the second article of impeachment against president nixon specifically cited his use of federal investigative agencies against political opponents. another danger is abuse of power is the president's effort to undermine the freedom of the press, enshrined in the first amendment. has said thaturt only a free and unrestrained check on thea

government. many presidents have contentious relationships with reporters and have sparred with the media, but previous presidents have understood the press's essential role in our democracy. in 2007, then president george bush noted the united states values freedom of the press as one of the most fundamental political rights and necessary components in a free society and in undemocratic societies were government suppress, manipulate information -- president bush then went on to journalistsssing abroad. in contrast, president trump has spent his entire presidency attacking the independent press as fake news and even an enemy out of the american people. he has adjusted revoking the licenses of networks for critical coverage. furthermore, his rhetoric has encouraged foreign governments

to attack the very u.s. media criticizes,t endangering not only press freedoms, but the lives and safety of american journalists. as noted in "the origins of to -- theterry knows hi origins of totalitarianism," the ideal subject is one where the distinction of true and false no longer exists. a brief note about the president's threats against north korea, on twitter and elsewhere, threatening an attack. the situation in north korea is obviously very complicated and difficult with no easy answers. the president is commander in chief of the armed forces. he sets the nation's foreign policy and he is certainly entitled to and that diplomacy by unconventional means, if he chooses. but like all powers conferred on the president, this, too, can be

abused. by all accounts, the country is not in the hands of a well-informed president who considers detailed information from senior advisers with information and can take a calculated risk involving the strategic gamesmanship. instead, it appears donald trump's blundering ahead without considering or even understanding the risks of his conduct. his own secretary of state and national security adviser have called him a more on and an an idiot. moron and are high. the president's threats of lead to or bombing can the misuse of nuclear weapons by either side or both sides, resulting in a massive loss of life. just this year, military courts upheld a court-martial against a sergeant for reckless endangerment because he failed inspect parachutes.

the risk of the president's threats are far greater. if, as it appears, the president is making used threats with reckless or wanton disregard for millions of deaths, that is a grave misuse of power. abusing the pardon power, directing the enforcement to pursue political targets, undermining freedom of the press, recklessly threatening nuclear weapon are not found in the federal statute books as criminal offenses and are probably not part of special counsel molar's investigation, but they are high crimes and misdemeanors because they undermine the rule of law, and put us in danger of a type the founders would have recognized. there is time to recover from the damage president trump has done to the republic, at the window may be closing. congress must act now. thank you.

ron. thank you, our next speaker will be professor taub of vermont law school. good afternoon. my name is jennifer taub. i am a professor at vermont law school where i teach business law courses, often focused on white-collar crime. the famous phrase from watergate -- follow the money -- is my mantra. i opt for my remarks solely on my own behalf as an academic and on behalf of -- and not on behalf of my law school or any other association. today i will discuss whether congress needs to investigate whether the president has been violating the constitutional emoluments ban since he took office.

before i do that, i need to address an issue that must be at the forefront of your minds. why now? an should the house begin impeachment investigation now? why shouldn't we wait until special counsel robert mueller finishes his work? my colleagues have begun mandate is quite broad, it is not unlimited. he is investigating whether donald trump's presidential campaign coordinated with the russian government to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. plus he's authorized to , investigate and prosecute other federal crimes that arise during the course of the investigation, such as money laundering. it also includes prosecuting anyone who intentionally interferes in his investigation. perjury, false statements, destruction of evidence, justice -- obstruction 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 violation of the foreign and domestic emoluments ban of the u.s. constitution. the founders intended these to be impeachable offenses but they are not federal felonies. as an aside there are federal crimes like obstruction of justice for which there is an impeachable analog that requires different levels of proof. in other words regarding the emoluments clause violation, no matter how long they wait, mueller will never get to go stand. regarding high crimes and misdemeanors like obstruction of justice, congress has the right and the obligation to pursue this independently of the special counsel's criminal investigation. so now what we focus on the

emoluments clauses. these are anticorruption provisions in the united states constitution. the purpose is to ensure the president faithfully serves the people free from inducements from foreign governments, individual states or other parts of the federal government. the band that has is found in article one section nine says in plain language that in the absence of congressional approval, the president may not accept any present or payment whatsoever from foreign governments and officials. this provision -- this provision derives the article of confederation and was modeled after the 1651 dutch rule. it was discussed during the constitutional convention. edmund jennings randolph said at the virginia ratifying convention, that if the president is discovered violating the foreign emoluments clause, he may be impeached. the founders wanted to prevent foreign corruption.

