>> things for watching. -- thanks for watching. susan: our guest on "newsmakers" this week is tom steyer. the businessman, philanthropist, environmental activist has been spending much of his own money over the past year in a campaign to impeach president trump. we will talk about that effort organizationally and politically. we have two reporters here to ask questions, niall stanage and darren samuelsohn.

gentlemen, thanks for being with us. as we get started, two questions on the mechanics of it. what are the numbers on your website so far? how many people have you enlisted in your campaign to impeach the president? tom: i think we are somewhere over 3.6 million people. i have not looked at it in the last couple of days. i have been out of town but i'm sure it is over 3.6. susan: you are running ads in markets which is the centerpiece of your campaign. have any stations refused to run your ad? tom: i think fox has refused to run our ads a couple of times. as far as i know everybody else has agreed. susan: what is your reaction to the reception you've been getting? from the station owners? tom: i would say this has been -- we have tapped into something larger than we thought we would when we began. our original goal was to get one million signatures.

we -- it happened much faster than we would have thought. it has gone much longer than we thought. every time we get more than we expect we raise our goal. , right now our goal is to get the 5 million signatures. but when we originally started it was 1 million and we cut that -- we thought that would be success. susan: let's turn to our two reporters who have many more questions. we will begin with darren samuelsohn. darren: you've spent a lot of money on the 2014 and 2016 races to help candidates who supported a lot of your causes. what is your budget for this impeachment campaign? is it an endless budget? do you have a limit? tom: we don't actually have a firm budget, and we don't either for any campaign. you should understand what we basically are is a grassroots organization, which means we do a lot of organizing on campuses, we do a lot of door-to-door conversations with voters.

we do a lot of registrations. what we are trying to do in our effort is have the broadest democracy with the most engagement, the most participation by the most people. that is what we really believe in. when we think about the impeachment campaign, it is to try to give the american people a voice to say this president is dangerous to us and our families and communities and he needs to go. as a goes, we have already accomplished -- we have gone way past our original goal. if we were set before it happens, i don't know what we would be doing. every time we get into something we know the facts will change and therefore how much we will be involved, what paths we will take changes to reflect the facts on the ground. darren: so far, $20 million? tom: something like that. darren: do you have a sense how much more you will be putting

down? tom: i don't. as we go, what we have seen -- we originally started in october -- on october 20. a lot has happened since october 20. all of these things happening with the mueller investigation have happened in terms of manafort and flynn. the president has done a bunch of things. our original conception when we began was here are the facts on october 20, and they are going to change every day from now on. this petition, this drive is going to be sustained and stronger as a result of the facts that happened going forward. that is what we have found. niall: to pick up on that, there has been support from a certain number of democratic lawmakers for impeachment, but the democratic leadership in congress has been much less enthusiastic about focusing on that topic or goal. do you feel they are too timid? what is your response to the

message that democratic leaders are sending back about this effort? tom: what they have said publicly is they don't think this is the time for it. and we have found, as i've said, we are a grassroots organization. we are trying to communicate directly with the american people and give them a voice. i don't think it is any secret. this president is not a secret. his danger to the american people is not a secret. what he is doing on a daily basis is apparent to almost every american. from our standpoint, not to try to counteract his danger, not to try to stand up to the threat to the american people, to us this is an urgent issue. we are just telling the truth and trying to allow americans to state that truth. from our standpoint we don't really understand the political calculation about whether this

is smart or dumb. we are trying to do what is right. we don't think it's a secret that this president is scary. i don't even understand that argument. niall: not to get hung up on the point. whenever democratic leaders say this is not the right time, you think they are wrong? tom: obviously we are doing it now. yeah, we think this is an urgent issue to the safety of americans. there is no time when we will say we don't think we should stand up for the safety and health of americans because it is not a good time politically to do that. no. we think this is an urgent issue and everybody knows it. if you look at what has happened since october 20 in terms of people showing up at the polls and the results of that, i think americans are pretty aware of where they stand on this issue. that is why we have had the response we've had. susan: i want to follow up one

more time. sorry to belabor the point of it. quotes from democratic leaders don't suggest timing. i wrote down a comment. unhelpful. a vanity project. futile. when you hear those kind of critiques of your effort, what are you heraring? tom: i hear two different things. one, it is not good timing. the other one is a question about questioning my motives and trying to question me. i think from my standpoint, i don't spend any time on that. this is not about me. this is about whether what we are doing is right and about the american people having a voice. it is supposed to be a democracy. we believe we are trying to provide an avenue for direct voice of the american people. the fact if you take a look at the zip code of the people saying those things and where they spend their time, we are trying to talk to people all

over the country. we are trying to allow them to have a voice. i'm not spending one second worrying about people with an ad hominem argument. darren: one of the people she was quoting is nancy pelosi, who represents where you are sitting right now. what has she told you about this effort? what have you heard from chuck schumer and the democratic national committee about your effort? tom: we really don't have a conversation about it. i've never talked to nancy about this is single time. the fact of the matter is -- i would say it again. from our standpoint we think the strongest power in the united states should be the voice of the american people and that is what we are trying to enable. we think ultimately that will be an overwhelming power. we have seen it in the elections that have happened between the time we started and now. we think that will continue to grow and build.

