Loading summary
Transcript35 lines
- [00:00]
Radio Announcer
Help us reach more listeners by sharing this program with friends, family and colleagues.
- [00:06]
Ralph Nader
And I'll be back again tomorrow with
- [00:07]
Douglas Bandow
another background briefing@backbriefing.org Bye for now.
- [00:18]
Donna Walker
This is Donna Walker, host of Pacifica Performance Showcase here on kpfk. I'd like to thank all of our listeners for tuning in and especially thank those of you who pledged your support or renewed your membership to KPFK during this past. The support of generous listeners like you is what allows this listener sponsored station to operate and to maintain its fierce independence. It's a very special relationship. So thank you once again for being a part of it.
- [00:54]
Chris Hedges
You're listening to kpfk 90.7 fm, los angeles. This is chris hedges and you're listening to the ralph nader radio hour.
- [01:03]
Radio Announcer
Stand up.
- [01:04]
Chris Hedges
Stand up.
- [01:05]
Suparna Reddy
You've been sitting way too long.
- [01:12]
Steve Skrovan
Welcome to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour. I'm Steve Scrovan and it's just me. Today we're doing something a little different. Last week, Ralph, along with our constitutional law expert Bruce Fine, organized another symposium in Washington, D.C. on impeaching Donald Trump. On today's program, we are going to play you highlights from that symposium with eight of the participants, each of whom are going to give listeners their perspective on why Donald Trump should be impeached even before the midterm elections. You'll be hearing from the ethics chief from the George W. Bush administration, Richard Painter from the constitutional law professor Erwin Chermerinsky, pollster Celinda Lake, the Cato Institute's Doug Bandao and many more. So let's get right to it with an introduction from Ralph.
- [02:00]
Ralph Nader
We convened today as the second symposium on the impeachment of Donald Trump and his removal from office. The first one was on April 8th at the Rayburn Building and it was covered by C span. For anyone who's interested in listening to the presentations, the presentations today will make the constitutional case, the political case and the civic case for impeachment of Trump and his removal from office. There is no greater daily contributor evidentially to his own impeachment than Donald J. Trump. One thing is certain, it's only going to get worse with Donald J. Trump's fascist dictatorship, much worse domestically and abroad, much worse with violence, corruption and suppression. Trump himself said in July 2019 With Article 2, I can do whatever I want as president. The Supreme Court in 2024 gave him, in effect, immunity for his official acts undefined from any criminal prosecution. He has behaved accordingly. He has moved very fast to entrench dictatorial powers. Starting right on January 20, 2025. By April 2025, former Federal District judge and Harvard Law professor Nancy Gertner said that what Trump was engaging in was a coup d'. Etat. Indeed, the rhetoric from many Democratic leaders has not kept up with the horror and the urgency of what he's inflicting on on America and the American people. He has moved very, very quickly to develop a fascist dictatorship embodying a kleptocratic corporate state that is marked by nonregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy and tax escapes for the wealthy and major corporations, and as well as expanded corporate welfare in the midst of personal and institutional two way bribery and extortion. It's very important to punctuate the seriousness of what he's already done. Indeed, if the founders who signed the Declaration of Independence were to come back today, I think it's fair to say not one would oppose impeachment and removal. That is why they gave Congress the impeachment authority to avoid any future King George and any future wannabe tyrant, monarch or dictatorship.
- [04:40]
Steve Skrovan
Thank you, Ralph. Now we're gonna hear from Celinda Lake, who is a political strategist and president of Lake Research Partners.
- [04:47]
Celinda Lake
What I love about polling is conventional wisdom is wrong about 90% of the time, plus or minus 5%. Beltway conventional wisdom is wrong about 100% of the time, plus or -5%. So everybody knows impeachment's unpopular. No, it's not. It's very popular. A people support it. Everyone knows that. It'll energize the other side. No, the other side, to the extent they're going to be energized, they're already energized. We need to energize our side. We need to get our people out to vote. And they have a choice, and they showed us that choice in 2024. Millions and millions of Democrats stayed home in 2024 in battleground states because they thought they had nothing to vote for. Everyone knows it's very volatile. No, it's not. Attitudes about impeachment track with job performance. I don't think there's anything the president can do to improve his job performance right now. And he's only got 100 days left, 100 days of things that will probably take his job performance down. And finally, everybody knows that nobody understands impeachment. Well, frankly, voters understand it better than a lot of elected officials, and they can volunteer a lot of grounds for impeachment. So yet again, one of the reasons I love being a pollster, conventional wisdom is wrong. The voters are way ahead of the public. And let's go in, energize them by talking about this.
- [06:05]
Steve Skrovan
That was Celinda Lake. Now we turn to Suparna Reddy, senior counsel at Free Speech for the People, one of the lead organizers of the Impeach Trump movement.
