Freedom fest. When we were teenagers we would be on about the and we would lie on our sleeping bags talking about economic and political theory when we were told for 13yearsold which is unusual but weve always had an interest. And his brother and i later became leaders during the vietnam war era. I have a Rich Heritage as do all of us. There is a year old in the top that shows my 11th grade grandfather william just before they boarded the mayflower before they came to america. He was the lead of the pilgrims and it shows him holding the bible open and there is other people hes looking out and on the floor is the musket. I thought this is symbolic to the word of the scriptures calling for divine guidance and even a willingness to defend themselves if necessary to protect life, liberty and their family possessions. My fourth grade grandfather fought with George Washington the entire eight years of the revolutionary war of which i am very proud of my heritage. Sacrifices were made for us to have what we have today. Patriotic constitutionalist is what i call myself and i believe we need to return to the heritage of our roots if we stick to the constitution is not the internal partisan bickering thats going on all the time we would be much better off. As a naval officer i swore an oath to defend and support the u. S. Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Today we have some enemies of our constitution and the country that are even in congress. The house voted not to impeach which we are going to hear more about later on but it doesnt mean that they will stop trying. So to get a better view of the situation and what is going on right now with the threats of impeachment, today they will tell us a little bit about that and share some information. Serving as the united at the tourney committees appointed by president Ronald Reagan from 86 to 90 and a member of congress from 1995 to 2003. A member of the House Judiciary Committee and on the Oversight Committee for six years he served as an official and was the first member of congress to call for the impeachment in the senate trial in 1999 and presently a private practice attorney in atlanta since leaving the house. Plus he was a Libertarian Party nominee for president in 2008 so we would like to hear from him or ask you to give him a warm welcome, former congressman. [applause] thank you. I always appreciate the invitations to come to freedom fest and speak and probably more important all of whom have a deep and abiding love for liberty and who are always in the front lines of defending against those who would take it away as jim mentioned even in the congress of the United States there are those who would take freedom away, who would limit freedom and undermine freedom, so its always wonderful to be at the freedom fest which is one of those institutions and undertaking the stand is in support of liberty. From the personal standpoint, jim mentioned when he was younger than 12, 13yearsold, he would go camping and look out at the stars and talk about freedom and liberty and government and so forth. When i was that age, i was living in peru and my dad was a civilian engineer. We would go out camping sometimes on the banks literally of the amazon river o river or e mountains of peru and we would talk about things different back in those days overseas. But back in those days as i get in countries as diverse as the various other countries, from a very early age it did give me a very profound appreciation for what we have as american citizens not just here at home but anywhere we travel u. S. Passports still means something. It means you are a citizen of the greatest nation, the freest nation. It doesnt mean that we are citizens of a perfect land. There is no perfect land, but it does mean and hopefully always will to everybody in the world that there is Something Special about the individual who carries a passport in the United States of america. And ive always appreciated that as i say having grown up in societies and countries where those freedoms of so many of our fellow citizens take for grant granted. When i took three coats of office jim has taken at least one. To support and defend the constitution of the law thereof and official with the cia many years ago, then as jim mentioned as the United States attorney for the Northern District of georgia under president s reagan and bush one and then as a member of the United States congress from january, 1985 to 2003. I consider that it is continuing. It didnt end at the moment i left my job as the u. S. Attorney. It didnt end the moment i reassigned to pursue a law practice, and it certainly didnt end the moment i was surs a child we see involuntarily retired and losing. I consider that that is the cost i am more than willing to pay to carry that as a citizen of the United States of america. And that is to give back to the country everything i can to ensure that those freedoms embodied in the constitution is reflected in the wall continue and are defended against. So, i consider myself very much just as bound by that oath i took as a member of congress from georgia as standing here today as a citizen and private life. Talking about impeachment and investigations by the congress and president particularly about impeachment, understanding or being aware of an impeachment or the procedures it really isnt that complex and we can talk about it a little bit and im glad to answer any questions you may have or try to answer any question that you all might ha