>> c-span campaign 2024 coverage your front row seat to the presidential election. watch our coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail with announcements, meet and greets, speeches and events to make up your own mind. campaign 2024 on the c-span networks. c-span now, our free mobile video app or anytime online at the span.org. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics. ♪ ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, including sparklight. >> the greatest town on earth is a place you call home. at sparklight, it is our home too. right now, we are all facing our greatest challenge. that is why sparklight is working around the clock to keep you connected. we are doing our part so it is easier to do yours. >> sparklight suprts c-span as

a public service, along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ >> welcome back to washington journal. , president of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, also called c.r.e.w. welcome to the program. remind us of what this is, the mission, and where the funding comes from. guest: crew is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that seeks to promote ethics in government to reduce the influence of money in politics and promote democracy in america. our funding comes from a combination of individuals and foundations that care about ethics and transparency and democracy. host: and i want to ask you about the news of former president donald trump's

potential involvement -- sorry, potential indictment in the january 6 probe, and you tweeted this, "justice may finally be coming." what are the specific criminal charges he could be facing and what will you be watching? guest: yes. so at the end of 2020 and beginning of 2021, donald trump did something we have never seen before in this country, which was that he tried to halt the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another, which is something that goes back to the very founding of this country, and ultimately incited a violent insurrection to try to do it, and as we look at it, that is just about the most serious offense you can commit as a leader in this country, so it's been a long road but it looks like there may well finally be some account

ability -- some accountability for the conduct, which we just cannot have if we are going to continue to have a viable democracy. we don't know exactly what the charges will be, but the target letter that special counsel zach smith sent suggested a number of options. one of those is conspiracies to defraud the united states, which is likely to be a charge based on, at least in part, the use of fake electors, of people who claimed to represent the votes of their states but in fact did not. it looks likely that there could be charges of obstruction of an official proceeding. in other words, congress and the vice president were supposed to get together on january 6, 2021, and certify the election, both to the american people. there was this massive effort

through a number of means, including, ultimately, violence, to stop that from happening. that is where that obstruction charge comes in. finally, it looks like there may be charges based on the insurrection itself. it looks at the form those could take if that target letter is a guide. it actually is a civil rights offense. in this case, it would be the rights of millions of people to have their votes counted, people who voted in yet -- voted and yet, if congress did not certify the election, if control was instead given to the person who did not win, those people would be denied the right to have their votes counted. there are a lot of charges that could apply, but those are a good bet for where charges could be coming. host: and i will remind our

viewers that if you would like to call in, you can start doing that now. democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001, and independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us and interact with us on social media. noah, your organization put out a report called the case for donald trump's disqualification under the 14th amendment. explain that. how would that work? guest: the 14th amendment to the constitution, which was ratified in the aftermath of the civil war, contains a provision that most people have forgotten about in the 150 plus years since, which says that, if a person swears an oath to support the constitution and then engages in insurrection against it, that person is disqualified from office. what the framers of the 14th

amendment had in mind is people who tried to overthrow the government, overthrow the democracy, should not be in charge of it, and specifically they were thinking of confederates in the wake of the civil war. so that was part of the 14th amendment. that is not the part that most people remember now. and in the years after the 14th amendment, most people just understood that and accepted it and confederate leaders did not try to get state or federal positions, but some did and were disqualified by courts or by other means under the 14th moment. and that is something that is still very much part of the constitution. it is a living part of our law. and it is something that was designed for the moment in which we find ourselves, where you had an effort to overturn a free and

fair election to keep someone in power who had lost, which is exactly -- and do it violently -- and that is exactly the kind of thing that is part of the 14th amendment that was meant to address that if you are somebody who tries to overturn the constitution and the government, you should not then be able to be in charge of it. there is -- and so what we are doing in this report is sitting on methodically what the law says, how it applies to the january 6, 2021 insurrection, and why donald trump specifically is someone who engaged in insurrection and is disqualified from office, and we think, as we have set out in this report, 90 pages of evidence, drawn from the findings of the select house

committee on january 6, a lot of it drawn from court proceedings and press coverage and other kinds of evidence, and did is clear that donald trump specifically caused -- he is the one who called to washington the people who engaged in violence on jerry six, they were responding -- on january 6, they responded to his calls, he specifically tried to overturn the elections, send up this false slate of electors, and ultimately inspired this crowd to use force to halt the certification of the election and the peaceful transfer of power. host: the constitution uses the term insurrection. do we have a problem of defining