- [06:14]
Suparna Reddy
Let's set the ground. Trump should have been impeached on day one based on his violations of the domestic and foreign emoluments clauses, when he refused to divest from his business interests around the world prior to taking his oath of office, and based on his corrupt campaign practices in the 2024 election. But he wasn't. Since then, he has committed a series of impeachable offenses against the United States, our Constitution, and the people of this country. He has made us complicit in war crimes, in crimes against humanity, in crimes against our own people. He has undermined the judiciary, usurped power from Congress, and turned our Department of Justice and law enforcement agencies into partis weapons targeting Trump's political opponents and those who speak out against him. Let us be clear. Congress should impeach and remove Trump for each and every one of these hundreds of offenses. And we have a duty to record his every abuse of power. But in the process, we should not miss the forest for the trees. Trump is intentionally and systematically dismantling our democratic institutions to consolidate his own power and line his own pockets. The Framers designed a Constitution with defenses against tyranny. But these defenses only work if the checks and balances remain intact and if politicians and the public officials who make up Congress and the courts uphold their oaths and stand up for our Constitution. Trump's impeachable offenses are wide ranging and numerous. We at Free Speech for People have documented more than 25 categories of offenses. But today, I will be focusing on the ways in which Trump is attacking our First Amendment freedoms of expression, speech, press, and association. And I will discuss the ways in which these attacks further his larger goals to strategically dismantle our democracy and establish an authoritarian regime under his command. As Frederick Douglass noted, freedom of speech of all rights is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. Trump has not hesitated to attack the freedom of speech. He's gone after political opponents arresting and threatening to arrest people like Governor Gavin Newsom, Senator Alex Padilla, and Newark Mayor Ross Baraka. He's attacked prominent critics, including late show comedians like Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel, by trying and succeeding in getting their shows canceled, even if temporarily, as an ancillary attack on the freedom of speech. Trump is attacking the press to control how information is disseminated. He has weaponized the FCC to threaten news networks to to stay in line or risk having their licenses revoked. He is arresting journalists and controlling who gets to hear executive briefings. He is using one of his favorite bullying tactics, meritless lawsuits to bring media companies in line, all while pocketing undeserved millions through so called settlements with companies whose financial well being he has significant control over. Through his control of merger approvals, Trump is clearing the way for companies he has corrupt relationships with like Skydance to expand their media empires and aggregate their monopoly power over news. All of this helps him more easily control the major press in our country. These profit driven media executives are complicit in chasing more dollars in exchange for harm to democracy. Trump's approach to media control also shows how his punishment of dissent goes hand in hand with his purchase of loyalty. Trump has created an unprecedented culture of corruption that enriches business leaders who support his regime in exchange for large donations and personal financial benefits. He's basically selling pardons to his supporters, all of whom were found with or pled guilty of serious corruption crimes. Trump's crypto businesses, which have enriched him by nearly $2 billion, create an easy mechanism for those seeking his favor to enrich him through pay to play schemes. In this environment, press freedom becomes just another victim in the art of the deal. The front lines of Trump's assault on freedom of speech go beyond boardrooms to the streets themselves, where he is violently suppressing the voices of people on the ground. Law enforcement and military units under his command harass, abuse, assault and detain nonviolent civilian protesters, while his prosecutors bring politically motivated criminal charges against them. He has issued orders to target people for arrest and prosecution solely because of their speech beliefs or associations. And in his immigration operations, he has unlawfully arrested, detained and canceled the visas and green cards of people specifically because they support causes he doesn't like. This highlights a second important feature of Trump's authoritarian playbook and a familiar strategy of tyrants across history and continents. Trump has co opted ICE and CPB as his own personal secret police to suppress dissent and spread fear. They serve him, not the American public. These officers, emboldened by Trump's confidence in them, are operating with total impunity. While armed with military grade weapons, these agencies control vast sums of taxpayer dollars which they then use to terrorize those very same taxpayers. In the process and under Trump's authority, these paramilitary forces are flagrantly violating the first, fourth and fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. For a start. As Trump's personal police, ICE and CPB are carrying out his every unconstitutional whimsy. They're kidnapping, assaulting, and endlessly detaining protesters and dissenters. Early in his administration, we saw this tactic used against people like Mahmoud Khalil Mohsen Madawi Ramessa Osterk and Badr Khan Suri, people who had supported causes Trump disfavored. Then we watched as ICE and CPB were deployed against democratic states and cities to frighten communities that Trump disliked as part of their terror regime. These agencies are using advanced but imperfect technologies to track and intimidate activists and journalists on behalf of Trump, including using apps that allow for social media surveillance and facial recognition. And enhancing their terror, ICE remains anonymous. They cover their faces with masks, they wear civilian clothing, and they refuse to provide identifying information. And let's not forget ICE and CPB have murdered peaceful protesters in cold blood like Renee Goode and Alex Preddy. And those agents have yet to face consequences. They have shot and killed innocent people going about their daily routines like Ruben Ray Martinez, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, and Johan Sebastian Duran Guerrero. This unpredictability is not a