enter andrew johnson, the vice president who succeeded lincoln. southern democrat whom lincoln had picked to create a national unity ticket. there are few things historians agree upon, but this is one. andrew johnson was one of america's worst presidents. >> he was essentially an incredibly racist, neo-confederate who was dead set against congress' program of reconstructing the south. >> republicans in congress despised andrew johnson. >> he stood for the repression of african-americans whom a war had just been fought to liberate. >> president johnson vetoed almost all the measures to give civil liberties and representation to blacks. the republican-controlled congress decided to wage a political war. >> it set an impeachment trap for him. >> that trap was called the tenure of office act. >> congress passed a law over johnson's veto that said he could not fire his own cabinet members. >> when president johnson fired his secretary of war, edwin stanton, the house approved 11 articles of impeachment against him, one of which accused the president of

enter andrew johnson. ln picked to create a national unity incompetent the. there's few things historians agreed upon, but this is one -- johnson was one of the america's worst presidents. >> he was a racist neoconfederate who was dead set against congress's prom of rekruks the south. republicans in congress despiced andrew johnson. >> he stood for the oppression of african-americans whom a war had just been fought to liberate. >> president johnson vetoed nearly all the measures to give civil liberties and representation to blacks. the republican congress decided to wage a political war. >> they set an impeachment trap for him. that trap was dualed tcalled th of office trap. >> they set a law that said he could not fire his own cabinet members. >> when they fired edward stanton, the house approved 11 articles of impeachment against him one which accused the president of bringing congress into ridicule and disgrace. >> their entire approach was partisan and ideology calm however bad a president andrew johnso

they impeached andrew johnson for a high misdemeanor. i beg that people would at least read article 10 and by the way, since we started this engagement to explain to the public, a good many people have had to walk back their comments. a good many people who wanted to know what crime did he commit, what rule did he break, a good many people have had to walk back those comments because they're now of the belief that impeachment should prevail. so a lot of comments have been walked back. and by the way, i welcome the walkback. i want people to do the right thing, as it were. so, walking back does not offend me. comments that were made about me don't foned me. and many of my colleagues -- offend me. and many of my colleagues have made comments about me, but they don't offend me. i welcome them. coming onboard now -- them coming onboard now. this is not about me. it's never been about me. it's been about my country. it's been about democracy. not about democrats. it's always been about the republic. not about republicans. so say what you may.

let's start with andrew johnson. congress tried to impeach andrew johnson several times, but the second time, the time that produced his impeachment went something like this, the principal ground was a violation. he fired his secretary. he was one of the people covered by the tenure of office act, which says a president can't fire certain people without the permission of congress. johnson fired him on february 21 of 1868. the house of representatives came back with a decision to impeach president johnson on february 24, three days later. they came back with a resolution to impeach him not even having, in fact, produced articles of impeachment, something good did not do for another two weeks. >> that was an election year. >> the notion that there is a tradition of long processes is of course not true. there was not a long process and the house of representatives involving mr. >> when the republicans had control. >> ken starr's people drive up printed reports, he produced 400 pages of mr. clinton's misdeeds, essentiall

the word depicting not president donald trump but president andrew johnson.peached back in 1868. that excerpt comes from the book "the impeachers: the trial of andrew johnson and the dream of a just nation." there is no mention of trump in this book, but in describing johnson's saga trump just hangs over these pages. american historian and literature professor brenda wineapple wrote "the impeachers." i asked, when did you start writing this during a commercial break? you said six years ago. under the obama administration. no idea. >> nope. >> the similarities between the two presidents are striking. >> they are. >> what is most striking to you? >> one is the kind of populism that trump loves to go to the people. i think he's going to the people for a rally today, and that's what johnson did. that johnson was filled with anger and invective and he said things that were astonishing in his own time, just the way we hear expletives now, but more than that, there was a sense of the rule of law, and that he, johnson, really decided that he could -- that he knew bet