insurrection and who gets define it? guest: well, there is law as to what an insurrection is. there's law from the time after the civil war. and we are not going into this question of donald trump cold. my organization, c.r.e.w., last year represented residence in new mexico who brought a legal action against a guy named hugh we griffin, a founder of a group called cowboys for trump, somebody who organized people to come to washington on january 6, 2021. he participated in a press tour, rounding people up for that. he was on the steps of the capitol spurring people on to go into the capitol and use force and the court ultimately found that january 6, 2021 was

an insurrection for the purposes of the 14th amendment of the constitution and found that this person, even though he was not personally violent, but wasn't somebody who organized it incited, engaged -- violent, but was somebody who organized and incited, engaged in insurrection. we think there's a strong law as to what the framers of the 14th amendment had in mind when they wrote this provision and what insurrection means today and that it applies pretty directly to the events of 2021 and to donald trump. that's ultimately going to be something for courts to decide but we think the law is strong and the facts overwhelming. host: i want to read to you a quote from harvard law professor

noah feldman and get your reaction reaction -- get your rea "it is notable the 14th amend does not use the word sedition. that absence could be used by trump or his lawyers to ar that even if the march on the capitol was an insurrection and even if verbally himself 'engaged' int he was not insurrection for the purposes of the 14th amendment ban on holy office -- on holding office." guest: i think they will make arguments in that line but i don't think they will prevail. there's caselaw from the 1860's and 70's, at least one case, the only case to consider this more recently that found that engaging in insurrection can include inciting, encouraging,

organizing, and actually, the 14th amendment itself talks about giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists, which seems to pretty directly say that you do not need to be somebody who was personally violent. in some ways, it would be kind of a perverse result if you said that kind of the people who are the driving forces behind any insurrection, people who organized it were free from consequences but the footsoldier's were the one that have to bear those consequences. it seems inconceivable as a logical matter that that is what the 14th amendment means and the law as we have analyzed it does not bear that up either. host: let's talk to viewers now. judy is first in harrisburg, illinois, independent. judy?

caller: watching our capital being destroyed january 6 was a tragedy to most americans. i was thought the president of the united states was to protect us from foreign and domestic violence. it amazes me that this man can run for president of the united states once again. this is very sad and scary. host: noah, i take it you agree with that. guest: i do. i think one of the things i was so powerful that we saw january 6, 2021, even putting aside the things donald trump said and did in the lead up to that act of violence was that, for three hours, he sat there and took no action as the capitol was being sacked in a way it had not been

since the war of 1812, the civil war. if he didn't call in the national -- he did not call in the national guard, it was only the vice president whose life was at risk that took the action . as that was happening, donald trump sent a tweet blaming mike pence and inflaming the crowd further. i think the caller is right that it is the opposite of the responsibility that any of our leaders, particularly a president, has. it is disgraceful. and the constitution says he cannot serve again. it is not about and elect or a policy preferences, it is about protecting democracy, right there in the document. host: mike in hubbard, ohio, good morning, republican. caller: good morning. the insurrection happened november 3 when the fbi coordinated with the white house to cover up the biden laptop

hell, when mark zuckerberg paid $500,000 to wisconsin for drop offices. he changed voting laws in all of the states because of covid, mail in voting around the country. the insurrection happened november 3. trump was winning on election night and then, 10 days later, all of a sudden biden wins 81 million votes more than barack obama or anyone else in u.s. history. if you think biden won fair and square, it is a complete joke. have a good day. host: what do you think? guest: i'm certainly not going to go point by point on that. a lot of the same kinds of conspiracy theories we've heard from donald trump and others but i will say that donald trump's own advisors, his own

administration, his own department of homeland security verified this was the safest and most secure election in u.s. history, that finding every branch of government -- that the results were not affected by any large-scale fraud, that the election did go to president biden. it is not sort of a question of democrats saying one thing and republicans assaying another thing. republican leaders in the position to see what happened were very clear on the fact this was a safe and secure election. i think it is unfortunate donald trump started, even before the election, spinning stories to call into doubt the results that would come. and he was very effective at that.