we think ultimately elected officials have to respond. if you look, when we started on october 20, there were two people in the house who had spoken publicly about impeachment. they held a vote a few weeks ago. 58 voted for it and four abstained. that is a move. i don't think that's a fluke. i don't think they care about what i say either. i think what they are saying is, wow, the american people are exercised about this. and they are right. the american people are exercised about this. darren: are you trying to make 2018 a referendum on impeachment? tom: i don't think there is going to be any question that 2018 is going to be a referendum on this administration and the kind of extremely negative policies and divisive, racist arguments they have in making. that is what 2018 is going to be about.

i think it's also really important when we think about that, that 2018 not just be a negative campaign and a referendum on the bad things they are doing, but also a referendum about what the good things they are not doing that they should be doing that is killing us. as far as i'm concerned, as upset as i am about the danger they pose to the american people, what they are not doing also threatens our future because the fact of the matter is they are attacking the american people both by what they do and what they don't do but should do. i think it is important to have a vision of what a better america would look like, the kinds of policies that would actually make it successful in the 21st century. niall: just to play devil's advocate to a certain extent, bill clinton -- republicans did impeach him in the 1990's. admittedly very different

circumstances, but there is certainly conventional political wisdom that the effort produced a defensiveness for clinton among democrats and centrists. do you have a fear about a push to impeach trump backfiring and forming coalitions and politicians you would support ? tom: actually from our standpoint i'd go back to first principles. what we are interested in is the broadest democracy. were adjusted in as many americans being registered engaged in participating in , our public life. when i think about that and i think about your question, to me, i think what we are saying is true, is urgent and incredibly relevant. if that is true, that means americans will respond to that. they will respond to the truth. they will respond to someone standing up for the truth, and

they will be much more likely to come out to the polls and response to that. no, i don't worry about what you're saying. we are trying to represent the truth of the whole of the american people. that includes everyone. we can do that, that is something that will compel people to the engaged and show up. when that happens, we think we get the best decisions. that is what we believe in our bones. darren: are you saying 2018 should be a referendum specifically on impeachment? if the democrats take the house of representatives, that's the first thing they should do? that is what people should be turning out for the polls for? not trump and everything in terms of the policies and things you were talking about, but specifically impeachment? tom: i did not say that. what i said was whatever we like or don't like, the 2018 election in my mind is going to be a referendum on this

administration, this congress, and their negative, backward looking policies. impeachment is a statement that what they are doing is so dangerous, so unusual, so out-of-the-box that we actually have to get rid of this president. that is a very unusual statement. that is a statement of how far beyond what is safe that this administration has gone and the american people need to speak up southern elected officials -- so their elected officials know that's what they want. i believe this will be a referendum on what this administration, with the support of this congress has chosen to represent, including the very divisive and hate-filled language. and that will be -- impeachment is a statement of how strongly americans feel about it and what they think the solution to it is. niall: staying with future elections but shifting gears, it

is no surprise your own political ambitions are the subject of some speculation. would you be inclined to run for office yourself anytime in the medium-term? tom: what i have said is that i have not ruled it out and i'm actually trying to determine what will have the most positive differential impact of me working on this. i know everybody thinks that being clever, but it's not. i'm absolutely ambitious to try to be a part of a group of people who gets america back on a just and prosperous course. i'm dead serious about it. -- to me that-- is when i get up in the morning i think about it, and i've said i will do almost anything i think will be the most differential. it is not about me. there are a whole bunch of people. i believe the preponderance of americans agree with me. this is our time to stand up and

get us off this destructive course and back to the kind of just america we have tried to be for hundreds of years. you are asking me -- i know i have to make this decision soon, and all i'm saying is the question to me is what can i do this end up against what i consider to be a deep threat to the safety and health of the american people. niall: not to get us off the news of the day, but it's an interesting argument because it goes to the debate that happens with progressive or conservative circles about is one more effective on the outside putting pressure on the political system, or working within the political system for change? do you have a broad view on that question which is raised again and again? tom: let me say this, what i said before and part of what i take into account in making the decision is the organization we have built over the last five

years. if you look at 2016, we were on 370 college campuses. with our partners in labor we knocked on 12.5 million doors. be registered 807,000 people in the state of california. the biggest registration drive in history of california. and about 350,000 people outside california. we have a very large grassroots organization designed to try to get as many americans involved in participating in the process as possible because that is what we believe in. when i think about running for office, i don't think just about running for office. i say to myself we have an organization on the ground that is already working in 2017 for 2018. what are the other things we could conceivably do? when i think about differential impact, i'm thinking about what can our organization do that will make a big difference?