let's talk about andrew johnson.n tried to remove the secretary of war under tenure act. >> he did. >> that was illegal. >> nixon tried to use the intelligence service to gain political advantage. that was illegal. clinton -- >> lied under oath. >> -- clinton lied to a grand jury. that was illegal. >> yes. >> all three had committed crimes before an impeachment inquiry took place. this inquiry is about looking for a criminal act. because they hate the president and they're wanting to do anything they can possibly do to impeach him just like they said since he's won the election. >> well, he made it very easy for them by having this phone call because it is clear proof of abuse of power. whether it rises to the level of impeachment, i don't know. that's for the democrats to make the case. but i like very much having both sides -- >> it's not illegal, chris. >> i don't know that -- an abuse of power can be illegal. the standard for impeachment is something that is open to political debate. as president ford said, an im

in the case of andrew johnson they did an election year. they could have waited. nixon, it's nixon who pushes the washington community and many americans over a psychological edge. forces thet when he justice department to fire archibald cox and the deputy attorney general says no. bork, who i interviewed for the next in lobby, he did not want to do it either. but he felt the president have the authority of article two to do it. .nd he fired archibald cox that raised the question of president nixon's legitimacy. i think that is the key part of the story that interested me. we have a lot of writing about nixon. jeff asked us to do this but together, the story i wanted to understand, the cousin the current political moment we live in, with everybody partisan in 1974, ny republicans voted against richard nixon. that is what interests me. we all have to wonder sometimes, ?an we be bipartisan the nixon story is interesting because nixon pushed republicans over the edge by his misconduct. there is questions as to whether a sitting president could be indicted for obstruc

then there's old andrew johnson. that has the most incredibly echoing -- i didn't even realize -- >> that one has the most parallels. >> i had forgotten about it but there's a new book be i a woman named brenda wineapple, i think. and it's about the impeachment of johnson. he talks about number one, he was saying that the members of congress should be hanged. he had his own attorney general that was acting as a propagandist rather than the attorney general of the country. he was abusing his power. he had obstructed justice. >> this is all ringing a bell. >> somehow it does have many o the charges that are here. again, the way it turned out, he was impeached in the house and not convicted in the senate by one vote. and it was encouraged that john kennedy wrote about. i'm not sure now it would be considered that. because he's a problem, andrew johnson, in terms of going back on the civil war and freedom of the blacks. >> it's interesting you talk about the parallels witharound rue johnson. one would be norm busting. in

. >> andrew johnson was a man who came from nothing. was a career politician. johnson never thought that there should be equality between whites and blacks, he thoughts blacks were inferior, he was very pro-slavery, nobody tried to impeach a president before. there was a strong feeling that nation without not be safe with him in the white house. and never would be. >> to give us more inside on this, former house speaker could fox news contributor, newt gingrich thank you for joining me. >> great to be with you, great to see "fox nation" digging into these important stories. >> yes. you know, i just want to start with impeachment. this is a conversation that has really plagued our current political climate, how serious has impeachment been in our history? >>tivityically it has been -- historically it has been very rare. johnson in 19th century was first real effort to impeach a president, that is the result of very deep political differences coming out of the civil war. richard would have been itch peopled buimpeachedbut he resigned afte

"impeached: the trial of andrew johnson and the fight for lincoln's legacy." scholar jeffrey rosen. good evening to both of you. when you looked into the johnson impeachment and you wrote this book, which i should tell you i've read and you really go into depth about that debate as to whether to go broad or not and that broad ultimately many of johnson's detractors thought worked. tell us about that. do you think any of that applies to donald trump? >> it's going to be a trade-off, if you put sort of a lot of charges together, you have a chance of picking up extra votes. somebody thinks charge a is a problem, somebody thinks charge b is a problem, somebody else thinks charge c is. you get them all together. all tern toughly, though, it can be a negative. frankly, when you're prosecuting, xlksity is an enemy and simple is better. and public opinion is going to drive impeachments at the end of the day. so i think probably certainly in today's sound bite world, a simpler impeachment article is probably going to be more effective. >> interesting. so, your lesson fr

president trump now joining bill clinton, richard nixon, and andrew johnson. the final vote, 242 yeas to 296 nays. only two democrats jumped party lines and voted against the resolution. this means house committees can now begin public hearings. we'll break that process down for you a little later in the hour. and how the president and his counsel could participate. we're already getting reaction from lawmakers on the hill. >> this is a process that has been fundamentally tainted. the president has had no rights. >> weapon recognize the seriousness of this undertaking. we recognize that we have been compelled by the circumstances to move forward. we will undertake this duty with the seriousness it deserves. and to the best of our ability. >> today, the country just witnessed the only bipartisan vote on that floor was against. >> if, after a fair and thorough inquiry, the allegations against president trump are found to be true, they would represent the profound offense against the constitution and against the people of this country. it is the duty of the house