it is i think too bad. i think a lot of honest and patriotic americans are -- believed the lies donald trump effectively spun out. there's not really any question among those trump effectively spun who study the , democratic or republican, about what happened and the question is what we do in response to that. you have people like congresswoman liz cheney who is about as strong conservative credentials on policy as anybody who is clear on what happened and was willing to be forthright about it and

was essentially had the office for that. the stand she hand others have taken have helped us -- and others have taken have helped us to road down -- helped us draw down on the truth there. host: let's talk to chris next in tele rosa, new mexico. chris? caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i would like to thank noah and crew for removing mr. griffin from the county commission. i am in what was mr. griffin's district, and actually ran against him in the 2018 general election. mr. griffin has been in trouble in the law at various times

since then. i'm wondering what the prospects are for his appeal to the supreme court in this 14th amendment case. guest: so in mr. griffin's case, the trial court removed him from office. the new mexico supreme court upheld that on procedural grounds. mr. griffin has appealed to the supreme court. we still have not gotten an official notice of that but we understand him to have done so. i think that, based on procedural posture come in before the supreme court, it is unlikely they will take this case up at all. it is a narrow procedural ground that came to them. we do not think it is a question before them that is the kind of

thing the supreme court generally takes up. we don't know for sure and we are prepared to vigorously defend the ruling from the court below if the supreme court decides to take that up, but i do think it is unlikely. we expect the ruling to stand, it is the right ruling, and mr. griffin is, even as recently as 2022, long after the attack on the capitik -- capitol was still refusing to certify elections based on unsupported assertions. this was an appropriate result and one that shows it is an important cost to prove -- constitutional provision and it is alive and well and help protecting americans. host: our next caller is from michigan, republican. caller: first of all, i would

like to say donald trump did order national guard to the capitol. nancy pelosi was busy with her zoom crew and said we don't want that here, we have to film our perfect insurrection. anyway, as far as noah goes, his trump-to range syndrome is going on television. he actually looks kind of creepy how so anti-trump that cbs is strong over there. we will let this play out and maybe he should be charged with insurrection. guest: the fact of what happened on january 6 are well-established by congressional investigation, by department of justice investigations. i think there is not a lot of real question as to what happened there, but you do have

donald trump out there continuing to spin an alternative reality and it is difficult to get to consensus, to get to legal results when we now live in a country where there is little agreement on even what reality is. that is a challenge, but i think what we need to do is to continue to go out there every day and do our best to get into the facts, to look at the law, to apply it fairly, and that is what we do every day, we are an organization that has been very critical of democrats and republicans when they act in ways that are unethical or antidemocratic. i would hope this is a country

where an attempt to overturn an election and keep yourself in power even when you lose would be something that would be intolerable, regardless of party, whether someone from your own party or somebody from the other party. i think it has been bad to see that maybe that is less true than i would've hoped it is but i think we can get back to that place. host: you've got a question hereby taxed that says do you feel ruby freeman and shea maas, the georgia poll workers, can sue donald trump for slander? what do you think of that? guest: that's a little outside of my area of expertise. in the law, i think we just saw the lawsuit against donald trump

for defamation. it is certainly an avenue that people can pursue against somebody like trump who has been -- who has had a difficult relationship with the truth for certainly his political career but arguably his entire life and certainly for those poll workers in georgia, the kinds of harassment and threats and disruptions to their lives that they have gone through just for trying to do their job and being civil servants is appalling. i certainly hope that they are able to resume their lives, to have their reputations restored. as to the prospect of a lawsuit, i am not steeped enough in specific facts of law there to

have a clear opinion about that. host: jay in mississippi, independent, go ahead. caller: good morning. i hadn't seen you on in a while and i thought that western general was hitting but they have not hawed -- had you on the while. host: thank you, j. caller: that's a little joke but let me say this to mr. bookbinder. i call myself an independent, i am living in mississippi, a strong state no question, but i do not like some of the older type republicans. there's no such thing as a [indiscernible] anymore. they are as liberal as they

come. with that being said, let me say something, you're worried about donald trump running, he is halfway home, he has run away with the republican nomination. even many democrats don't even want biden to run, so i would be careful where i would say there's no chance of him being elected president. thank you. host: what do you think? as far as these indictments go, the timing and election? guest: we are not an elector organization and don't take positions on those who should be elected and not be elected, so we are trying not to look at this in terms of what is the effect of an action going to be on an upcoming election. what i do think it's clear is the constitution makes clear