good evening, from los angeles. i'm tavis smiley. obstruction of justice, conflict of interest, abuse of power and possible collusion with a foreign government, all potential grounds for impeachment. and all have been brewing at the white house during the short tenure of president trump, particularly over the past week. but at what point is a house impeachment investigation actually warrant ewarranted? tonight, a conversation with allan lichtman about his text which is about impeachment throughout history. allan lichtman, coming up, in just a moment. ♪

♪ and by contributions to your pbs station, from viewers like you, thank you. ♪ allan lichtman is an author and professor of history at american university. he joins us tonight from washington. good to have you on the program, sir. >> great to be with you. >> before i jump into the book, let me start with a clip. today, president trump was in

israel, standing alongside their p.m., mr. netanyahu. listen to what mr. trump had to say. >> just so you understand, i never mentioned the word or the name israel. never mentioned it in that conversation. they were all saying i did. so, you have another story wrong. never mentioned the world israel. >> professor, i don't know how you hear that. but it sounds to me at the very least, that was an implicit admission that the president was running his mouth about something in the oval office with the russians. >> he was running his mouth, apparently, about thing hess shouldn't have been talking about at all. and that is information so sensitive and so highly classified that the white house pleaded not to release it to the american people. and remember, you're dealing here with the russians, who have, perhaps, the most sophisticated intelligence operation in the world. enough to meddle fundamentally

enough with the american presidential election. he doesn't have to use the word israel. the russians are going to figure it out. and that's one of the very sad things about this undisciplined president. >> you use the word undisciplined. i was in a conversation over the weekend that i want to bring to national television and get your take on and get those at home sounding off and they can reach out on social media. hear me out before you laugh. i wonder if on matters like these, and there's others i could list where trump is concerned, whether or not this president is arrogant or ignora ignorant. he doesn't know where the lines are. he doesn't know you can't ask comey for loyalty. he doesn't know you shouldn't say this in front of russians. is he arrogant? is he ignorant? is he both? >> i think he's both, in the book, the "the case for

impeachment," i go through the history of donald trump prior to his presidential campaign. here's one of the fundamental points i make about donald trump. donald trump has never beeneld accountable for anything he's always been able to slip away, declaring bankruptcy, walking away from deals and leaving others accountable. protracting litigation, settling out litigations. and he still does not understand what it means to be accountable for what you say and for what you do. and as i point out in my book, what he hasn't realized is, the ultimate accountability under our constitutional system is impeachment. >> he hasn't figured that out. but let me stay with this question for just a little longer. i wonder if there's examples where donald trump has just because he's not been held accountable, because he is, in fact, arrogant, he doesn't know what he's saying.

he doesn't know when he's crossing the line. do you buy that at all? >> not entirely. for donald trump, it's very self-serving. i talk in the book about donald trump entering into a new era, much like george orwell's "1984," where truth is just shattered. kellyanne conway called it alternative facts. donald trump all that matters is what he believes at the moment and what serves him at the moment. not only has he not been accountable, donald trump has no shame. and i don't know if the media has caught on to this. you can't catch him in anything. you can't shame him. he doesn't care, it doesn't matter to him. >> do you believe that when donald trump hadom come to the oval office, that he knew, alleging to what he said

to the head of the fbi, asking for his loyalty, here's a guy that's never been held accountable for anything, everybody in his organization is loyal to him only. he is the king of the trump organization. he's done this, i suspect, many of times, to thousands of employees, do you believe that donald trump knew when he asked comey to take a loyalty oath, essentially, that he was wrong to say that to the head of the fbi? >> i think he absolutely knew it was wrong but donald trump doesn't care about right or wrong. and that's been his m.o. throughout his life. >> do you think donald trump knew when he was talking out of that side of his mouth in the oval office to the russians, do you think he knew he was violating our secrets? >> absolutely. i do believe -- i don't give donald trump a pass on ignorance because what he's doing as president is consistent with what he did for 40 years in private life. >> okay. so, now, to impeachment and your text specifically. >> right. >> for those who don't understand how the process