they could is that impact the foreign-policy decision. the word emoluments covers any financial benefit. this would include even ordinary fair market transactions. in terms of president trump this would include the buildings, room reservations, broadcast of programs and others where money flows to the president from foreign government or officials. i would like now to highlight a few examples that appear in the white paper. as the washington post has reported trump had over 100 , companies that have or have -- that do or have done business in 18 countries and territories around the world. one particular is the trump international hotel in washington, d.c. according to one report at least one embassy was actively pressured to change an existing reservation from another location to the trump hotel by the trump organization.

economic foreign relations board cosponsored a conference at the hotel in september minister and entourage of a dozen states at the hotel in late october mexico's foreign -- former ambassador to the u.s. reported he had learned from the former u.s. diplomat that the current u.s. state department official protocol now emphasizes they -- that world leaders should officially use trumps hotel for official visits. foreign governments also spend money at trumps other u.s. properties. at least the two entities controlled by foreign governments pay rent or fees of the building. this includes trump tower. it is on fifth avenue in new york. , the chineseggest government leases an entire floor. the kingdom of saudi arabia owns an entire floor.

they own another trump building in manhattan, they pay building amenity charges which in 2001 exceeded $85,000 a year. location, the trump golf club hosted the turkish airlines world golf cap, owned by the state owned turkish airlines. npr reported it seems trump properties that are doing well are those for which he is visiting, indicating according to that report, people are currying favor with the president, getting access and that is why they visit those locations. approvals have taken governmentseign from philippines, turkey, uae, and united kingdom.

let me turn to the domestic emoluments clause. it is known as the presidential salary clause. this is article two. ofis an outright prohibition the president receiving any payment from the u.s. government or state beyond his salary. by outright i mean there is no mechanism in the constitution for congressional approval. examples of this include by using his position as president to attract private golf club members, increasing the fee from $100,000 from before the election to $200,000 after. brief, included in the property from government travel, executive branch action that benefits his businesses and other subsidies and tax breaks and indirect payments. in conclusion, some of the conduct described in the briefing overlapped with the congressional investigation of

special counsel robert mueller. some even overlapped the federal -- the pending federal litigation involving emoluments. some of these issues that are grounds for impeachment have no other parallel legal procedures. what is important though is that an impeachment investigation is entirely separate from criminal or other judicial proceedings. the purpose of impeachment is not the punished for offenses, but to remove from office and official who threatens the rule of law. not use this investigation are other cases as forses to dodge propagation an independent investigation. the abuse of power, the corruption and a threat to our republic are here now. now is the time to act. thank you. thank you, our next speaker will be then clement -- ben

clement. clement: thank you all for being here today. as john said, i will talk about two additional categories of impeachable offenses. first, the trump campaigns conspiracy to violate campaign-finance laws and enlisting the help of russian nationals in the russian government. sometimes referred to by the ,edia and others as collusion as well as the president and illegal efforts to conceal those violations. second, the broad course of obstruction of justice by the president with respect to the investigations into russian interference in our election. why wei will speak about cannot wait. why we need congress to act now.

let me start with the conspiracy. federal campaign finance laws nationals,reign including foreign governments, from contributing anything of value, such as valuable candidate, to a campaign, with respect to any united states election. those laws also prohibit a candidate or campaign or those acting on its behalf from soliciting or receiving anything of value from a foreign national or foreign government. from what is in the donald trump junior emails released earlier this year that there appeared to of been a conspiracy that included at least three members of the donald trump campaign, donald trump, jr., jared kushner, and paul manafort, to violate these laws. 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 is being provided at the direction or on behalf of the russian government to assist the trump campaign. developinge is still as to 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 he was that, june before 2016 meeting with the russians by his then foreign-policy advisor george papadopoulos of orts toadopoulos' eff

coordinate with the russians and perhaps set up a meeting between donald trump and vladimir putin. we also know the president made clear his own support for the efforts to enlist the help of the russians in his campaign, when he publicly called on the russian government in july 2016 to hack hillary clinton's emails and release them to the united states media. perhaps even more importantly, 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 the meeting with the russians had nothing to do with the presidential campaign. these acts of concealment are part of a much broader pattern of obstruction of justice by tosident trump, with respect