bug. It's a feature. Trump abuses the power of these agencies to sow terror among our friends and neighbors. Fear shuts down reason. Survival takes precedence over principle would be dissenters stay quiet and the grip of the authoritarian tightens. The lack of consequences for violent ICE agents points to a third feature of democracy that Trump is trampling as he silences his opponents. The rule of law. The rule of law means that no individual, institution or government entity is above the law. Everyone is equally protected and equally accountable for their actions. When the Trump administration shields investigations into murderous ICE officers while redirecting resources to investigate a victim's partner, that is a failure of the rule of law. More than that, it is a weaponization of our justice system, something Trump has ramped up noticeably in his second term. Using the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security, Trump's revenge tour has included harassing journalists with subpoenas at institutions like the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, unnecessarily probing investigations into law firms, industries and universities to control their internal and external messaging, and blatantly politically motivated investigations into his opponents like Governor Gavin Newsom, former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Senator Adam Schiff. But it's not just big names and institutions that are feeling the vengeance and bluster of Trump's Justice Department. Trump is trying to suppress grassroots dissent against his policies by designating protesters and dissenters as antifa, as terrorists and as criminals. And then he tries to generate criminal charges against them. When prosecutors refuse to bring charges or when investigators don't say what he wants to hear, they're fired. Trump has also attacked the judiciary, the third branch of government, an intended check on presidential abuse of power. If a judge rules against his interests, they're subject to his public tirades and threats of impeachment and criminal charges. All of this is a transparent attempt to silence opposition and destroy the rule of law. Thus far, Trump has not succeeded in every attempt he has made to suppress speech and expression. But here's the thing about tyranny. You don't need 100% success rate to achieve your goals. You don't even need to hit 50%. By going after a few people unlawfully and unconstitutionally, Trump has now raised the cost of public participation, the cost of speaking up, the cost of making a case against him. He has placed fear in the hearts of those who know he is wrong, but worry now about the consequences of pointing it out. But note that each of his actions also galvanizes his opposition. With each step he takes towards tyranny, more people are impacted, and that has a ripple effect that wakes up the public to his schemes. More people realize now that he is not their savior. He's a despot. As we approach the end of summer, there is a great danger that Trump will escalate and use ICE and CPB to attack our most sacred form of democratic expression, the right to vote. He has given every signal that he plans to use his secret police to intimidate voters and sow chaos during the upcoming midterm elections. Holding Trump accountable cannot wait. Congress must act now. Trump swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and yet he defiles it daily. But people forget that the members of Congress also took oaths of allegiances to defend the Constitution. Each member who protects Trump from impeachment violates that oath. To get Congress to act, we the people must show our elected representatives that they have a mandate to take action.
- [18:23]
Steve Skrovan
That was Suparna Reddy, senior counsel of Free Speech for the People. Now let's hear from constitutional law professor and former chief White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter.
- [18:33]
Chris Hedges
We are in a very grave situation in the United States where we need to hold accountable under the Constitution, the President of the United States and also the members of Congress who are failing in performing their constitutional duties of oversight of the executive branch while embroiled in ethics controversies themselves. What we are Engaged in now in the United States is a struggle to preserve our republican form of government embodied in the Constitution. And that includes the separation of powers among the three branches of our government. The Congress, which should be the premier branch with the power to authorize the spending of taxpayer money and the taxation of the American people, a concept going back to the American Revolution and the colonists standing up against taxation without representation. Congress should be the preeminent branch in government and overseeing second branch, the Executive Branch, the Presidency, which administers the United States government through a vast array of government agencies under the President's control, with the President under the watchful eye of Congress. That is what the Founders intended. And finally, a judicial branch, the third branch, that would keep the Congress, and most important, the President, within their constitutional boundaries. Instead of the Justices going off on vacation with billionaires and embroiled in their own political and ethical morass, what we have today is a breakdown of our constitutional order. And voters, liberal, conservative, moderate, all should insist on the three branches of our government performing their proper functions. Let us start with Congress. As I emphasized, it is the role of Congress to tax and to spend. The Executive Branch would not have the powers it does, but for the taxpayer money that is appropriated to the Executive Branch by Congress. Congress should not simply hand money over to the President to do as he wishes. Congress can and should insist on oversight of the Executive branch. If tens of billions of dollars are going to be spent on border security instead of other more pressing needs at home, that is a political decision by Congress. But Congress should also at least insist that that money be spent wisely and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States. When ICE officers entered the State of Minnesota this last December and January in Operation Metro Surge, clearly in violation of the constitutional rights of the people of Minnesota, the people of Minnesota peacefully protested and the Attorney General of Minnesota went to court. Unfortunately, the courts in most instances sided with the people of the state of Minnesota in restraining the actions of ICE in our state. But again, this was the responsibility of