David Feldman (2:33)

John Bonifaz is a constitutional attorney and the co founder and president of Free speech for people. Mr. Bonifaz previously served as the executive director and general counsel of the National Voting Rights Institute and as the legal director of voter action. In 2004, Mr. Bonifaz wrote the book Warrior the Case for Impeaching George W. Bush. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. John Bonifaz, thanks so much.

John Bonifaz (3:02)

I'm proud to be with you.

Ralph Nader (3:03)

Yes, welcome back, John. And listeners, I think you've heard the argument for impeachment of Donald J. Trump, who I've called the most impeachable president by far in American history, violating constitutional provisions, openly, blatantly violating federal statutes, openly, blatantly refusing to enforce the laws at health and safety, economic well being, American people shutting down the regulatory agencies and firing huge numbers of them. So we have the first grassroots initiative here led by John Boniface. And you'll hear more about it in a moment. But just remember, for those of you who think it's pie in the sky because the Republicans control the Congress, Nixon won 49 states in 1972, and in less than two years, he was about to be impeached and removed from office. Before he resigned to avoid that, and that was considered impossible, they used to say, you have to carry Dick Nixon out by the feet from the White House. He will never leave. When the Republican Party sees that their fortunes in 2026 are sinking, then the political calculus shifts and it's their political skin vis a vis Trump who's not up in 2026. So we have to start and we have to be ready for so when the time comes and it coalesces in a whole number of ways on Capitol Hill, the people are ready, they're informed and they can put the pressure on members of Congress who don't want to uphold their constitutional oath and exercise their authority to impeach a serial violating, corrupt, self enriching, lying and destroying so many of the social safety nets for the American people. Donald J. Trump, with that introduction, John, just tell us very briefly how you got underway here. It's not the first time and what you anticipate beyond what you've already done. A million people or so. Signing the petition so far?

John Bonifaz (5:13)

Yes, thank you, Ralph. And I fully agree with everything obviously you've just said. So we launched this campaign and at Free Speech for People on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2025. It's@impeachtrumpagain.org we've been documenting since that day all the multiple abuses of power. Donald Trump has been committing impeachable offenses, high crimes against the state in detail. And the reason why we launched it on the day of the inauguration is he was already in violation of the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses, refusing to Divest from his business interests all over the world and treating the Oval Office as a profit making enterprise at the public expense. Just like when he first took the oath of office In January of 2017, we launched a campaign similar at the same time because he was already in violation of the Foreign and Domestic monuments clauses, but he had also engaged in corrupt practices in the 2024 election that are as well, impeachable offenses. You know, people think that impeachable offenses only come about once you're in office, but actually the framers were clear that if you corruptly obtained the office, then that is impeachable as well. And when you look at what Elon Musk and he did together, where Elon Musk was effectively buying votes with this scheme of offering people million dollar checks if they went ahead and registered a vote, you know, that was patently illegal and should have been shut down right away. But it was also a corrupt practice. His efforts to effectively foment violence in communities like in Springfield, Ohio, where he put forward these incredible claims about people eating dogs and so forth against the Haitian community there, that was a corrupt practice. So we document that as well. But the fact is that the abuses of power have piled on almost on a daily level since then. And we now have nearly 1 million signers, 980,000 plus, who are on board. Perhaps after your listeners tune in on this show, we'll get over that million mark. But we've been working with Congressman Al Green in the drafting of his article of impeachment that he put to the floor of the House on the War Powers Clause and the unconstitutional and illegal military attack on Iran, which we know led to 78 of his colleagues voting with him for advancing those articles of impeachment. And you know, that was quadruple the number who were on record before that vote. There are only around 20 members of Congress who are on record. So this is going to continue to grow. We're going to continue to build this case for impeachment. We're going to continue to document these impeachable offenses@impeachtrumpagain.org and we think green, as well as others are likely to introduce more articles of impeachment.

Ralph Nader (8:01)

Well, for sure. And your articles of impeachment are not exactly the same as Bruce Fine's 23 articles. There is a big overlap just to indicate how many impeachable offenses you can document against this president. But the listeners should know again that Jamie Raskin, who's the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, a Constitutional lawyer, graduate of Harvard Law School, the way John Boniface is. And Bruce Fine has said to Bruce Fine that having an informal hearing, that is what they call a shadow hearing by the Democrats who are on the House Judiciary Committee on impeachment, quote, is a good idea, end quote. So that's another foothold there, because that hearing would be very widely covered. There's nothing blocking the minority Democrats from having their own informal hearings in committee rooms with witnesses and open to the press. Bruce, do you want to weigh in here in terms of perhaps emphasizing the impeachable offense, failure to execute the laws of the land, among others, and his violation of the torture Convention as well?

Bruce Fine (9:10)