fellow englishmenjustin rose and andrew johnson are seven shots back.—final and the wta tour since january last year. she saved for match points to beat the polish player in the quarterfinal in china. staying with tennis, novak djokovic and roger federer have both been knocked out of the quarterfinal stage of the masters. the world number onejoke stage of the masters. the world number one joke official was first to taste defeat losing in three sets to taste defeat losing in three sets to the sixth seed stefano sisyphus. he is not qualified for the and finals as a result. federal went down in three sets against zanders vera. the germans murdered five match points in the second set but still went on to win. —— the german squandered five points. and they are the women's super league champions after defeating cat suffered in tonight pots are grand final. leads had to come from behind to win 25-12. had to come from behind to win 25—12. two tries and this one from tight macro secured the wind which com pletes tight macro secured the wind which completes the l

and think it went too far others not enough but the intransigence of andrew johnson white south unified the party for that moment. passed both houses and went to the states for ratification. johnson vetoed one after he other and republicans joe overrode them. reckless escape never hfrt of in e country. the north newspapers were indistinguishable from toes from the south saying black voting military presence and any step toward equality of rights for african-americans are travesty. editorials of republicans with sed greater disgust johnson, his allies in the south and democrats of the north. southerners f black in new terms of respect. if you read the 14th amendment the marks e it bears of this particular moment. there are things you know about standing before the law but there are things that no incurred in rebellion will be repaid. t has the marks of 1866 all over it and grows out of this moment. that is the way history moved in this era the way it still moves correspondeuntecounterreaction. to explore the civil war some thought reading earlier work were surprised. t ended in the early

president to face a formal impeachment inquiry, joining andrew johnson, richard nixon, and bill clinton. today we look back at the watergate scandal, which led to nixon's resignation in 1974. it's the focus of the documentary "watergate -- or: how we learned to stop an out of control president." >> londark nht for arica is abo t to en arresteda been with breakg into the headquarters of the demratic nationalommittee >> part of vast campaign t undeinine thelececti itself. cooks how high up in the white hoe e does ago and ithe presidt himselinvolved >> i havnever obstructed juste.e. people have to know whether or not their president is a crook. i am not a crook. amy: we spend the e hour with charles ferguson, the director of the documentary "watergate." all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. president donald trump called openlyly thursday for the leleas of ukraiaine and chihina to investigate trump's campaign rival joe biden and his son hunter for corruption. trump's explicit remarks came as leaders of the democ

the presidents are interesting because with andrew johnson in 1868, the house had no process.d the secretary of war, edwin stanton, and five days later the house impeached him. they had no hearings, they had nothing. they just knew he had fire the secretary of war. they thought that was illegal, and they impeached him. we are being a lot more and there than that, has been no constitutional violation. it is difficult to violate that constitutional provision. david: not much of one. exactly. there has been a lot of back-and-forth about whether the house is obligated or should have a formal resolution begetting the impeachment process, which has happened in prior instances. nancy pelosi said she will not do it. this is what she said. >> the reality at this time is we will not be having a vote and i'm pleased with the thoughtfulness of our caucus in terms of being supportive of the past -- of the path we are on in terms of fairness and seeking the truth and opposing -- upholding the constitution of the united states. david: what difference would it make if they did have a formal r

whether it was andrew johnson richard nixon or bill clinton. both political parties could call witnesses both political parties could cross examine, both political parties could get teptions so forth goal was to gets much of the body politic involved as possible. this has a first time in american history that we have a rogue speaker of the house and a small majority in the party in the house of representatives that is trying to drag our country in a different direction they have rejected completely and utterly the background of the impeachment process when it comes to president of the united states. >> remember this report -- remember this? wasn't that long ago. remember this? this is a mueller report. if the two and a half years of so-called russia collusion remember that two volume? year and year and year on this? hearing after hearing news story after news story -- it doesn't matter anymore. we've moved on, ladies and gentlemen, it didn't cut it that was their first impeach. report. then they bring mol or in. remember that? they bring this m