investigations generally into russian interference in the election. the getting in the very earliest stage of this presidency, and for several months thereafter, president trump engaged in a flurry of activity, all designed andndermine, interfere with shut down fbi's investigation into michael flynn 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 try to get a loyalty oath, essentially as a bribe from james comey for him allowed to be -- to keep his job. soon after, even though it it was the time we were now told by the president he knew michael flynn had lied to the fbi, he flynncomey to go easy on

and then abandon the investigation completely. then he improperly enlisted intelligence officials to interfere with the fbi investigation. and when none of that succeeded in squelching the investigation he simply fired james comey and then directed the attorney general and deputy attorney general to come up with a false pretense for the firing. jamesy, he threatens comey against going public with their conversations, insinuating he had him on tape. there is simply no humanly rational explanation for this course of conduct other than that the president was intending to obstruct the fbi investigation. if there was any doubt, he then went on national television and told lester holt that is exactly what he had in mind and the real reason he fired comey was because of the russian investigation. he also told his friend, the russian ambassador, that that was the reason he fired mr.

comey. of obstruction is so compelling, that the president lawyer and his backers are reduced to saying 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 and say anything he wants with respect to any doj or fbi investigation. this is a fatuous and dangerous argument. first of all, it completely misunderstand the nature of obstruction of justice. the very reason the law recognizes a criminal offense of obstruction of justice, and recognizes that at -- as an impeachable 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 president's defenders suggest something much more dangerous we have already talked a little bit about today. believes president who , who forces his supporters and subordinates to believe, but because he is president, whatever he does, whatever he says, he can do. and that makes it legal. but this is a constitutional democracy. not a monarchy. the last time a president took the view that when the president does it it is legal, more than four decades ago, congress stepped in to restore the rule of law. congress began impeachment proceedings against richard nixon, and forced him from office. it was one of congress's finest hours.

today, we are all faced with a far morecorrupted, a lawless president, who has far less respect for the constitution then even richard nixon. and if we are to restore the rule of law, preserve our constitutional democracy, we need members of congress to dig deep and find their conscience and find their backbone. to this point, those are both far and few between in congress. aside from seven patriotic members of congress, we are not seeing conscience or backbone. in fact, we are hearing from many corridors, perhaps most prominently from minority leader nancy pelosi that talk of impeachment is premature, that we need more evidence, that we cannot have impeachment used as a political tool. in the face of the violations you have heard as outlined today, which just scratch the surface, these kinds of comments would be laughable, if they were

not so dangerous. we are not talking about political differences or policy differences. we are not even talking about borderline or questionable or minor high crimes and misdemeanors. we are talking about a hold host of crimes and misdemeanors that are unquestionably impeachable. of the eight or nine categories we discussed today, at least four of them have very clear historical precedent as being impeachable offenses. of the 19 impeachment proceedings in the history of the house of representatives have resulted from federal officials like donald trump using their office for their own financial gain. in the case of donald trump it's , not just misuse of the office. as you have heard from professor ofb, it is blatant violation

two emolument clauses. clauses the framers specifically discuss that should give rise to impeachment proceedings. obstruction of justice is that grounds for impeachment. the primary grounds for the impeachment proceedings brought against richard nixon. also worth noting, the fact we're even debating whether dismissing and removing the fbi director in order to stop an investigation of the president's own campaign, administration and himself is an impeachable offense, would be a shock to the framers. who in james madison's words, believe the wanton removal of meritorious federal officers was itself an impeachable offense. as outlined, abuse of the pardon power recognized by the founders as impeachable conduct. and by the supreme court.

going after political enemies by using law enforcement, as the president has done, is one of the other articles of impeachment against richard nixon. the four or five other grounds of impeachment have less historical record, but that is not because they are not impeachable offenses, it is because we have never had a president who defied the rule of an constitution in everything that he does. highlight, andly quitesor taub has effectively covered this, but i want to highlight the reasons why the notion that we need to wait for special counsel mueller's investigation to conclude are simply wrong. first of all, as you have heard this jurisdiction is limited to just two of the areas of impeachable offenses we talked about today. that would be the russian interference and obstruction. the many other areas talked

about including corruption and emoluments and various undermining of constitutional rights, none of that is within the bailiwick of the special counsel's investigation. those are sufficient for congress to go ahead. second of all, the evidence is already there. congress does not need to wait for the evidence from special counsel mueller. the evidence is overwhelming. there is adequate basis for them to go ahead with impeachment proceedings right now. mueller's investigation is limited to criminal offenses. as you heard from professor ross, high crimes and misdemeanors is a much broader concept applied to misuses of congress, corruption of all sorts, whether or not it is criminal. lastly, the constitution cannot afford, the american people, cannot afford to wait. investigation appears

to be proceeding diligently and effectively. but there is no sign that it will be over in the very near term and in the meantime, this president's reckless, corrupt denigration of our constitution, of the rule of law and the risk , that he presents of catastrophic damage to the country, perhaps 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, above political considerations. it is time for impeachment investigation now. thank you. ben.ank you, tomur final speaker will be steyer, founder of the need to impeach campaign.