Yeah. One of the things I like to begin with is to understand what is the threshold of an impeachable offense? It's not a crime. The framers described an impeachable offense as any actions or words that created doubt over the willingness of the president to subscribe and honor the Constitution. It was prophylactive. If you have everything on the dashboard flashing that a president is not going to be complying with the Constitution, impeachment is imperative at that stage. And part of the reason why the threshold is low is because impeachment is locked like the guillotine in the French Revolution. You simply are ousted from office like a CEO being fired. When Nixon resigned under impeachment cloud, he became an Eldritch statesman. So the sanction is not drastic, but we cannot afford to have an untrustworthy steward of the rule of law in the White House. So you don't have to get that high. Now, in my judgment, you already passed that threshold, at least on two occasions. First, this is July 23, 2019. These are Mr. Trump's words that he's never retracted. Then I have Article 2, where I have the right to do anything I want as president. Then he was more recently asked whether his oath of office required under Article 2 that he was compelled to obey, namely to honor and defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, said, no, I really don't know whether I. I really have an obligation to do that. As we speak today, on the very first day from his inauguration, he said, you know, I don't like the TikTok ban, so I'm not going to comply with. And he still hasn't complied with it today, dishonoring his obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Now, we could go on. The torture convention prohibits the executive from engaging in any activity that could expose someone to torture. We already know that Mr. Trump was sending detainees, deportees to a dungeon in El Salvador where they reported their torture. The declare war clause required Congress to authorize any attack on Iran, which wasn't done anyway. The list goes on and on and on. Every day you can find more laws that the president says, I simply don't want to comply with them. He's already said the Federal and Corrupt Practices Act. He doesn't like it, so he'll repeal it anyway. It's pretty endless. And my judgment, I don't believe that there's any shadow of a doubt that Mr. Trump has shown himself by his actions and words to be an untrustworthy steward of our liberties and the rule of law. That is enough to impeach him and remove him from office. We can't take a risk. We've already seen he's well over that. And we see all these other violations. They occur almost daily. One of the greatest abuses, I think, is his willingness to call anything a national emergency, to suspend the rule of law. You know, oil, energy is a national emergency. The border is a national emergency. The crime level is a national emergency. Everything is a national emergency. Of course, there are no facts to substantiate any of this. Indeed, even when his own administration says there's nothing to this, for example, his claim, Ralph, that Venezuela is at war with the United States, it's attacked us so we can deport aliens without any due process hearing, his own CIA and intelligence community said there is no evidence that that's true, but he ignores it anyway.

Ralph Nader (12:27)

You know, Bruce, you were up on Capitol Hill during the Nixon impeachment process. Just tell our listeners, compare Nixon's transgressions where he was sure to be impeached and removed from office by the Senate before he decided to resign. Compare his impeachable offenses with Trump's.

Bruce Fine (12:45)

So there are three articles that were voted by the House Judiciary. One was obstructing the investigation of Watergate. The second was weaponizing, if you will, the federal government to go after his enemies. And third was defying congressional subpoenas. Well, Trump's defied hundreds of subpoenas, not just one. He's obviously tried to obstruct justice in numerous ways, including issuing pardons to thwart proper investigations and punishment. And they framer specifically said that a president who pardoned his friends, sheltered his friends for improper motives, was impeachable. And surely we see Trump every day weaponizing the federal government to extort from various universities hundreds of millions of dollars because they are not an echo chamber of what he says out of the White House. And Nixon's were very, very tiny. I mean, Trump is all over the line. And think of this as well, Ralph. When President Nixon, after he left, he told David Frost in an interview for oh, if the president does it, that means it's not illegal. Everybody was a guess, and the consensus was that would have been impeachable. Trump has said the exact same thing, and nothing's happened to him. It's truly amazing. But Trump takes, you know, impeachable offenses far, far beyond. It's Nixon's. Not even within shouting distance of Mr. Trump.

Ralph Nader (13:56)

Not only that, it's a daily impeachment offense process with Trump, whereas the Watergate was not something that continued daily, month after month after month in terms of Nixon's impeachment violations. John and Bruce, you have any interchange you want to do before Bruce has to leave?

John Bonifaz (14:14)

Well, first, I agree with everything Bruce has said. I appreciate all that he's doing to push this forward. I think the biggest thing that we have to deal with are the naysayers, you know, those who somehow claim that we're not going to invoke the impeachment power because either it's not the right time, or he's already been impeached twice, and what's the point? Or we just need to move on. And, you know, we have three responses at Free Speech for People about that. Number one, we either have a Constitution or we don't. We either have an impeachment clause or we don't. If we're not gonna invoke the impeachment power at this critical moment in our nation's history, then we might as well say we're giving up on the Constitution. We refuse to give up on the Constitution. The second point we make is we normalize Trump's conduct and we do not name it for what it is. These are high crimes against the state. These are not policy disputes. These are political high crimes against the state for which he must be held accountable via the impeachment process. And number three, members of Congress take the very same oath that Donald Trump took on January 20th to protect and defend the Constitution, and they have a duty to abide by that oath, to follow the mandate of that oath, and to invoke the impeachment clause at this critical moment. Bruce, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how we handle all those naysayers out there.

Bruce Fine (15:30)

Well, the best way is to tell them, don't worry when you're out of power, it's going to come back and haunt you. You Cannot cabin, you know, the precedent set. It's just a matter of who gets there. And when you're on the short stick, you're going to suffer the same wrongdoing. It's the kind of thing that Macbeth didn't quite understand. You know, then Shakespearean play that, okay, you could go after King Duncan, it's going to come back and haunt you. And of course, Macbeth ultimately was hoisted on his own petard.

Ralph Nader (15:54)

Thank you, Bruce. I might add, John, that the media is a problem too, because they think it's so unlikely even to happen under a GOP dominated Congress that they don't report efforts like yours around the country. When you get people with the clipboard, so to speak, around the country or online to sign your petition, what kind of feedback do you get from them?