andrew johnson, nobody remembers.ut in those two there was a crime that i get that happens in every day life. it n it's not just some political thing. do you need that here and, if so, do you have it? >> well, i don't think we have it yet. but i think when the cat is out, i think it's hard to get it back in. and i think that -- >> meaning what? >> well, meaning that i think we now have another potential whistle-blower, the person is going to say -- >> but you have to avoid the perception that you are an impeachment looking for a crime as opposed to an investigation that saw a crime and led to impeachment. >> this is correct. this is an investigation and, you know, let the chips fall where they may but i believe where there's smoke there's fire and i think the people believe that, too. and as we have more and more people as witnesses and more and more people coming to talk to us, i suspect there will be a lot more smoke and a lot more fire. >> any indication with the deadline being tonight that the secretary of state w

about andrew johnson. on his kindle.shows a level of this is a sitting senator, someone who often staunchly defended the president. he wants to read this and understand the import of this moment. what should the take away from your book be for him? >> well, among other things it's one of the take aways is that president cannot and should not abuse power. and obstruct justice and will not get away with it. that's what happened in 1868. the house eventually impeached johnson in whatever you think of hm in the fact he was finally acquitted. the house did do that. that's one thing to take away from it. the other to take away is the there were men of they were men at the time. men of probity and solemn and serious about what they were doing. and wanted to do the best for the country. they trying to act in the best way possible. even going beyond partisan ship and think about the fate and the future of the nation. >> which is perhaps an important thing. for people who are taking this seriously. to note. the constitution says o

historian brenda wineapple, author of "the impeachers: the trial of andrew johnson and the dream of adoing this. >> thank you for having me. >> why did johnson come so close to being convicted in the senate? >> he lost by one vote. some people said the impeachment in the vote wouldn't have been if the republicans, who were the party impeaching him, didn't think they had the votes in the senate. it came very, very close. and one is not a lot. although there was scuttlebutt afterwards saying that there were probably more votes if they had to be bought at the last minute. >> bought at the last minute. buying votes, something that itself might be impeachable. >> dark money was always with us when you look at the articles that he faced, which we just discussed, did they seem more or less serious than what trump is accused of? >> they're both. they're both -- i mean, the first, as you mentioned, the first nine articles have to do with something called the tenure of office act, which is as one of the wannabe impeachers said, stepping on the statutes, violating a law of congress. the other tw

. >> i would say they're more serious than andrew johnson. the issues that surrounded andrew johnson's impeachment were existential. it was about white supremacy. it was about the verdict of the civil war. but when congress got down to brass tax, they really kind of backed into something. and i'm not going to inflict the tenure of office act on everyone on a sunday. >> you don't scare me. >> trust me. >> you don't scare me with your historical legal references, mr. meachum. >> actually, this is the one place that would find that one, so we found each other. so you backed into that. >> so the issues of -- the issues of the johnson impeachment hugely important. when they got to impeaching him, not so much. this is -- and then nixon is about an abuse of power, using federal agencies for political benefit, using federal agencies to block investigations into political crime, break-ins and other things. this -- the clinton issue, i think this is far more important. i think this ranks with or right above watergate just historically speaking. if you

we look at the impeachment of andrew johnson and the failure to remove him as a good example of why it's important to be precise about the reasons for saying that someone ought to be removed. in johnson's case, they ended up with a terrible reason. they said it was because he would not go along with the senate with respect to stanton, that is he fired stanton without senate consent. stanton was the secretary of war. it turned out that the act he was said to have violated, the tenure of office act, was not that much long afterwards held unconstitutional. so the whole theory of the impeachment really missed the mark. what was really wrong was johnson, and what we might argue have justified his removal. it would have gotten the extra vote? we really don't know. johnson was trying to undo the result of the civil war. he was fundamentally hostile to lincoln's whole program and to the idea of the union and to the elimination of slavery. it was over that broad question he was a destructive force that we think ought probably to have been removed. istening on the right reason something we don't r

andrew johnson, obviously one, two, three, to here. this is being the fourth. the majority have the power. then you'll get to a trial. okay? this is just the indictment. just to use an analogy. that's where these arguments should be made -- >> no. >> you are fighting the process because you can't fight the facts and you can't beat down these sources because they're your own people. >> four points. the democrats have been asked why aren't you providing the republicans the same rights as '98? one is we don't have to. on the constitution. i understand that. the second one seems to be -- >> i get that it's a talking point. but i'm saying i don't agree that they're not giving them the same rights because you're not there yet. >> okay. they are saying we can do this under the constitution. >> that's right. >> i understand that. they're also saying we're not going to change the rights of the republicans and the president because they would abuse them. this has been said repeatedly. they'd made a circus out of it. >> same thing trey gowdy said. same thing pompeo said.