have. What is more important than simply looking at the process of impeachment or the administration, whether it begins by and inquiry that is a document i filed in november of 97 when it became clear to me and many others the president clinton violated very serious provisions of the law that related to export of Defense Technology to china or whether it ha had a very serious violats of the federal campaign law that undercut the integrity of our electoral process. That is one way to begin an impeachment process, following an inquiry of impeachment, which does not call for impeachment. It doesnt outline the articles. It is what i consider a responsible first step is a member of congress believes that there are grounds to impeach because it simply says it is directed to Judiciary Committee iat the judiciarycommittee in tf representatives, which is the committee with ultimate responsibility under the rules and procedures of the house to consider impeachment simply directs the committee on the judiciary inquire whether or not there are proper ground seemed tto me thats responsible first step the members of congress believe the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, which is the criteria set out in the constitution for the impeachment of a president white house and thereafter upon impeachment by the house and if convicted by two thirds of the senate, removal from office. There are other ways to begin an impeachment of course and we saw that as jim mentioned earlier this week. A member of the house can introduce articles of impeachment directly but saying who cares about whether or not there is an inquiry or evidence to support taking such a dramatic step we dont like the president is doing what hes saying or how he behaves. Therefore, lets get over the technicalities and move to impeachment. That occurred earlier this week. The representative from texas introduced i think maybe the third or fourth time during his recent tenure in the house of representatives articles of impeachment. We will tal talk and talk in a t those articles of impeachment as opposed to the articles for impeachment which were initiated into voted out by the Judiciary Committee in december of 1998 with regards to president clinton and now voted the articles of impeachment on december 191998. That process and those documents if you go back and look at them that is related to the impeachment of William Jefferson clinton in 1998 is different from the articles of impeachment that is thrown on the floor of the house by the representative al green just a few days ago. There is a major difference between going through a professional legitimate process of inquiry and then voting on something as opposed to just skipping over or jumping over all of that and moving directly to impeaching a president simply because we dont like him. Even before we get into the in and out of the administration its important to consider the context of what is happening in our society in a much broader level. If we look, for example, at other things happening in the congress recently or in the government generally, or society generally, what we see is a process that is about as alien as you can get from the process that the deliberative process outlined by the founders and the in the constitution based of course on some things that happened to be largely missing in todays world and one is a properly educated citizenry whether or not a constitutionally based system, republican form of government as we have is going to work depends on the citizenry and knowing whats going on, not just knowing whats going on, but being educated is to do things happening in the society, but equipped in the education process which doesnt end with school with continuous or should, equipping us with the tools to understand and discern whats going on and also if you think if you go back and read jefferson and federalist papers and the debate surrounding the constitution and later the bill of rights, having been educated citizenry that understand not just our country and our institutions but how we arrived at that, that is the history of how the government works. The founders didnt just come together and scribble out some ideas based on what they thought they knew. They spent countless hours, days and years studying the rise and fall of civilizations and different forms of government going back to the societies on through of course what then are the more modern forms of government in europe based on royal succession of divine right. They studied al study all of thy understood it. All of that was not only incorporated into the system of government and the constitutional form of government that we have, but was presupposed as a predicate for the proper functioning of the government in other words, hitting a citizenry that understand history and understand government and the issues and is able to debate in that process provides the underpinning for the continued success of the government. That is success that protects as its first responsibility, not national defense, but the freedom of the citizenry at home. And i think if we look at society nowadays, we largely dont feedback. Those of us here in this room are not the exception. A majority of people in the country including i suspect a large number dont understand that or have that broad sense of education not just how many years youve gone to school. And another thing missing that i think was also important to our founders setting up the mechanisms of government including the mechanisms