John Bonifaz (16:17)

People are hungry for this, Ralph. They find out about this campaign, they're totally excited. They download signs that are available from our website, they bring them to rallies, they tell their friends. The fact of the matter is, you're absolutely right that the mainstream media is not covering this movement. But despite that, people are learning about it organically. They're learning about it online, they're obviously learning about it from shows like yours. And when they find out about it, they're ready to get on board because they understand. They understand that what they're facing here, what we all are facing, is a tyrannical march happening out of the White House, fascism coming right from the Oval Office. And we have to address it through the very constitutional remedy that the framers designed, which is impeachment. You know, the framers were clear, as you well know, Ralph, and I know many of your listeners know. They were clear that we were not going to have any monarchs, any tyrants that would govern America. No kings in America. And for that, they set up three coequal branches of government. Article 1 for the United States Congress in the Constitution, Article 2 for the presidency, and Article 3 for the judiciary. Three co equal branches of government, no kings in America. But they also knew. They also knew there would come a day, perhaps in the future, where there would be a president that would so trample on the Constitution, so trample on the rule of law, that that president would need to be held accountable via the impeachment process. That's why they put an extra guardrail into the Constitution, Section 4 of Article 2, the impeachment clause. And that's what we have to invoke today. And when people find out that there is this remedy, that we have to stand up and declare it and demand our Members of Congress invoke this remedy, they're ready to get on board. The last thing I'll just say on that point is ASO Communications Research Collaborative, two important polling research firms. In April, they put out, April 2025, they put out findings demonstrating from a polling study they did that 52% overall already support impeachment, 84% of Democrats, 55% of independents, 20% of Republicans. And then they did an analysis attached to the poll. And we have this on our site, which we've amplified, in which they've said that these numbers match the very numbers that were there at the height of the prior impeachment trials of Donald Trump. So there we had in the past, you know, mainstream media covering it. There was a huge case being made already in the media and by members of Congress here. That case isn't being made other than Congressman Al Green and a few others by members of Congress. It's not being made in the mainstream media. And yet the numbers are already there where people see it for their own eyes. They recognize people being disappeared from the streets and being sent to foreign torture prisons. That's an abuse of power, impeachable offense. Illegally kidnapping people off the streets, illegally detaining them, sending them out of the country. An abuse of power, impeachable offense. Usurping Congress's power to appropriate funds, you know, going ahead and freezing trillions of dollars of public funds. An attack on Congress, an abuse of power, impeachable offense. Defying court orders left and right, multiple federal courts that Donald Trump and his administration have defied. These are abuses of power, impeachable offenses. So people see this, they understand what's happening, they and they're ready to get on board. But you're right, you know, we don't have mainstream media covering it yet, but I think as time goes on, they're going to recognize they're going to have to cover it well.

Ralph Nader (19:42)

And that survey you referred to was back in April, you know, the impact of the destruction of the safety net, the food stamp program, cut Medicaid, cut Meals on Wheels, cut Head Start, cut pollution control, protections of people from being ripped off by corporations, shut down virtually the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, on and on and on. So I would think that that survey would have even higher results. And the people are way ahead of the Democratic Party. When the Democrats go back for their town meetings, they're pounded by packed halls of people saying, get more assertive, get more aggressive. We're tired of your mealy mouth responses to Trump. So that's what you're building. Now. Let's give people access to how they can sign this petition or get information about it.

John Bonifaz (20:38)

Yes, they can go to impeachtrumpagain.org which is our dedicated impeachment site. There. They can find the petition to sign it. They can find the case for impeachment. They can see the 22 grounds we've documented in detail. They can go into other pages of the site to see further details on those grounds. They can help share the word, spread the word about this campaign. They can download, as I said, signs to take to rallies to call for impeachment proceedings against this lawless president. They can get on board in many ways. And look, that's what it's going to take. At the end of the day, it's we the people who are going to move this process forward who are going to demand the defense of our democracy. There are a lot of people in Congress who are running scared. You know, 78 brave souls voted with Congressman Al Green, stood up and said, yes, we're ready to advance articles of impeachment. But everybody else who didn't in Congress who took that very same oath to protect and defend the Constitution and stood on the sidelines in this march to tyranny, they need to be held accountable. And at their town halls or at their offices, in their districts where we're in the middle of this August recess, people should go and say, where were you? Why were you missing in action on this critical moment for our nation? Where are you on impeachment? And they cannot give a cogent answer to that other than they made a mistake and they need to now turn around and look. Andre Carson is a congressman from Indiana. The day after that vote that happened in late June, Andre Carson got up in front of his local media and he said, I didn't have a chance to read the articles that Congressman Green had introduced. Actually only five page documentary. Everybody had known that Donald Trump had illegally bombed Iran. He said, I didn't have a chance to read the articles, but now that I have, I'm going to co sponsor Congressman Green's articles of impeachment. So he flipped in 24 hours. Why did he flip? My guess is he heard from his constituents saying, where were you, Congressman Carson, on that critical vote? And when he recognized he made the mistake, he rightly turned around and flipped. And he's now co sponsor of Congressman Green's article of impeachment on the illegality of the bombing of Iran. So we're now up to 80 total members of Congress who are on record supporting impeachment. But there need to be many more and we need to be continuing to push this.

Ralph Nader (22:52)

Well, if Jimmy Raskin holds shadow hearings are going to get national coverage. You break through the mainstream media so people keep the heat on Congressman Jamie Raskin. And you can check and see whether your congressman is on the House Judiciary Committee, as they call them, ranking members, in order to build the constituency on the committee behind Jamie Raskin. By the way, you know, Donald Trump throws impeachment around everywhere. He doesn't like a judge's decision. This judge should be impeached. He doesn't like. And he wants to impeach people who aren't even under the constitutional provision. He wants to impeach members of the Congress that defy him. He wants to impeach prosecutors. So he throws it around. He's not going to be astonished when there's a coordinated campaign. And it will include increased number of Republicans who lose their Medicaid, who lose their veterans benefits or services, who are not protected, who have their contracts for renewable energy in red states in the south canceled arbitrarily, tens of millions of dollars per contract because Trump doesn't like wind power, doesn't like solar. He likes dirty, dangerous coal and the sources of global warming, oil and gas. A lot of small businesses have had contracts just suspended, canceled. I mean, they're on the verge of bankruptcy. Do they can't pay the commitments to their own creditors. Say that website again twice.