works, and when in fact it is applicable, let's start with the basics of what impeachment is, when it ought to be a real option, how the process works and we'll go from there. >> this is all laid out in my book. i'll give the brief summary. the framers put impeachment into the constitution as the ultimate safeguard of our democracy. they didn't look anotht it as a constitutional event. they looked at it as a peaceful, orderly way to prevent us from a rogue president, in the way they removed rulers at their time, assassination. they put it in a political body, the u.s. house of representatives. it's a combined legal, political and moral judgment. as alexander hamilton put it, impeachment should occur when there's some fundamental violation by public men of their

trust, basic abuse of power that harms the society itself and doesn't require an indictable crime. it requires a majority vote of the u.s. house of representatives and if a president is impeached, he is then tried by the u.s. senate and removal requires a two-thirds vote of the senate. >> donald trump may or may not be impeached. what i'm asking now is whether or not given what you believe, what others believe he has done to date, are those offenses impeachable? >> i think there are certainly impeachable offenses on the table against donald trump, more than significant enough to begin an impeachment investigation in the proper venue, which is the house judiciary committee. you know, the republicans were very hot to impeach bill clinton on obstruction of justice. what does he obstructing? a private consensual affair.

there's a pile of evidence indicating that donald trump is investigating something of orders of magnitude more significant, that is possible collusion with an attack on the united states. not a military attack, but an attack on our democracy and the integrity of our elections. that alone should start an impeachment investigation, much less all of the allegations about collusion with russians. and by the way, another area, of course, is his conflicts of interest. his violation of the immollmen s s clause of the constitution, that says without explicit authorization of congress, you can't take things of value from foreign nations. he is taking things of value from foreign nations. that's worthy of investigation, as well. >> what i hear you saying is that bill clinton's activities are child's play, compared to what donald trump is accused of. >> that's right. and even watergate, which was

tremendous significance for the country, i would say is not as important as the kinds of things that are swirling around donald trump because in the trump case, they involve a foreign power, they involve the future of our democracy and they involve the national security of the united states. and by the way, we can talk about this. even though we now have a special counsel, that's not enough. >> let's talk about it now. why is the special counsel not enough? and while you're at it, do you like the fact that robert mueller has been chosen to be the special counsel? >> i like robert mueller just fine. he's a very important choice. but a special counsel is not an impeachment investigator. as i said, impeachment can involve abuses of power or violations of the constitution. they're not explicit crimes. a special counsel looks only into explicit crimes. a special counsel works in secret, unless he charges people or ultimately decides to issue a

report. we may never know, what he has uncovered. special counsels take years to do their work. that's why, as in watergate, we need both a special counsel, and an impeachment investigation by the house judiciary committee, the proper constitutional venue, that would look into impeachable offenses. and they would both investigate, as in watergate, have a public role of holding hearings, open to all of us, so that we can understand what's happening here. and that would complete its work in something short of the years that typically special prosecutors or special counsels take. if we had waited in watergate for the special prosecutors to complete their work and not started that house judiciary committee investigation, the nightmare of watergate might not have gone on much, much longer for the detriment of america. >> you and i know the republicans have shown no evidence whatsoever that they are willing to take the advice

you just offered about the next step, that they indeed ought to take. what does that say, then, to you at least, about the republicans who are running the house? >> i think it's a very sat commentary. i'm not talking about articles of impeachment. i'm talking about an impeachment investigation, in the venue where the constitution puts it. but let me say a couple of things about that. one of the lichtman rules of politics is the first requisite of an author is survival. every republican in the u.s. house will be up for re-election in 2018. if they think that trump has become a real liability to their re-election, and a liability to getting their agenda through, they may be willing to jettison this president. it would only take some 10% in the house, about two dozen, to join with democrats to get a house majority. about that many sit in seats won by hillary clinton in 2016. and many more sit in vulnerable seats. on a higher note, though, i