on the one hand how we elect people and how they get into government and on the other hand how to get rid of them if they are not working properly. If they are not doing what they should i was a sense of being ae to prioritize things. And by prioritization, what im talking about is the notion that some things are better than other things. I see nowadays and im subject to being productive, with ic and it does come back to what we are talking about with regards to impeachment, we are living in a society that has taken this notion of egalitarianism not just that every person is equal, but everything is equal. Not one thing can be stated as equal or valued higher than Something Else because if you say that this person is a winner and has done a better job than this person, then you are saying to a lot of people in society nowadays these people are not equal. You cant say this person got an a in this person got a c. And after all, everybody is equal. We see that i think everywhere. Not just in sports and education but in government. We see it reflected, i shouldnt say we, i see it reflected also in how the congress operates and how the courts operate when it comes to implementing government policies. The president says i am the executor of the law. Congress passes and i have the responsibility under the constitution, article two to execute those that implement those policies. Now, so long as the president does so consistent with the law, she ought to be free to institute, to implement those policies. If congress decides they dont like a president that is implementing or the manner he may be implementing the law passed by congress, congress and the system of government has at least two ways to change it. They can not appropriate money for what the president is doing. They can withhold from a. None are under this piece of legislation or shall be used for etc. Or congress can use the legislative tool for the responsibilities to appropriate funds to legislate and then the one that is largely forgotten to provide oversight to make sure that the executive branch is operating within both the letter and the tent. But what seems to be having a nowadays is the president will make a decision as one that is very much in the news nowadays the constitution provides authority for the federal government over citizenship and provides the executive branch the ability to regulate immigration into the country. The president says okay order to implement that responsibility, i have to do certain things. I have to direct that those agencies under my jurisdiction and operate a certain way to protect our country and implement the law that congress has and the prior president s who sign. It should be fairly simple, but its not. For one reason, because federal courts nowadays are populated by a lot of judges whose individual views of this president or a president or the executive branch differ and therefore, what a lo load of the liberals , and im not saying that conservatives dont do the same thing, but theyve finetuned the process whether it is by their attorneys general say Washington State attorney general, or actions by other officials they will find a judge that agrees with them philosophically on the particular issue they are going to court on, immigration. And they will go in to court and say what the president is doing is affecting our citizens, and by the way it is and directly affecting the citizens of the entire country so therefore we are asking you to join with the president is doing not just in our federal jurisdiction, or within the jurisdiction of a particular state if its the attorney general going into court, which is the normal process of federal judge has jurisdiction over the judicial district in which he or she sa said. But nowadays what we are seeing not based on the law, not based on history, but simply based on personal views of the federal judges at the level primarily because they disagree with the president is doing, they are doing what they call nationwide xm should do implement a policy anywhere in the country. Those cases than go up the line but that takes a lot of time, plus the fact that his severely weakening the exercises of executive power by the president. So, if the president then says you, the court are improperly limiting my ability to carry out my duty that duties of things o kerry out under the constitution to effectively and properly implement his immigration laws, for example, i have to continue to do that. If i have to continue to do it whilthatwhile it is being appea, otherwise now the nation will be irreparably harmed. So these are the legal battles. What then happened is liberal members of congress to disagree with what the president may be doing say weve got you. That is an Impeachable Offense. This core, i dont mean to pick on washington, but its fair to nowadays, this judge in washington has issued a judicial order. Whats more important in the world within a judicial order, i can think of a lot of things but anyway we have this judicial order and the president is continuing to protect the borders and make sure the officials at the border are Holding People to the letter of the law. The court said he cant do that. It is an Impeachable Offense so they go rushing out and start the process on that. But what is happening nowadays and what we saw earlier this week doesnt even rise to the level of something that is as well for us. And it goes back to a profound lack of understanding by the members of the house of representatives were they