Congress to make sure that such abuses do not happen. When our taxpayer money is spent on our homeland security, on our national security, is a duty of Congress to make sure that that money is spent wisely and also in conformity with our own constitutional rights. This is but one example of abuse of executive power that we have seen without Congress willing to step in and say no and tell the President no. And that is far from what the Founders contemplated when they established Congress as the first and preeminent branch of government. In Article 1 of the Constitution. And now let's get to the heart of the matter. Article 2 the powers of the President I discussed this topic in a recent book I co authored with E. Thomas Sullivan, the former president of the University of Vermont, on Presidential Power, published this last January by Cambridge University Press. The Founders did not contemplate a president anywhere near as powerful as the presidents we have had for the past 100 years. This is not just a problem about Donald Trump. This is a problem that has been escalating over many decades as presidents have grabbed more and more power and Congress is rarely pushed back. Let's discuss for a moment the Power to declare War the Founders clearly stated that Congress has the power to declare war. The President of the United States does not. Of course, the President can defend the United States against an attack or an imminent attack. So if the Republic of Iran were to fire missiles at the United States or be ready to launch an attack on the United States, we could respond to prevention that attack that the President can do. But to launch a preemptive strike against Iran to start a war, as President Trump has now done, the President requires the consent of Congress, and this point should have been made last year In June of 2025, when President Trump launched a bombing campaign against Iran without an authorization for use of military force. There may be grounds to use military force in some instances, but the Founders intended that that issue be debated in Congress, and many presidents have failed to seek consent of Congress. Before embroiling the United States in foreign wars, voters must insist that their elected representatives in Congress hold the President accountable and withhold funds that are used for such unconstitutional purposes. We have seen serious, indeed tragic financial conflicts of interest in the Executive branch never before seen in the history of our country, unless we look at our very early presidents who held vast plantations with slave labor, a clear economic conflict of interest with their official duties, a conflict of interest shared by many Senators and Representatives and Justices of the Supreme Court, and indeed, a tragic conflict of interest for the first 80 years of our history that ended only with a bloody civil war. But since then we have not had at least a President who is embroiled in financial conflicts of interest with his official duties. This was a problem during President Transfer, when his vast hotel and real estate empire was doing business around the world, often with dictatorships that do not have the best interests of the United States at heart. The Founders of our country inserted in the Constitution the Foreign Emoluments clause, which prohibits any person holding a position of trust with the United States government from receiving any emoluments that's profits or benefits, as well as gifts and titles from foreign governments while in office. This provision of the Constitution applies to the President like everyone else. But during President Trump's first term, we could not enforce it. Organizations as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, of which I was Vice chair, went to court to try to enforce the Miami clause and we were told we had no standing. And now President Trump's second term and President Trump's second term, we see even more egregious violations of the emoluments clause of the constitution. A 747 jet from Qatar, supposedly worth hundreds, hundreds of millions of dollars, although it's going to cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars more to refit it for proper use by the President. This 747 now used as Air Force One, even though it has inadequate security apparently for use in many parts of the world. Yet our President has received this gift of an airplane which will then be turned over to his presidential library when he departs office. A clear violation of the monuments clause of the Constitution. And yet Congress isn't doing anything about it. And now we see that the United Arab Emirates is investing in various cryptocurrency enterprises. I believe Liberty Financial is one of them, in which the President, his family have a financial interest. Again, emoluments versus doing nothing about it, even though President Trump is head of the Executive branch, will supposedly be regulating cryptocurrency at the same time as he profits therefrom. We learned only a few weeks ago that President Trump had made over $1 billion in cryptocurrency, an industry that only five years ago he said was a scam. President Trump said that Bitcoin was a scam, clearly implying that other cryptocurrencies were as well. And yet he has decided that he is going to make not millions, but billions of dollars in cryptocurrency while purporting to regulate or deregulate cryptocurrency with executive orders in his first few months in office, in his second term. This is a potentially catastrophic financial conflict of interest if cryptocurrency is not properly regulated and becomes yet one more unregulated financial instrument that could do grave harm to our economy, as did mortgage backed securities and derivative products in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. This is a financial conflict of interest that if not contained, could set us up for another financial crisis in the years to come. And then there are the military contractors, of which now the Trump family is one. One of many investors through private equity and military contractors. As the president of the United States hands out enormous contracts, bypassing the traditional methods of procurement in competitive bidding and handing out defense contracts to firms with which his friends and perhaps his family are associated, I ask everyone here to commit yourselves to the preservation of our republic, whether you be a liberal or a conservative or somewhere in between.
- [29:43]
Steve Skrovan
That was former chief White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter. Now we're going to take a short break and check in with our corporate crime reporter, Russell Mokheimer. Meet you back here in one minute.