would call upon every republican and every democrat, in the congress, to do what the congress did during watergate. that is put patriotism above party. the congress voted, the house almost unanimously, to begin an impeachment investigation in the house judiciary committee. they voted 33-3, to subpoena the white house tapes. when it came time for voting on articles of impeachment in the house judiciary committee, more than one-third of republicans joined democrats to vote for at least one article. i would also call on donald trump to welcome an impeachment investigation in the house judiciary committee. if what he says is true, and he's done nothing wrong as candidate or president, this would be his ultimate opportunity to dispel those dark clouds that hang over his administration. he could encourage every member of his campaign team and relevant members of the campaign

to testify. and unlike michael flynn, he should turn over all documents and presidential tapes, if they exist in this case. >> i don't need to tell you this because you live in washington. but that notion of bipartisanship went out the door when those persons left congress. i mean, i don't know a single republican -- i don't mean to cast dispersion on them as a group. but i don't see a howard baker in the united states senate right now, who has the nerve, the chutzpah to ask, what did the president know and when did he know it? do you e zee that republicsee t the senate right now? >> it would have to start in the house. >> i don't see those people in the house or the senate these days. >> i don't, either. but i'm a firm believer in the fundamental rule of political survival in the house. but if the politics turn toxic for the republicans under the trump administration, you might get enough. a couple of things that all of your viewers should look for. the special election that's come

right up in montana. you know, deep red montana, that trump won. imagine if a democrat wins there. and next month, of course, we have the special election runoff in xgeorgia. that will be another one to watch the effect of the trump factor on house republicans. i do see some more patriotic voices in the senate, though. and maybe they'll have some moral sway. john mccain and lindsey graham have been more worth coming than house members to talk about the problems confronting this administration. look, we have talking about the national security of the united states. we are talking about the president's national security adviser. the man privy to all of the secrets, who not only has said he's going to plead the fifth, but has refused to follow through and give congress

documents. you can't plead the fifth, as far as i know, i'm not a lawyer, on documents. one of the charges, one of the articles of impeachment voted on by the judiciary committee against president nixon, was his defiance of congressional subpoenas. the trump administration and its former national security adviser are treading into perhaps some deep quicksand here because trump and his administration have not been worth coming about turning over documents, either. >> i'm trying to keep an open mind here. but to push back on the notion that you are starting to see or hear patriotic voices in the house, these are the same people, i speak of the house speaker, paul rinl. these are people on the campaign trail repeatedly, had opportunity to push back on donald trump and they played it safe. you're right. they want to protect their own hide. they want to protect their own seat. they didn't push back against trump when they had an opportunity. john mccain was in trouble. i like john mccain. he was in trouble running in arizona. and he got wishy-washy and tried

to have it both ways about his endorsement of donald trump. i hope you're right, if it comes to that, they will find the courage and conviction and character to do what's right. but to date, i haven't seen those examples. >> i haven't, either. but there's a long way to go in this administration. it took three years impeach andrew johnson. bill clinton was impeached well into his second term. the house judiciary committee voted articles against richard nixon in his second term. and he resigned to avoid certain impeachment. >> you're not tell megawe can get trump in his second term, are you? >> no. you can't expect these things to move quickly. this is not an adderall government. it's events in washington. >> we talked about howard baker, once served in the senate. >> yes. >> mike pence, the former governor of my home state of

indiana, once served in the house. he is now vice president. i was reading your book. i was nfascinated to learn that vice presidents can also be impeached. i ask that, because over the last few weeks, we have seen a lot of information coming out here and there, about what mike pence knew and when he knew it. and a number of times mike pence spoke publicly and said things that were not true. he had to backtrack on those things. one of the reasons why michael flynn is not in his position because he set the vice president up. but it's a fascinating conversation to have, not just about the president's impeachment. but the vice president is also on that list. >> right. you have to read the book, "the case for impeachment," to get all of the nuances of how impeachment works. we can touch the surface here. but i point out in the book, that the vice president is subject to impeachment, as well. and i wrote an article indicating that mike pence should be investigated, as well. why are we assuming, with all of the lies that pence has told,

about general flynn. not knowing that general flynn had been paid by a foreign government. about his giving false information to the american people about the real reason why trump fired mr. comey. are we assuming this guy who served for some one dozen years in the congress, several years as governor of indiana, is so naive, so ig nornnorant that he fooled and marched out in front of the american people. or is he included? the only way to know is to include mike pence in an investigation of donald trump, as well. >> there's many democrats who are anxious, xho chomping at th, if you will, to get the hearings started. maxine waters here in l.a., has not held her tongue about this and there are others. on the other side, there are democrats who say tread