president to ever be impeached after bill clinton and andrew johnson in the house of representatives. different sides of impeachments. i should clarify that you voted to remove clinton from office so everyone understands that you two were on opposite side here. joel, let me start with you. you helped him stay in office. what did you think is the biggest lesson that president trump can learn from you? >> i think it is a lesson that he has not learned yet but maybe has time to. the public votes the president in and they want to focus on their issues and not his issues. i think you have to look long and hard to find bill clinton during this period publicly the feeling sorry for himself and indulging himself and self-pity and doing some of the things donald trump does on a daily bases. that's the reason that the president's job approval went up during this process and not down. and that's the reason i think the american public can separate the impeachment process from everything else the president was doing. i think that was you know the one key to surviving the period politically. >> sen

there have only been two times in the history, under the rules we now have -- andrew johnson in the 1860's was different -- in both the bill clinton case and the richard nixon clays, there was a clear precedent. the full house voted and authorized a full impeachment inquiry, so there is a precedent. requirement,o again, under the constitution, and no requirement under house rules that that is the procedure we follow. chris, let me say this. this past 10 days has been painful for members of the house on both sides of the committee. obviously it has been quite painful for the senate, even though too many senators are quiet on this issue. we need to conduct a very methodical, very thorough investigation. we need to talk with all witnesses, identify or review all documents. as we begin the process of making a very, very important historical decision. so based on the information that we have, i believe that every american should be painfully concerned about what they have witnessed over the last couple weeks. matt schlapp is chair of the american conservative union peer they were talking abou

when andrew johnson became president, it shrunk down to seven. it has toggled to various numbers of seats at various points in our history. it can be changed by simple act of legislation. the caller is right that in the 1930's, fdr proposed expanding the number of seats on the supreme court. that push became moot because in the late 1930's, after many years of a conservative majority in the supreme court, upending and overturning many key portions of the new deal, there was the so-called "switch in time that saved nine," where one justice ended up voting with the more progressive justices, and started upholding instead of overturning aspects of the new deal, so roosevelt's push to expand the seats became a moot point. increasingly in the 2020 election cycle, you are seeing a lot of democratic candidates express openness to structural reforms, term limits, limiting the number of years the justice conservative perhaps 18 years. my group supports that. we think that would regularize the appointment process and eliminate the gaming of the system were

let's start with andrew johnson.gress try to impeach andrew johnson several times, but the second time, the time that produced his impeachment went something like this -- the principal ground was a violation. fired his secretary. he was one of the people covered by the tenure of office act, which says a president can't fire certain people without the permission of congress. 21nson fired him on february of 1868. the house of representatives came back with a decision to impeach president johnson on february 24, three days later. they came back with a resolution to impeach him not even having, in fact, produced articles of impeachment, something good did not do not due for another two weeks. host: that was an election year. there ise notion that a tradition of long processes is of course not true. there was not a long process and the house of representatives involving mr. clinton. host: when the republicans had control. ken starr'star -- people drive up printed reports, he produced 400 pages of mr. essentiallysdeeds, du

i wasn't quite available for the andrew johnson impeachment in 18, but assume that all of these is aittle bit different. still, there are somerough guidelines in the constitution. we know that the house is supposed to go first web and the senate is supposed to have a formal trial of the house's charges. we know that the supreme court chief justice is supposed to preside, and we may see all of that unfold as weth did clinton, and as we would have if richard nixon had not resigned in the ace of th many thanks to both of you. appreciate you being with us. >> thanks, michael. > on thursday, san francisco district attorney george ga announced his resignation to explore entering the d.a. race in los angeles. meanwhile, the race to elect a new district attorney in san francisco is a wide enop process with four prvying for t job. voters in san francisco will get to cast theiballots in that closely watched contest, as well as decide the fate six local ballot measures. joining us now are two of those candidates, deputy district letorney nancy t um, and me begin nancy with you. with the resigna