John Bonifaz (24:22)

Yes, impeachtrump again.org impeach trumpagain.org and the other thing, I'll just say, Ralph, you know, you're absolutely right. We got to focus on members of the House Judiciary Committee. But any member of Congress has the power to bring articles of impeachment to the floor of the House Representatives and force a vote. That's because it's considered a privileged resolution under House Rule 9. And that's what Congressman Al Green did. He's not on the Judiciary Committee, but he went to the floor, he forced that vote. So we're calling on every member of Congress to stand up and do their duty, regardless of whether they're on the House Judiciary Committee. But you're right, you know, if Congressman Raskin decides to hold those shadow hearings, that will help build further the case. We also need members of Congress to do their duty regardless of whether they're on that committee and invoke this power and introduce articles of impeachment against this law as president.

Ralph Nader (25:09)

And taking off from John's point, listeners, one way to get your members attention is to write a letter or make a call or email and say we want you to come to a town meeting at the town hall or school auditorium in your district to discuss impeachment, yes or no. And then you send a petition of people where they sign clearly their name, their occupation, their email and say we want a town meeting on impeachment, yes or no. You can even do that during the rest of the August recess, their long 5 week vacation until after Labor Day. If they come around to shake your hands or go to some clam baker, you can make that request. That intensifies the communication. You're not just calling up and saying impeach Trump, you're asking for a meeting, which means they're going to have to say yes or no. And that is a much more indelible communication by you, the citizen than simply making a call.

John Bonifaz (26:10)

There are other things we've got on the site, including, you know, a whole effort that we're now focused on to get people during this August recess to go to their members offices to and lobby for impeachment. Citizen lobby for impeachment, whether it be through the town hall process or through meeting directly with the members. And even those who voted for those articles of impeachment in June, they need to hear from their constituents, they need to be thanked, but they also need to be asked to do more, to stand up as well and introducing their own articles of impeachment. So there's a lot more that we can be doing to pressure Congress to do their job.

Ralph Nader (26:45)

Tell us about your organized allies. Do you have any citizen groups, labor groups, good government groups, League of Women Voters, or are they all holding back?

John Bonifaz (26:55)

Well, they're not all holding back. I think some frankly are because they're scared or they're taking their cues from what the Democratic Party elite says. But Women's March has been a strong ally with us. They have done two national digital town halls with us and Congressman Green, they've been there with us from the beginning and we appreciate all their leadership. And then we have some local groups, some local indivisible chapters. Despite the indivisible national leadership not yet being on board, local indivisible chapters have stepped up and have been engaged at their rallies and calling on this, bringing speakers forward on calling this. There's a group out of Washington state fixed Democracy first and they just recently joined the fight. They've been involved on getting big money out of politics, which is something we care deeply about at Free Speecher People. And we work with them on that, but they've come on board on impeachment as well. Look, this is a fight for our democracy and our Constitution. We need all hands on deck. So I hope more and more groups will come on board and break away, frankly, from the establishment forces who tell them, oh, you can't do this. You can't say the I word. You know, we better not even touch this. This is about, you know, where we are in this moment and whether we're going to invoke this constitutional remedy. And sure, there are going to be a people who oppose it and get about it, but there are going to be a lot of people who are hungry for this message and want to get on board with something that's responsive to this march to tyranny coming out of the Oval Office.

Ralph Nader (28:23)

Well, the extortionist, and he is committing extortion vis a vis the universities and the law firms. That's clear. And he's doing it to other groups as well. Trump is moving into a full fledged fascist dictatorship. You know, it starts out as an autocracy. He can do whatever he wants. Then he issues all these illegal executive orders now, over 100 of them, which are violating federal statutes in the Constitution. So now he's in a dictatorship with police state manifestations. As you say, kidnapping people with mask, unidentified ice agents and terror is the final stage. He knows no boundaries. He's drunk with his own power. And he says it in his own words. I mean, unlike Nixon, he doesn't even try to hide it. He says it in his own words. And so people listening to this program should realize that this is extremely serious here that's going on. Nothing in American history can compare to the concentration of illegal, unconstitutional power in the hands of one man. Let's go to Steve.

Steve Scrovan (29:29)

John, it seems that certain people abide by the rules. And then you're dealing with people who don't really care about the rules. Have you spoken to House members or Senate members who are Republicans? And if so, what do they say to you about this?

John Bonifaz (29:44)

We've not talked with members who are Republicans yet. We have talked with a number of Democratic members and we hear the range. You know, we hear some people who are supportive and certainly voted with Greene on those articles. And then we hear from some people who are saying, this is not the time, this is the wrong approach. Strategically. You know, we have to build the case at another time. All that, you know, punting the ball or kicking the can down the road, so to speak. And, you know, we push back, obviously, and we make Clear they're wrong on that. But we hear that as well. And, you know, frankly, I think it's disgraceful. I think it's disgraceful for any member who claims that they're out there defending the Constitution, defending our democracy, and yet they won't even want to mention the I word, as much as I respect them on other fronts. And what they do, if they're not invoking the impeachment clause at this critical hour, frankly, they're part of the problem. But I'll just identify another set of actors out there who have power to engage in holding Donald Trump accountable, who have yet to step up, and that's state attorneys general and local da. So, Ralph, you rightly highlighted the extortion that Donald Trump has been engaged in in multiple ways all across the country. We have issued letters now to the state and local prosecutors, top state and local prosecutors, including the ags for California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, urging that there be investigations, criminal investigations, for the extortion that Donald Trump has engaged in with respect to the law firm shakedown, where he basically has had nine law firms, nine national law firms with offices in all those states providing nearly $1 billion of free legal services to him and his associates because of their, his attack, frankly, on them. And that was a total extortion, violating state criminal laws. State AGs and local DAs need to step up. The kidnapping of Ramesa Ozturk, The Turkish student, PhD student from Tufts University, swept off the streets in the broad daylight in Somerville, Massachusetts. We have a letter pending before the Massachusetts attorney general and the local district attorney for Middlesex county, covering Somerville, urging a criminal investigation because of that kidnapping. We've issued letters to the California and New York state and local prosecutors around the extortion of Paramount and Skydance with respect to what happened with the CBS matter and then the merger that was going on, they, of course, went ahead and settled that lawsuit for $16 million, a payoff to Donald Trump, any legal bribe, frankly, but also an extortion and then the shutting down of Stephen Colbert show. So all of this requires criminal investigations by these state ages and these local DAs, and they need to step up as well. We have that up on our site@free speechforpeople.org People can read those letters. They're detailed, and they can see why these state and local prosecutors need to act.