what can we do in terms of the need to impeach campaign in terms of signing people up at our website and using that voice and using their voice to try to push our country forward? it is not simply a question of shall i go on c-span or run for office? it is what can we do to collect and organize americans together so we get the broadest democracy with the best dancers? it is a little bit more complicated than just run or don't run. susan: we have about nine minutes left in the conversation. darren: you have two or three more months to decide in the state of california if you would run for senator or governor. what is the next couple of weeks and months like? are you going to wait until the last minute on the filing deadlines? tom: i don't think so. my expectation is we have been doing -- i've been doing a lot of soul-searching in terms of

what i described. in terms of considering a bunch of things away from running for office and what that would look like, and what the likelihood is of having an impact with it and what we can build for the future. i don't think that's the kind of thing -- i know what the filing deadlines are, too. the fact of the matter is if are going to do other things, we have to make plans and get organized. running a grassroots organization, which is what we do, is not something you can just turn on and turn off. grassroots means you are organizing people, hiring them, training them, setting them out on the field, organizing groups of volunteers to do the work. it is something that takes advanced thinking in preparation. we can't wait until the filing deadline. we have to sit here and make these decisions and weigh different alternatives. darren: you have one of the most

valuable you know lists the democrats have in people who have signed up to support impeachment. it could be as valuable as the bernie sanders list from the 2016 period. are you going to make that was available to democrats or put it out on the market for people who are looking to run? tom: what we have done so far -- what we have been going to those people and asking them to take action. that is the first thing we have done, asked people to say will you send an email to your congressperson? will you respond to this tax plan? those kinds of things. it is true people signing up gives us communication with people. but the fact of the matter is it is not so much we're trying to use them. we are trying to let their voice

and their collective voice be heard. for americans, they are scared by this president. they don't know what to do in between november of 2016 and november of 2018, which is the midterms. the question is, how can we use the collective voice of americans to change the debate to explain to elected officials where the people really are they purport to represent? and let that voice be heard to the american people's will can be followed. that is well we are trying to do. that is what the list is really for, to say these people can be together an incredibly strong voice for change. that is the whole reason for the petition, to explain to people. these are the american people. if you look at where they are, they are all over the country. niall: i'm curious. it made the argument several times about the power of the

people giving voice to the people and all of that. you are obviously someone who has enjoyed a lot of success in business. you are yourself very wealthy and that enables you to do some of these things. where do you stand on the importance of money in american politics? does it still have too much influence? tom: oh my gosh, yes. it is killing us. money in politics. niall: but you are spending quite a lot of your money, right? tom: we are and i will address that. let's start with the tax bill. we are seeing a tax bill that is a pure response to republican donors. a tax bill that absolutely supports the richest americans at the expense of everybody else. as far as i'm concerned the american people just had a

steamroller go right over the head in order to deliver money to the richest americans. is there too much money and politics? today is proof positive there is too much money in american politics. my original response is i want no part of it. then i realized these are the rules of the game. this -- i absolutely disagree with citizens united. i absolutely think it is distorting our politics. it is giving way to a democracy of dollars instead of people and that is terrible for us, but it is the rules of democracy right now. as we spend money, we are doing it as much as possible to get the broadest democracy possible. we are doing it as transparently as we can. i'm sitting on c-span explaining what we're doing and why. there is no good in agenda here. we are not doing it -- i'm fighting a tax plan which is delivering money to me. our organization is trying to

work directly for the good of the american people, not for the happy to thish people and

campaign moves us in that direction. i'm extremely happy if i can be part of a group of americans working like heck to get us back on a prosperous and just course. niall: i have this very worthy final question ready to go about whether the impeachment campaign is distracting from your environmental interests, but listening to your last reply i just think he is running for something. am i wrong? tom: yes.