er: good afternoon, thank you for coming today. special thanks to the professors for a compelling legal analysis. it was scary and depressing to hear about where we are and where we might be going. time, when the president claims to be above the rule of law, it is reassuring to hear such passionate defenses of our constitutional system. remain a nation of laws as long as voices like there's continue to speak out. since we kicked off the need to impeach campaign, i have been asked by such -- why such an extreme step, why now? this is an unprecedented moment in our history. when senators from both parties are seeking to limit the president's nuclear authority because he cannot be trusted with total control of the launch

codes, we have to acknowledge this president is a clear and present danger to the american people. you know it, the congressional democrats know it, members of his own party and even his own administration know it. that is why over 3.3 million americans have already demanded this strong and historic response. let me be clear. this is not a question of policy differences. it is not about his cabinet picks or his focus on serving corporate profits ahead of the american people. it is not about a tax proposal or health proposal or his budget. however deeply we may of -- disagree with all of them. this crisis stems from his recklessness and gross abuses of power. i am not a legal scholar, unlike everybody else here. but you have heard explanations for how his actions amount to

impeachable offenses from the four people who just spoke. violations of the emoluments clause, corruption, obstruction of justice. there was a long list, which means we have no shortage of reasons why he has more than that the historical standard for impeachment and the historical standard for impeachment in the constitution. so what is the appropriate response to an unprecedented president who routinely takes actions that were previously thought unthinkable and puts the , health and safety of the american people at risk? if, as a founding father once noted a bad president ought to , be kept in fear of the impeachment power. -- power, congress has a moral obligation and constitutional duty to act on the historical grounds that these legal scholars have laid out today. the administration wants to focus the public's attention on

the question of campaign collusion. they are doing this because they know there is no legal statute barring collusion, and it distracts from the clear violations of the public trust. evidence that his campaign transition team collaborated with a hostile power, and there are already indictments over it. the president has twice admitted to obstructing justice. and honest accounting of his record to date reveals consistent and deep-seated disdain for democratic institutions and american values. authoritarians impulses. while we can say we constrain the worst of his behaviors, it is a question of how long they can control him, and a foregone conclusion he

will leave them bent, if not broken. what is at stake than includes the very health of our democratic self-governance. but the d.c. establishment, leaders in congress, pundits and immediate, maintained that talks of impeachment are premature, unhelpful. they want to call it a distraction. in fact, they are saying they know better than the american people. but we followed conventional political wisdom into this mess, and more of the same is not going to lead us out. when members of the establishment try to temper our calls for impeachment, we have to recognize that not acting is also a choice. in and ofction, itself, with potentially devastating consequences. that choice signals to this

president that no matter how far out of bounds he takes us, the establishment, the insiders will not stand up to him. we know this because he's told his associates this much. if we do not forcefully respond to his actions, he will continue to do fall, as bob corker, a republican senator, put it. his dangerous behavior will continue to escalate and he will chip away at the rule of law for as long as he is in office. we cannot hope that with patience this president will rise to the occasion of his office. he won't because it's not in his nature and we cannot expect his advisers to restrain his lawlessness. they can't because they serve at his pleasure. we can't rely on the republicans who control congress to act independently of him. they won't because they rely on

his hard-core supporters. and we don't need to wait for the special prosecutor's investigation to conclude what needs to be done. god bless robert mueller, but we don't need his findings to understand the danger the president represents to all of us each and every day. over the last year we've been reminded of essential human truths. the march of history doesn't follow an unyielding path of progress. no great power is invulnerable to a horrible fall. while our freedoms and liberties may be divined by a higher power, they must always be protected from authoritarians by the people. it's time to recognize the need

for citizens to act, whether our leaders in washington want to or not. our country needs every american who understands this danger to take a courageous moral stand. that's why we are calling on the american people to join the more demanding trump's impeachment, to confront the liars and deniers and raise their voice with ours to remind members of congress to do their job and represent us to protect , our interests. that means they have to do what's right and join us and -- in pushing for an end to this presidency. for 229 years, our constitution has represented a promise that we can form a society which guarantees dignity and justice for all and equal treatment -- for all under god and equal , treatment under the law. in this government of, by and for the people, the strongest force has always been the will of the people.