Ralph Nader (32:51)

Well, thank goodness for our federal system where the federal prosecutors are under control of Trump.

John Bonifaz (32:57)

Right.

Ralph Nader (32:57)

And the Supreme Court renders support for Trump by delaying and evading, making decisions that are reflective of circuit court and federal district court rulings against Trump. So what we have left of the states and of course, the one tool he can't control, which is the impeachment tool in the US Congress, exclusive to Congress, and they can remove him from office and there's no judicial appeal under the Constitution of that. Let's go to David.

David Feldman (33:27)

Earlier, Bruce was talking about impeachment coming back to haunt the Democrats. Trump was impeached twice. Biden becomes president, House wins control after the midterms. They only impeached Alejandro Mayorkas, Director of Homeland Security. They tried to impeach Biden. You would think, why didn't the Republicans do a quid pro quo? Why couldn't they impeach Biden?

John Bonifaz (33:54)

Are they, they had nothing on them. They had no, they had no high ground.

David Feldman (33:57)

Does that matter?

John Bonifaz (33:58)

Well, I mean, it is true that Gerald Ford famously said the role of impeachment is how many votes you can get in the House to issue articles of impeachment. But I do think that at the end of the day, the case here for impeachment is real and the case for Mayorkas and Biden was not. And that's why they ultimately knew they couldn't proceed. But we know Donald Trump is scared of impeachment for two reasons. First, he wants to erase the history at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. He wants to take out any reference to his prior to impeachment display of prior presidents. When that didn't work, they went ahead and changed the wording of his two impeachments to water it down and make it sound like, oh, it's just a nothing burger and there was no need to have those impeachment proceedings. That's number one, Exhibit A of why he's scared of it, because he doesn't even want the history of it being shown at the Smithsonian. The second is his efforts to now rig the 2026 election with his attack on the congressional seats in Texas, gerrymandering the seats to add five new Republican seats and trying to do that in other states mid decade. I mean, this is unheard of. This is a way to effectively rig the 2026 election. Now he's announced he wants to get rid of mail in voting, all designed to suppress the vote. Why is he trying to do that? Number one, because he recognizes that if the House does change control, he may face that direct threat of impeachment, and he doesn't want that. So we know he's scared of it. I think he knows he's vulnerable to it with respect to the abuse of power. He's committed and, you know, frankly, the facts are clear that he is readily impeachable starting now.

Ralph Nader (35:38)

More than that, his redistricting Texas includes trying to get rid of Al Green by redistricting his district again, just like he fired the prosecutors in the Justice Department, anybody who had any role in prosecuting him with all his various indictments that were blocked when he was elected president, from Florida to New York to Washington, D.C. so he is quite aware of that. And we should keep that in mind that whatever medicine Trump deserves, he's dealt out to millions of innocent people in terms of his policies since January 20th. Let's go to Hannah.

Hannah Feldman (36:16)

If we agree with the premise that there's obvious evidence of impeachable offenses, it's proving, I would say, a little maddening to watch these very obvious things happen and go, why is no one stopping it? There must be a way to stop it. So my question is about lateral thinking. I'm sure you've thought about alternate ways to tackle the problem of the administration. Are there ways to come at this sideways, impeaching lower level administration officials to chip away or other, other strategies that could help reduce the harmful impact as you build up the political momentum for impeaching Trump himself?

John Bonifaz (36:58)

Yeah, thank you, Hannah, for that question. Look, I do think there are other members of his administration who are impeachable. We're starting at the top, which is why we're focused on Donald Trump. But there's no question that other members of administration are part of this cabal of abusing power and engaging in high crimes against the state. So that, that's one scenario that certainly is very plausible. But another one that I'll just highlight again is that there is a way to hold Donald Trump accountable in the states for his criminal violations of state criminal laws. You know, in Trump v. Us which is that incredible decision, complete disaster of a Supreme Court ruling that gave Trump immunity and presidential immunity going forward for official acts. It's important to note that that distinction, they were are for official acts. And Jack Smith, the special counsel at the time, said back to the district court after that ruling, well, I'm going to go ahead and continue to try this case against Trump for his role in the insurrection and all the related offenses. Because what is in my indictment, the indictment that we've issued does not involve official acts. And similarly here, extortion cannot be defined as an official act. Kidnapping cannot be defined as an official act. So state AGs and local DAs have a very important role to play in standing up to this lawless president, invoking their own responsibility with respect to enforcing state criminal laws. If it was anyone else who wasn't named Donald Trump, who wasn't the president, United States, and they engaged in this kind of extortion in their jurisdiction, they would be already facing prosecution. So why is it not the president, United States, Are they scared of him? Are they thinking someone else will handle this? You know, we'll wait for another AG to have the courage. They need to have the courage. And you know, there are ways in. These are elected officials, these state and local prosecutors, and they need to hear from their constituents as well as to where they are in this moment in dealing with this lawless president, which I.