- [29:53]
Russell Mokhiber
From the National Press Building in Washington, D.C. this is your corporate crime reporter Morning minute for Friday, July 31st, 2026. I'm Russell Mokhyber. Last week, France passed a landmark law restricting access to social media for anyone under 15, the first European country to do so, and the latest in a wave of countries acting against what they view as malign effects of such services on minors. That's according to a report in the New York Times. The law, approved by a wide margin in both houses of France's parliament, could go into effect as soon as September 1st. It will also ban the use of cell phones in high schools, extending a prohibition that already applies to primary and middle schools. For the corporate crime reporter, I'm Russell Mulcheiber.
- [30:45]
Steve Skrovan
Thank you, Russell. As we continue with the impeachment symposium, we turn to Douglas Bandao, who is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Mr. Bando writes primarily about military non intervention.
- [30:57]
Douglas Bandow
George Washington, for whom the presidency was essentially created, made very clear that if he wanted to go to war, he would ask Congress, you know, this was a man who was essentially commander in chief for the United States during the revolution. And he said, the Constitution gives this power to Congress. Abraham Lincoln was famous for challenging President Polk, who started the Mexican American War. Now, Polk went to Congress, but he misled Congress over the causes. And Abraham Lincoln had the famous SPOT resolution. He said, where were the American troops when they were attacked? It turns out in contested territory, not American territory. He was willing to take on the president. He wanted to constrain that power. Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, when they took the US into massive wars of the last century, they went to college, they understood they couldn't just show up, put American troops in and claim that power. And yet Franklin Delano Roosevelt in World War II was the last time Congress declared war. Donald Trump is an easy target, but we have to make an argument to people who don't view him that way, people who don't stand around saying, Donald Trump's the target. We need to make a persuasive argument for people, whether they like Donald Trump or not, to understand the Constitution transcends this policy President. The Constitution transcends future presidents and future crises. We need to convince Americans across the political spectrum to stand with the rule of law, to stand with accountable government, to stand with an accountable executive, responsible legislatures. History tells us that one person making these decisions is not good. Plenty of authoritarians in the past have made these decisions and brought their countries to disaster. And I'm not accusing Donald Trump of being in that same category. But one person making these judgments very often makes a bad mistake. And we have a lot of examples in history where that has happened. And frankly, you can make that argument about past American presidents. I think of Lyndon Johnson, for example, in Vietnam. I think of George W. Bush, who probably would have gone to war even without congressional approval, and Iraq. American presidents have made very bad decisions. We should never be easy. We should never be happy if the decision for war seems easy, especially when the war is. There's no pretense of defense where presidents can just decide, I want to go to war and call up the Secretary of Defense. Decisions to go to war should be hard and difficult. These decisions should never be decided by officials of other governments. The US should not feel pressure from other governments to make these decisions. Decisions. And the war should require. This decision should require very serious consideration of all the consequences of a war. Not just the easy assumption everything will go well, but a recognition that most wars, frankly, don't go well. And we should reflect the historical understanding. Wars are easy to get in, much harder to get out of. Wars rarely go as expected. Very seldom do the losers in wars expect to lose. They go to war because they expect to win. But it's amazing how often those who initiate conflicts come out much worse than they ever expected. Today, our nation and the world, frankly, are at risk. The president, in this case, has violated the war powers clause of the Constitution. And disaster potentially beckons. We need action. We need action by the people of this nation. We need action by media, by policymakers. We need action by Congress. And ultimately, we need action by the president to do the right thing. We all have to work together to ensure that he does so.