today, and -- an unfit president poses an existential threat to that promise. we can overcome that threat, and our free society can endure for another 229 years but only with the will of the people behind it. thank you. >> thank you, tom. we will now open this up for questions. i will start off just by asking ron if he could outline some of grassroots activity since the question of impeachment has been put on the table. >> we have a grassroots campaign for -- active around the country. we've had some success already.

we've been encouraging people to contact their member of congress but also to use local governments as an opportunity to express their will. so using the resources that we created including local activists and local resolution in support of impeachment investigations. almost 20 cities and towns around the country have passed resolutions, calling upon congress to begin impeachment investigations and we expect many more. we know there's others in progress, and these have occurred in town meetings and city councils. we've also gotten a lot of people to have meetings with members of congress and make some phone calls. obviously, there is much more work to be done. but we think we are off to a great start and we have a lot of people who are fired up to get moving on this. >> thank you, ron. yes can you identify where you , are from? >> i am from usa today. the question is for tom of anyone else can answer. how do you break through? you say you want the public to get involved.

there are so many battles underway right now in congress. people are active about the tax bill, health care, etc. through,u break specifically be on the advertising and petitions, do have plans to really put pressure on members of congress in a way that you are willing to disclose right now? >> to summarize, the question is how do you break through, the tom stier, with respect to this question of impeachment. our strategy is very straightforward to go to the american people and try to get them to in effect participate in a direct democracy. as opposed to going to the members of congress, we are asking them to join us in raising their voices so it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that the people in fact share the views of the people sitting

at this table. i know if you look at the polling, you will see it is true. across american society, people are scared of this president, that he makes them extremely nervous about their futures. and that they agree with us that he should be impeached, but i think the people are way ahead of the elected officials on this, which i think is not that unusual. we are convincing anyone of this, we are trying to give them a forum to take action so that together their voice can be raised. in effect we can restore the , democracy and get the will of the people acted upon. but i am aware this is something where it has to be a long build to get that kind of momentum. we have gone a much better response than we anticipated. i think what will happen over

time, and i think it has happened since we started our petition, almost on a daily basis, there is an argument, many of which have been explained by the people sitting thinkfor the people that this is not the time or not urgent or he need more information. i think every single day there is evidence they are wrong. over time that we expect to happen is both a combination of of increasederms participation by the public, and increased evidence that in fact the people who are delaying and action willke no see that in fact the decision is a bad one. >> anyone else want to take that question? jennifer, yes. taub: sometimes i think it takes catalyzing events to get people to step forward, as tom is saying. i know organizations like

moveon, are preparing a readiness effort where, should the president fire special counsel robert mueller, there is a website you can go to and type in your zip code and find out a local place, people would flood the streets where they would meet. the tentative plan, it is down to these details. announceding is before 2:00 p.m. on any day, our rally will happen every day. after 2:00, it would be the fire -- following day at noon. it couldtially moveon, be other grassroots organizations that have sprung up since the election, they are incredibly well organized. i certainly hope that doesn't happen. i think it would be a terrible event. but things like that could be the moment to bring people together. >> can i make one other point? if you remember 1974 with nixon -- i'm sure you were a toddler. but, if you remember 1974, there

were the watergate hearings. the was a long time of whom -- of momentum built. so the people of america who don't spend their days focused on politics together could experience what was going on and together could absorb the information of what was going on and become aware of what had happened and who the players were and what they were like, and that leading up to the congresses decision to impeach president nixon and president nixon's decision to resign was a long process of information and momentum around the idea of what -- that what had happened was wildly improper, that impeachment was a necessary result. met is a process which we are undergoing right now. serious and sober undertaking. it is not one that i think

anyone here has taken lightly. it is also not want or the answer happens overnight. over time, americans have to understand how reckless and abusive and dangerous this president is, and they have to raise their voices together and make a decision. at that is the process we're in the middle of. if i could add, the watergate hearings were not just about sharing information. they were also a gradual way of educating the american public not just to those who couldn't follow all the details because they had full-time jobs and children to raise and all of that, but the very courageous members of congress who were involved in the committee proceedings through their questions and statements in the way they handled the witnesses and documents were able to explain the american people what the expectations of the presidency are, what the constitutional provisions are about, what the norms are.