Ralph Nader (38:54)

Remember he is a convicted felon to begin with.

John Bonifaz (38:57)

Yes.

Ralph Nader (38:57)

And what we're talking about, Hannah and David and Steve is just reversing something he said to hundreds of thousands of people, federal workers, small business, contractors, etcetera, which is you're fired. He loves that phrase, you're fired. Not only on the Apprentice TV show, he's done it as president. He gets glee and joy of saying you're fired. Well, impeachment is just another way of saying you're fired. And just to be clear, it requires a majority vote in the House and a two thirds vote in the Senate.

John Bonifaz (39:31)

Right. And no, as you say, no judicial oversight. I've been asked that. Right. People say, what about the Supreme Court? They're going to intervene. They're going to stop it. They have zero role in the Constitution with respect to impeachment. Yes, the chief justice presides in a ministerial fashion over the Senate trial, but there is zero role from a substantive standpoint of the Supreme Court on this. There's no judicial. This is solely a matter for Congress to handle.

Ralph Nader (39:55)

That's right. Go ahead and continue, Hannah.

Hannah Feldman (39:58)

I was going to say, you know, to your point about people being afraid of Trump, you know, no one's afraid of Marco Rubio. Is it a mistake to start at the top rather than chip away, make everyone working for Trump a liability for him, he'll cut them loose and just isolate him rather than trying to bring him down first?

John Bonifaz (40:18)

I guess I don't see as an either or. You know, I think, I think we need to keep building the case for impeaching Donald Trump because of his lawlessness on a daily basis. But I certainly would support and agree that these other members of his administration ought to face this threat as well. Frankly, Hannah, I don't see these same members of Congress who are saying we don't want to Talk about the I word with respect to Trump. I don't see them embracing the I word with respect to Marco Rubio or anyone else. They want to steer clear of it altogether. They think we should only talk about Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security. And we can't even talk about the militarization of cities because that touches on crime. Or we can't talk about the disappearing of people from the streets and immigration because that talks about the border. We can talk about Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security while we also talk about these multiple abuses of power that are coming out of this administration, starting with Donald Trump, but certainly with the other members of the Cabinet as well.

Ralph Nader (41:13)

I'm sure you've gotten this question more than once. Okay, John Boniface, you've got almost a million signatures. You've sent them to the leadership in the House and Senate. I'm sure they haven't responded. Right. They haven't responded to you, have they?

John Bonifaz (41:27)

Well, we delivered the petitions in late July to the chief of staff for Congressman Raskin. He did meet with us, and they accepted the box that we provided with the thumb drive that had the nearly 1 million signers. And then we delivered it to Congressman Jim Jordan's office, and we were met by an intern who was very friendly and took the same materials. We have not gotten a substantive response publicly from them. But, you know, we're going to keep pushing with respect to this and we're going to keep demanding that members stand up.

Ralph Nader (41:59)

Yeah. I would send it to the Speaker, Mike Johnson, because he is, after all, in charge of the House and he's got to hear a different view than all the sycophants that he reflects.

John Bonifaz (42:09)

Yes, good point.

Ralph Nader (42:11)

Before we conclude, a question you're probably getting. Okay, John, let's say Trump is impeached in the House and removed from office in the Senate. What you end up with is J.D. vance.

John Bonifaz (42:24)

Yes, we get that question. I appreciate you asking it, Ralph. And you know, we agree with what Bruce Fine says about this, who, of course, was on the show earlier, which is the moment that Donald Trump is impeached and removed from public office, convicted in the Senate and removed. Anyone coming into the oval office, including J.D. vance, is going to know that they're next if they keep going with these abuses of power. So it's going to be a clear message to anyone who dares to carry on with the lawlessness that Donald Trump is engaged in that they too will be impeached and removed. We're not going to stop at Donald Trump simply because his name is Donald Trump. If others want to engage in those abuse of power, they need to face the same response, which is invoking the impeachment clause. And that's where we stand on this.

Ralph Nader (43:12)

Rest assured, Trump will in the coming months give the Congress even more severe impeachable offense evidence. He's not going to back off and he's not going to reverse course. He's known for simply doubling down and making things even more egregiously against the law in the White House. We've been talking with John Boniface. He's the mover, along with many others, of the impeachment Trump Again movement. Almost a million signatures so far, without any mainstream coverage whatsoever. Once the mainstream, once the independent media, which isn't covering it very much as well, gets on board, you'll see the numbers on these petitions start to spiral rapidly. Thank you very much, John.

John Bonifaz (44:01)

Thank you, Ralph. It's an honor to talk with you, Steve, David, Hannah and your listeners and appreciate all that you do. Thank you so much.

Steve Scrovan (44:08)

We've been speaking with John Bonifaz. We have a link to his work@ralphnaderradiohour.com up next, David and I talked to Ralph about his latest social media post about the predations of the Trump administration. But first, let's check in with our corporate crime reporter Russell Mokhyber.

David Feldman (44:24)

From the National Press building in Washington, D.C. this is your corporate crime report on Morning minute for Friday, August 29th, 2025. I'm Russell Mulkhyberg. In a game of Russian roulette with a standard Colt revolver, the chances of instant death are 1 in 6. That's the same as the odds of humanity being wiped out within 75 years, everyone dead in a cataclysmic and total breakdown of civilization. According to Oxford University scientist Toby Ord, an expert on the threat of artificial intelligence. Ord's colleague Nick Bostrom is more pessimistic still. He rates the possibility of human extinction by the next century. As one in four Pulitzer Prize winner Jared diamond is even less hopeful, predicting our species chances of survival beyond 2050, just 25 years away, are no better than even or 50 50. For the corporate crime reporter, I'm Russell Mulkheimer.