just dont care. What happens is we get a document like al green from texas introduced that is a rambling diatribe against president trump. We dont like the way that he insults people. We dont like the way he denigrates certain people. We dont like the way he does this or that or the other thing and therefore he ought to be. The process similar to what is happening in other sectors of the society has become so fluid and a vague and illdefined and uneducated and so professional, that the democratic leadership in the house is so void of anything that they allow this member to introduce these articles of impeachment, and there is a process in the housee a member can say in introducing this is a privilege motion. There are privileged motions which means a sort of skip ahead of the pack to get usually you introduce a piece of legislation and throw it in so to speak and it gets assigned a membe numbero the committee, then it goes down if the leadership wants to have hearings on it. There is a way to require a vote on legislation and you can start with the discharge position and you sign a discharge position. Its at the speakers des speakea little drawer. The members sign on to that. If you can get a majority, 218 men are us to sign onto your discharge position, then the piece of legislation that you have introduced goes to the floor for a vote, notwithstanding that it might never have had a hearing of the committee or be marked by the House Committee was not. It doesnt happen very often, occasionally but not very often. But if a member says im introducing a resolution here, a piece of legislation, then it is privileged and it can go to the floor for a vote even if you have nobody else to sign onto it and that is a privilege motion. Thats what al green did earlier this week. Now, had the democratic leadership in somewhat smart, minimally smart, they would have said this privileged motion isnt properly filed as a privilege motion, and therefore will not go to the floor for an immediate vote. If they had the ability to lead to direct its members to any extent whatsoever, they would have said that. They would have perhaps called mr. Green aside, had a come to jesus meeting. I know you cant call it that in the congress, but they come to jesus meeting in the Speakers Office and said we understand what you are trying to do here in a lot of us may agree with you. We dont like how hes operating and we prefer to see somebody else. Probably not my pants but we woulpence but wewould like to s. The better way to do it is to highlight these issues but at the same time provide a facade of credibility for us and which by the bay i way is consistent h history and precedent would be to file an inquiry of impeachment and we will send that to the Judiciary Committee and they can hold hearings on it which is what happened back in 1998. Some of you may remember back in 1998, Kenneth Starr who at the time of serving as the independent counsel which is a statutory position. The support was very lengthy. All of the accompanying documents could fill several drawers which not a single senator ever looked at by the way. I did, and a few other members of the house said, not many but it contained all of the supporting and background material that showed a pattern of facts by president clinton. But it was all still seek proof either way. Nobody can get access to it but anyway, he sends a report to the house and the reason he sent his report to the house wasnt because he just wanted to present items like clinton, so im going to send this report to the house. He was required to by the law that set up the office of independent counsel requires that the independent counsel in the course of his or her investigation which is mandated by the court uncovers substantial evidence to the they are required to send to the house which is what Kenneth Starr did this wit with isnt af he just decided im going to do this. He was required to do it, so that comes to the house in september i think it was 1998, goes to the Judiciary Committee. We hold extensive hearings throughout the next two months. And those resulted in a vote by the Judiciary Committee reporting for the articles of impeachment against president clinton. They were very specific. They were very comprehensive and they were back by a lengthy series of hearings and documentary evidence that supported them. It wasnt as if we just decided we dont like bill clinton so we are going to follow the articles of impeachment. That is the way that it should be done. Unfortunately for those of us that believe in the rule of law and a proper regard for the history of how they are implemented in the proper regard for constitutional processes, thats not what is happening nowadays. And its not just the fault of the democrats in congress. Its the fault of the american people. We have Public Discourse and political activity to sink to the level where we dont demand a requisite amount of understanding, education, civility and professionalism in what we do with th him to demand that our elected officials. What happens then is the important mechanism or devalued. We saw also a resolution passed the house of representatives that can then president of trump for these things he sai the thit other members of congress. And we also saw i forget whether it was last week or this week, the house held no relationship. We worked together many years ago. The secretary of commerce were held in contempt. For requiring the outrageous question of citizen ship on the census. The