mean that has happened you know to other times in the course of our history it happened with andrew johnson it happened with bill clinton so yeah i mean i think if that happens we will continue on donald trump will remain president just what his position will be and how strong he will be at that point i have the going into a another election a presidential election next year and it's hard to believe that even if he is not convicted by the senate are that ultimately that the voters want will not in the end will pass on what he did into the u.s. president tweeted recently a threat of civil war like conditions in the u.s. if he is impeached and removed from office did you ever think anything like that could happen or a threat like that would come from the white house when you were working on the impeachment pietschmann case against president nixon. no never i'm fact i never thought any of this would ever happen again but this president has been off unhinged has basically done everything or counter to our norms with respect to our president acts i has undermined almost every policy that we've h

and andrew johnson case, the first case of a president who was impeached, he committed a crime by tryingo remove the secretary of war that was protected by t t tenure act. with richard nixon, he used the intelligence committee to gain political favor. a crime was committed. underneath bill clinton, he lied to a grand jury. a crime had beenommitted.be all three cases before impeachment inquiry proceeded, a crime had been committed. in this case, there has been no crime committed. laura: congressman, the president has thanked you for being tough. do you think you wililget even tougher and escalate your protests as this continues? rep. mullin: listen, we are not trying to escalate anything. we just want the democrats to be fair in this process and include everybody, including the american people. this should not be a kangaroo-style court. it was max rose, congressman rose, who went out and said that the president is saying he is innocent and all we are saying is prove it. our judicial system doesn't work that way. it is clear that you are innocent until proven guilty. in this case, the pres

when andrew johnson was impeached they spent two months on the trial. we will not get two months. but we will not get two hours either. host: it is possible the senate could choose to block it or table it or not take it up? guest: once mcconnell brings it up on the floor his first motion could be to summarily dispose of it and move on to the next bit of business. that, its 51 votes for imagine he can achieve that by overruling and changing the rules as they did with judges in the nuclear option a couple of years ago. that has got a raw sense to it. i think he is going to be making a much more nuanced political judgment on the time comes based on whatever evidence that comes forward between now and then. host: 15 more minutes with our guest. the rosensweig served on whitewater investigation. for republicans. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you are the senior fellow at the r street institute. newt: it's a relatively think tank in washington, d.c. we call yourselves a center-right think tank. but with a practical twist. our tagline is free markets, real s

i wasn't quite available for the andrew johnson peachment in 1868, but assume that all of these is aittle bit en diff still, there are some rough guidelines in the constitution. we know that the house is supposed to go firse web and thte is supposed to have charges. trial of thhouse's wethat the supreme court chief justice is supposed to preside, and we may see all of that unfold as we did with clinton, anas we would have if richard nixon had not resigned in the face that process. >> many thanks yto both ofou. appreciate you being with us. >> thank michael. >>> on thursday, san francisco district attorn george ey gasco announced his resignation to explore entering the d.a. race in los angeles. meanwhile, the ce to elect a new district attorney in san francisco is a wide open process wifour vying for the job. voters isan francisco will get to casttheir ballots that closely watched contest, as well as decide the fate of ca six ballot measures. joining us now are catwo of tho idates, deputy ridi attorney nancy t um, and let me begin nancy with you. with the resignation of gorge gascon,

when andrew johnson was impeached, they spent two months on his trial. were not going to get two months, but it is possible we won't get two minutes either. host: they could choose to block it or table it? guest: once mcconnell brings it up, his motion could be to summarily dispose of it and acquit the president. i he gets 51 votes for that, imagine he can achieve that by overruling the parliamentarian and changing the rules just as they did with judges and the nuclear option a couple years ago. it.'s got a raw sense to he's going to be making a much more nuanced political judgment when the time, spaced on whatever evidence there is that comes forth. host: 15 more minutes with our guest. served in theg clinton impeachment inquiry. you are currently national security and senior fellow at the art street institute. guest: we are a relatively new think tank. we call ourselves a center-right think tank. markets,ne is free real solutions. we like free markets to work but when they don't we like real solutions to make them work better. host: secretary mike pomp