Steve Scrovan (45:20)

Thank you, Russell. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. I'm Steve Scrovan along with David Feldman and Hannah and Ralph. Ralph, you just put out a social media post about Donald Trump and all of his impeachable offenses. Do you want to elaborate on that for our audience?

Ralph Nader (45:36)

Well, you know, people can't keep up with this daily destruction of people's programs while he provides whatever big business wants from Washington, including subsidies, protection from prosecution and other goodies. So I want to keep reminding people of the different things that have been deteriorating their own protections in this country from the fascist Trump dictatorship. Besides being a servile corporatist, you know, to his corporate paymasters, including his praise of the oil and gas industry. Trump is also crazy in other ways. He thinks wind power is ugly, so he just blocked. The wind power project off the New England coast is 80% complete and would provide clean electricity to 350,000 homes. I mean, who would do something like that? Who's a rational human being? In addition, he crazily cut funding for the US Government's disease surveillance globally, which alerts our country to deadly viruses spreading into new areas and heading toward the United States. There's a climate change and global transportation. One such virus, transmitted by mosquitoes, is called T Kung Bunya, a disease that can leave people with debilitating pain for years. According to the New York Times article recently, he also is leaving Americans defenseless by disabling fema. Can you imagine that? And other efforts that alert and mitigate damage and death from hyper hurricanes, floods and wildfires. And some very brave female employees over 150 just published a petition to Congress warning that Trump is gutting disaster response. And they went into great detail. And you can see that report in the New York Times, August 25. And what is he doing with the money? Well, he's giving $150 billion more dollars rubber stamped by the GOP and Congress for the bloated military budget. That's $150 billion more dollars than the generals have asked for. Now you can see why scores of psychologists starting in 2017 have called Trump this egomaniacal serial law violator. A dangerously unstable personality. He's now placed our country under an illegal fascist dictatorship. His executive orders are mostly flat out illegal. And he is launching a growing police state, kidnapping people with mass ICE agents and moving into cities like Washington D.C. and Chicago. The cities he's mentioned, just by happenstance, all have black mayors. So with the Supreme Court enabling them, only the Congress using its impeachment and removal power of our founding fathers, can stop them. And there's already movement underway. You can go to impeachtrump again.org to see how many of your fellow citizens are signing petitions in effect to say to Congress, send the message that Trump has sent to hundreds of thousands of federal workers and other contractors, you are.

Steve Scrovan (48:52)

Fired Ralph, you are in D.C. where he's called in the National Guard there on some bogus emergency order. What is the mood in the city like? Can you tell us what it's like on the streets? What's going on there?

Ralph Nader (49:06)

Yeah, well, Jim Fallows has done a very good report on that. Basically, the National Guard troops are only in the tourist and downtown business areas right now. They're not being deployed into the low income residential areas. So, so they're standing around and, you know, there's not much to do. And what they're being pressured to do is to make arrests with local police and take credit for it. And the local prosecutor for Trump is now saying throw the book at him. So for minor misdemeanors, these people are being booked for more serious offenses. And what's starting to happen that should get Trump's attention is that restaurant business is down. I mean, who wants to come down with all the guards and all the police when they can eat in a suburb restaurant? So the restaurateurs are starting to complain. And so what's Trump's response? Another 2,000 National Guards from Republican states costing the taxpayer a nice thumb are being sent to Washington D.C. so he just lies every day. He says Washington D.C. is the most dangerous cities in the world. Well, that's false. It's not. Homicides are down to a 30 year low, for example. And this other data that counteracts his wild exaggerations. I've written a column, Steve, the base that the two crime scenes in Washington D.C. are the White House and the K Street lobbying offices for corporate crooks, lobbying Congress and the executive branch. And you want to talk about violence and criminality. What about Trump backing the fully genocide in Gaza, for example, with US Weapons and diplomatic cover and letting Netanyahu do whatever he wants? Seems like Netanyahu has a dossier, some observers are saying, on Trump to keep his mouth shut. And of course he is disabling all kinds of life saving defenses for the American people in the area of public health, area of global warming storms, and even in the area of occupational health and safety, including coal miners. He's just wrecking things here and there like crazy. And so maybe the National Guardsmen should pay some attention to the White House and to the K Street lobbyists, if only symbolically, to show that crime should not just be considered street crime, it should be considered corporate crime or what we call crime in the suites.

David Feldman (51:34)

Ralph, when you look at the behavior of the lawyers right now working for Trump in the White House, does the legal Establishment have the capacity to discipline any of these people?

Ralph Nader (51:47)

Yes, they do. There have been some preliminary moves to file complaints to the lawyer licensing agencies in the state government. For example, Giuliani. Rudy Giuliani's license as a lawyer has been revoked because of his wild, unethical license behavior. So the bar associations should be doing more of that, because these lawyers are basically creating and defending illegality on a mass scale. They're drafting illegal executive orders. They are violating constitutional provisions to faithfully execute the laws, like the health and safety, consumer, environmental and worker protection laws, and economic protection laws. So they are basically the architects of a illegal fascist dictatorship. And if that doesn't disqualify them as licensed attorneys, I don't know what would. So maybe they'll meet more opposition after Trump is done and they have to face these petitions that will probably be filed with greater frequency in later years.