- [34:51]
Steve Skrovan
That was Douglas Bandao of the Cato Institute. Now the case has been made for impeachment. Now our next guest is going to talk about how states can step up to help put the brakes on the worst of what the Trump administration is doing. For that, we turn to constitutional law professor at Berkeley, Dean Erwin Chemerinsky the
- [35:09]
Radio Announcer
genius of American government is that if one level fails, others can step in. We've seen through American history, when state and local governments fail to protect people's rights, the federal government steps in to safeguard them. We're now at a moment when the federal government is a threat to our rights. The actions of the Trump administration are unprecedented in the violations of the Constitution. And so I think it's crucial that state and local governments step in so as to protect rights. It's interesting that through American history, federalism has always been equated. States rights have always been equated with regressive policies. In the early 19th century, those who opposed the abolition of slavery did so in the name of states rights. Reconstruction, in its progress towards racial equality, was opposed in the name of states rights. In the 1890s to 1936, the Supreme Court struck down many progressive federal laws, like the first statute of outlawing child labor in the name of states rights. In the 1950s and the 1960s, the defenders of Jim Crow laws and segregation again picked up the mantle of states rights. But now it's time for progressives to use states rights and look for the opportunities for states to safeguard our Constitution. Let me suggest three ways in which this can happen. First, states under their constitutions, for that matter under state statutes, provide more protection of rights than the federal Constitution. It has always been the case that states can protect more rights under state constitutions or state laws that are protected under the United States Constitution. We have seen in a number of states, state supreme courts interpret their constitutions, for example, provide more rights for criminal defendants and criminal suspects that are safeguarded under the United States Constitution. States like Alaska, Oregon, Washington have all been at the forefront of using state constitutions where the United States Constitution fails. This is not a new concept. It's been true throughout American history. In fact, in 1977, then Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote a famous article in the Harvard Law Review urging state supreme courts to use state constitutions to write more protection of rights. We've seen examples of this under state constitutions, state laws just in the last several years. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court in Dobbs vs Jackson's Health Organization overruled Roe vs Wade. A number of states, including California, strengthened their state constitutional protection for reproductive choice. Other states have adopted laws in this regard. As the Supreme Court court is cutting back on the protection of rights in so many areas, state supreme courts under state constitutions, state legislatures using their authority can do so. And keep in mind that Most states, cities have home rule, and cities for their residents provide more protection of rights so long as they don't violate the United States Constitution or state law. Now, of course, this is going to vary across the country by state. Also. Where the Supreme Court has prohibited something, then states can't overcome that. Where the Supreme Court, for example, has prohibited certain gun regulations, states can't overcome that under the state constitutions. But where the Supreme Court has failed to protect rights, where federal law fails to do so, this is a place where states can step in. There's a second way in which states can step in that's important, and that's refusing to implement or cooperate with undesirable federal policies. The Supreme Court has articulated what is called the anti commandeering doctrine. This says that the federal government cannot commandeer state and local governments. The federal government can't force states to adopt laws or regulations or implement federal mandates. The initial case to articulate this was New York versus United States in 1992. It involved the federal Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act. It required that every state clean up its nuclear waste by 1996 or would even take title to them and be liable for any harms they caused. The Supreme Court, in opinion by Justice Sandy o', Connor, said Congress can't force states to implement a federal mandate. She said this would undermine the separate sovereignty of the states. It would frustrate, she said, accountability. The Supreme Court held in many tests since it's reaffirmed that it violates the 10th Amendment for Congress to commandeer state and local governments. Another example that's quite relevant to the modern situation and the ability of state and local governments to refuse to cooperate was Prince vs United States in 1997. It involved a provision of the federal Brady Handgun Control act that said the state and local governments had to do background checks before issuing permits for firearms. The Supreme Court declared this unconstitutional. The Court said once more that Congress was conscripting state and local governments, forced them to administer a federal mandate. The Supreme Court said that violates the 10th Amendment. Well, let me explain why Prince is so relevant to the current moment. The federal government wants state and local governments to cooperate with ice. It wants local police departments to turn over individuals to ice. When local office find out that somebody's undocumented, it wants schools and even hospitals to turn people over to ice. The federal government has threatened to take away huge amounts of money from state and local governments that don't cooperate with ICE in this way. But so far, the lower courts have ruled against the Trump administration. They've ruled here in favor of state and local governments. They said Congress, the president, can't force state and local governments to cooperate with ice. There are very good reasons why state and local governments refuse to do so. Witnesses, victims of crime, won't come forward to the police, say no, it's likely to lead to their being deported. Parents won't send their children to school if they fear it's going to mean that the children, the families get deported. Sick people, even with communicable diseases, won't go for treatment. It means that they're going to be deported. And so this is why state and local governments have often declared themselves sanctuary jurisdictions. It's not sanctuary in the literal sense. Obviously, a state and local government has no authority to block federal enforcement. But state and local governments do have the authority to refuse to cooperate with ice. There's good reasons for them to be sanctuaries in this sense. And so far, the lower courts have ruled in their favors. And so this is just an example how state and local governments could resist by refusing to cooperate. Third, state and local governments can bring civil and even criminal actions against those who violate the law. We have seen attorney generals in progressive states bring literally dozens of lawsuits against the Trump administration. Since January 20, 2025, when the Trump administration has adopted clearly unconstitutional policies, state attorney general has been at the forefront of bringing such challenges. As an example, when the federal government has cut off billions of dollars of money illegally, state attorney generals have stepped in to bring lawsuits. Also, states have the ability to bring criminal prosecutions against federal officers when they violate the law. Being a federal officer doesn't create an immunity from criminal prosecution. And so we saw after the tragic shootings by ICE agents in Minnesota, the initiation of criminal prosecutions. I know that criminal prosecutions are being thought of in other places where ICE agents have needlessly taken away lies, violated people's rights. So in this way, state and local governments can step in when the federal government is going to be unlikely and unwilling to do so. These are just some examples of how state and local governments can fight back against the violation of rights. State and local governments can fight back to enforce the Constitution, but at the same time, law professors can play a key role. Law professors, especially tenured professors, have the ability to speak out without fear of reprisal. Law professors, universities don't depend on federal funds. There aren't sanctions that the government can oppose against them. And there's so many ways that law professors can and should fight back. We have the opportunity to be opinion leaders with regard to law, we can write op eds in major newspapers. Op eds are important in shaping public opinion. OP eds are important in giving people arguments so that they can persuade others. At the same time, law professors have the ability to develop innovative strategies, opportunities for how the law should be developed. This can be in law review articles, it can be in books. Law professors, almost always lawyers, they have the opportunity to consult in terms of legal strategy. They have the opportunity to write amicus briefs. They have the opportunity litigation on their own. In fact, I'm co counsel with another professor from UC Berkeley on behalf of the University of California faculty and researchers who had grants cut off. We've had over $1 billion in grants restored through the lawsuit that we brought. I think it's so important at this time that we all be informed, that we all be involved, that we all speak out. And in all of these ways, law professors can play a key role in informing others, in speaking out, in being involved, to fight back for the Constitution.