problem is coming into thiss to have escaped the democratic leadership understanding. If you constantly allow emotions to go forward we dont like what somebody has them therefore we are going to hold them in contempt we dont like what a president has them therefore we are going to impeach him. After a while, people tend to realize correctly you dont understand what youre doing. You dont mean what you are doing. These things dont have any meaning anymore. And therefore people tend to not Pay Attention to them. They should, but they dont, and its because theyve been devalued by constant misuse and abuse by the congress. And the impeachment which is extremely important in our constitutional structure is in danger of going down the same road. It fits into this notion anybodys idea is just as good as anybody elses. Therefore of course if we dont like what trump said, we should be able to impeach and hold him in contempt. We dont like what the secretary of whatever the secretary of commerce has done some basic something we dont like so we are going to hold them in contempt. It doesnt mean anything. One of the important factors when i served as president reagans u. S. Attorney, that hes a great effect on the success of the efforts of my office having the credibility of the public. And it came not from me that running an office, having an office that articulated a high professional standard for upholding the rule of law. If we had gone off and indicted people because we didnt like something they said were we invited this person for some big and somebody else did the same thing, i dont want to bother with jim, we wouldnt have had credibility. And it would have cost of authorities is to sing. We wouldnt be getting information from the public that was important to the running of the office. So having that credibility cant havthat confidence in the public the voting public in particular what you are doing in the congress or the executive branch has a great effect on the success of whatever it is the government is doing. When we reached the point trusting government is at an alltime low. Its what you are allowed to have been in the leadership of a particular party. You allow them to go on the floor of the house and introduce these articles of impeachment were to move for contempt every time somebody in the administration does something you dont like its no wonder people dont trust you anymore they dont have confidence in what you are doing, and that makes it difficult for the government to do what it is supposed to be doing. And that is to protect liberty. If we have a congress that has no credibility because they have no leadership, they have no respect for the rule of law themselves then we are allowing the government to basically a great episode well. We ought to be upset with what is going on in washington we believe in liberty and understand we have a dysfunctional government liberty is not going to be protected. The what they did this week it amazes me an that seeing a lot f the work they did in allowing the boat, granted it wasnt a vote on the article for impeachmentarticles forimpeachmo table the articles of impeachment so they basically gave a gift wrapped president of the president. So it has come to mean nothing at least right now. It doesnt mean anything anymore. In our system of government suffers. Most importantly with suffers as liberty which is what the government needs to be protected so that is why its so important that we all understand these mechanisms of government, how they are supposed to work on how they do work and make sure that all three branches of the government, not Just Congress this dysfunctional, all three branches of government may be of the operating and according to the same rule did and they are not right now. None of them are. It is very difficult to rewrite that ship once it veers so far off course. In these mechanisms and investigations going on we do have a little bit of time for questions. How would you like people to just go to the [inaudible] is there an element of a possible judicial review that isnt a high crimes and misdemeanor there for the democrats were to have a super majority in the future of congress and decided to impeach president of trump because they dont like his tweets but that the political process or appeal it saying this isnt a high crime and misdemeanor and what the constitution provided. There is no mechanism or history. Its similar to other powers. The if the courts tried to get involved they would be overstepping their bounds. I think that the democrats know full well they cannot impeach the president because the impeachment process has to o through the senate. Its to get the people that are not politically aware its to get them in terms of thinking of the president because he mustve done something wrong so the goal is to keep the vocabulary in front of the public as long as they can keep it there in hopes that in 2020 there will be enough people that are not aware of what is going on that will reject the president because of what theyve heard. Heard. Ive had a number of acquaintances that all i hear from them is repeating this back when i ask them for their acts they dont have it. Its an emotional issue and the democrats know that and they are trying to keep it in front of the public. Whatever happens, the issue of impeachment and the investigations of president whether its through the Judiciary Committee, the Financial Services committee under ms. Waters, whether its the oversight reform committee, whatever