David Feldman (52:54)

I read that Tom Cotton, a graduate of Harvard Law, made a criminal referral for Jack Smith prosecuting Trump, saying he violated the Hatch act, that it was election interference prosecuting Trump. And I thought, this is what Harvard Law School teaches, Tom Cotton, that a prosecutor is violating the Hatch act by prosecuting.

Ralph Nader (53:18)

Of course, the Hatch act was wildly violated by Trump, especially in the first term. He had political events on the White House lawn openly. He required the treasury to have his signature on checks to millions of people during the COVID epidemic. And we asked the attorney General, Merrick Garland, under Biden, to prosecute. He wouldn't even answer our letters. So Tom Cotton, who is a lawyer and a senator from Arkansas, is simply expanding on that abomination where Trump pardoned the criminals on June six, convicted under due process. They had their lawyers defending him. He pardoned the criminals, and now he's fired the prosecutors. Another impeachable offense, by the way. Imagine hardening the criminals for the January 6th insurrection. And then when he comes into office, he fires the prosecutors in the Justice Department. How long are you going to stand for? American people? Sign those impeachment petitions, Ralph.

Steve Scrovan (54:21)

Speaking of impeachment, Trump is making an effort to gerrymander the midterm elections because impeachment will only work if the Democrats have control of Congress. And Texas is going to gerrymander five new seats for the Republicans. California is trying to do the same thing. We have always been against gerrymandering in general on this program. But what do you think of Gavin Newsom and the other Democratic governors? Strategy to fight fire with fire? How would you assess that?

Ralph Nader (54:57)

Well, Trump started it by calling the governor of Texas and saying you can possibly get rid of five Democratic districts if you geographically curlicue the districts with extreme gerrymandering. And Newsom's basically saying, well, you know, in California, nonpartisan commission draws these maps. But since Abbott is performing politically in favor of the gop, Newsom wants to have a referendum and ask the people of California to temporarily suspend the nonpartisan commission so he can perform politically and win some more seats for the Democrats. I think that's what he has to do. And it's not illegal, but he's got to revert back to what it used to be in California before the nonpartisan commission was established, I believe by referendum. But he's going to the people, unlike Abbott, for an endorsement. I think he's doing what should be done. I might add this idea that it's automatic, you know, like Texas going to gerrymander. They're going to get rid of five Democratic seats, but not if you have a progressive agenda that is supported by left right voters, which we've talked about endlessly on this show. The minimum wage, universal health insurance, cracking down on corporate crooks, increasing taxes on the super wealthy and the corporations, the undertaxed super wealthy in the corporation it's 85% support, a clean child, extended tax credit. All these things, you know, they appeal to conservative families. They appeal to Republican families who, you know, have to meet the same challenges where they live, work and raise their children. So we ought to get the press start talking about that, not just automatically saying, well, if they gerrymander, it's an automatic 5 seat loss in Texas to the Democrats and an automatic X number of seat gains for Democrats in California.

Steve Scrovan (56:48)

I want to thank our guest again, John Bonifaz. For those of you listening on the radio, that's our show for you podcast listeners. Stay tuned for some bonus material we call the Wrap up featuring Francesco de Santis with In Case youe Haven't Heard. A transcript of this program will appear on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour substack site soon after the episode is posted.

David Feldman (57:08)

Subscribe to us on our Ralph Nader Radio Hour YouTube channel and for Ralph's weekly column. It's free@nader.org for more from Russell Mo Kyber, it's at corporatecrimereporter.com the American Museum.

Steve Scrovan (57:22)

Of Tort Law has gone virtual. You can visit tortmuseum.org to explore the exhibits, take a virtual tour and learn about iconic tort cases from history.

David Feldman (57:29)

To order your copy of the Capitol Hill Citizen Democracy Dies in Broad Daylight. It's@capitol hillcitizen.com the producers of the Ralph Nader Radio Hour are Jimmy Lee Wirt, Hannah Feldman and Matthew Marin. Our executive producer is Alan Minsky.

Steve Scrovan (57:46)

Our theme music, stand Up, Rise up, was written and performed by Kemp Harris. Our proofreader is Elizabeth Solomon.

David Feldman (57:51)

Join us next week on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. Thank you, Ralph.

Ralph Nader (57:56)

Thank you, everybody. Stand up. Step up. You ought to step up. Rise up.

Bruce Fine (58:15)

This is John Crumshow with a special politics or pedagogy education report on kpfk. You hear more than a sound bite. That's education. That's our mission. Please make Your contribution at 818-985-5735 or pledge online@kpfk.org Glad to be back with Lorraine Evanoff. She is an author who has worked in the mystery field for a number of years. Welcome to Politics or pedagogy.

Hannah Feldman (58:42)

Thank you. My first Louise Moscow novel was based on, you know, write what you know, write what you love. The giant international banking scandal. BCCI Bank, Credit Commercial International, it was a Middle Eastern bank. The CIA used it. Everybody's involved in this story. And so this bank crashed. It ended up being a giant Ponzi scheme. And I was living in Paris at the time, and my friends were working at BCCI Paris when I lived in Paris. So full circle. I'm like, I'm going to write a novel about that. So it's finance. It was kind of a spy thriller. Louise Moscow was my spy thriller heroine. And the craziest part about all my novels is Louise Moscow. I based her name on John Moscow, the actual real attorney who brought down this Ponzi scheme. The real attorney in New York. He's a famous attorney. And that whole story is another crazy thing. My books are like historical fiction. And so anyway, so Louise Moscow.

Ralph Nader (59:51)

Is.

Hannah Feldman (59:51)

On this case in Paris where she's kind of infiltrated the bank. And the craziest part is the whole thing was about underground economy.