- [47:01]
Steve Skrovan
That was Dean Erwin Chermerinsky. Now we get down to the grassroots efforts by citizens to call this Trump administration to account, beginning with Kyra Havens of Citizens Impeachment, an organization that connects American citizens with a single goal, to get the United States Congress to impeach Donald Trump, convict him and remove him from power. Guerrero Havens is a United States Air Force veteran, a former scientist and a longtime political activist.
- [47:29]
Kyra Havens
I am not a politician. I'm a scientist and a veteran, right? But I swore the same oath that every member of Congress swears to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And at that moment in April 2025, when we were at weird tariffs and people getting fired illegally and Liberty Day, that was enough for me, a citizen, to say, this is it. This president is unconstitutional, anti constitutional needs to be impeached. And it was easy to find people to come with us. We found 1,000 people in the space of a week willing to email their representatives. We had one person in every single cross congressional district, and we drafted an article of impeachment on tyranny. That article is in Sri Thanadar's Article of Impeachment Resolution H RES353. It exists. It is there. We did that in a week. We did that. Three weeks later, it was on the floor of the House ready for a vote. And then what happened? I'm sure y' all can guess. This is Steve Cohen, right? Leadership stepped in and said, no, we are not doing that. We are not going to have a vote on impeachment. Not now, not ever. Jeffries is still saying this. He is still in the papers saying impeachment is not a priority. And in fact, when I spoke with Representative Thanedar today outside this room, he said he was not going to bring that article of impeachment to a vote this term. He is going to wait till after the midterms. Despite that speech he gave, despite the fact that he has put three impeachment resolutions to the Judiciary Committee, he is not going to force a vote on them because leadership does not want it to happen. For me, this is unacceptable. So after many, many meetings with Congress, with constituents, asking them, are you going to take any action? Will you impeach? Will you use RA Rule 9, the rule that allows any member of the House to bring a privileged resolution like impeachment to the floor for a vote within two legislative days, just like Al Green did? Will you do that? The answer over and over again was no, not till after the midterms. So we started Courage for Democracy. Because if these folks here in this Congress do not have courage, I'm going to find people that do. And Courage for Democracy was able to bring together 150 candidates that were pro impeachment. Two of them. Well, one of them is in the room now. Two of them were in the room this morning. We have now 17. I'm sorry, yesterday was Arizona's primaries. We have 19 of these candidates headed to the general election. That is at least 13 million people that get to vote for Courage on the ballot in November. Everybody has agency. Everybody has a role that they can play. Everybody can take action. As a private citizen, I can say, man, there are a lot of things wrong with what's happening. In fact, I wrote several articles of impeachment, tyranny, treason, obstruction of justice, and of course, corruption. Right. Members of Congress have more power than that. They need to do more than say things. They have to take action. Courage is an action. It's what you. You do after you say the words that really matters. And every single member of Congress is able to take action. They are able to introduce articles of impeachment, and they are refusing. That is why we have brought in people to take their place. Because that, at the foundation of it, is democracy. If every single or if the majority of Americans want impeachment, well, then the folks representing them need to pursue that. And if they don't, they need to be ready to give up their seat.
- [51:19]
Russell Mokhiber
Thank you.
- [51:22]
Kyra Havens
So that is what I do. I stand up and I refuse to take no for an answer. And then I find other folks that will also have that same mindset as they proceed. And what we could use is your help. We could use your help, your connections, your resources and your time because we are new and we are coming in from outside. But we absolutely have the determination and the grit to make this happen. And I can vouch for every single one of those candidates that are headed into that general election. They are going to introduce articles of impeachment. They are not going to waffle and they are going to follow the courage of their convictions to impeach, convict and remove this president. So please do come talk to us. We'd love to work with you and be real, real happy to build this movement.
- [52:05]
Steve Skrovan
That was Kyra Havens of Citizens Impeachment to wrap up here, let's hear from Jessica Denson, a former Trump campaign aide who the campaign tried to silence after she complained she'd been sexually harassed by a co worker. Ms. Denson leads the organization Remove the Regime.