as trump said, it took a very long time, from beginning to end. to the another response question of, isn't it premature? because it will not happen overnight. while it maybe quicker than a criminal process, by the time you appeal all the way to the supreme court, it is a painstaking and deliberative unfolding. starting does not mean it ends in a resolution, impeachment and conviction. but not starting it means it is that much longer that we experience this relentless drip, drip, drip of new, amazing developments. quickly i want to elaborate on tom's point that it is not so much about convincing the american people as giving them the tools to get our leaders in congress to do something about it. some polls show close to 50% of

support impeachment, more than oppose it. those numbers are extraordinarily high. never this early in a presidency has there been that kind of support for impeachment. not even in the lead up to richard nixon's impeachment proceedings, where there those kinds of numbers supporting impeachment. the american people are there and it is just a question of bringing our congress around. question. >> i am with bloomberg news. i have a question for mr. steyer . as one of the largest political donors in the country you obviously have a lot of sway, it given a lot of the politicians you are talking about, who have maybe expressed concern about the idea of impeachment or saying it is a distraction, are also people who tend to rely on your political donations. do you see any interaction between your giving in the next cycle, and where politicians

take a stand or decide not to take a stand, will there be a litmus test for you in any way? >> the question is about mr. , in light of his political giving, does he see any connection with respect to the call to impeachment. mr. steyer: let me outline a little more clearly what exactly our organization really does. we are largely overwhelmingly a grassroots organization and what that means is we try to encourage and enable citizens contact so that we have as many registered and engaged citizens as we can. practically speaking, that means being on college campuses, talking to young people, going , and registering voters. probably those three things. we knocked on 12.5 million doors. we were on 370 college campuses

many people.ered or me asle think of us being a political donor, what we're really doing is trying to enable the broadest possible democracy. when i think about what we're doing with this petition and with this campaign on the need to impeach, it seems to me to be exactly the same thing, which is, we're trying to enable the broadest democracy in the united states, to specifically include overlooked communities and young people, because we believe the broadest democracy will be the answer to our problems. when we look at need to impeach, we are really going directly to the american people for a reason, because we believe in believe they, and

will lead and the elected officials will have to follow. believe they any kind believe will lead and the elected officials will have to follow. as opposed to any kind of any people to ask them to raise

their voices because we believe they recognize the danger. that at theirpeople to ask theme anir

impeachment are so overwhelming, pale, that i do believe there is a real danger conspiracy to commithe

crimes against united states with a foreign government. why are these other grounds being listed?

>> as many people>> as many peo, this is about rule of law.

>> to amplify the last point, part of the purpose of impeachment is to present president trump from continuing these offenses. theit is also to prevent complete erosion of norms about the rule of law. that is why we have concluded. while we have some grounds pinned to statutory provisions, we have others based on abuses of power that are not tied to specific criminal or statutory provisions. one of the things trump has done is he has shattered through norms that constrained previous presidents, but were not contained in any specific statutory or constitutional provision about what you can and cannot do as president. if we do not begin impeachment proceedings, the president will precedent will be taken that it is ok to do these things.

that is why it is important that not including these grounds would be to say it is ok and validated for future presidents as well as trump himself. thank you. i will close by saying, if there is any doubt as to what the , i hope weds are have a race to that doubt today. which is why we're issuing this white paper today. both publicly at our website, but also jointly with need to impeach united states congress. we will now close with a public signing of that document. thank you all for being here. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> by the time i came back to the district or shortly thereafter, both of my uncles were sent to prison. they were convicted, one of them of sexual assault, and the other of robbery. part of my childhood i could remember, it was my mother, my two sisters, and my cousins in the house on 13th street. q&a,nday night on c-span's our guest talks about growing up in washington dc and her time as

a clerk for supreme court justice, sonja sotomayor. greatyou went to a really school. you have impressive people willing to speak up for you in the form of recommendation letters. you hope for one of a very small number of judges that has clerks at the court. for a person of color, to get into that pool, there are so ity obstacles to that becomes a real problem. it hurts. perspective of diverse law clerks is so important. if there was a case where i felt i saw something that because of my life experience that someone else did not see. >> tune in sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. pfi on c-span, a