the committee that decides to investigate something and that jurisdiction is as broad as the government as they can investigate anything if they dont have any substance jurisdiction but they have very broad universal oversight, those are going to continue regardless of what they find, regardless of what the president does, they are going to continue because it is not about the law. Its not about the constitution. It is about politics. The victim in all of that is we the people and its mechanisms which were used are provided for to ensure the system of government operated properly within the bounds of the constitution to protect liberty to make sure that they dont work. The democrats dont want them to work they just want them to get rid of a political opponent by using these mechanisms of government that are designed to protect the legitimate functions of government and liberty are being abused, misused, and that is all they care about. They will continue this until election day if it doesnt turn out the way they want. And everyday they do that it weakens the system of government and thereby if we can. This was one of his most important points, an, am i righn that . That was certainly one of the factors for the revolution. Is currently limiting freedom. Taxation by its very nature limits freedom. Alright. I have a clever idea with which we can get rid of the 30,000 taxing agencies in the United States and several find a way to fund the government because they do need money to run their business, right . There are hardly any people that can envision a government without a taxing agency because their articlethere are bills to. Let there be an interesting that . I certainly would be interested in that. But the context of the discussion here. Can you use a microphone so they can pick it up on the video . I think the question on everybodys mind do you think trump will be impeached . There is no simple answer. I dont know. Ive written a piece here if you go to Freedom Works we wrote a piece that talks about a lot of these issues and at the time this paper was published in our view there isnt any appropriate basis to impeach. So, if in fact in the absence of a new revelation of a serious violation of law by the president committed while in office, not before he entered office, absent that based on what we know now and based on a correct interested through there should not be an impeachment. Theres nothing even close that comes to an Impeachable Offense. Does that mean he wont be, no because that view doesnt seem to be much currency in the congress right now in the democratic majority said they could very well in peach and. The sad thing is they wont mean anything. It did are devaluing and how to hold or why you would hold a president accountable by impeaching him for something that was not ever intend it to the historically hasnt been be historically hasnt been used as an Impeachable Offense, so they could very well. It wouldnt surprise me. It would be very sad because of what it does to our system of constitutional checks and balances. Balances. It would basically be the death of meaningful impeachment and therefore of a legitimate way given by the founders and the system to correct an imbalance. We have time for one more. Thank you. One quick question. It is so difficult to tell if the administration as chaotic and understandable as most of the left wing says . Its so typical that is all they talk about the fact he has replaced numbers of people it seems to me that its functioning fine. Has it been so chaotic . By a number of important and disease it is working just fine. The Regulatory Reform is topnotch. Thank you very much. [applause] everyone knows the jokes in our profession often deserves ridicule and complaints do we get that in modern times the last couple of years, three, four, five years theres something to be admired in how they deal with things. When people do engage, they say it is ineffective and you are ugly or fat or there is what about and all sorts of non logical argument its meanspirited and terrible and it affects peoples opinions of the whole process. As bad as that is what is even worse is the other proble probls that if people dont engage in the other side at all. You have your view of the tax policy and Health Care Policy in your view is your view and the only people you will hear from r follow or listen to. Both of those are anathema. Just imagine if the defense were a prosecutor when they didnt like the arguments made by the other side if their hands over the years and saying a nursery rhyme and didnt Pay Attention. It is your obligation under the constitution with a prosecutor or defense lawyer you have no choice but to listen and engage with. If the argument about the immigration crimes and people were allowed to say things like mexicans are rapists. A lot to say any number of things that seems to pass for okay. If you wi go in at the end of te trial i know what i know i saw the evidence, not guilty or guilty there is a legal basis to imagine in a society to have the full benefits and privileges of citizenship there are some obligations to talk with your felicitous and i think that we would be better off. Good evening everybody. Im the coauthor and on behalf of their 30 thank you for coming out on this wonderful saturday evening we are very pleased to have stayed with us here this evening to talk about his new book, sacred liberty which is about religious freedom and what steve calls the long and bloodyy ongoing struggles for