see that there was an impeachment process that was advanced shortly after the civil war with andrew johnson as president. and then we sat back for over a century before there was another issue that arose, and that was about 1974, with the impeachment effort of richard nixon. who resigned before he faced the judgment of this united states congress. 1974. and then in 1998, i happened to have been here in this city, not a member -- elected member of congress, mr. speaker, but i came here into this city as a ate senator from iowa to a conference. as i opened up the newspaper, i saw in there that it said that there were impeachment hearings taking place in room 2141 of the rayburn house office building, for the dates of december 7 -- dates of december 7, 8, and 9. i concluded what was going on in that conference wasn't as important as me being seated there in that judiciary committee as a spectator, to be able to witness the unfolding acts of history, as the house of representatives passed judgment upon then-president bill clinton. as i listened to the testimony, and of course, mr. speaker, i ha

andrew johnson with one vote. and then president clinton went to the senate. >> interesting.me ask you of course about the other items that they have. >> that's been going back and forth a lot lately. very interesting. they were presented with an action by the president. when they block the da from getting those tax returns. it is a state subpoena so why is it in federal court? the judge said i can't endure the state matter. and then i'm saying to myself i'm only on page 40 out of 75. i am going to rule on this in the alternative. this way if i go up. they will have the decision and he disagreed with president trump's argument by the way that the president is immune not just from being indicted, he is immune from any criminal process and basically the court disagreed. >> i think it's overbroad to make that argument. >> i think what's can happen is a second circuit will agree with judge marrero. it could actually. we are tracking several other big stories for you. the southwest airline association. suing boeing for a hundred million dollars. alleging lost wages. the model of c

is something we use, we never had a president deserving of impeachment from the first one from andrew johnsonkennedy: he was awful. >> they impeached him because he fired secretary of war, secretary of war was popular. kennedy: he fanned flames of racism and division to point of murder in the south. >> kennedy. kennedy: and openly usedn-word. >> that is what he was not impeached for, impeachment has been used as a political tool that is wrong. kennedy: and threat of impeachment. you may go back to thel lion's den, you are running for congress, one district over in 50th now respected by problem plagued duncan hunter. >> well, duncan is not really running, people think he is, the fact, he is clearly defending -- defending a difficult legal case that is taking all of his energy. >> a very -- kind way to say that. >> look. he is a loyal american who tried too do the right thing, many times, he made mistakes. the fact and i represented a third of this for most of my time in congress. and in redistricting i lost part. i now look at this as an appropriate opportunity to serve people that i have serv

in february, 18-68 the house voted 126-47 in favor of the resolution to impeach andrew johnson.nly nixon did not survive those votes. the dimms' shadowy inquiry continued. tim morrison was on capitol hill where he answered questions from lawmakers. it appears he delivered a major blow against the left's narrative of improper behavior by president trump. during that july joan phone call with the leader of ukraine. catherine herridge with the report. catherine: a top national security council with first-hand knowledge of the phone call told investigators he didn't think anything improper or illegal was discussed on the call and he thought publicly released transcript was complete. tim morrison said he had immediate concerns the transcript would leak, how it would play out in washington's polarized environment and how it would affect the ukrainian perception of the u.s. he said i want to be clear. i was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed. more on rsh told investigate -- morrison told investigators that ukrainians had no knowledge that aid was withheld. morrison's tes

all these things, these due process things, existed for nixon, for clinton, and for andrew johnson., other than 7 elements of media, most -- certain elements of media, mostly conservative, "new york times," "washington post," networks, cnn, msnbc. are perfectly find with that. >> because, the end justifies the means. it is particularly despicable when schiff is doing be he conducted a witch-hunt, made up fact, lead lie lied what trump , he has never been held to account, he just swishe just swo ukraine we know that. we want to to create some innuendo. bill taylor, this is all lacking first hand knowledge, it is hearsay, he is this pail taylor guy just coming on what we know in public record, yet the leaks make it lock like a bombshell, democrat go up stair, on camera, great revelation, they are small nothing burgers, that is what causes trump supporter to further entrenched. left, democrats they are so unfair we know what they are up, to one way of fighting back to there at their throats, we mead more we need lindsey graham to start condubbindub conducting se investigation, i like h