- [52:22]
Jessica Denson
Thank you to Ralph Nader and Bruce Fine for having me here today. This is, you know, we've had this, we had this about a month or two ago when the Iran war was underway, as it still is illegally to this day, when Donald Trump was making genocidal threats. At that time, Representative John Larson had just filed 13 articles of impeachment against this president. It's as though Congress treats the one constitutional mechanism that we have to address the daily lawlessness of this administration as some kind of child's play or game that really can't be utilized. We have been goaded into thinking that the one constitutional method at our disposal cannot be put into practice. And this is complete up is down thinking for everything that Donald Trump throws at the fan, his daily egregious, flagrant violations of this admin of the Constitution and the members of his cabinet that join him in this lawlessness and sycophancy, this should be met with equal measure of constitutional enforcement. We have one method that the founders gave us to address these high crimes and misdemeanors, and it is Article 2, Section 4. My activism has been laser focused on making sure that the people in Congress whose duty it is to carry out enforcement of Article 2, Section 4, do not get off the hook. So many of the mass mobilizations have been a beautiful example of Americans exercising their free speech rights of pushing back against this administration. But the missing component that I have seen in this work over the past year and a half has been the pressure on Congress letting these people get off the hook, letting them move from day to day, only treating as John Larson did two and a half months ago. Now, impeachment as a performative measure, where they file articles of impeachment, let them sit and die in committee, and we go on with our days, our lives. It's just another day as this administration has a paramilitary force otherwise known as ice, literally murdering people in the streets. How many more people are going to die on the streets? How many more people are going to die in these illegal concentration camps? How many more people are going to die in this illegal war? How many more unjust prosecutions are going to be brought or vast violations of the emoluments clause and the power of the purse that Congress has at the expense of the US Taxpayer? This is such an insult on our dignity and our rights as we the people. And I am just laser focused on getting people to put their energy and their ire directly where it belongs, on members of Congress to act. And that is specifically, and I keep referencing Representative John Larson because he is one right now who could be forcing a vote on those 13 articles of impeachment that he filed back back in April. But instead, what has he been told? Maybe he's been told by his friends in the Democratic leadership there in that body that they're going to withdraw fund for his upcoming primary if he does this. Maybe he's been told that it's politically unviable. This is completely backwards thinking. The American people, in particularly Democratic primary voters, are looking for fighters, for God's sakes. What could you do better than to exert the power that you have? This one privilege in the House, Rule 9, that gives any member of the Congress, including the minority, the ability to force a vote anytime. Why would you sit on that? Why would you wait instead? In my activism, I've had to resort to relying on literally one congressman. This is so pathetic. He is a dear friend and I am so grateful for him. But to this day, I think it is pathetic that I have to rely on one congressman to bring forth articles of impeachment and force votes, and that's Representative Green. This should be happening by any serious member of the Democratic Party to begin with. I absolutely think the pressure needs to be on Republicans as well. And there's a lot of vulnerable ones that we can move to. But the opposition party in this country has failed, utterly failed, in using the constitutional mechanism that they have before them to force accountability for this lawlessness that we're experiencing. So we have had mass mobilizations. About two weeks ago, we had a historic event at Capitol Hill with Major Jason Watson. This man sacrificed a 17 year. Let this be lost on no. 1. A 17 year military career, multiple medals of commendation, and he is the father of two young children. He put everything on the line because he felt as though his oath to defend the Constitution required that he speak out and not wait one more moment to demand explicitly and specifically that both Donald Trump and J.D. vance be impeached, convicted and removed. If a man who has served in the military for 17 years is able to is willing to put that all on the line, what does that say about this, the seriousness of the crisis that our democracy is facing and what a shameful, abysmal betrayal our members of Congress are committing right now by not acting to impeach, convict and remove Trump from office?
- [58:03]
Steve Skrovan
That was Jessica Denson of Remove the Regime. And that concludes our program. For more from the impeachment symposium, stick around for the wrap up at 4. Ralphnaderradiohour.com I'm Steve Scrovan. Thank you for tuning in. Join us next week on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour when we welcome Professor Robert Reich to talk about the winning 10 point agenda he has put together for the Democratic Party. Until then,
- [59:04]
Chris Hedges
Not only are KPFK listeners
- [59:06]
Radio Announcer
smart, interesting and forward thinking, you're also very generous and deeply appreciated.
- [59:11]
Chris Hedges
Thank you so much for pledging your
- [59:13]
Radio Announcer
support to KPFK during our fun drive.
- [59:29]
Donna Walker
This is Kathy Dias, your Monday host of Global Village. Join me for an exploration of Afro Cuban rhythms from nextdoor and around the world, with other musical stops along the way. That's every Monday on Global Village from 11am to 1pm on KPFK Los Angeles 90.7 FM.
- [59:58]
Radio Announcer
The radio program making contact is now produced by kpfk and pacifica radio.