cautiously on this because the country is already divided. it was an ugly and divisive election in november. and you do not want to be seen going after donald trump because you don't like the guy. i can hear him saying, y'all didn't like me then, you don't like me now, and there is all about coming after donald trump. and no president has ever been treated so badly. >> i have to say, first of all, i make it very clear in "the case for impeachment," we shouldn't be impeaching him because we don't like him, don't like his style, don't like his policies. impeachment only proceeds from a severe abuse of power. and talk about treating presidents badly, who was it that perpetrated the biggest and most protracted and most egregious lie against any president, it was donald trump, who claimed our first african-american president

barack obama was illegitimate because he was born in africa. trump did not have a shred of evidence about that. it was a cynical calculation. i would tell the leadership of the democratic party, it's time to get some courage. what has your leadership done for the democratic party since 2008? it's driven it basically into the ground. impeachment is a proper constitutional procedure. and if the transgressions appear serious enough, an impeachment investigation is seriously warranted. and you should not be afraid to proceed properly and constitutionally. the lack of courage of the democratic leadership has not served the democrats well over these past eight years. >> i don't argue with you over the democrats lacking courage. i can give that speech in any hour of the day or night. but that is, respectfully, a fair different issue than protecting their own political base and to take your point even a step further, a different issue, it seems to me,

professor, than the notion of willy-nilly tearing the country farther apart. that is to say, because the country is so divided, unless you have a clear-cut case, unless you know this guy violated the law, unless you can make that stick, unless, again, he has violated the constitution, you don't want to be accused of a political witch hunt because you don't like the guy. >> absolutely correct. that's a fundamental thee ssis "the case of impeachment." even thousanow, when so much mo come out about the obstruction of justice and the violation of the emoluments clause. on the part of the democratic leadership, critics of donald trump should not be calling for his impeachment. they should be calling for an impeachment investigation, which is proper under the constitution

to determine, as you say. whether there are serious violations of the law, serious abuses of power. egregious violations of the constitution. and only then should impeachment proceed. but unless we have an impeachment investigation, we're not going to know because the special counsel for all -- you know, for all of the respect i have for him, is not an impeachment investigation. and we may never know what the special prosecutor found because he works in secret. and by the way, who fired the special prosecutor in watergate? richard nixon. he found someone in the justice department to fire him. donald trump could do the same thing. he can find someone to fire the special prosecutor. and given his history, that would not come as a great shock. >> let me ask you to look into your crystal ball and tell me how much farther we have to go, what it will take, what it will require for the 20 republicans or so to step across the aisle

and say, things have gotten to a point where the guy really does need to be at least investigated? >> i think it will require probably a loss in one of the special elections coming up. and it will require a continuing cratering of donald trump's approval rating. and recent polls show his approval is weakening in his own base. still overwhelmingly majority approval there the but it is getting weaker. and it would take experts who follow these house races, like the cook political report, to flip a lot of the races, in 2018, the make them even more vulnerable than they are today. that's the crass, political come collation. but maybe i'm a naive optimist in my old age. i still hope, as in watergate, we let patriotism above party. maybe that's naive.

>> maybe not, in the crisis times it's a book well reading. "the case for impeachment," written by allan lichtman. >> you know where to find me. >> that's our show tonight. thanks for watching. as always, keep the faith. ♪ for more information on today's show, visit tavis smiley at pbs.org. hi. i'm tavis smiley. join me next time with a conversation with joseph stiglitz and bill moyers. that's next time. see you then. ♪

♪ and by contributions to your pbs station, from viewers like you, thank you. ♪ ♪ angeles i'm tavis smiley.

the satellite news trucks and celebrities may have left standing rock but the struggle is far from over, tonight we talk to winona laduke and get an update on standing rock. and then we pivot to faith evans with her duet album with her late husband the notorious b.i.g. we're glad you can join us with winona laduke and faith evans in just a moment.