let me make a point about this. first of all, it is possible in american history that people do something they think is important because they think it is important. secondly, when we think about environmentalism as part of the overall political spectrum, we think environmental change will happen as part of a progressive change that goes around a justice agenda. what we are pushing for is a just america where people are more prosperous, it is more fair, and we think this is eminently doable. we really believe what the trump administration and this congress are doing is something that takes away our future by refusing to invest in the american people. that is something we should absolutely be doing because a successful country in the 21st century will be dependent on well-educated, healthy, well-trained and a productive human being. we should be investing in the human beings known as the american people.

not to do it seems like a crime to me. susan: tom steyer is founder of the need to impeach campaign, joining us from san francisco. thank you for being a guest and happy holidays. tom: thank you so much are having me. happy holidays to all three of you. susan: gentleman, 3 million signatures. let's face the reality of political structure and impeachment is constitutionally bound. where is the attitude on capitol hill? you talk about leadership pushing back on this, even though a small portion of the democratic caucus has managed to enlist support. about 30 members were so. where does it stand? darren: i think impeachment for now is off the table. i think the democrats, fall publicly the leadership is saying that don't want to be talking about impeachment, they know that will bring up some segment of their base in the 2018 midterms.

that is part of the way they can hopefully capitalize on in order to take back the house. it is a huge plan to pull this off and there are a lot of people they will need. impeachment, while they are head nodding, they want a positive message about the economy and things they would do if they were in charge, no doubt if nancy pelosi or whomever becomes the next democratic leader, impeachment is a question they will face day in and day out if you think about where robert mueller will be nine months of now, 10 months from now, where the entire congressional investigation is, what we will learn about what happened in 2016. it is there and they are very much aware of it. susan: david axelrod, the obama advisor, has had a high level of discussion, calling this thread -- threat to the democratic process. that it is damaging constitutionally. can you talk about it at that level about concerns you heard

about using impeachment in this way? niall: it's interesting you say 'in the political process.' political professionals of either party, things are so polarized people either went to -- want to impeach or not. the broader point you raise is an important one. people in academia and journalism and other places wonder about this idea of what happens only get to a point where simply intense dislike of a president is a catalyst for impeachment efforts? can this efforts be successful? how damaging would it be to set a precedent where a president is impeached in those sort of circumstances. clearly, people like tom steyer and others see this president is very much one-of-a-kind, as someone who transgresses the normal democratic balance of society. but i think there is a genuine

concern about setting a precedent for removing a president out of a popular dislike. darren: it's fascinating with tom steyer in california with the recall effort, gray davidson led us to arnold schwarzenegger. the recall process does not obviously work in the presidential process. this is sort of what he is arguing for a political uprising , to take out a president. clearly they would need actual high crimes and misdemeanors. whether it is the obstruction of justice case robert mueller is pursuing, and we don't know where that is going at this stage in the process in december of 2017. we don't know how far that is. for mueller it has been focused campaign aides in the years before they were even in the trump campaign. i think there is a long way to go before we get to that threshold of high crimes and misdemeanors. maybe robert mueller will

provide that down the line the way ken starr produced a report. that is what we need to watch for. susan: what has the white house reaction then? is there anything more formal going back? niall: i think they would regard this as something counter to the wishes of the american people who did democratically elect donald trump. one of the fixations of this white house is the idea that are shadowy things going on behind the scenes to delegitimize his victory. the president did call mr. steyer unhinged at one point. that's the kind of lexicon the president trades and a lot. the broader question is one in which they see them as an attempt to undercut the president's democratic legitimacy. susan: there was an election on capitol hill as we are taking on this wednesday before christmas in the house, the democratic caucus. jerrod nadler will take over the

lead role for the democrats in the house judiciary committee, which becomes very important, especially if the democrats are successful in their efforts to take over the majority in the house. do we know anything about jerrold nadler's attitude towards the impeachment process? darren: for now he is taking the lead, along with what you have heard from nancy pelosi and other democrats. let the process play out. let's have a more proactive, positive message. nadler has been bird dogging the chairman of that committee, criticizing him again today as he goes after fbi officials and starts to turn the russia investigation on its heels and flipping it upside down i looking at rings not related to russian collision, but back to hillary clinton and the fbi. he has been back on the republicans' case, he's trying to push the investigation forward in terms of obstruction

of justice. if nadler were in charge, it would be a much more intense case to try to see what happened. he wouldn't necessarily take over the chairmanship for 10 or 11 months for now, it will be a very different place. susan: thank you niall stanage and darren samuelsohn for being here on "newsmakers." [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] unfoldsn, where history daily. in 1970 nine, c-span was created by america's cable television companies, and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> now, former director of national intelligence james clapper talks about his career in the intelligence community from george washington university . this is 90 minutes.